HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0472.Tenszen.83-08-08MEMORANDUN
Re: 472/82 CUPE (MS :Elsie Tenszen) and Crown/Ontario (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing)
Please attach the attached copy of Mr. Roberts' dissent
to your copy of 472/82 Tenszen.
ch
Toronto, Ontario
August 8, 1983
Attach.
1
. . . -5
CUPE (Elsie Tenszen) and Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing - File #472/82
DISSENT
I have read the award of the Board relative to the above
grievance, and I regret that I cannot agree with the decision
reached.
The resolution of this grievance, in my opinion, must
arise from the interpretation and application of Article 6.88
of the currect Collective Agreement, which is reported in r
full at the foot of page 7 of the Award.
There are two distinct elements to this Article 6.08.
The first, beginning from the start of the article and ending
with the words "and recall" (i.e. the first full sentence of
the article), sets out that--"seniority shall be the primary
consideration in determining preference or priority for an
employee for promotion, transfers, demotion, lay-off, permanent
reduction of the work force, and recall."
The second element of Article 6.08, outlined in the re-
maining two sentences of the article, modifies the first
element, noted above, by providing for the consideration
by the Employer of "qualifications and ability" between em-
ployees who are candidates for"promotion or transfer."
Seniority shall be the determining factor in selecting
an employee for "promotion or transfer"--"where the qualifi-
cations and ability of two or more candidates are relatively
equal."
My interpretation of this section of the article leads
me to read that seniority.shall be the determining factor
only where the qualifications and ability of two or more
-2-
candidates are relatively equal.
The onus is on the Grievor to convince the Board that
her qualifications and ability are relatively equal to those
of the Incumbent.
Requirements of the position in dispute--"Tenant Place-
ment Officer-Home Visitor" --which the Employer regards as
key requirements and which were those most extensively dis-
cussed before the Board are, home visits, tenant placements
and interview experience.
Evidence before the Board as to the relative capabilities
of the Grievor and the Incumbent in these areas, is reflected
accurately in the following statements from the Award:
Page 6-(second paragraph)-"The Board accepts the Griever's
evidence that she did conduct home visits and tenant place-
ments between July and December of 1971 when she was acting
Manager of the Welland office. During that period she did
acquire some experience in home visits. However, the evidence
is undisputed that Mrs. Giovinazzo (the Incumbent) had
extensive experience in home visits and tenant placements
in 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975."
Page 9 (final paragraph)-"In the instant grievance, it may be
said that Mrs. Giovinazzo (the Incumbent) has greater experience
in home visits and tenant placements than the Grievor, and a -
more varied background of interview experience." (Underlining is
mine.)
Accordingly, from these two conclusions drawn from evidence,
it must be apparent that the qualifications and ability of the
-3-
Incumbent in the key areas noted is measurably greater than
the Grievor's.
Applying this fact to the second section of Article
6.08 as set out above could only lead me to the conclusion
that the Employer had given the proper consideration to
both candidates for the position in dispute and, having de-
termined that the qualifications and ability of Mrs.
Giovinazzo were demonstrably superior to those of Mrs. Tenszen,
.in the key areas of concern named, made a choice under Article
6.08 which was valid and indeed, under the circumstances,
could not have been otherwise.
I would, with respect, have dismissed the Grievance
on these grounds.
H. Roberts, Member
/ch