Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-2767.Colgate.93-02-02 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE ' CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONT,4RIO GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 2767/9[ THE CRO~ EMP~YEES ~LLECTI~ B~G~INING ~CT Before ~E GRIEV~CE SETTLE~ BO~ BE~EN O~SBU (Colgate) ~rievor - an~- The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Environment) Employer BEFO~: S. Stewart Vice-Chai~erson M. Lyons Me, er F. Collict Me, er FOR THE M. McFadden .UNION Counsel Koskie & Minsky Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE M. Farson EMPLOYER Counsel Fraser & Beatty -' Barristers & Solicitors ' FOR THE THIRD J. Apfelbeck HE]%RING November 3, 1992 December 17, 1992 DECISION In a grieuance dated November 5, 1991, Ms. M. Colgate alleges the violation of Article 4 of the Collective Agreement in connection with a competition for the position of Senior Environmental Officer. The successfUl applicant, Mr. J. Apfelbeck, was given notice of this proceeding and attended at the hearing representing himself. It was the position of the union that Ms. Colgate ought to have been granted an interview in connection with the competition. The Board was asked to declare a violation of Article 4 of the Collective Agreement and direct that the competition be re-opened and Ms. Colgate be given an interview for the position. Ms. Colgate commenced her employment with the Ministry of Environment in July, 1989 in the position of Environmental Officer, classified as Environmental Officer 2. A vacancy was posted in August, 1991 for the position of Senior Environmental Officer, a position classified as Environmental Officer 4. There were some fifty applications for the position. The Employer pre- screened the applications on the basis of scoring them on ten criteria. The persons with the top six combined scores were offered interviews. The grievor's combined scores placed her fourteenth and accordingly she was not' one of the persons offered an interview. Of the six, one person declined, which resulted in five persons being interviewed. As previously indicated, Mr. J. Apfelbeck, was the successful aDplicant. He ranked sixth overall on the basis of the assessment of the applications. Mr. 2 Apfelbeck's seniority date is September, 1969. As noted earlier, the position in issue is that of Senior Environmental Officer, classified as Environmental Officer 4. This was a new position. Following an audit which resulted in a determination that sewage and water inspection had not been given as high a priority as it should have a position involving carrying out and co-ordinating inspections was established. This position was established as a secondment position at the Environmental officer 2 Level. Mr. Apfelbeck obtained this position in 1989. In 1991, the Ministry decided to convert this position into a permanent position. However, additional responsibilities were added to the job which resulted in the higher classification of Environmental Officer 4. The duties of the position that is the subject of this grievance are set out in the job advertisement as follows: To investigate and report on municipal and industrial pollution control and water supply systems; provide consultative advice; ensure implementation of inspection programs; participate actively in the Municipal MISA program; maintain effective liaison with the general public and client representatives; and assess compliance and enforce environmental l~gislation. The qualifications for the position as listed in that same document include: Significant relevant experience and knowledge in environmental legislation, policies and procedures, municipal and industrial pollution control, and municipal water systems. The ability to relate theory to practical experience and resolving complex problems. Well developed communication skills, persuasiveness, mature judgment are essential. Working knowledge of micro computer systems and software ..." The criteria upon which the applications were screened related primarily to education and work experience in the various areas. The Union did not take issue with the screening criteria or with the allocation of points to the various criteria. The applications were screened by Mr. J' Manuel and Mr. D. Jones. Mr. Manuel is the head of regional program unit based in London and has been employed by the Ministry for twenty-three years. Hie has twenty years' experience as a member of management. Mr. Jones' position is group leader. Mr. Manuel, who was the only witness for the Employer, identified the written scoring criteria that was prepared for the use of the two screeners in reviewing the applications. This document sets out the basis for grading the various criteria. In his evidence, Mr. Manuel expanded upon the manner in which he employed the guidelines, indicating that with respect to particular aspects of desirable work experience he allocated points based on the number of years of significant relevant experience in each of the areas. The applications were independentI~ assessed and scored by Mr. Manuel and Mr. Jones. The candidates who were ranked the first six overall were offered interviews for the positions. Mr. Manuel testified that it was decided to interview only the top six candidates because it was felt that they would be able to find a suitable person with 'that group. There were differences in the scoring of the applicants between Mr. Manuel and Mr. Jones. The results of Mr. Manuel's individual scoring placed Ms. Colgate as the twelfth ranking candidate while the results of Mr. Jones' scoring placed Ms. Colgate at the tenth rank. There were also differences in their ranking of other candidates. However, all of the candidates whose cumulative scores placed them in the top six ranking were placed within the top ten as scored by each Mr. Manuel and Mr. Jones. Ms. Colgate gave extensive evidence about her background and experience in relation to the qualifications for the position. As previously noted, Mr. Manuel gave evidence as to the manner in which he assessed the applications for the position. He was cross-examined at some length.and in some detail about his assessment of Ms. Colgate's qualifications. He was also cross-examined with respect to the manner in which Mr. Apfelbeck's application was graded. There was no suggestion of any bad faith in connection with the assessment of Ms. Colgate's application. Counsel were in agreement with respect to the appropriate test. Both counsel made reference to Ministry of Natural Resources and OPSEU (Borecki) 256/82 (Swinton) Where at pp. 7-8 the Board states as follows: In conducting a job competition, an employer cannot be required to interview all the applicants, regardless 5 of their suitability. When numerous applications come forward, as is common in the public service with its large number of employees, questions of efficiency and cost may require some screening of applications. At times, only those meeting the basic qualifications may be considered. Of course, these qualifications must be reasonably related to the job in question. At other times, the pool of apparently qualified applicants may be so large that a ranking of the most qualified will have to occur and only those with the highest scores will be called for an interview and further consideration. The ranking, again, must be reasonable, in the sense that each candidate's qualifications are reasonably evaluated. The Board was also referred to Ministry of Housing and CUPE ~McLou~hlin) 875/86 and Ministry of Environment and OPSEU (Balics) 42/84 in which the Borecki decision is referred to with approval and applied. We have not detailed all of the specific areas that were the subject of Mr. McFadden's cross-examination with respect to the assessment of Ms. Colgate's application. We are of the view that in all respects Mr. Manuel provided a satisfactory explanation for his assessment of MS. Colgate's application in the way that he did. Clearly, as Mr. McFadden emphasized, there are discrepancies between the points allocated by Mr. Manuel andb Mr. Jones in all of the applications. Overall, it appears that Mr. Jones m~rked the applications more generously than Mr. 'Manuel did. With respect to discrepancies between the marks given for particular candidates on particular questions it was Mr. McFadden's submission that the Employer has not fulfilled the onus referred to in the Borecki decision as Mr. Jones was not called to give evidence. We are unable to accept this submission. Discrepancies between individual assessors are to be expected. The value of having more than one assessor is to bring different perspectives and thereby hopefully make the assessment a broader one, providing the benefit of more than one perspective. Given the evidence before us, and noting, as we have previously, that all of the applicants whose cumulative scores on the assessment placed them in the top six were within the top ten of both assessors, we are not convinced that the discrepancies in the assessments should compel us to conclude that the applicants were unreasonably or unfairly assessed. The evidence before us supports the conclusion that Ms. Colgate's qualifications were reasonably evaluated. Accordingly, the grievance is dismissed. Dated at Toronto this 2,d day of February, 1993 S.L. Stewart, Vice-Chairperson /~yons, {Member/ ~. Collect, ~e~ber