The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979-0054.Ogilvie et al.81-06-25Iti THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under The CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Ms. Emily Ogilvie et al Grievor, - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services), Employer. Mr. S. B. Linden, Q.C. Vice Chairman Mr. A. G. Stapleton Member Mr. 'R. Cochrane Member' Mr. R. Nabi, Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union Mr. J. Benedict Ministry of Correctional~Services Hearing: March 2nd, 1981 c’ i I ., I. . , - 2.- : . This grievance involves three employees'of the Accounts Payable Department of the Ministry of Correctional Services. 'There are 10 or 12 employees in this Department, each with different responsibilities~ 'relating to either a different task or a different area of the Province. Approximately two years ago; the.Assistant Supervisor in the Department left to take a job elsewhere and, as a result, a job opening tias created.' The job of *'Assistant Supervisor, Accounts Payable" was advertised in "Topical" and a description of the.duties and qualifi- cations necessary was inc‘luded: As a result of the advertisement.being~placed,\ all of the'people then employed fin the Accounts Payable Department applied for the job as well as several others from various other Ministries and departments. The applicants were.reduced to 10 or 12 candidates who were invited for an interview. The Inter- view Board was formed by the Supervisor of the Accounts Payable Department, Mary Wingson, and two other representa- tives of Person~nel, Bryan Galt and Louise McCabe. Ms. McCabe acted as Chairman of the Interview Board. Each of the people onthe Interview Board had a "Competition Rating Chart"which was used to rate each applicant interviewed by grades, i.e., "A", "B", and "C" , according to a series of predetermined criteria. Each of the three people on the Board also had. a number of questions wh ich they asked each applicant in essentially the same way . The procedure was then for each .., r -- '3- person onthe Board to mark his/her own individual rating of.the applicant for each of the factors rated and then develop an average overall rating for the particular candidate. Following that, each of the three people on the Board in turn, averaged their ratings of each indivi- dual candidate to reach a consensus. After the interviews and ratings took place, one candidate -- Ann Shannon -- was.'given an overall rating of "B+". Another candidate named Sandy Tay1o.r also received an overall rating of ~lB'~B~b The Board. recommended Ann Shannon for the job~because. she was already employed within the Accounts Payable Department and Ms. Wingson thought it would be preferable to have somebody from within the department posted to the job of Assistant Supervisor. Accordingly, Sandy Taylor was not offered the job:; MS: Taylor did n,bt grieve the posting of Ann Shannon and this Board has no further information regarding her other than what is se.t out above. However, three other people who were also em- ployed within the Accounts Payable Department doing ~jobs similar in nature to that of the successful candidate, Ann Shannon, were all given "C" standings. Their names are Emily Ogilvie, Susan Affrunti and Eduviges Pasia. These three employees were not offered the job and all three of them,are now grieving. The essence of their grievance is that the interviewing process was not.con- I. *, : ‘. :4..- ’ ‘,,, ducted fairly and objectively, their experience was not properly assessed and rated, they were all relatively. equal inskill and ability to the successful candidate and therefore, their seniority should have~been considered .~~ pursuant to the Collective Agreement. They argue that all .three of them had seniority greater than that of Ann Shannon' and if seniority had been considered, the job would not have been awarded to her. Theyare asking this Board of Arbitra- tion to remit the matter back to the Interviewing Board to reconsider all the applicants on proper grounds. Their principal criticism of the interviewing process is ,that because ratings of "A's~~, "B's" and "C's" are given as opposed to numerical values too wide a range is afforded and the ratings cannot b.e confirmed by an objective process. They also complain that none of the people on the Inter- viewing Board recorded responses to the questions that were asked and it is now impossible to determine why an applicant was given a rating of, for example, "A'! as opposed to "B". For its part, the Ministry maintains that the interviewing process was fair and objective and in accord- ante with past practice.. They maintain that after the inter- viewing process was completed, Ann Shannon had a higher rating than the three grievors. Accordingly, the grievors were not relatively equal in skill and ability to Ms. Shannon, and accordingly, there was no reason to consider seniority. Therefore, Ann Shannon was offered the position as a result of a fair and proper procedure. ;.- j . . . t -'5'- This Board is in somewhat of a practical bind because of the passage of time, If we were to do as the > grievors suggest and r~emit the matter back to the Inter- viewing Board for consideration, Ann Shannon would win - any competition since she has' been occu@ingthe position of Assistant Supervisor for the past two years. Therefore, we feel it would be futile to recommend that 'the matter be returned to an Interviewing Board.. On the other hand, there is some merit to the Union's argument that the Ministry's interviewing process is not as tight as it could be. It would be much more desirable to have a ratings system that is more objective than one using'letter grades.. There is no way of knowing exactly how far apart two applic- ants are when one is given an overall rating of "A" and.the : other is given ,an overall rating of "B"'; 'It would'also be desirable if members of the Interviewing Board could have recorded on file the answers to questions asked so that a Board such as ours could follow the reasoning behind the decisions made with respect to the rating of job applicants. It would also be to the benefit,of members of the Interview- ing Board to have 'this information available to them~to just- ify, if~necessary, decisions they had made with respect to an apfilicant's qualifications. Nevertheless, we feel it is necessary, because of the passage of time in this matter, to uphold the decision of the Interviewing Board in awarding the job of Assistant . ,,, ,. ‘-6: ‘I supervisor to.Ann Shannon and to dismiss the grievances filed against it by the grievors herein. .., DATED at Toronto this 25th day of June, 1981. i Mr. S. B. Linden,Q.C. Vice-Chairman . "I concur" Mr. A. G. Stapleton Member "Addendum to 'follok' Mr. R. Cochrane Member ! Dissent I an\ unable ta agree with the majority decision to dismiss the Ogilvie gri~evance. The evidence revealed that the ezoloyer was unable to satisfactorily explain the application of its rating system to the individual candidates. It also failed to lceep adequate records of the intervied process including the questions asked of-each of the candidates and t'neir responses to these questions. While it may be that the succ2ssful candidate 1Yrs. Shannon would have a substantial advantage over the other candidates if the employer xas requirzd to conduct another competition that should not alter the fact that serious flags in the competition that find her to be the most qualified should go uncorrected. It is for tiis r2ason I xould have directed the 2mployer ' . to nold a new competition. Whenever the rankir.g of candidates in a competition is the subject of a grievance, that finds its :iay to the Grievance Settlement aoard, the-employer should come -?resared to support its decision if called u?on by the nnion to do SO. It can only don so if it !<eeps adequate records. As a mini~xn the employ2r should retain: 1. The marking,sche!ne used by ,the. rating board and an exr)lanation of its application to 'Individual applicants. 2. The standing of all candFdat2s in the competition including an explanation for the individual ranking. 3. The questions used to assess the relative merit of the candidates and the rating board members notes on the candidates responses ~to these qu2stions, including-the consensus reached by the board as a whole. - A . . any other tool used to ass2ss merit and the ~relative weight given these additional matters in the selection process~. This information should be shared xit.3 the cri2vors 2nd union during the grievance process in.order to avoid unnecessary grievances. A failure to !ceep this information sthould tell against the employer if it is called !uson to su33or-L its choice by the union. ,? /' ./I