Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0390.Brooks.82-11-22IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: .Before: Fo;the Griever: For the Employer: Hearing: OPSEU (Kathleen Brooks) Grievor - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) 'Employer R. L. Verity, Q.C. Vice Chairman E. McIntyre ,Member E. A. McLean Member G. Richards Grievance/Classification Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union R. Rey Regional Personnel Administrator Human Resources Branch Ministry of Health November 8, 1982 - 2 - DECISION In a Grievance dated June 16th, 1982, Kathleen Brooks grieves her failure to be awarded the posted position of "Group Leader, Information and Assistance Clerk" (Clerk 4 Classification) at Kingston. By way of settlement, she requests that she be awarded the position. The successful applicant, Robert Barr, was notified of the Hearing, and elected not to attend. The Griever's seniority substantially predates that of Mr. Barr: The Grievor has accumulated some 13 years experience with the Ministry of,Health, and her seniority dates back to November 3rd, 1969. She has held her present position as Information Clerk at the O.H.I.P. Hamilton office since March .~ 30th, 1981. Her prior experience was that of a Claims Clerk from 1969 to March of 1981, during which time she worked in Hamilton, Kingston and Mississauga. The successful incumbent's seniority dates back to 1974. From June of 1974 to February of 1978, he was a Claims Clerk (General 3 Classification), and from February 1978 to the date of the competition in May of 1982 he had been an Information Services Clerk at Kingston. A Position Specification and Class Allocation Form for the position title "Group Leader, Information and Assistance Clerk" (Clerk 4 General) was introduced into evidence (Exhibit 2). - 3 - The job posting for the position in question was prepared pursuant to that Position Specification and reads as follows (Exhibit 3): "MINISTRY OF HEALTH KINGSTON DISTRICT OHIP OFFICE HAS A VACANCY FOR CLERK 4 GENERAL (GROUP LEADER INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE) $321.80 e $366.06 The Kingston District OHIP Office has an opening for a Clerk 4 General, Group Leader Information and Assistance. The successful applicant will be required to provide leadership, technical guidance and instruction to Customer Services staff who provide service to the general public, subscribers, groups, hospitals, practitioners and other Health care facilities administered by the Ministry of Health through a public counter facility, by telephone and in writing. QUALIFICATIONS: A sound background in a related.clerical environment. . Thorough knowledge of all OHIP functions, departments, governing acts, regulations and manuals, and a basic knowledge of office administration. Ability to communicate effectively with various levels of OHIP staff and the public. Must display strong leadership qualities and supervisory skills as well as courteous manner. LOCATION: 1055 Princess Street, Suite 401, Kingston, Ontario. Qualified applicants should submit applications to: Personnel Department Kingston District OHIP Office' 1055 Princess Street; Suite 401 P. 0. Box 9000 Kingston, Ontario K7L 5A9 COMPETITION #HL-43-006-82 -4- AREA OF SEARCH: ALL OHIP OFFICES POSTING DATE: MAY 4, 1982 CLOSING DATE: MAY 17, 1982 EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR EMPLOYMENT" In the instant Grievance, 17 candidates applied for the job, and 8 of those candidates were interviewed on May 26th, 1982. The selection committee was comprised of How,ard McKever, Manager of Customer Services O.H.I.P. Office, Kingston,; Dorothy Bright, Administration Manager; and Pat Sherry from the Ministry's Human Resources Branch. Mr. McKever and Mrs. Bright knew all of #the applicants personally, with the exception of the Grievor. Pat Sherry knew none of the applicants. Interviews for the position were approximately 30 to 45 minutes in duration. APP~ icants were assessed on the, basis of their individual applicati, ons, and their answers to a list of questions presented at the interview. The questions and their mark assignments read as follows (Exhibit 7): COMMUNICATION "COMPETITION #ML-43-006-82 GRP LDR INFO & ASSIST CLK 5 pts. A) Having specif duties read the job posting and position ication describe briefly what your as a Group Leader, Information and Assistance Clerk would be? 5 pts. 8) Would you elaborate on the skills that you have developed that are relevant to this position? , - 5 - MOTIVATION 5 pts. A) What do you think will be the most challenging part of this position? 5 pts. 8) Where do you see yourself going in this organization in 3-5 years? FLEXIBILITY 4 pts. A) What effect to drastic changes in policy and application have on you? 6 pts. B) It is 11:45 and you are helping a subscriber with multiple problems, one of the, clerks reporting to you.needs your advice and your have someone waiting-to go to lunch with you. What would you do? JUDGEMENT 5 pts. A) What qualities would you look for in a Supervisor or Group Leader? 5 pts. B) What is your strongest quality? What is your weakest quality? RELIABILITY 5 pts. A) In our assessment of employees one of the criteria we use is under the heading reliability/dependability. Explain reliability/dependability means to you. 5 pts. B) What importance do you place on punctuality? Are you usually punctual? STRESS TOLERANCE 7 pts. A) As you probably know there are applicants within the unit who have applied for the position. If you are the successful applicant how would you handle obvious resentment in an employee? 3 pts. 8) What kind of pressu.res bother you most? Why? - 6 - 5 pts. A) You answer the phone and immediately a very irate individual starts shouting at you, usins abusive lanauao,e. How would handle the situation? " - 5 pts. B) You overhear one of your clerks giving a subscriber at the counter wrong informat what would you do? ATTENDANCE ion, 5.pts. A) What do you think is an acceptable attendance record for a 12 month period? perfect - 5 points 1 day absence - 3 points 2 days absence - 1 point over 2 days - 0 points EXPERIENCE 5 pts. 6 months,- 1 year 1 poi 1 - 2 year 'years 2 poi 2 Years and over 3 poi nt nts nts application neatness 2 points" The selection committee assigned 10 marks for each of the following categories - Communication; Motivation; Flexibility; Judgement; Reliability; Stress Tolerance; Tact; and Personal Suitability. In addition a possible 5 marks were .assigned for Attendance and Experience. The total possible marks were 90. -7- Each member of the selection committee assigned marks independently for the individual candidates, and the candidates'total scores by each of the three interviewers were compiled and averaged. Mr. Barr was awarded a total of 73 marks, while Kathleen Brooks received 61 marks. The Grievor placed third highest in total average marks in the overall interviews of the 8 applicants. On behalf of the Grievor, George Richards argued that there was no substantial difference between the Grievor and the successful incumbent, and that accordingly seniority should have governed to award the position to the Grievor. In addition, he was critical of the subjectivity of the selection procedures. Mr. Rey on behalf of the Ministry argued that there was a substantial difference between the two applicants, and in particular that the Grievor's one year of related experience in customer services .did not equal the incumbent's four years of related experience in that position. The Article in dispute is Article 4.3 of the Collective Agreement which reads as follows: In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall give primary consideration to qualifications and ability to perform the required duties. Where qualifications and ability are relatively equal, length of continuous service shall be a consideration. . -a- In a determination of the issue, this Board has real concerns regarding the adequacy of the selection board procedures. In our view, these procedures were so patently defective that the results of the competition should be set aside. The selection committee did not review the Grievor's personnel file. In addition the Grievor's appraisals were not available to the Selection Committee. Two of the three panel members had an appraisal of each of the other candidates, with the exception of the Grievor, as a result of a working relationship with those other candidates. Appraisals should have been utilized 'at least for then Grievor to minimize the possibility of bias. While it is acceptable to ask a series of que~stions during an interview for a job posting, the questions must be relevant and related to the job, and must be properly weighted. In the instant Grievance, in our view the questions posed were poorly designed, and not properly weighted in relation to the job. For example, the questions posed bore little or no reference to technical knowledge. Surely, one of the main purposes of an interview is to assess knowledge. Questions should have been designed to obtain objective knowledge concerning each of the candidates relative abilities. - 9 - During the interviews Communication and Motivation were weighed equally. In cross-examination, Mr. McKever admitted that the Communication component of the job was the single most important criteria. Accordingly, Communication should have received a higher weighting in the selection criteria. In addition, in our opinion, the second question under the heading of Motivation has little relevance to the job in question. I Und.er the heading of Personal Suitability in Exhibit 8, it is our view that a selection committee was engaging in a highly subjective area which is of questionable value in the end result. In our view, the question related t'o absenteeism and the scoring for the various answers is absurd. Arbitral jurisprudence of the Grievance Settlement Board is now well established in competition grievances. We adopt the rationale of Mr. Jolliffe as stated in Ellsworth et al and Ministry of Community & Social Services, 361/80 at page 24: A better approach would have been to prepare a file on each candidate, including the application and attached history, all available performance appraisals and letters of reference, if any, and to study the file carefully befo The 'track record' of a candidat i i indifferent, may well be more s the impression made by the cand interview. re each interview. e, good, bad or gnificant than date at a brief In Hoffman et al and Ministry of Transportation & Communications, 22/79, Professor Barton states at page 7: Included in the process of reviewing the selection process is a requirement that if certain questions were asked of each applicant, those questions be tested to see whether or not they reasonably relate to the requirements of the job. A finding that some of these questions were not so relate.d, provides some evidence at least of an irregularity in the selection process. In Puinn it was held that the Selection Committee was not sufficiently well informed and this Board directed the Ministry to reopen the competition and try again. In particular the Board there was concerned that there was no evidence given of any regular system of work performance appraisal and that no supervisors~were asked about the candidates. The Board was also concerned that only one member of the Interview Committee read the personn.el files of the applicants and that the.re were few if any questions concerning one of the qualifications required, super- visory skill. The Board was also concerned that th.e decision seemed to rest exclusively on the interview. In the instant Grievance, the decision was made exclusively on total scores obtained in answer to questions at the interview. It may very well be that the successful incumbent was the superior candidate in terms of relative ability. However, on the evidence presented, it is this Board's finding that the management selection procedures were so defective that the competition results must be set aside and a fresh competition between the Grievor and the successful candidate is merited. The selection procedures followed in - 10 - - 1 ?+ .ck - 11 - this case were unduly subjective. On the evidence, it is difficult to determine whether the qualifications and abilities of the Grievor were relatively "equal" to those of Mr. Barr. The reason is obviously the deficiency in the selection procedures followed. The Grievor has considerable experience to her credit, and is both tactful and articulate. At the Hearing, the portrayal of the qualifications and abilities of the successful incumben are less clear. Accordingly, we would order a rerun of the competition restricted to Mr. Barr and the Grievor. We are of the opinion that the Selection Committee should be a fresh panel having knowledge of the requirements of the position and appointed by the Ministry or other appropriate authority. That Selection Panel should not take into consideration any experience gained by either party subsequent to the date of the initial application. In addition, Mr. Barrand the Grievor shall have the right to make fresh applications as of the date of initial application. The intervi ews should review in detail the personnel file and appraisals of each applicant, and the testing procedures should be designed to elicit relevant technical knowledge. This Award should not be viewed as a criticism of the actions of Mr. McKever. He was thoroughly honest and candid in his testimony before the Goard. We recognize that - 12 - it is not an easy task for managers to develop objective criteria for selection procedures. In view of the considerable accumulation of arbitral precedent available to senior Ministry personnel, it is indeed surprising that there is not some form of standardization of procedures and guidelines developed from the Ministry for the assistance of.junior management. Accordingly, this Grievance shall succeed in.part. DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 22nd day of November, A.D., 1982. ?i-. L. VERITY, Q.C. -- VICE CHAIRMAN E. MCINTYRE -- MEllEER 2100 2310 E. A. MCLEAN -- MEMBER