HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0280.Kerrigan.82-10-25i;, . y;
ONTARIO
CROWN tMPLOYEtS
GRIEVANCE
SETTLEMENT
BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
Before:
OPSEU (Marlene Kerrigan)
Grievor
- And -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Consumer and Commercial
Relations)
Employer
J. W. Samuels Vice Chairman E. McIntyre Member
M. Gibb Member
For the Grievor: N. Luczay Grievance/Classification Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
For the Employer: J. J. O'Shea Staff Relations Administrator
Personnel Services Branch Ministry of Consumer and Connnercial Relations
Hearing: October 6, 1982
- 2 -
The grievor is a Clerk 3 General employed by the Ministry
of Consumer and Commercial Relations as a Registration and Recording
Clerk in the Welland Registry Office. She has been so engaged since
November, 1979. She;applied for a lateral transfer to a job which
is virtually identical in the St. Catharines office - that of an
Abstract Clerk. The competition for the position attracted three
candidates and the grievor was unsuccessful: The successful candi-
date was Mrs. S. Warkinton, who was present at our hearing. The
grievor claims that her long related experience should have given
her the job.
:
The situation is really very sisple. The Ministry engaged
in a selection process which involved a proper job posting; appli-
cations by the candidates; a preliminary screening by the Land
Registrar in St. Catharines (who determined that all three persons
should be interviewed); an interview before the -Land Registrar, his
Senior Deputy, and the Senior Deputy from Hamilton, which was fairly
conducted and involved relevant questions and an appropriate method
of’scoring (there is no need to relate the evidence on this matter--
there is really no meaningful challenge which can be made to the
manner of the interview); a consideration of the candidates’ job
performance through personal knowledge of the i?egistrar and his
Deputy with respect to two of the candidates, who worked in the
St. Catharines office, and consultation with the griever’s Registrar
in Welland (all three candidates came well recommended); and finally
a ~consideration of all the information acquired. The decision was
that the successful candidate and the griever were equally weil-
.> ,__
- 3 -
suited in terms of ability and qualifications for .the position,
that the successful candidate had just over one year more seniority
with the Ministry, and therefore the position should be given to
the successful candidate.
The griever’s real complaint isthatshe has had long years
of experience as a title searcher outside the Ministry, and she
argues that this should make her a more qualified candidate than
the successful applicant, who had little experience in the field
before her hiring by the Ministry. .However, the successful appli-
cant had been doing all the tas,ks involved in the job in question
no
loyment
support
for roughly one year, and was doing a fine job. She needed
training whatsoever to.move straight into the full-time emp
as an Abstract Clerk. In my view, there was no evidence to
the griever’s claimthatshe was better in qualifications and ability
for the job in question (see Bullen, 113/82, and earlier decisions
cited therein). The evidencedid show that the qrievor is a very
fine employee, and’ that the public who deal with her in the Registry
Office have high praise for her helpfulness and personal charm (a
fact which was confirmed by her presence at the hearing) . However,
it is clear that the successful candidate is also a very good employee.
The Collective Agreement provides in Article 4.3 that ‘
primary consideration shall be given. to qualifications and ability
to perform the required duties, and that where the qualifications
and ability are relatively equal, length of continuous service shall
be a consideration. This does not say that seniority must govern,
but the implication is that it will be a strong factor, jihere no
c. , -. 2
-4-
other circumstances would come to bear. Here there are no other
circumstances. The employees are relatively equal in qualifications
and ability, and the successfu ,l applicant has greater seniority.
In sum, the Ministry has complied with the Collective
Agreement and the grievance is denied.
Done at London, Ontario, this zs’day o’fa;GdI, , 1982.
E. McIntyre, Nember
6: 3210
6: 3220
1. Grievance Form
2. Posting
3. Position Specification: Abstract Clerk
4. Application of grievor
5. Application of incumbent
6. Interview questions
7. Scores
a. Position Specification: Registration and Recording Clerk
-5-
LIST OF EXHIBITS