Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0414.Marek.84-01-24Between: Before: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVES BARGAINING ACT Before TI-& GRIEVANCE SELTTLEM?STBOARD 2.~ =OPSEu (Katarina Marek) Griever and - THE CIIDWN IN RIGHT OF ,ONTARXO (Ministry of the Attorney General) ; Employer J.W. Samuele, Vice-Chaiman F.D. COllCm, Member A. McCuaig, Member For the Griever.: Terry MOore Grievance Officer Grievance Section Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Pat Sheppard Grievance Officer Grievance Section Ontario Public Service Employees Union For 'the Emmployer: Nancy Robinson, staff Relations Co-ordinator Human Resources, Ministry of the Attorney-General Date of Hcariq: Deccmbcr 15, 1083 2. _ INTRODUCTION The grievor applied for the position of General Clerk (classified as a Clerk 3 General) in the Provincial Court (Criminal Division) at 1000 Finch Avenue West in Toronto. Her application was in response to a posting of March 7, 1983. She was~unsuccessful, but she argues that she is relatively equal in qualifications and ability to the successful candidate. She has much greater seniority than the successful candidate, and therefore the grievor argues that she should have been put into the position, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the collective, agreement. This Article provides: In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall give primary consideration to qualifications and ability to perform the required duties. Where qualifications and ability are relati.vely equal, length of continuous service shall be a consfderation. -i. THE POSTED JOB The.posting described the job and qualifications required as follows: The Provincial Court (Criminal Division), York, requires a responsible individual to perform a variety of clerical tasks. , Duties will include: entering information into discs of Word processor; duplicating discs, completing month end case accounts; preparing a variety of court documentation; collating all information. convictions, etc., filed at appeals counter for County Court and CrownAttorney's Office; accepting service on Provincial Offences filed at Court Office and forwarding same to originating courts; accepting payments at the counter from members of the public and receiving same sent from Court; paying witness and interpreters fees; balancing and paying out petty cash; acting as cashier during lunch periods and other times as necessary; providing information both at the-counter and over the telephone to members of the general public and the legal prOfeSSi6n; directing members of the public to appropriate courtroom; performs other related duties as assigned. Qualifications: Good knowledge of office methods and procedures. Demonstrated experience with cash handling; ability to use NCR word processor and adding machine; ability to acquire good know- ledge of office procedures in a Provincial Court (Criminal Division) Office; tact, good judgement and ability to deal with a variety of situations; effective oral communication skills; good typing skills, not to Civil Service Commission standards. ..-- 3. The Position Specification describes the job as follows: PURPOSE OF POSITION To provide clerical services for the preparation of all court documents and Services rendered by the Provincial Court. (Criminal Division). As General Clerk the incumbent assists in the duties of all positions by performing clerical tasks. SUHARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1. As general office clerk the incumbent performs a variety of tasks such as As Docket Clerk: 90% - entering all pertinent information into the discs of the word processor. Modifying all remands and notices of motion. Duplicating all discs. Completing the month- end case account: - preparing all court papers such as coaanittal papers, probation papers, release or detention orders and bench warrants; - forwarding ail convictions and licences for Highway Traffic Act and Criminal Driving charges to M.T.C. along with an accompanying list; - making photostats of information for lawyers, Immigration, etc. - amending probation ordersand forwarding them to Judges; - photostat copies of all dockets. As Fiat Clerk: - typing~all private complaint charges and process (summonses, or warrants and entering them in the fi~at book; - extending all unserved summonses and updating fiat book; - typing reduced charges when required. As Appeals Clerk: - collating all informations, convictions and exhibits filed at appeals counter for the County Court and Crown Attorney's Office. Complete appeals disposed of from the County Court; - accepting service on Provincial Offences appeals filed at the Criminal Court and forwarding a1.l documents to the originating courts; - processing all pardons,-stamping the dockets and sending the original informations to Ottawa. Pe~rforms various cashier duties such as: - accepting payments at the Counter from members of the public attending to pay fines; - receiving‘payments sent from Court; '4. - paying witness and interpreters fees; - balancing witness and interpreter sheets for reimbursement from Old City Hall; - entering all data for payment on appropriate cash register keys to ensure proper receipt is produced; - balancing and paying out petty cash; - balancing A-Key cash intake from register. 2. Performs other related duties as: 10% - answeringall telephones and answering questions both with the public and legal profession; - acting as receptionist when necessary; - directing members of the public to the appropriate court- room for trial; - assisting with the opening and sorting of mail; - as assigned. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE WORK FamiliarTty with cashier procedures and ability to acquire good knowledge of sour% office operation. Experience'as a cashier and ability to use NCR register word processor, and adding machine. Tact, good fudgement'and ability to deal with people in a variety of situations. Typing skills - not to C.S.C. standard. .Good oral communication skills. THE COMPETITION Apparently, there were 16 applicants, and eight were interviewed. The interview panel Consisted of Mr. G. Clark, Administrator of the office in which the position was located, and Mr. J. Culbert. his Deputy Administrator. They were joined by Mr. C. Hill, Mr. Clark's Acting Assistant, as an observer. From the evidence at our hearing, it is clear that the decision to select the successful candidate was made on the basis of the application forms and the interviews, without any recourse to personnel files or candidates' supervisors. The successful candidate bad been doing the job involved for three yea~rs on a contract basis and was known well by the interviewers. Indeed, Mr. Clark testified that he had been told by his superiors that he Could nslt CofiStilt personnel files, and it was his practice never to call candidates' Supervisors. 1 - --_ 5. It is hard for this Board to understand how this could occur, in view of the repeated direction this Board has ,given on the need to consult personnel files and candidates' supervisors, particularly when one of the candidates only is known to the interviewers--see, for example, MacLellan and BeGrandis, 506/81, 507/81, 690/81 and 691/81, wherein the jurisprudence is.summarized at pages 25 and 26: The jurisprudence of this Board has established various criteria by which to judge a selection process: 1. Candidates must' be evaluated on all the relevant qualifications for the job as set out in the Position Specification. 2. The various methods used to assess the candidates should address these relevant qualifications insofar as is possible. For example, .interview questions and evaluation forms should cover all the qualifications. 3. Irrelevarit factors should not be considered. 4. All the members of a selection committee should review - the personnel files of all the applicants. 5. The applicants' supervisors should be asked for their evaluations of the applicants. 6. Information should be accumulated in a systematic way concerning all the applicants. See Remark, 149/77;.Quinn, 9/78; Hoffman, 22/79; Ellsworth et al, 361-d Cross, 33VVi. In Leslie, 126/79, the primary basis on which this Board ordered a, new selection process was the fact that the interviewers knew one of the candidates, and had relied on the interviews alone, without any recourse to the supervisors of other candidates. Nor in, Leslie, had the interviewers referred to the griever's personnel file or performance appraisals. In our view, this conduct alone fatally flaws~the selection process undertaken by the interview panel ,here. But we.ought to go on to discuss the interviews themselves. The panel were seekin to ju~dge the candidates' ability and qualifications according t0 . 6. the fol'lowing selection criteria: Proven Experience - knowledge of general office methods and prOcedUreS - performing cashier duties - in dealing with the public - handling Volume of work while being interrupted Aptitudesand Knowledge, - ability to work independently - ability to handle cash - ability to work under pressure - speed and accuracy in handling money - ability to organize workload - ability to type (approximately b0 w.p.m. - not to Civil Service Commission standards) - ability to acquire knowledge of office procedures in a Provincial Court (Criminal Division) office - abiiit? to use NCR word processing equipment Communication-Skills - effective oral comnunicatlon skills - tact and diplomacy when dealing with the public - particulate - confident For scoring purposes, the panel had assigned 20 points to "Proven Experience", 20 points to "Aptitudes and Knowledge",~and 10 points to 'Tomnunication Skills". In order to elicit information, the panel asked the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. .6. 7. Can you elaborate on your present job? What kind of people do you find it most difficult to deal with? What are some of the things that motivate you? Most jobs have pluses and minuses, what are some of the minuses in your present job? Have you ever worked with a Word Processor?' What are your overall career .tibJectives? Have you taken any courses relating to your position or advancement? 8. Since applying for this job,have you made enquiries regarding the job or this office? 9. How much sick time did you take in the past year - I%%'? 10. Do you make it a habit of being punctual? 11. Have you ever had a~job where you had to handle cash? 12. Do you prefer working in a team or independently? 13. Can you concentrate on your duties despite frequent distractions? Put simply, we are at a loss to understand how these questions alone could have elicited the information necessary to judge the candidates' possession of the relevant selection criteria. For example, and this is by no means exhaustive, how could the panel kn& anything about the candidates' experience in "handling volume of work while being interrupted"? All the panel had was an answer to question 13 "Can you concentrate on your duties despite,frequent distractions?“ Surely, the only way to elicit reliable information on this point is to COnsuJt the candidates' supervisors. Or, how did the panel know anything whatsoever : i about the candidates' "tact and diplomacy when dealing with the public"? We need not go on. There is no'doubt whatsoever that the interview process was so poorly designed that the panel could have very little information about the cdndidates' requisite qualifications and ability. Hence, the scores achieved in the interview process were quite meaningless. Furthermore, we accept the griever's evidence that she did not see the Position Specification until some time during the grievance procedure, and therefoie she could not talk specifically with the panel about the job inquestion and her fitness for it. And she was not given a suitable opportunity to add her own comments to the questions~and answers put to her. In sum, for a host of reasons, the selection process here was hopelessly inadequate. The Board cannot help but remark that the errors made were obvious and have been the subject of repeated directions, from this Board over many years.' THE GRIEVOR'S RELATIVE QUALIFICATIONS AND ABILITY The evidence on this matter was limited, but it appears that the successful candidate was doing a competent job in the position for some three years on a contract basis. The grievor is a 32-year old woman, who has been in the service of the Ontario Government for son!& ten years, with some considerable periods off work for work-related injury, an&maternity leave. However, she has.been a keypunch operator in OHIP, and occupied a similar position in the employ of the Ministry of the Attorney-General in the Sueneons Office on Richmond Street in Toronto. She has also been the receptionist at the DriverImprovement Centre, operated by the Ministry of the Attorney General iv Etobicoke. Following her unsuccessful appli- cation for the job in question here, she was assigned as a surplus employee to a position with the Ministry of the Environment. These latter two positions are in the Clerk 2 classification. While off work, the grlevor commenced a program at Seneca College, leading to a Business Administration Diploma. She has completed almost-all of that program, and the Course Coordinator of the program (who knows the griever well) testified that he was very impressed with her effort and achievements. Much of her‘course work would be of considerable assistance in the successful per- formance of a job like the position involved here. 9. This Board has no hesitation in finding that the griever made out a prima facie case that she has the requisite qualifications and ability for the position in question. She appears to be a highly competent person, who has great familiarity with business.machines and general office procedures, and can learn specific tasks within reasonable time. She seems confident,.and eager to take on new particular tasks within the clerical field. From the job description in the posting and Position Specification, we can see that the job requires someone with the abilities set out in the selection criteria used by the Ministry, and quoted above. The grievor appears to have these &alifications and abilities. In sum, the evidence at our hearing indicates that it is very likely that, if a proper selection $rocedure was undertaken, the grievor would be at least relatively equal to the successful candidate. In several earlier awards, this Board has dismissed a similar grievance when it was established that the ultimate selection was correct in any event - see, for example, Cross, 339/81. Here, the griever has demonstrated that there is every possibility that the selection was not.correct according to the requirements of the collective agreetN?nt. REMEDY -i- In these circumstances, we order that: 1. 2. The Ministry must hold another round of interviews for all those applicants interviewed in the flawed process and who still wish to be‘considered. The interview panel must consist of three persons, none of whom participated in the earlier intervie,ds. ,.. 3. 4. 5. 10 The interview panel must establish a series of questiuns which are relevant and will offer adequate information to enable a judgment concerning the candidates' possession of the selection criteria. The interview panel must consult the personnel files and per- formance appraisals of all the candidates, and consult with at least one supervisor familiar with the work of each candidate. .The candidates and selection panel shall be provided with copies of the posting and Position Specification, so that they can address the part&ular duties of the job in question. i- In the event that the griever is successful, we order that she.be com- pensated for any loss in wages and benefits which result from the obviously and fatally flawed selection process which was conducted. Finally, we retain our jurisdiction to deal with any question concerning the implementation of this award. Done at London, Ontario, thiS24th day of 3anuary, 19&. -m-P-__ I:.D. Cm113m, Member .: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. EXHIGITS -. Grievance Form Job Posting Position Specification Interview Schedule Qtiestions at Interview Selection Criteria Interview Rating Sheets .Application of Incumbent Position Specification Seneca,College Student Academic Record Application of Grievor ’ Olivetti sheet