HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0096.Persaud.98-11-02 Decision
ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
,
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600, TORONTO ON M5G 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600, TORONTO (ON) M5G tZ8 FACSIMILE/TELECOPIE (416) 326-1396
GSB #0096/98
OPSEU 98B181
. IN THE MA ITER OF AN ARBITRA nON
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
(Violet Persaud)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown III Right of Ontano
(Mimstry of Finance)
Employer
BEFORE Jane DevlIn Vice-ChaIr
FOR THE Mary Anne Kuntz
GRIEVOR Gnevance Officer
Ontano PublIc ServIce Employees Umon
FOR THE Bnan Loewen
EMPLOYER Counsel
Legal ServIces Branch
Management Board Secretanat
HEARING October 27, 1998
~dnt oy Ut:VLlN&i::iALIIVlAN 410;;660879 10130/98 1 22PM Jab 181 Page 4/7
(
1
This matter Involves a jOb competition for the position of
Examiner/Review Officer at the Ontario Securities CommIssion which was
conducted in late 1997 The relevant proVisIon of the collective agreement is
Article 6 3 1 which provides as follows
6 3 1 In filing a vacancy, the Employer shall gIve primary consideration to
qualifications and ability to perform the required duties Where
quallficatrons and abilIty are relatively equal, seniority shall be the decIding
factor
There were 24 applicants for the position, including the Griever,
whose seniority date is May 14, 1990 The Grievor was one of five applicants
selected to attend an interview and the overall scores received by these
applicants were as follows
Cathy Jazokas 7930
Dimas Terron 7800
Ann Mankikar 71 80
Christine Czasch 6430
Violet Persaud 61 30
The successful applicants for the posItion were Ms Jazokas and Ms
Mankikar, both of whom have greater seniority than the Grievor Ms Jazokas'
';,
Sent by DEVLIN&SAL TMAN 4163660879 1 0 ( 30 I 98 12:3PM Job 181 Page 5/7
i
I
2
sen;onty date being April 23, 1990 and Ms Ma k.k I .
n I ar s seniority date being
August 31, 1987 Although Mr Terron received a high
ef score than Ms
Mankikar, evidently the Employer had some concerns regarding his references
and it was acknowledged that he had less seniority than either Ms Jazokas or
Ms Mankikar No gnevance was filed by Mr Terron to contest the denial of the
posItion
Having reviewed the documentation related to the Job competition
the Union submitted even If the Grlevor ought to have received a higher score
than 61 30 such that It could be said that her qualifications and ability v..ere
relatively equal to those of the successful applicants, Article 6 3 1 provides that
senIority shall be the deciding factor There was no dispute that the Grievor has
less seniority than Ms Jazokas or Ms Mankikar It was the submission of tile
Employer that there were no flaws in the selection process but that even If there
were these were not sufficient to have affected the outcome of the competition
In the result, the Employer requested that the gnevance be disrmssed
Decision
Although the Grievor maintained that she possessed the requIsite
....
qualifications and ability to perform the duties of the position of Examiner/RevIew
-
$ent by DEVLIN&SAL TlvlAN 4163660879 1 0/30/98 1 23PM Job 1 81 Page 617
,
I
3
Officer, It IS not sufficient to consider only the abirt d '-.
I yan qualmcat/ons of the
Grievor Instead, Article 6 3 1 contemplates a com ff .
pe IJon among Job applicants
in whIch seniority governs h th . . .
were e qualificatIons and ability of applicants are
relatively equal
In this case, the Grlevor's overall score of 61 30 was considerably
lower than the scores of 79 30 and 71 80 achieved by Ms Jazokas and Ms
Manklkar, respectively There was nothing to suggest that there was anything
improper about the scores of these latter applicants Moreover even if the Union
could demonstrate that the Grievor ought to have received a higher score such
that It could be said that her qualifications and ability were relatlvely equal to
those of the successful applicants, in such circumstances, Article 6 3 1 provides
that seniority is the deciding factor On this basIs, therefore, Ms Jazokas and
Ms Mankikar were entItled to the position
Finally, although the Grievor requested an opportunity to retain
Independent counsel on the basis that the Union had a "conflict of interest" as the
successful applicants were also OPSEU members, the Grievor's request was
denied The parties to thIS proceeding are the Employer and the Union and a
grieving employee is not entitled to separate representation Moreover, the Umon
advanced an interpretation of Article 6 3 1 which has consistently been adopted
Sent by DEVLHl&SAL TMAN 4163660879 10/30/98 i 24PM Joo 181 Page 717
I
4
by this Board which Involves a comparison of the relative qualifications and ability
of Job applicants, rather than measuring the qualifications and ability of a smgle
applicant against the requirements of the job
In the result, as no violation of the collective agreement has been
established, the grievance of Ms Persaud is dismissed
Dated at TORONTO, tlus 2nd day of November, 1998
1~ k ~
Vice-Chair