Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-0796.Breton.22-04-28 Decision Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Commission de règlement des griefs des employés de la Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 GSB# 2020-0796 UNION# 2019-0603-0003 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Breton) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry) Employer BEFORE Diane L. Gee Arbitrator FOR THE UNION Alex Zamfir Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer FOR THE EMPLOYER Joohyung Lee Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel HEARING January 20, April 29, August 26, and November 30, 2021; March 15, April 1 and April 22, 2022 - 2 - Decision [1] This matter is a grievance filed by Ontario Public Service Employees Union (the “Union”) on behalf of Mark Breton (the “grievor”) alleging a violation of article 6 of the collective agreement. The grievance was filed when the grievor was not screened in for an interview for the 12-month term position of Enforcement Officer Specialist (“EOS”) posted in the summer of 2019. The parties agreed this matter would be heard pursuant to article 22.16.1 of the collective agreement. Pursuant to article 22.16.7, this decision has no precedential value. [2] As indicated above, this matter was heard over seven days. The grievor testified, as did Roch Delorme and Edwin VanDenOetalaar, the two individuals charged with deciding which candidates would be screened in for an interview. As with most job competition cases, a large number of documents were admitted into evidence. The representative of OPSEU and counsel for the Employer did an excellent job of reviewing and analyzing the documents, focussing their questions on salient points, and presenting helpful closing submissions, for which I am grateful. [3] I begin this decision by setting out the relevant principles, as I find them to have been established by the Grievance Settlement Board (the “Board”) in the cases the parties have put before me. I then turn to a review the facts, focussing on those the Union relies upon in support of the argument that the process was flawed. Finally, I consider whether the facts relied upon by the Union were in fact errors and, if so, whether, had such errors not occurred, the grievor would have been screened in. Principles [4] The process of screening applications to determine which candidates will be granted an interview has long been approved by the Board. See: OPSEU (Borecki) and Ministry of Natural Resources, 1982 (Swinton); OPSEU (Bent) and Ministry of Transportation, 1989 (Knopf); OPSEU (Smith) and Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, 2007 CanLII 59345 (ON GSB) (Mikus); OPSEU (O’Brien/Lepage) and Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, 2011 (Dissanayake); OPSEU (McDonald) and Ministry of Environment, 2012 (Mikus). [5] There is no obligation on the Employer to interview all candidates who apply. See: OPSEU (P. B. Kuyntjes & R. Larman) and Ministry of Transportation & Communications, 1987 (Gandz); Borecki, supra, Bent, supra and OPSEU (Adamowicz) and Ministry of Transportation, 1991 (Kaplan).) [6] The screening process may screen out candidates who meet the qualifications for the position. See: OPSEU (O’Brien/Lepage) and Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, 2011 Carswell 12112 (Dissanayake) and Bent, supra. [7] Employees have an obligation to submit a detailed resume setting out all the information they wish the screening panel to consider. To quote from Borecki, supra: - 3 - There is an obligation on an employee responding to a job posting to set forth in his application, resume and covering letter those qualifications which he or she has which best meets the qualifications described in the job posting as best as the applicant can, as the nature of the hiring procedure is a competition between applicants. The employee is at his peril if he does not provide sufficient detail, as the employer is not under the obligation to interview all applicants to allow each applicant to develop his resume See also O’Brien/Lepage, supra, wherein it is stated that an employee cannot expect the employer to read into an application, data and information which is not set out on the application form. However, as stated in McDonald, supra, an applicant is entitled to assume the panel has an awareness of features of a program referred to in their resume that are specific to the Ministry. [8] When reading the applications, it is appropriate for the panel to use its knowledge of the details of educational programs completed or positions held by the candidate, but it is not appropriate for the panel to consider knowledge of the candidates as individuals as, to do so for some, but not others, would be unfair. In Bent, supra, the Board found it appropriate that the panel did not take into account personal information of the candidate, available to it through one of the panel members, as to do so would have given that candidate an unfair advantage. [9] While the cases talk about the need for the screening process to result in valid and relevant information about qualifications and abilities being brought to the attention of the selection panel, these same cases find this need to be met through a review of the candidates’ resumes and cover letters. In O’Brien/Lepage, supra, the Board recognized that the employer is entitled to conduct the screening of candidates based only on the application materials submitted. In OPSEU (Quan) and Ministry of Labour, 1992 (Gorsky), the Board went to pains to clarify that the decision in P. B. Kuyntjes & R. Larman, supra, in which a review of information other than the resumes was conducted and found to be a “perfectly reasonable way of going about a pre-screening process”, does not stand for the proposition that the pre-screening process has to be conducted in the same manner as the selection process. In Bent, supra, the grievor was judged on his communication skills and the Union argued the members of the selection committee ought to have used their personal knowledge of his skills to judge him qualified. The Board rejected this argument stating: “at the pre-screening stage, all the Committee needed to rely upon was the application itself.” (See also; Borecki, supra and McDonald, supra.) While in OPSEU (Nancy Clipperton) and Ministry of Community and Social Services, 1988 (Watters) the Board found the selection panel to have made an error when it screened the grievor out without considering her personnel files and supervisor evaluations, it is apparent that, in reaching this conclusion, the Board incorrectly applied the criteria from MacLellan and DeGrandis 506/81 et. al (Samuels). The criteria set out in MacLellan and DeGrandis is used to assess the portion of the job competition process that comes after the screening process. The case of Quinn, 9/78 (Prichard), in which fault was found due to the interviewers not reading the personnel files and not asking - 4 - supervisors for evaluations, is not a screening in case and thus is not applicable to the present situation. [10] In a case where an individual is screened out, the initial onus is on the Employer to demonstrate that the screening was done in a fair and reasonable manner (see: Bent, supra; Quan, supra; Borecki, supra; O’Brien/Lepage, supra; Ontario Liquor Board Employees Union (Sam et al) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) 2000 CanLII 20565 (ON GSB) (Dissanayake). In O’Brien/Lepage, the Board added the requirement that the process be “consistent.” The employer is not required to show it met the criteria set out in MacLellan and DeGrandis, supra, in a case concerning the screening in progress. [11] If an unfairness, inconsistency or unreasonableness is found, it will not be a fatal flaw unless the Union can show it had the effect of causing the grievor not to achieve the threshold at which they would have been screened in. Where, had the error not occurred, the grievor would still not have been screened in, the grievance will not succeed. (See: McDonald, supra; and OPSEU (Alam) and Ministry of Community & Social Services, 1990 (Roberts)). In Smith, supra, it was found that, had the grievor been given the same consideration another candidate was given, the grievor would have achieved a score sufficient to be screened in. On that basis the grievance succeeded. [12] Job competitions do not have to be conducted perfectly. In OPSEU (Pino) and Ministry of Education and Training, 1995 (Kaplan) it is stated: “without a doubt, the process employed in this case, like every job competition was not perfect. Few human endeavours are.” And in O’Brien/Lepage, supra: “as the Board has repeatedly stated, it does not expect perfection from the employer in the manner the screening process is carried out.” (See also: Alam, supra.) [13] As indicated in O’Brien/Lepage, supra, an argument the grievor should have received higher scores, or, that the applicants who passed the threshold, could have received lower scores, is rarely likely to succeed, even where those arguments have merit, provided the screening process is fair, consistent and reasonable overall. In O’Brien/Lepage, supra, even though the Board was of the view that the applications could have been scored somewhat differently in several areas, it declined to replace the employer’s scores with its own. In OPSEU (Liblik/Scipnek) and Ministry of Transportation, 1993 (Dissanayake) the Board stated that it would be inappropriate to replace the decision of management with that of the Board except “in cases of a clear violation of the collective agreement, bad faith or major flaw in the process.” The Board considered such to be: “especially important where the jobs are technically complex. The arbitration board has little knowledge of the job, no exposure to the other applicants and only a cursory understanding of the work environment.” In Bent, supra, even though it was found that there were “several questionable matters as to how the screening process was conducted,” the grievance was denied. - 5 - [14] In the course of determining whether the screening process is fair, consistent and reasonable, O’Brien/Lepage supra found the considerations to include the consistency of the process, the consistency of the scoring, and the consideration of relevant, but not irrelevant, information. [15] Few of the cases discuss the issue of remedy in a case where the grievor was found to have been improperly screened out. In Quan, supra it was found that the result of an arbitration in a pre-screening case, “as counsel for the union acknowledged” could not result in the awarding of the position to the grievor. The decision suggests, if it were found that the employer had failed to properly conduct the pre-screening process, and it were further found the grievor ought to have been screened in, an order would be made that the grievor be granted an interview following which the competition panel would reconsider its decision in light of the results of the interview. In Brockville and Area Community Living Association and OPSEU, Local 441, 1997 CarswellOnt 6666 (Thorne), the assignment for which the grievor had applied had been completed by the time of the hearing. Arbitrator Thorne concluded that, because the assignment had been completed: “it would not be appropriate to award compensation to the grievor (or to any of the other candidates) on the basis that she might have won the competition in other circumstances.” Smith, supra, after finding the grievor ought to have been screened in, the Board remitted the matter back to the parties. Findings of Fact [16] In brief, at the time of the posting, the grievor held the position of Conservation Officer (“CO”) with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Provincial Services Division/Enforcement Branch (MNFR) and had done so for 23 years. The posting provided that only those currently holding a CO position could apply. The posting was for 17 EOS positions, one in each of the 17 MNFR Enforcement Units in the province. Applicants could specify which Enforcement Unit they were interested in. When the grievor applied, he specified he was interested in the position in Sault Ste. Marie. [17] The EOS position was intended to be a liaison between the field staff and management. They would lead and mentor new staff, be knowledgeable of practices, be a problem solver, resolve conflicts, build relationships, interact with a wide variety of people, convey information, work with other government groups, agencies, and the police, update the manager on contentious issues, understand how resources should be deployed and allocate resources when COs make requests for funding. The Employer was looking for someone who could be an inclusive, effective leader to coordinate initiatives and provide advice and recommendations, identify problems, analyze options, prepare reports, and liaise with a number of different offices in all aspects of operational work. [18] Of the 51 individuals who applied and met the mandatory qualifications of holding a CO position and a valid driver’s license, 28 were screened out. Twenty-three - 6 - individuals were interviewed for the 17 positions. The EOS position in Sault Ste. Marie was not filled. [19] As the Union points out, the fact that candidates were required to hold a CO position, meant the applicants had very similar backgrounds. The qualifications in the job posting, and against which the candidates were judged, were intended to test if the candidates had the skills that would be required to move, from a CO, into the role of EOS. [20] The job posting set out seven broad qualifications required for a candidate to qualify. The Union does not challenge the appropriateness of the qualifications. As indicated above, the first, mandatory qualification, was a current appointment as a CO and a valid class “G” Driver’s License. The remaining six qualifications, each of which was followed by bullet points setting out details of what the Employer was looking for, were as follows: Problem Solving, Situational Judgement skills: • Strong judgement and problem-solving skills to identify underlying issues, link issues with regulatory requirements and recommend appropriate corrective measures to address the situation in a timely manner. • Proven ability to identify and take necessary, appropriate and timely action in response to complex and/or critical issue. • Proven ability to evaluate and consider situational factors to make independent decisions that align with policies, procedures and legislation. • Proven ability to exercise sound judgment in stressful and potentially threatening situations. • Demonstrated organizational skills and the ability to multitask to work effectively in a fast-paced environment. Conflict Recognition and Management, Impact and Influence, Relationship Building • Experience developing and maintaining harmonious relationships, responding appropriately and providing direction to clients in an assertive and professional manner. • Proven ability to influence and persuade others to adopt a specific course of action. • Experience identifying potential conflicts and proactively bringing disagreements into the open to help address and diffuse potential issues. Concern for Quality and Standards, Integrity, Expertise: • Integrity to ensure your actions are consistent with organizational values, policies and codes of conduct. - 7 - • Proven ability to monitor and evaluate work quality and processes against managerial direction, policies, standards and regulations. Subject Matter Expertise: • Experience interpreting, applying and enforcing natural resource management legislation (e.g. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act, Fisheries Act, Invasive Species Act, Crown Forest Sustainability Act) and other related legislation (e.g. Criminal Code, Constitution Act) and manuals. • Experience identifying situations of non-compliance and assessing the associated level of risk. • Thorough knowledge and experience applying investigative techniques and processes, legal methods and rules of evidence in order to coordinate search and seizures, make arrests and lay charges, support court work and determine the best approaches by which to conduct further investigations. Communication skills: • Demonstrated oral communication skills to explain complex policies, procedures and techniques and deliver presentations. • Demonstrated written communication skills to accurately document information and prepare reports. • Proficient with common office software applications (word processing, spreadsheet, email, internet, etc.). Operational Administrative skills: • Proven ability to coordinate human and physical resource allocations in the development of work plans, project • proposals, audit teams, and project how resources can/should be deployed to meet new/changing program • activities. Additional Information [21] The score sheet used to score the candidates was a table that, in the left-hand column, listed the qualifications and bullet points. The second column was left blank for the score to be added and the third column was to be populated with relevant information from the resumes. [22] Messrs. VanDenOetelaar and Delorme were charged with determining who would be screened in for an interview. Mr. VanDenOetelaar was a manager from the southern region and Mr. Delorme was a manager from the northern region. Mr. VanDenOetelaar and Mr. Delorme decided they would each take half of the applications and populate the score sheet with information from the resumes. Mr. Delorme was responsible for populating the score sheet concerning the grievor. [23] Most of the resumes, including that of the grievor, were three to four pages of single- spaced type setting out lists of the candidate’s experience. Each resume was reviewed with a view to extracting relevant experience and populating it into the - 8 - score sheet for that candidate. After each of Mr. VanDenOetelaar and Mr. Delorme had populated their half of the score sheets, they shared them with one another and then both scored them. [24] Each qualification had a maximum score associated with it such that when the bullet points were scored, their total could not exceed the maximum score assigned. Once the bullet points were scored within the maximum possible score, the scores were added up and became the score for that qualification. Mr. Delorme and Mr. VanDenOetelaar’s scores were then averaged. The average score was then converted to a score of 0 – 3. A score of zero on any qualification, converted to 0; points up to and including half of the possible maximum number of points, converted to 1; points over half of the maximum possible points, but not perfect converted to 2 (although for criteria 6 a score of 5/10 scored a 2); and a perfect score converted to 3. [25] Once converted, each score, depending upon which qualification it related to, was then weighted. Due to an error, the weighting assigned to three of the qualifications differed as between Mr. VanDenOetelaar and Mr. Delorme. The weighting for the third, fourth and sixth qualifications were 20 versus 10; 15 versus 20 and 10 versus 15, for Mr. Delorme and Mr. VanDenOetelaar respectively. All candidates were equally affected by this error. [26] Mr. Delorme testified that, where an applicant’s resume was broken up into sections by qualification, he would copy information from the resume only into the section of the score sheet that pertained to that same qualification. When he reviewed resumes that did not contain headings, he would consider which qualification(s) the information was relevant to and copy it next to such qualification(s) on the score sheet. [27] Mr. Delorme also testified that when copying information from a resume onto the score sheet, he took the approach that information could only be copied next to a single bullet point under any one qualification. Mr. VanDenOetelaar, however, testified he copied information from a resume and placed it in the score sheet next to each bullet point it applied to even if it meant the information appeared next to more than one bullet point under a single qualification. [28] The approach to scoring as described in the foregoing two paragraphs is very concerning. Candidates who used headings in their resume were not treated the same as candidates who did not. Further, candidates who had their score sheets populated by Mr. Delorme were not treated the same as candidates whose score sheets were populated by Mr. VanDenOetelaar. The grievor used headings in his resume, and his score sheet was populated by Mr. Delorme. As such, the grievor stood to be negatively affected by both inconsistencies. - 9 - [29] I turn then to consider each inconsistency. When one reviews the grievor’s resume and scoresheet, it does not appear that Mr. Delorme copied information from the grievor’s resume only into the section of the score sheet that pertained to that same qualification. There is an entry on the grievor’s resume under Communication Skills that was copied by Mr. Delorme into both the Communication Skills and Conflict Recognition and Management portions of the score sheet. Mr. Delorme testified that the grievor would have received multiple points for this information under the two different qualifications. There is a further entry that appears under Communication Skills on the grievor’s resume that is pasted into Conflict Recognition and Management. Mr. Delorme testified that he consciously added this information into Conflict Recognition and Management as he thought it fit better under this heading than under Communication Skills. Further, being a coach officer appears in the Problem Solving and Situational Skills section of the grievor’s resume, but is copied into the Operational Administrative Skills qualification on the score sheet. Mr. Delorme acknowledged in cross-examination that he had copied information concerning the execution of a search warrant, set out in the grievor’s resume under Conflict Recognition and Management, to that same qualification on the score sheet, but had not also copied it to Problem Solving, Situational Judgment where it was also relevant. Thus, three out of the four times information was relevant to a qualification other than the one the grievor put it under in his resume, such was recognized by Mr. Delorme, and the grievor was given credit under the additional qualification. To the extent Mr. Delorme did not do so, it was with respect to one piece of information. [30] With respect to the second inconsistency, Mr. Delorme acknowledged in cross- examination that there was one instance where a piece of information from the grievor’s resume was relevant to three bullets in a single qualification. The information in issue is the same information concerning the execution of a search warrant discussed the prior paragraph. According to Mr. Delorme’s evidence, it should have been populated on the grievor’s score sheet beside three of the bullets under Problem Solving, Situational Judgment. [31] The impact of the concessions made by Mr. Delorme in the above two paragraphs is that a single piece of information was not placed beside three bullet points in Problem Solving, Situational Judgement. [32] The Union argues that the problem created by Mr. Delorme’s narrow approach is compounded by the fact that Mr. VanDenOetelaar relied on the work done by Mr. Delorme when scoring the grievor. Mr. VanDenOetelaar was not asked if he reviewed the grievor’s resume or relied on the information populated into the score sheet by Mr. Delorme. On Mr. VanDenOetelaar’s score sheet for the grievor, under the first qualification, information from the grievor’s resume has been added that was not placed there by Mr. Delorme. In addition, to the side of the score sheet, sections from the grievor’s resume that have been reformatted, have been copied and pasted. Further, information, not placed there by Mr. Delorme, has been added to the last qualification. Thus, I do not find that Mr. VanDenOetelaar relied - 10 - exclusively on the information populated into the score sheet by Mr. Delorme. I find that, when scoring the grievor, he referred to the grievor’s resume. [33] During cross-examination, it was conceded by Mr. Delorme that the statement “I have been in charge of creating an operational plan through NICHE which involved all logistics to deliver and implement a successful project” should have been copied onto the grievor’s score sheet under Problem Solving, Situational Judgment but was not. Errors Alleged by Union [34] As indicated in the review of the case law relied upon by the parties in this matter, it is not enough to show that errors were made; the Union must show that had the errors not been made, the grievor would have been screened in for an interview. The Union points to five errors that it argues had the effect of impacting the grievor’s score to the point where, absent those errors, he would not have been screened out. [35] One of the errors alleged by the Union is that Messrs. Delorme and VanDenOetelaar failed to consider information about the grievor of which they were aware. As set out above, the Employer is not required to consider any information other than that set out in the resume, and it would have been unfair to the other candidates had Messrs. Delorme and VanDenOetelaar considered information they knew about the grievor. [36] The second error relied upon by the Union is the fact that two different weightings were used. It is true that the weightings assigned to Mr. Delorme’s scores differed from those assigned to those of Mr. VanDenOetelaar for three of the qualifications. This occurred consistently for all candidates. There is no evidence that the different weightings changed the result for the grievor. [37] The third error the Union relies upon is that relevant information, as set out in paragraphs 29 and 30, was not considered. Had this error not occurred, the grievor would likely have gained 3 points for the error described in paragraph 29 and 2 points for the error described in paragraph 30 all in the qualification of Problem Solving, Situational Judgement. The grievor needed 9 additional points in this section for his final score to be impacted. [38] The Union further points to the fact that Messrs. Delorme and VanDenOetelaar used different methods to populate the scoring sheets. As set out in paragraph 30, Mr. Delorme acknowledged that, had he placed information beside more than one bullet point, there was information that would have been copied next to three of the bullet points within Problem Solving, Situational Judgement. This is the same information that is dealt with in paragraph 37 and, as such, there is no additional impact to the grievor’s score. - 11 - [39] Finally, the Union submits Messrs. Delorme and VanDenOetelaar failed to give the grievor credit for statements in his resume that are similar to those of other candidates for which credit was given. The statements that the Union relies upon in support of this argument were put to both Mr. Delorme and Mr. VanDenOetelaar. Both witnesses gave very thorough and credible responses explaining why the grievor’s statements were not comparable to that of the other candidate. [40] The first instance involves the following statement in the grievor’s resume: In 2018, I held the position of coach officer while supervising a Conservation Officer Intern. I assigned tasks and coordinated his daily activities as it pertained to the everyday workload associated with responding to natural resources violations and compliance issues. I routinely evaluated his performance and identified areas where training was required to achieve his full potential as a Conservation Officer. I maintained all financial expense records for both of us and understand the importance of staying within an allocated budget. [41] The Union compares it to the following statement in the resume of candidate 4932: Have been involved with the coach officer program by completing the coach officer course, assisted in mentoring two previous interns and more recently was the coach officer for our latest intern within the Bancroft enforcement unit Have worked with Area Enforcement Managers, other coach officers around the province and most recently being involved in the newly formed provincial Coach Officer Instructor Program Cadre (C.O.P.I.C.) to review and offer suggestions on how to improve the current coach officer program within the enforcement branch [42] Messrs. Delorme and Mr. VanDenOetelaar testified that the two responses are not the same. While both statements refer to being a coach officer, that of candidate 4932 indicates that, in addition, they were involved with COPIC to suggest how to improve the coach officer program. Further, candidate 4932 indicates in their statement that they were working collaboratively with others, whereas the grievor’s statement refers to the one-on-one mentorship of an intern. [43] I find that two statements are not so similar that they warranted the same score. [44] Next, the Union compares the following statement from the grievor’s resume to statement a statement in the resume of candidate 4932: In performing my duties as a CO I am often required to act as an Area Enforcement Manager. - 12 - Candidate 4932 stated in their resume: Have acted as officer in charge (O.I.C.) on numerous occasions in the absence of an enforcement manager and have provided direction to district staff, fellow officers, handled public inquiries and corresponded with designated A.E.M.’s for management responsibilities [45] The grievor clarified during his testimony that he had intended to say in his statement that he was acting as an officer in charge. Messrs. Delorme and VanDenOetelaar both testified that no credit was given for the grievor’s statement as it could have two quite different meanings and, without clarification as to which meaning was intended, they did not know what it meant. Candidate 4932’s statement is much more thorough, giving details as to who he dealt with and what he did and, in any event, they testified candidate 4932 would not have received many points for the statement. [46] I find that two statements are not so similar that they warranted the awarding of the same score. [47] Further, the Union compares the following statement in the grievor’s resume to statements in three other candidates’ resumes and argues they are similar and thus deserving of similar scores: I was the lead planner last year for a joint compliance project with RCMP (Royal Canadian Mountain Police) and CBSA (Canada Border Service Agency). The project was focused at enforcing compliance on International border waters and lands for various legislations The resume of Candidate 3358 states: I have planned, lead and participated in enforcement operations, utilizing uniformed, plainclothes and canine officers, targeting specific resource and safety priorities. Planning enforcement operations includes writing enforcement operation plans, coordinating the logistics of personnel and equipment and leading teams of officers from multiple enforcement units and organizations. As officer in charge during enforcement operations and leading investigations with multiple staff members, I have been responsible for assessing operational needs and obtaining and directing resources as required. The resume of Candidate 4932 states: Participated in joint patrols/ investigations and have shared information with other enforcement agencies including the Ontario Provincial Police, Regional Police Forces (i.e. York, Durham) Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, Ministry of Labour, the Canadian Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. - 13 - The resume of Candidate 3398 states: I have led and co-ordinated numerous enforcement operational projects throughout my career including small scale routine projects dealing with regular day to day business and large-scale projects involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies, ie. I completed a six month assignment to OMAFRA to be the project leader for a special investigation, responsible for developing operational plan which included determining priorities, staffing requirements, equipment needs, organizing mobile and static surveillance, collecting and compiling intelligence, organizing for the installation of special equipment, preparing search warrants and planning the execution of the warrants, liaising with multiple government agencies such as CFIA, OMAFRA, MNRF, CBSA, OPP, city police forces, and inputting into budget requirements, tracking budget ensuring the project stayed within budget, directing staff as to roles and responsibilities and updating senior managers on a regular basis. [48] Once again, these statements were put to both Mr. Delorme and Mr. VanDenOetelaar during cross-examination and, in each instance, they gave thorough and credible explanations as to why the grievor’s statement was not the same as those of the other candidates. By way of example, it was stated that the grievor’s statement does not show an ability to coordinate human resources, coordinating schedules, pairing officers with others, tracking costs etc. The grievor’s statement was said by both Mr. Delorme and Mr. VanDenOetelaar to be overly simplistic and gives no indication of what the grievor did. Without knowing the type of project it was, and the specific tasks involved, the statement made by the grievor did not establish his experience or skills. Each of the statements that the Union relies upon as comparators give greater detail. [49] The evidence given by Mr. Delorme and Mr. VanDenOetelaar was credible. They gave extensive and detailed explanations as to why the grievor’s statement was scored differently from the others. Their explanations were consistent with the differences that can be seen on the face of the statements. I find the grievor’s statement is not so similar to any one of the three comparators that it warranted the awarding of the same score. Determination [50] Adopting inconsistent approaches to the review of resumes is a serious error. Had this error resulted in the grievor having been screened out, this grievance would have succeeded, and I would have been inclined to direct that the grievor’s resume be rescored using the approach taken by Mr. VanDenOetalaar. However, on the facts of this case, the correction of the error does not result in the grievor achieving a high enough score to be screened in. - 14 - [51] It is true that Mr. Delorme omitted one piece of relevant information from the score sheet and failed to place a second piece of information into a second qualification where it was also relevant, but the omissions are minor and, again, the change in scoring that would result from correcting the error would not result in the grievor achieving a score high enough to be screened in. [52] As in most job competition cases, the process undertaken was not perfect, and mistakes were made. Inconsistency crept into the process because Mr. Delorme and Mr. VanDenOetalaar did not discuss the approach that would be taken to populating the score sheets and agreeing on a consistent approach. The failure to consider relevant information was a human error, likely caused by the volume of material that had to be reviewed. In the final analysis, however, the inconsistency of approach, and errors made, did not materially impact the grievor’s score. [53] The grievance is denied. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 28th day of April, 2022. “Diane L. Gee” ________________________ Diane L. Gee, Arbitrator