HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0128.Siddiqi.81-11-02IN THE WTTER OF AN ARSITRATION
Under The
CRONN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: M. A. Siddiqi
and
The Crown in Right of Ontario
Ministry of Correctional Services
Grievor,
Employer.
Before: E. B. Jolliffe, Q.C. Vice-Chairman
A. G. Stapleton Member
I. J. Thomson Member
For the Grievor:
M. Mercer-De Santis, Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Unicn
For the Employer-:
J. Benedict, Manager, Staff Relations
Ministry cf Correctional Services
Hearings:
June 19 and 22, ig81
DECISION
The grievance of %r. N.A. Siddiqi, presented on
August 27. 1980, was as follows:
I grieve that I was *unfairly aid unjustly considered in
a recent competition for a position of Purchasing Officer re:
Cunpetition a-0019 (as attached),' in that a less able and
qualified ad less senior employee was chosen over me for this
position.
LKr . Siddiqi stated the settlement required to 'be the
following:
*
Roper reposting of the position and a fair and just
competition held.
In July, 1980, the grievor was a Purchasing Officer 2
with the Ministry af Government Services, a classification in
which he had served for three years after being a "Supply
Consolidation Analyst" with the same Ministry for three and
one-half years. He holds a bachelor's degree in commerce from
the Karachi University, gained in.1964, and has since taken
courses in purchasing, management, communications, contracts
and related subjects given by the iiegional ?olytecbnicai Instirute
and the P.M.X.C. (Purchasing Management Association of Canada).
Inthe July competition, the successful candidate,
<
-2-
Mr. Zenithan Lewis, was employed as a Jurchasing Officer 1
with the Yinistry of Housing from December 31, 1976, before rhich
he had been a Clerk 3 General for about one year with the Yinis:ry
of Community and Social Sacvices. His secondary school xas the
Islamia College and in 1973 he completed the second professional
year in dental surgery at Liaquat Medical College, University
of Sind. After coming to Canada, he obtained a certificate in
purchasing from 'ayerson in i977. a certificate in business
administration from the same institution in 1979.
LMr . Lewis had been notified of the hearing to be
held in this case. He attended in person and was given an
opportunity.to participate. At the close of evidence on June
19 he made a statement on his own behalf.
This case requires the interpretation and application
of Article 4.3 in the collective agreement between Management
Board of Cabinet and Ontario Public Service Employees UnLon,
effective from January 1, 1980. It is as follows: . v
4.3 In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall give primary
consideration to quuications and ability to psrfon
the required duties. 'Nhere qualifications ard ability are,
relatively equal, length of continuous service shall be a
consideration.
-3-
!4r . Siddiqi has slightiy more seniority than :?r.
Lewis, having been first appointed on September 13, 1973:
Nr. Lewis was appointed tight days later, on September 21, 1373.
In opening the case, the griever's representative said
that, apart from having greater seniority, the grievor was
'manifestly superior to the success%1 candidate in that he had
the experience and other qua lifications of a ?urchasing Officer 2,
while .Mr. Lewis was a Purchasing Officer 1, with somewhat limited
experience. At the very least, she said, the grievor's quali-
fications and ability must be considered "relatively equal" to
those of !4r. Lewis.
In respect of the competition held in July, 1980, it
is convenient to summarize the testimony of the five witnesses
who participated.
.The grievor said that while an Analyst between 1973
and 1977 he worked on what are called "standing agreements,"
particularly in relation to fine papers, tapes, uniforms,
furniture and furnishings, plastic bags, etc. A standing
agreement would be established after going through a bidding
process as between suppliers and the Government for the our>oses
of achieving economies of scale and simplifying purchases. Cser
Xinistries were contacted for their needs, tender doc.Lments were
-4 -
then prepared with specr,, 'F'cations and circulared to vendors.
After evaluation of the resulting bids a standing agreement
would be prepared and distributed to all Ministries. Tk e
grievor was responsible for printing and distribution as %ell
as analysis.. In respect of some products, all purchases were
made by the Ministry of Government Services. !4any others,
however, were bought by the Mi.nistry concerned. It was also
part of the analyst's work to monitor the use of standing agree-
ments and to consider reports by vendors. The duration of
these agreements was 12 months; sometimes experience led to
price reductions. The grievor also did performance evaluation.
While an Analyst, Mr. Siddiqi was "closely supervised,"
but in 1977 he won a competition land became' a ?.0.2. Thereafter
he had much more responsibility. He bought office equipment
and supplies for the Ministry of Government Services and also
other Ministries, particularly purchases for capital projects.
A reorganization early in 1980 placed furniture, equipment and
furnishings within the scope of his work. The grievor was in . . _
charge of many specific orders. For any purchase valued at
more than Sl.000 but less than S5,OOO. written quotations frcm
at least five suppliers were required. If over S5,OOO. it vas
necessary to arrange a public tendering process, and more than
five tenders ilere needed. The grievor had authori:y to sign
for orders in value up to S2,OOO and -without supervision sould
i
-j-
write a tender form to be used by the bidders. if the Purchase
;iould cost more than $2,000, he had to get the approval of
superiors. It was also his duty to.check on deLivery dates
and condition of the goods supplied. if he received a com-
plaint about the result, he would collect the details, get the
supplier's side of the story and complete an investigation.
The grievor said he had good relations with both
vendors and users. He would see salesmen almost daily. iie
had to work on about 360 requisitions each month, prepare about
i5 tenders and handle approximately 200 purchase orders. TSere
is a ?olicy Manual governing purchases, but policies nay vary
a:mong diff
erent Ministries. He has become very familiar 'with
most of the Manual.
According to the griever, his principal reason for
seeking a lateral transfer from one P.0.2 position to another
P-O.2 position was. that he wished to work at a location closer
to his residence. The competition interview with him had
lasted about 45 minutes. He had no previous knowledge of the
three members of the Selection Board and had no complaint about
any of them. He conceded he had never had anything to do with
the purchase of food, but knew the procedure which ,;ould have to
be followed. He asserted that during the grievance Prccedure
the Ministry of Correctional Services had not put in an appearance:
c
-6- i
it was his understacding that the two Ministries had "squabbledL'
about responsibility in the matter.
Referring to his record, the griever said he had never
been disciplined, had been recommended for merit increases and
had been given good appraisals.
In cross-examination the grievor said he saw the
position specification for the job at Correctional Services
just before the interview and conceded he had not done mucS
preparation. Pe explained that he wanted to broaden his expel-
ience by serving in a-different Minis+- b-y as well as working at
a more convenient location, nearer to his home. Ae had entered
other competitions for P.0.2 and P-O.3 positions at Labouz an,d
also Community and Socials Services.
The second witness called by the representative of the .
grievor was Ms.
June Shoup of the Central Purchasing Branch,at
the Ministry of Government Services. Classified .4,ti1, she was
responsible for the work of the grievor and five others.- TSe
reorganization of February, 1980, brought office equipment and
furniture and furnishings within their jurisdiction. She gave
the grievor "all kinds of assignments" in connection with the
needs of all xinistries, Boards and Commissions. In his case,
she said, "a training period was not necessary" because as a
<
-7- I
P.0.2 he was "qualified to handle any commodity." Si‘.e sai< then
grievor required very little supervision and was a very good
worker. No problems arose: he could carry out any assignment
with no difficulty. His vacation in 1380 had been cancelied
because of a staff shortage. ?eferring to the difference
between a P.O.1 and a P.O.2, she said that~the former is net a
complex job and is supervised very closely; it could be regarded
as a training position. Cn the other hand, a'?.O.Z may be given
any assignment; if he is qualified, no guidance is needed. She
confirmed that the Ministry does get requisitions from the
tiinistry of Correctional Services.
According to Ms. Shoup the grievor was a very cooperative
worker, she had had no problems with him and no negative "feed-
backs" from suppliers or *users. in her. own experience she head
been zmember of selection boards. After 13 and one-half years
in purchasing she found the result in this case "very difficult
to understand,*' and was "surprised" that a P-O.1 had been the
successful candidate. She said she had not been consulted at all.
MS. Shoup testified that ;rhen an institution is
established all qurcSases are made by the Xinist:y of Government
Services : afterwards they may give orders on their own. She
explained that the Ministry concerned may either do their own
purchasing or may order through the Ministry of Government Services
-a-
In respect of food purchases, Ms. Shoup said she had no
experience, but understood it was done by relying on standing
agreements. in her opinion a ?.O.l would need at least a year's
training: but a P.0.2 was fully quaiified and needed no training.
All three members of the selection board were called
as witnesses by the employer's representative.
MS . Louise BcCabe has been a personnel administrator
with Correctional Services for the past three years, in charge
of staffing at the main office in Toronto. yanagers contact
her regarding vacancik and she arranges for postings and pre-
pares for competitions. Exhibit 11 is the report on the compe-
tition held in July, 1980,for the P.0.2 position at the main
office. It recommended the appointment of Yr. Lewis and Xs.
inez Savage as the alternate choice. Mr. Lewis was given a
composite of B plus, Xs. Savage B and Mr. Siddiqi 3 minus. As
appears on its fac'e, the report prepared by tis. McCabe (who was
chairman)contained an error; she originally.gave Hr. Siddiqi a
composite overall rating of C; when this was pointed out, she
ammended it to be a B minus. Exactly when this correction
occurred is not clear.
The rating charts, Cxhibits 12, 11 and i5, scored
candidates under five headings: (i) "Pxperience (vhich *%ould
-9-
be of value in the positionl", (2) "?now;edge (i.e. of tne
department, position, aims and policies, etcl," (31 "?ersonal
Cevelcpment (i.e. extra courses taken, books read, level of
formal education, etc);" (4) Supervisory Ability and/or
General Suitability for the Position," (5) "Communicative
Skills:" finally, "Overall Ratings." These were to be marked
A for excellent, B for good, C for fair. and 3 for unacceptable,
with a note that "ratings may be shaded with plus or minus
except lor D. I'
MS . McCabe gave Mr. Siddiqi 3 in categories (1) (21 and .
(31, a C plus in category (4), C in category (S) and (after
correction) an overall rating of 3 minus. She gave Ms. Savage
a B in all categories. She also gave Mr. Lewis a 3 in all
categories. Ms. McCabe said that the Roard did not have any
files on the candidates and that it was not "policy" to do so,
a statement she did not explain. Appraisals were unavailable.
According to Ms. XcCabe each candidate was asked
questions regarding knowledge and experience and "each ,was asked
the same questions," --- an assertion irreconcilable with that
'.. of another member of the 3oard, Mr. Groves. After the aeLection
Roard had decided its recommendation she did a reference check,
Exhibit 13, in respect of Nr. LerJis. The reply from the
Xinistry of %using was favourable, and the >ob was then offered
,: - 10 -
to him.
x.5. McCabe said she had taken part in more than 50
competitions. She had not read the class standards for a
P.O.2 but she did read the job specification and the applications
which came in. She usually reads decisions on the subject of
competitions. She was not aware that the Yinistry of Government
Services did some of the purchasing for Correctional Services
and did not know vhat is involved in the tendering system. She
also said that the policy of her Ministry is learned by training.
There wasa directive and a manual relating to~competitions and
she felt that the competition had complied with that directive.
In reply to a guestion from the Joard she said that she knows
now what standing agreements are but did 2ot know about it at'.
the time of the competition.-
!&. Robert C. Groves has .been Chief Purchasing Officer
with the Ministry for seven or eight years. Now in his 25th
year of service, he had considerable previous experience as a
P.O.1 and a P.O.2 His office is responsible for purchasing a
variety of items required by the %inistry's institutions. 3e
enforces po.Sicy and supervises a staff of 13, of whom two are
ranked D.O.2 and two are 1.0.3.
Mr. Groves checks requisitions and decides Mether
- .ll -
to call for 'written tenders or obtain tenders by telephone;
he decides on the specifications issued to suppliers, sees the
tenders received and determines the result. If the lowest
tender is not accepted, he must give reasons "for audit purposes."
He has occasionally served on the commodity committee dealing
with Government Services. His Ministry has many contacts At:!
suppliers, both at its offices and elsewhere. Since there are
48 institutions in different places, there is a great deal of
food purchased locally. Cuestioned about the relationshi? of
his Ministry with the Ministry of Government Services, he said
the latter draws up standing agreements and takes responsibility -
for construction contracts as well as janitorial services.
Certain special products are purchased by other Ministries ---
vehicles by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications,
drugs by the hinistry of Health, furniture by the Ministry of
Government Services. According to him, standing agreements are
not mandatory, but if he agrees with the form of a standing
agreement he is bound to follow it.
In Mr. Gro vei ' opinion, the requirements of a P.O.2
vary from one position to another because of the different
products they are.called on to purchase. He said he did not
really know what the diffe rence was betue& a ?.0.2 in his
Ministry and one in the hinistry of Government Services. Se
did not tnink :Sat his ;Yinistry'purchased inore than two percent
*., - 12 -
of its supplies (in dollar vaiue) through the :linistry of
Government Services.
Peferring to his rating chart, Xi. Groves said he
had scored Iyr. Lewis B in all categories but gave him an over-
all rating of 3 plus "because' he purchases many items which we
also purchase." Xe was influenced by the communication skills
displayed by Fir. Lewis and thought they'were superior to those
of Mr. Siddiqi: "those were my two reasons."
As for the questions asked,he said they were not alf
the same. Among them-was one about the candidate's reason for
seeking the job. Candidates were also asked what they had been
doing in their present jobs. However, he said, these questions
were not put to all candidates; the questions were a "smattering."
He did 'not think there was any need to ask &Fir. Siddiqi about
standing agreements or standing offers because at the +iinistry
of Government Services he would naturally know all about it. Xe
agreed that a P.0.2 is not a Trainee; it is a wor.king position.
he recalled .Mr. Siddiqi as a very quiet person: his presentation
was not quite as good as Nrl Groves thought it should be but
perhaps he had been nervous. ,Mr . Lewis spoke much better. If 1-1 e
made us understand what he was saying." The witness had read
the applicaiions before the interviews and assessed the candi-
dates generally as being a very good group. He had been in six
1
- 13 -
cr seven previous competitions.
In cross-examination :4r. Groves agreed that a ?.C.l
is reaily in a training position, but that one would expect a
P.0.2 to be fully trained. He said that the Manual of Supply
comes from the Yanagement Joard of the Cabinet, but his
Ministry also had a manual. So far as competitions were con-
cerned, Mr.. Groves said he had not received any guideiines. :ie
had marked his chart as the competi:ion proceeded, but gave Xr.
Lewis a 'B plus overall a fter interviewing all the candidates. *
He said' that Ys. Savage's 3 ~1;s on his chart was also an after-
thought. He gave Mr. Siddiqi 3 in all categories. He gave
Cr. Lewis a E in five categories but increased his overall
rating to 3 plus. He gave Ms. Savage 3 in four categories and
C in the second category, but as above mentioned increased
her overall rating to B plus.
The third member of the Board was !4r. George Sidey.
A veteran of 34 years in the civil service, he has been the
senior purchasing officer at the Ontario Science Centre for the
past 14 years,
with a staff of nine, including one 5.0.1. I3 i3 i 3
opinion the requirements of P.0 2 positions varied Twidely;
they iiere "all different." !ie thought the selection board was
looking for a buyer who did not need training. Zis ques:ions
had related to "reasons for applying" and other matters. C?.
-14- ’
his chart, Exhibit lS, he assessed each candidate, category 31
category, and filled in his overall ratings at the end. The
Poard interviewed all 13 candidates in one day. In asking his
questions he was looking for "practical knowiedge" and conmun-
ication skills. He said that he had read all the applications,
that the candidates were a "good group,,' that he had been a
sember of two other selection boards and that on this occasion
he had been asked by Mr. Groves to participate.
Hr. Sidey said he found Mr. Siddiqi difficult to
understand and therefore gave him a C rating for communication
skills: however, he-also rated the grievor C for knowledge and
C for supervisory ability and general suitability for the
position.
In cross-examination, Mr. Sidey conceded that there
are substantial di.fferences between requirements for a P.O.l
and a P.O.2, although there were certain techniques in common.
He did not receive copies of arbitration decisions and was not _
aware of any guidelines. He had not asked the grievor whether
he made any purchases for Correctional Services.
In re-examination Mr. Sidey emphasized that all ?.0.2's
must possess the same skills but he thought that some of those
at the Yinistry of Government Services are "s ecialisZs." P se
?, - 1S -
understood that Yr. Lewis had exper' lence with a ,,dide .,ar:ety
of purchases Xhile serving at: the Yinistry of iiousing and had
been a staff member on :he Tender Ailarcs Committee.
.?s appears from Exhibit 15, Mr. Sidey's ratings are
quite different from those given by the other two members of
the Joard. He .gave Xr. Lewis B olus in tSe second category,
3 in the first and third category, a C in the fourth category,
9 in the fi fth and 3 plus overall. He gave Hs. Savage 3 in
categories (1) (2) (3) and (51, a C in the fourth category +
(sugervisory ability, etc.) and a B overall. tie gave ?!!.
Siddiqi a B for experience, a C for knowledge, a 3 for per-
sonal development, a C for supervisory ability, etc., and a C
for communications skills. His overall rating of Xr. Siddiqi
was C plus.
On his own behalf, the successful candidate, Nr. .
Lewis,made a brief statement to the 3oard. He referred to a
wide variety of experience in making purchases for the ginistry
of Housing in three and one-half years and the fact that he
had served as a staff member on the Tender Awards Committee.
It was due to his experience that he had competed fcr a ?.0.2
position at Correctional Services, believing he was qualified.
,Yr . Lewis, it tias apparent, does have communication skills and
a pleasing personality.
- 16 -
In her argument the grievor's reoresentati,/e relied
heavily on the testimony given by ."Is. Shoup, '*hich establisbe4,
she said, that !Q. Lewis was a "speculative" choice _' keing onl:J
a 2.0.1 with limited experience, while Xr. Siddiqi was a graven
success as a P.O.2 for three years. She submitted that the.
selection board had failed to give primary consideration to
the qualifications of the candidate as required by Article 4.3
of the agreement. She.;aid the .mrocedure used by the selection
board was defective, and had led to an invalid result. She
referred to previous decisions by this Board such as Remark 14-S/17,
Hoffman 22/79. She said ns. HcCabe could not -
remember what had been asked of the candidates and had no list
of the questions. She was not familiar with the standards
for the job and real&y did not'k.now much about the policy in
respect of competitions.
Lr2.5 .
Nercer-BSantis disputed the theory that it is the
responsibility of the candidate to selL himself to a selection
board; the real responsibility is that of the selectors. It.
was significant, she argued,that the grievor had been rated
equally with ti. Lewis for "experience," uhen in fact their
experience was entirely different, one having been a ?.O.Z for
three years and the other having been a ?.O.l for a little longer.
b!s .
Mercer-De Santis suggested that the references made
- 17 -
by other witnesses to Mr. Siddiqi's communicative abilities
showed some prejudice against his accent: the comments bad
Seen discriminatory. Xr. Groves had also rated the txo men as
equal in experience, which was absurd. It would have been useful
for the selection board to possess previous appraisals of the
candidates, but they had none. The third member of the board,
Nr . Sidey, thought that the grievor lacked knowledge, and had
rated him C. This was incredible in the light of his suc:ess
as a i7.0.2. Inierviewing 13 candidates in one day was a rushed
competition, according to hs. Mercer-Ce Santis.
As for the remedy, she submitted that (notwitSs:anding
the griever's request in his grievance for another competition)
he was so clearly superior to the successful candidate that he
should be: awarded the position at once. She complained that
the employer, in this case the Ministry of Correctional Services,
had refused to meet with the griever and the union during the
grievance procedure, so that proper processing .of the matter
had been blocked'by a'jurisdictional dispute. . .
For ~the employer W. 3enedict argued that xhat had
to be:considered here was one job in particular --- not just
that of any P-0.2. 4(r. Senedict cited Doherty 43175 as au:h-
ority for distinguishing between quality and ability, tnese
being tiio distinct capacities. In that case ?rofessor Zeatty
- la -
had discussed the term "primary con.sideratiDn," wh:ch must be
related to the actual duties of the position and not considered
in the abstract.
Mr. Benedict pointed out that according to !4r. Sidey,
a manager with great experience, not all P.0.2 jobs are the
same or similar. Thus tSe class standard was irrelevant ar.d
meaningless.
The rating forms, he said, had been completed inde-
. pendently. The Soard had known that there were tvo c.ompaiisons
to be made, one between the relative qualifications of the
candidates and the other being the candidate's qualifications
in relation to the job requirements. ,Mr. Groves had given a :
B plus overall to Mr. Lewis in comparison to other candidates
because of his experience in handling a greater variety of
purchases and because he had better communicative skills. The
important thing was that the selection board was utianimous.
The difference between a rating of 3 and a rating of B minus
was conclusive. It was clear that Nr. Siddiqi had placed third.
YS . Savage, a P.O.l, aiso from the Hinistry of Zousing,uas
clearly second.
The grievor and Fir. Lewis were relatively equal in
te.spect of educational background, but according to Yr. Benedict
- 19 -
the grievor's experience was rather li;;lited and largel:z
theoretical. it 'was only in recent months that he had any
experience in dealing with office furniture. in intar-personal
skills, including tact and communication, Xr. Lewis was judged
better. Mr. Groves was in an excellent position to assess the
candidates because of his experience and his work as chief of
purchasing in the Hinistry. No doubt .Yr. Siddiqi WOUid be ',*ery
.good in his present job, but it does not follow that he r&ould be
,-ood in "this particular job" at the Yinistry of' Correctional
Services. No one had thought ;X.r. Siddiqi to ‘be a .*eak candidate.
it was just that he was not as strong as Xr. Lewis. ?erhaps -
the griever had the disadvantage of being a specialist at the
Hinistry of Government Services. ,Hr. Benedict denied that t:he
two candidates were "relatively equal" and submitted that the
selection board's conclusion was reasonable and correct. Even
if the difference between the two was not very great in the
context of the job,, it was "a significant difference." The
methods used may not have been perfect, but members of the
selection board were well qua3ified to exercise a judgment,
which they had done. The alleged obligation to read files and
appraisals on all candidates was simply not feasible. if any
were to be read, they should all be read. Ur. Senedict said
there are marked differences in the style of both appraisals and
personnel racords. The selection board was justified in relying
heavily on the interviews conducted with the candidates and on
‘i - 20 -
the applications submitted. The candidates had been svsteaati-
tally assessed, each was granted an interview, theiz.a;plica:ions
were read, the questions were job-related azd board members
knew as a result of prior discussion vhat tiiey should ascertain.
Noreover there was a further discussion after the interviews.
Yost cases, Mr. Benedict pointed out, involved a
candidate who placed second; in this case the grievor had
placed third. r\s indic'ated in Doherty, the onus was not on t:?e
Ministry to justify its choice. There was a heavy onxs on the
grievor to prove his superiority.
As for the proposed remedy, ,Yr. Benedict said that
- XT the aoard finds the two candidates to be "relatively equal,"
a new competition should be held. To appoint the grievor now
would compound the errors of management. X new competition
should not be directed unless a serious injustice. had occurred.
In reply Ms. Nercer-Ce Santis said tSat in the ahertv
case the language was different from the language in this case.
If the necessary procedures are known, there would be no
difficulty for a P.0.2 in,applying them to the purchases of
different commodities such as the food or desks in which t?e
xinistry seemed to be interested. In her view the authority
to give orders up to $2,000 in value was inaortant 'because it
‘i - 21 -
indicated the degree of responsibility vested in a 2.0.2.
In this case the Board finds it necessary to analyse
the ratings given to the 13 candidates in the competition of
July, 1980, with special reference to the ratings given for
experience and knowledge. The candidate's knowledge may be a
matter of opinion on the part of a selection board, but
experience appears clearly on the record and could be objectively
rated by any selection board. On the next page appears a table
showing the scores received by the 13 candidates in respect of
experience, knowledge and the overall average resulting from t'he
ratings in the five c&egories used.
It is obvious from the table that the scores given far
"experience" were strange, to say the least. .rir. Siddiqi, ,'tr.
Lewis and Ms. Savage received a B for "experience" from all three
members of the board. Even more curious, the same score of a
'was given‘to candidate Tobin, who had teen a P.O.1 for only
one year. The actual experience of these four candidates *was far
from being equal. Candidate Rossetto, seven years a P.O.l, also
received 3 for experience from all tSree members 'of the board.
On the other hand, two other candidates classified P.0.2, one
for seven years and another for four, recei.Jed considerably
lower scores for "exprience." To sum up, all this *was no?
objective scoring. it isems to have been based on Generai im-
pressions rat-er than :.ie facts.
- 22 -
RATINGS
(Exhibits It, I.4 ad 13)
Fx. = Sxprierre ‘El. = ?nowle?ge
Robinson
Korn
Tobin
Taylor
Rossetto
Young
Siddiqi
Adam
Spence
Ashton
Lewis
King
3- c+ a-
a-c c
a J+B
c c c
B C 3-
cc B- c-b
a a a-
,8-c c
c c c-’
c c c
B B 3
c c c
c c, c
a a 3+
c c 'C
a c a
c 3 a,
a a 3
c c c
c a c
c a c
a a a+
3-b ci a
c c cc
3 A' ai
a c c+
3 c ;1*
c c c+
3 c c+
c c ,c
D 3 c
3 c c
a a+ a+
c c c - - - B DC
Savage a B B a c a+ 3 3 3+
IJe cannot accept the novel argcaeat that class s+an-
dards are "irrelevant and meaningless." Comparing the class
standards for a P.O.l and a P.O.2 in Exhibit 4, it tecomes clear
there is a real difference in responsi'bility and the skills
required. A.5 all witnesses agreed, ic is a "5Gtstantial
?Ol 20 mths
501 21 mths
PO1 1 year
Cl5 Gen 1 yr
PO1 7 years
PO1 6 mEhs
PO2 3 years
PO2 7 years
Cl5 Gen 3 yrs
PO2 4 years
PO1 3+ years
Cl3 Gen,Xcting
PO2 2 mths
PO1 3 years
,McCabe
Ex., Kn. 0.
0. = *erall
G:oves
a. :Yn.o..
SidPY
Ex. :a.c.
- 23 -.
difference. '1 In fact, they described the P.0.i Le'vel as that of
a "trainee." It thus becomes rather quixotic to pretend that
one yea: as a ?.O.l is equal to three years as a P.0.2. In
short, the scores given to candidates for "experience" cast
doubt on the judgment of the selection board when it came to
other matters such as knowledge of the work, personal develop-
ment and supervisory ability.
Xe are not‘persuaded that Mr. Siddiqi had tecome a
"specialist" at the Ministry of Government Services to the
point where he would te unqualified to serve at the same level
in the Xinistry of Correctional Services. Cddly enough, it
was argued that Mr. Lewis had the advantage of experience in
purchasing a wide variety of products at the ?linistry of iiousing,
uhile at the same time it was argued that Vr. Siddiqi was too
much of a specialist when he engaged in purchasing products on
behalf of all Ninistries, including Correctional Services. In
that connection, the logic of the explanations given by Hr.
Groves and .Hs. Sidey is somewhat mystifying.
There are other anomalies which tend to support the
assertion of the grievor's representative that the competition
was carried out in a rush. For example, Yr. Sidey wrote a
comment on his rating chart that Yr. Lewis was Mexcellent" for
"knowledge, I' but gave him a score of S plus. On t.he key to the
.llS for 3 scoring chart it is clearly stated that excellence ca
of A, not 3 plus.
The seiection board appears to have attached great
importance to communicative skills. No doubt they are important.
but it seems likely that experiences at a responsible level and
knowledgecf purchasing procedures and policies are even more
important.
Sprinkled throughout one of the rating charts are
remarks such as "very personable young lady," this being a '
comment on "communicative skills." Others were "good --- very
pleasant, would fit in well;" "good, very personable young man:"
“very pleasant young lady." Such comments and several state-
ments made by seiection board members in their testimony suggest
that they may have been unduly influenced by pleasing personal-
ities. This, after ally, was not a personality Contest, and the
primary consideration was supposed to be "qualifications and
ability to perform the required duties."
Selection board members showed no.knouledge of and
little interest in what jlere referred to as "guideliAnes" in
respect of competitions. They failed to persuade this Boa:d
that they were conscious of principles Which have ‘been recoqni red
by the Civil Service Commission, by Article 4 .3 in the collective ~.
- 25 -
agreement and% decisions of this 3oard. Ror example, It has
repeatedly been emghasized tSat Lt LS not sufficient for a
selection board to rely exclusively on interviews and written
applications. In this case it is clear there was nothing
else to assist in saking a choice. The following comment at
page 24 of Zllsworth 361/80, a unanimous decision of this
3oard. is applicable here:
A better approach muld have been to prepare a file on
eat!! candidate, includirq t!he application and attached histo=!,,
all available parformance appraisals and letters of reference,
if any, ad to stu* the file carefully b&ore each interview.
The "track record" of a candidate, qocd, bad or i-different, may
well. be more significant then tie impression made by the
can&date at a brie interview.
Relevant comments were made in an earlier case,
Remark 149~177 --- also a unanimous decision --- at pages 12
and 13:
Wile Wr. Qainn tried to be fair ‘by drawing up questions in
advance to pose to all applicants. the nature of kis cpestions
leaves something to be desired. l'bey are largely directed to
personal suitability, acd 5qeWsory s&.Us., leaving untested the
car&date's knowledge of assessment information . . . . . guesticffi
are only helpkl and fdrr if +-hey refiect the regukemats of Ce
job and test the applicant's suitability therefor- . . . . . tie
3oard was concerned by the attention to &-son& suitability
factors in Kr. Remark's case that %ere not relevant to his ability
to fill the job solr;ht . . . . .
- 25 -
testified were extremely hazy and somewhat u.nccmmunLcative
about the questions actually put to candidates. So kitten
list could be produced. The question about which they .dere
most explicit related to Mr.. Siddiqi's reason for seeking
the job at Correctional Services. he was frank in stating
that Se would like to work at a location nearer to his home.
The question, however, was irrelevant. it had nothing to do
with his "qualifications and ability to perform the required
duties," yet Mr. Sidey said: "hy questions related to his
reasons for applying for the job, etc."
The interim decision in Quinn 9/73 --- also unanimous
--- contains pertinent findings on a defective selection pro-
cess e After reviewing the facts of the case, ?rofessor
P~richard said at page 11:
The first defect in the selection process was that only
one of the three interviewers red the personnel files of the
candidates.
In this case of course, we have been told that no
one had read any personnel file relating to any -andidate.. i
The selection board relied exclusively on written applications
and the interviews.
The next finding was as follows:
i
‘I:
- 27 -
??-e seccnd defect m tSe process was tFar ae inter.Cetier
did not ask the suprvisors of the candidates to provide
evaluaticns of the candidates' isrk performance.
The same defect is found here. T!?e Quinn decision
had been in circulation since December, 1979, and Ns. YcCabe
testified that she usualiy read decisions on the subject of
comoetitions. However, the only query about a candidate's
performance was addressed to the .Cnistry of Sousi.ng --- after
the selection board had chosen Mr. Lewis. The selec'ion e
board could easily have obtained MS. Shoup's-evaluation of '
the grievor; her office is also in Toronto. The same applies
to the supervisors of other candidates.
As a third defect, the 3oard found in Quinn that
there had been "no systematic information" gathered as to the
relative abilities of the candidates to perfo:m important
duties of the position for which they were competing, "whether
from supervisors or from written evaluations." The same can
be said in this case.. In place of "systematic information"
we find that the selection board proceeded on general
impressions gained fr om 13 interviews in one lay. zlis is
simply not good enough.
TVO further comments may be in order.
- 28 -
The third category shown on the rating charts iias
"Personal Deveiopment (i.e. extra'courses taken, books read,
le-.el of formal education, etc.)"
It will be noted that "level of formal education" is
specifically mentioned.
The three members of the selection board gave a 3
in this category to most candidates, including Lewis, Savage,
Tobin and Siddiqi. As far as disclosed by the comments with
the third category (afd the resumes filed by candidates Lewis
and Siddigi) the only candidate with a university degree was
the grievor. His degree is not mentioned in the rating
comments. They merely mention courses at 3yerson and I.Y.X.C.
(without making clear how many) and of course Zyerson and
P.M.A.C. is mentioned opposite the names of most other candi-
dates.. The particulars given in the griever's resume appear
to have been ignored. Although.it was asserted in argument
that Messrs. Lewis and Siddiqi were "relatively egual in
education," the fact is that the griever's level sJas,much
higher. If any other.candidate had a Bachelor's degree in
Commerce, it was a well-kept secret. LYoreover, since coming
to Canada, the grievor had taken not one but many courses in
purchasing and management as,.well as a course in contracts.
- 29 -
Our second comment relates :o ::<e ar;-sent thai
althcugh the grievor may have Seen *diei suited to his ;~ork at
the Yinistry of Governmen: Services, t?.ere was something so
different about the work of a purchasing agent at Correctional
Services that he would be less qualified than a ?.O.l from the
tiinistry of 3ousi;lg. sxplanations were extremely hazy. It
was said for example that he .4ad EO experience in purchasing
food. it was not explained, however, just how mu& tke
Ministry of Housing is involved in food purchases. TSe obscure
reasons given in this cor.n&tion almost'suggest that the
Ministry thought the grievor knew a 1Ft-,le too much about
standing agreements and other purchasing procedures or that
(as one of the rating chart comments said) he might want to
make some changes.
Cur conclusion, for all the reasons stated above,is
that the result of the competition challenged in this case was
not reached on proper or adequate grounds and must be set aside.
We have given thocght to the plea that the appoint-
ment at
the Ministry of Correctional Services should be.
awarded here and now to Mr. Siddiqi as the "manifestly superior"
candidate .-
It seems to '2s t?.a:, at t*e very least, the griever' s
- 30 -
"qoalifica:ions and abi:ity" 2e:e relatively ec.uaL to those of
the SuCCessfui. candidate. Severtheless, :Sere are t'*o reasons
for which we are hot prepared to decide that as the Senior
candidate he should now be given the lateral transfer be sOu:Fkt.
Our first reason is the paucity of - lnrormation atou t
the precise nature of the duties to be performed at Correctional
Services. The Josition Specification &in evi,dehce as Sxhibit 7,
and it does not appear to include duties c;reatly different from
those of the position occupied by the grievor at the Hinis:ry,;
of Government Services, Exhibit 10. Eowever, the employer's
witnesses have insisted that there is a real difference and
the grievor lacked the facilities to explore that matter frilly.
A second ,and more important reason is that the grievor
in his grievance expressly requested "proper reposting of the
position and a fair and just competition held." We are not
persuaded that it would be proper for us to amend or rewrite
that request. Noreover , we have had no opportunity to assess
the merits of all candidates as a selection board can and ihouid
assess them.
it is thus necessary that a new competition be held,
proceeding as far as possible on the basis of the situaticn as
it exis?ed ih July, 1980. In other word. the 2ew selection
- 31 -
board should not take into account the exqer&er.ce SE an?
candidate in any position occupied since ;uly, Lgao.
The new competition should be open to all pers0r.s
who were candidates in the 1980 competition.
In the cixumstances ic is, IAn cur opinion, essential
that an entirely new selecticn board should be found :o conduct
the competition and that it should be chosen ar.d constituted, I
with appropriate direstives, by the Civil Service Commission
of Ontario.
r concur
A. G. Stapleton Xember
i concur
35 : jce I. ;. Thomson Yenber