Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-0467.Carrington.81-09-19IN THE MATTER OF AS AXMTRATION Under The CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLE&&NT 3OARD Setween: Mr. Raymond ,M. Carrington 3efore: and The Crown in Right of Ontario Ministry of Transportation & Gxnmunicariw Mr. Sidney B. Linden, Q.C. Vice-Chairman Ivlr. E. A. XcLean Member Mr. R. Russell ?;lember For the Crievor: .Mrs. L. Stevens, Grievance Office; Ontario Public Service Employees Union For the Employer: <Mr. N. !-I. Pettifor !vlinistry of Transpottatisn j: Communicarions Hearing.: March ZOth, !9Sl - ,‘--., r; I -2- iit the outset of the hearing in the above-noted matter, the parties submitted an .&greed Statement of Fact as foilows: ln the matter of the grievance dated May 27, 1980, of Mr. R. M. Carrington, the parties are agreed as follows: 1) The math is properly before the Board, and the Beard has jurisdiction. 2) The Collective Agreement with respect to Working Conditions and Employee Benefits between Management Board of Cabinet and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which came into effect on January 1, 1980, was in effect at all times material to this grievance. 3) The grievor is a Clerk 2, Fig, employed in the Driver Licensing Section of the Driver Licensing and Control Off ice. His Continuous Service Date is October 18, 1977. 4) The successful candidate in the competition which ls the subject of Mr. Carrington’s grievance was Mrs. C. M. Green, at that time a Clerk 2, General, in the Driver Licensing and Control.Office. Her date of continuous service ls January 21.1980. 5) There were nine candidates who applied in the competition. Of these, three, including Mrs. Green and the grievor, were considered to be qualified and interviewed by the Selection Board. Sometime in April, 1980, a joo of Editing Clerk 3 became available and was posted on the board. This job is one level above that of the Grievor’s. The successful applicant, Mrs. C. ;M. Green, was employed in the other half of the Griever’s department and did not work in the same general area as he did. She reported TO a different Supervisor. The Grievor’s Supervisor was Stella Brown and she testi5ed at the hearing. -3- When all of the applications were considered, there ‘were three serious candidates - the Crievor, the successful applicant .Mrs. Green and one other. Accordingly, an interview board or panel was established. It was explained that in the normal course, the Griever’s Supervisor, Mrs. Brown, would have been a member of that panel but she was on vacation. The interviewing panel was made up of Mr. Varey, Llr. Orlawsky and Mr. Vanderlip. All three remaining candidates were interviewed and the documentation regarding those interviews was filed as exhibits at the hearing. .Mr. Varey and Mr. Vanderlip both ratted Mrs. Green and the Grievor relatively equal. hlr. Orlawsky rated ,Mrs. Green ahead of the Grievor. Subsequent to the interviews, the three persons on the panel combined their results and the job was offered to ,Mrs. Green, ” notwithstanding that her seniority date was January 1, 1980 and that she had only been working in this particular ,Minisay for three months. Mr. Orlawsky explained that in his view, the Grievor and ;vlrs. Green were not relatively equal and that, therefore, seniority was not a consideration. Mr. Orlawsky gave the impression, during the course of his evidence, that the Grievor’s attendance record was a fact which he considered in deciding not to offer the position to the Griever. When pressed on cross-examination, :vtr. Orlawsky could not justify seine of the disparity in the marks that he assigned to Mrs. Green as opposed to the Grievor. Apparently, Mrs. Green &though she accepted the job did not stay in it very long and there was another vacancy for this job in February, 1981. The Griever was on vacation when the job was posted and ,when he returned from vacation, the posting was closed. Therefore, he is not being ,+, -7 \, i considered among a new group of candidates who are oresentiy competing for this particular job. At the conclusion of the argument, the Board was concerned that the particular job that is the subject matter of this grievance might be awarded to another candidate which could complicate matters significantly. Accordingly, we were unanimously of the view that we should announce our decision immediately and follow it with written reasons. It was our view that the Grievor and the successful candidate, Mrs. Green, were relatively equal in skill and ability according to the significant job criteria. Therefore, pursuant to .\rticle +.3 of the Collective Agreement, seniority should have been a consideration in the awarding of this job. Having regard to the fact that the Griever had far greater seniority than the successful applicant, Urs. Green, this job should have been awarded to the Grievor. Our award is, therefore, that the Griever should have been the successful candidate 1~ of May, 1930 and that he should be placed in the job in question and compensated accordingly. We retain jurisdiction in the event that there is any difficulty in implementing the terms of this award. DATED at Toronto, this 19th day of May, l%l. S. D. Linden, Q.C. Vice-Chtirm&7