HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0735.Alam.89-05-09
..4'" .~
.""
ONTARIO
CROWN EMPLOYEES
EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
DEL'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE
SETTLEMENT
BOARD
COMMISSION DE
REGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS ,STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G Ize. SUITE 2100
180, AUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO! M5G 1ze - BUREAU 2100
TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE
(416) 598-0688
735/85
IN THE !lATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
'--
OPSEU (Alam)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community and Social Services)
B.B. Fisher
P. Klym
R. Trakalo
Employer
Vice-Chairperson
Member
Member
Before:
APPEARING FOR
THE GRIEVOR:
I. Roland
Counsel
Gowling & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
APPEARING FOR
THE' EMPLOYER:
C. slater
Senior Counsel
Management Board of Cabinet
HEARING:
December 9, 1988
March 15, 1989
.. :...
DECISION
In 1985 Mrs. Alam grieved a job competition for the position of Intake
Control Statistics Officer. The job was awarded to Ms. Gloria Sokoloski.
As a result of that grievance an award was issued by a panel of the Grievance
Settlement Board, differently composed, dated August 31, 1987. It found that the
competition was flawed. It ordered a re-run of the competition and imposed conditions
for the re-run.
The proceedings bef~re this panel of the Board concerned allegations by the
griever that the re-run competition was not properly conducted, and that it did not
conform to the requirements of the earlier Award dated August 31, 1987.
After a day and a half of evidence in which the grievor and the Chairperson
of the competition panel that conducted the re-run testified, Mrs. Alam informed us,
through her counsel, that she did not wish to proceed further with her grievance and
that it was therefore withdrawn.
Through her counsel, Mrs. Alam informed us that the reason for this
withdrawal is based on the fact that she has now had an opportunity to review the re-
run competition in light of the evidence (both in-chief and in cross-examination) of the
Chairman of the interview panel. As a result of hearing all this evidence, Mrs. Alam
recognized that although a few of the questions in the interview were inappropriate or
poorly worded, and although some of the answers expected by the interview panel were
questionable, taking into consideration the balance of the re-run competition and the
approach taken by the interview panel, in light of the earlier award of the Board of
Arbitration dated August 31, 1987, it could not be said that she was relatively equal to
Gloria Sokoloski, the successful candidate.
".'
:- ~ J= ~,..
..,
~.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of
alrperson
u~ ~;
P. J\jym, ""em~
f~~t~b-
1<.. 1 rakaIa, Member
- 2 -
May ~ 1989.