The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-2504.Morsi.12-01-25 Decision Crown Employees rieva nce Settlement oard 1Z8 l. (416) 326-1388 x (416) 326-1396 t des griefs es employés de la t Z8 l. : (416) 326-1388 léc. : (416) 326-1396 UNION#2009-0546-0034, 2010-0546-0018 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD ETWEEN G B Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G Te Commission de règlemen d Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Oues Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1 Té Té Fa GSB#2009-2504, 2010-1938 B Ontario Public Sployees Union Union The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Labour) Employer ervice Em (Morsi) - and - BEFORE Daniel Harris Vice-Chair FOR THE UNION ice Employees Union FOR THE EMPLOYER Tim Mulhall Ontario Public Serv Grievance Officer Services ractice Group Jennifer Richards Ministry of Government Labour P Counsel HEARING January 20, 2012. - 2 - Decision [1] There are two grievances involved here, which came on for a hearing on January 20, 2012. They relate to two job competitions for the position of Employment Standards Officer. The first, No.19999 was for a permanent assignment. The second, No. 25780, was for a temporary assignment. Since the temporary assignment has come to an end, there was no issue of third party notice. For the permanent assignment, third party notice is required. The employer has undertaken to provide the names and contact information for the successful candidates to the union so that it can provide that notice. [2] The hearing of No. 25780 commenced with the grievor’s evidence, as contemplated by the Board’s previous Order. I also heard submissions with respect to a request by the union for the following disclosure: 1. A copy of the original on-line job posting for the Employment Standards Officer position; 2. A copy of the resumé and covering letter submitted by the grievor; 3. The distribution of points allocated within each of the previously disclosed selection criteria; 4. The threshold score that resulted in being given an interview; 5. Copies of all automated acknowledgements of receipt of the on-line applications; 6. The names of the individuals who did the screening/scoring; 7. Copies of letters inviting candidates to be interviewed; 8. Copies of letters sent to those offered a job; 9. The ages of all applicants. [3] The employer agreed to provide item number 1, if it exists. The employer agreed to provide item number 2. As for item number 3, the employer agreed to enquire as to whether there was a further breakdown of the point allocations and provide it if it exists. The threshold for an interview was 75%. It will provide any written acknowledgment of that fact if such exists. As for item number 6, it will provide the names. Item number 7, the invitation to an interview letters, will be provided, subject to the employer’s position that they are not arguably relevant. [4] Items 5, 8 and 9 were resisted, as follows. The union submitted that the original job posting only permitted on-line applications. Accordingly, the provision of the on-line acknowledgements was required in order to cross-check against the successful candidates to ensure their success did not rest on an improperly delivered application. The employer said that the issue was the failure to grant this grievor an interview and a flaw in awarding the job was not arguably relevant. Further, there were over 2000 applicants and the provision of the information sought would be too burdensome given its very limited probative value. [5] The union said the job offer letters were arguably relevant to establishing flaws in the competition as a whole. If the competition is sufficiently flawed at any of its stages, - 3 - then it should be re-run in the very least, and the grievor should be able to attack the competition at large. The employer argued here as well that the issue here was the decision not to grant this grievor an interview and a flaw in awarding the job was not arguably relevant. [6] As for the request to disclose the ages of all the applicants, the union alleges that the grievor was screened out as a result of her age; it was seeking to hire younger people. Accordingly, the ages of the applicants are arguably relevant and should be provided. The employer said it is a bald assertion without foundation. Further, it is not information that the employer has now, nor had then. The age of each applicant was neither asked for nor provided. [7] I ruled orally that any purported flaws in the competition after the interview screening process are not arguably relevant to the issues in this grievance. This issue to be determined in this grievance is to whether it was a breach of the collective agreement to deny an interview to the grievor. Whether someone was improperly granted the job later does not touch that issue. Accordingly, acknowledgement of the on-line applications and the job offer letters are not arguably relevant and need not be disclosed. With respect to the request to disclose the ages of the applicants, there is no evidence that the employer knew the ages of the applicants. Should the union establish otherwise, it may renew its request. [8] The employer is to provide the information agreed to no later than February 15, 2012. In order to expedite the hearing of these matters, the union is to provide copies of any documents it will rely on by no later than February 15, 2012. Dated at Toronto this 25th day of January 2012. Daniel Harris, Vice-Chair