HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-4243.Greco.18-03-26 DecisionCrown Employees Grievance Settlement
Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
GSB# 2014-4243
UNION# 2014-0542-0026
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Greco) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation) Employer
BEFORE
Nimal Dissanayake
Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION
Lesley Gilchrist
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officer
FOR THE EMPLOYER Daria Vodova
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING March 21, 2018
-2-
DECISION
[1] In a grievance dated October 15, 2014, Ms. Felicia Greco, (“Grievor”) has
challenged the outcome of a competition she unsuccessfully participated in for
one of some 18 positions of Case Processor. At the time the grievor held the
position of Driver Control Analyst classified as OAG 11. The posted position
was classified higher at OAG 13. The grievance came before me pursuant to
the expedited mediation-arbitration provisions of article 22.16 the collective
agreement.
[2] The grievor asserts that in her position as Driver Control Analyst she used many
skills and knowledge similar to those required in the posted position. Yet she
ranked 34th out of 38 candidates in the competition process. She believes that
given her 30 years’ service in the OPS and her experience in the previous
positions, she just could not have performed so poorly if the competition process
had been conducted fairly and in accordance with legal requirements.
[3] On behalf of the grievor it was submitted by the union that the competition was
fatally flawed in three ways. First, there were mechanical issues and errors during
the testing which prevented the grievor from performing to the best of her ability.
Second, one of the members of the interview panel was biased against her. Third,
the employer did not attach sufficient weight to the grievor’s past experience and
performance, and relied excessively on the results of the competition process.
[4] The onus of proving the alleged violations lies with the union. In Re Damani,
1581/95 (Gray), the Board made the following observations:
“The presence and effect of racist attitudes may be difficult to detect and prove.
It does not follow, and the union does not suggest, that proof is therefore
unnecessary, or that the mere allegation of racial discrimination shifts the burden
of disproving the allegation to those accused of it. The same may be said about
anti-union animus and discrimination on the basis of union activity” (Para. 17)
“The grievor says she cannot understand why she has not advanced in the civil
service unless it is because she is the victim of discrimination on the basis her
-3-
race or union activity or both. Her subjective belief that she is the victim of
discrimination, however strong, is not proof that she is.” (Para. 18)
[5] Those observations apply equally here. Beyond the grievor’s belief and assertion,
there is no evidence to support the allegations. The union has not met its onus,
and the grievance is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 26th day of March, 2018.
“Nimal Dissanayake”
________________________
Nimal Dissanayake, Arbitrator