Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0091.Germaniuk.83-12-07IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Grievor OPSEU (William J. Germaniuk - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation and Communications) Employer Before: P. M. Draper Vice Chairman S. J. Dunkley Member H. Roberts Member For the Grievor: Xi .G.~ ,Paliare Counsel Gowling and Henderson For the Employer: J. F. Braithwaite Manager, Staff Relations Human Resource Planning & Services Branch Ministry of Transportation and Communications Hearing: October 19, 1983 r~- ‘- -2- DECISION The Grievor, William Germaniuk, grieves that in Job Competition NWR-82-36 he was unjustly denied selection for one of the three available positions in that his quali- fications and ability are relatively equal to those of a successful applicant, Gordon Sawiak, who is junior to him. The positions in question are two as Senior Designer and one as Senior Designer, Planning and Special Projects, all classified Technician 3 Road Design (T3RD) and all in the Planning and Design Section, Northwestern Region of the Ministry. The competition was stated to be part of a re- organization of the Section and was restricted to the classified staff within it. At the outset of the hearing, counsel to the Grievor submitted that there had been no true reorganization and so no vacancies created and requested that the Grievor be heard on the question whether or not a competition should have been held. After hearing argument by the parties the Board denied the request, ruling that the matter before the Board was that raised by the grievance as filed and carried through the grievance procedure, namely, whether or not, in Job Competition NWR-82-36, the Grievor had unjustly been denied selection for one of the available positions. The position specifications for the two new positions, which became effective on December 1, 1982, were prepared by D. B. Thomas, P.Eng., head of the Section. The purpose of the positions is stated, in part, as "To provide technical guidance and training to junior members of the work unit". Amongst the duties and responsibilities described, and accounting for thirty per cent of the incumbent's time, are acting as a group leader; providing instruction in drafting, i- preliminary and detail design, and estimating techniques; and assigning and reviewing the work of juniors. Amongst the skills and knowledge required are ability to organize and co-ordinate work groups; good verbal and written commun cations skills; and analytical skills. Thomas.also drafted the Job Competition Notice, dated December 6, 1982, and the based on them to were Technical selection criteria modules and questions be used in the competition. The modules Skills; Problem Analysis/Decision Making ; Leadership/Judgement; Interpersonal Communications Skills; and Organizational Skills. They had weight factors of 10, 10, 10, 7 and 7 respectively. Applicants were scored from 0 to 10 for each module. Thomas acted as chairman of the selection panel, the other members being two other professional engineers and a member of the Ministry's Personnel Office. There were twelve applicants, seven of whom were interviewed on December 21, 1982. The competition process was explained at each interview and all applicants were asked if they had any questions about the position specifications for the two positions and any preference as between the positions. Individual panel members concentrated on questions under -4- different modules and all applicants were asked the same initial questions. There was no written test. Some inter- views took more, and some less, than the allotted hour. Panel members kept separate notes and made independent evaluations which were then compared, module by module. A single rating of each applicant was then made by the panel as a whole. The personnel files of the applicants were reviewed in case they should contain information that might warrant varying the ratings assigned. Thomas testified that the Grievor did not answer all the questions put to him, gave some incomplete answers and seemed uncertain throughout his interview. He frequently answered that he would refer to a supervisor a problem which the panel felt he should be able to resolve himself. Sawiak's answers were well thought out, well expressed and technically accurate. Out of a possible weighted score of 410, the Grievor received 253 points, the second lowest score, and Sawiak received 400 points, the highest score. The other five applicants scored 362, 341, 335, 307 and 249. The appointments made as a result of the competition date from January 1, 1983. The grievance is dated January 5, 1983. If the evidence before us to: do-with~the’~ cOrnpetition is to be accepted, it clearly cannot be said that the Grievor's qualifications and ability are relatively equal to those of Sawi But faul uk. the successful appli it is argued for the Gri ty because the criteria 5 - cant whom he seeks to displace. evor that the competition was appli ed and the questions based on them are not relevant to the requirements of the positions to be filled and that in a proper competition he would have been a successful applicant. In support of that contention, the Grievor testified that according to his own observations the work being performed by the successful applicants since their appointment is not of the kind about which applicants were examined in the competition. In his estimation the work does not require leadership, or interpersonal, communications or organizational skills because no guidance, organization or supervision of juni ors is involved; and that problem analysis and decision making skills are as necessary at the lower classification 1 eve1 (TZRD) as at the higher (T3RD). In effect, the Board is asked to ignore the position spec- ifications and the results of the competition and to find, based on the Grievor's perception of the circumstances ob- taining after January 1, 1983, that the Grievor's qualifications and ability to perform the real work of the positions in ques- tion are relatively equal to those of Sawiuk. It may be that in the relatively short interval between the effective date of the appointments.(January 1. 1983) and the date of the hearing ( October 19, 19B3) the work as described in the position specifications has not fully evolved. But that is not to say that it is not the work - 6 - intended by the Employer throughout to be the work of the newly created positions. The evidence before us does not warrant the conclusions postulated by the submission made for the Grievor that no reorganization in fact took place; that the position specifications are spurious; and that the competition was about non-existent positions. We are not persuaded that the requirements of the new positions that were created by the reorganization and which the competition was conducted to fill are other than those described in the two applicable position specifications. Further, we find nothing objectionable about the selection process as designed and carried out. It follows that the results of the competition as they affect the Grievor must stand and the grievance is accordingly dismissed. DATED at Toronto,~ this 7th day of December, 1983. U--pb4F H. RoberM, Member