Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0645.Gibson.85-05-06IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: For the Grievor: For the Employer: M. Milich ~._ Staff Relations Officer Staff Relations Branch Civil Service Commission Hearing: December 1, 1984 OPSEU (June Gibson) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Citizenship and Culture) Employer R. J. Delisle F. D. Collom W. A. Lobraico Vice Chairman Member Member S. Ballantyne Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers & Solicitors -2- DECISICN The grievor has been an Archivist Assistant for approximately ten years. She complains that she was wrongly denied the position of Archivist 3 in a competition conducted by the Ministry . The griever claims that her abilities and qualifications are relatively equal to the successful applicant who has eight years less seniority. The grievor complains that the selection process was so defective that the results are not reliable. The successful applicant was present throughout the hearing, represented by counsel, and participated in the deliberations. The grievor asks that the results of the selection pizocess be set aside and she be awarded the job or that a new competition be conducted. The competition’notice (Exhibit 3) setsout the qualifi.cations necessary for the position ‘but noted that “less qualified applicants will be considered at a lower classification and salary on an under&ill basis”. Seven people , including the grievor, were interviewed for the position and, according to the Ministry, none of the applicants had all the qualifications necessary for the job posted. _* The grievor was taken through the qualifications set out. She professed a “thorough knowledge of Canadian history comparable to that acquired while obtaining an honours degree in Canadian history with specialization in Ontario”. She graduate& with a general Bachelor of Arts degree but noted that she has been interested in history all of her life, read widely in the -3- field, and during her ten years at the Archives had access to their facilities and made abundant use of the same. She has done various workshops conducted by archivist groups and has been a member of archival and genealogical organizations and therefore has “progressive archival experience including experience as an archivist with proven. ability to conduct original research”. She notes that her specialty in research is the researching of nineteenth-century wills but that she has also done research for displays. She has not a “successful completion of a recognized certificate course in archival administration and records management”. She explained that she had applied to take the Public Archival Course, indicated a willingness to absorb the costs, but that it has not been made available Tao her and that the last time she applied her supervisor., Alan PlcDonald, advised her that the course was redundant for anyone who had worked in Archives for more than two years. She testlyied that she does not have a certificate in records management but that she has completed threes of the six courses which are necessary. The grievor believes she has the “understanding of techniques in reproduction and conservation suitable to archival needs”. She is familiar with photocopy and microfilm processes and has taken day courses given by the Conservator with respect to basic conservation methods. The grievor believes she has “proven organizational and planning skills” and noted her various suggestions over the years for better systems of finding, particularly in the area of newspapers. She professes “effective communication and interpersonal skills,” and notes as evidence her work as a volunteer in many charitable activities and her abi lity as a fundraiser. She professes a “fami liarity with the developing methodologies of information retrieval”. She notes her awareness of computer retrieval and printouts, microfilm, microfiche, various finding aids, and the fact she has taken a course in word processing. The grievor was interviewed on June 21, 1984. According to William Ormsby, Archivist of Ontario, a Preliminary Statement, (Exhibit 17), was read to all applicants at the beginning of the interview: 1. This pos.ition has been advertised as an Archivist 3 position. However, that classification was awarded recently by the Grievance Settlement Board, and its decision is still under review by the Divisional Court. Therefore until that issue is resolved, the successful applicant in this competition will not be paid at the “3” level, but if the classification is confirmed, will be paid at that level retroactively. 2. In view of the possibility that we may not find a fully qualified candidate, we are interviewing non- qual.ified candidates like yourself (ie. who lack the necessary experience, training) so that we ~may be able to hire on an underfill basis. With an underfill, the successful candidate would be hired below the Archivist 3 level; for example, depending on the level of qualifications, spending one year at Archivist 1 level and two years at Archivist 2 level. _. The grievor described the interview and from her description we are satisfied that the process was, unfortunately, badly flawed. She testified that at the outset it was pointed out to her that: _- II . . . in the unlikely event I should win the competition it would be at the lowest rate a.nd I would be kept there for a protracted period. I understood from Mr. Ormsby that I was there on sufferance. I was totally devastated. My initial reaction was to leave. I was totally intimidated.” s- The grievor went on: I didn’t know what to do. I thought I’m here for the interview, 1’11 go for it. The comment kept going around in my head and I felt disoriented. It affected my answers as I found it very difficult to concentrate. In cross-examination she agreed that some.of the questions were similar to questions put in earlier interviews but noted: That’s why I was stunned by the score as in the past I’d been told I’d done particularly well. I prepared for the interview. The result is most unfortunate. From the evidence of the Archivist it is impossible to imagine that there was any intent on the panel’s part to upset the grievor. Nevertheless, his evidence confirms her testimony of the impact on her. Mr. Ormsby testified that the grievor appeared confused during the interview. Indeed notes of the interview, (Exhibit 1’3), recite: “answer confused - seems to know but answer not clear - lost track of question 5 ttmes - forgot what she was going to, say”. Mr. Ormsby testified: As I reflect on the number of times she lost track I can appreciate now that she was nervous. Mesacks (another interviewer) also saw her as nervous. . . . I’m uncertain whether the opening statement caused the frequent Lapses and distractions. She was obviously having difficulty maintaining concentration. The importance of the interview was underscored as Mr. Ormsby testified: We didn’t check her performance evaluations as it is not our practice unless the scores are close. On the basis of the interview there was no point in examining the evaluations. The difference was too great. -6 - On the basis of the above we are satisfied that the selection process was so flawed as to require a new competition and to that extent the grievance succeeds. Dated at Kingston this 6th day of May, 1985. RXJ Delisle, vice-chairman - F. Collom, Member “I dissent” (see attached) W. Lobraico, Member Dissent 645/04 J. Gibson with respect, I must disagree with the decision of the Vice Chairman in this matter. The grievor claimed that her abilities and qualifications were relatively equal to the successful candidate, but there was no evidence to support this. A perusal of the applications and resumes clearly indicates the successful candiate, Mr. Coram, was superior and the candidates' ratings in the interview confirm this. The grievor's counsel, S. Ballantyne, contends that the selection process was so defective that the results were not reliable. The Vice Chairman also stated that "the selection process was so flawed as to require a new competition", but does not deal with these flaws in any detail. I do not believe that the evidence supports this position. Are we to require another competition because the grievor was nervous as a result of the atatement.read to her at the outset of the interview? It is quite normal for candidates in selection interviews to be nervous, and while it may have been preferable to have read the statement at the end of the interview, a new competition now will not serve any purpose in this case. The panel prepared the statement in good faith to avoid any misunderstanding by the candidates and if it upset Mrs. Gibson, why didn't it also upset all the others? Counsel for Mr. Coram, the successful candidate, probably summed it up very well when he said "she probably realized she was in over her head". Tiiis seems a more plausible reason for the poor answers and inability to keep track of the questions. Anyone who would presume they were eligible for immediate progression from an Archivist Assistant position to an Archivist 3 position is, to say the least, naive. Perhaps it is the performance evaluations, which Mr. Ormsby admitted were not checked, which flaws the competition? I do not believe this can be considered fatal. The grievor was well known to the members of the panel and both Mr. Ormsby and Mr. Mezacks would be well aware of her abilities as an Archivist Assistant and suitability for the higher position... In addition, they would be familiar with and monitor all staff evaluations. There was also some contention that the questions asked were too theoretical and not related to the duties of the position. Mr. Ormsby testified that the panel knew in advance that none of the candidates were fully qualified by education and/or experience and that it would not be fair to ask questions specifically related to the Archivist 3 level position. It was therefore deemed more appropriate to ask the questions they did in order to be fair to all candidates. I believe that this approach was reasonable under the circumstances and should not be considered a flaw. -2- Based on the evidence, the decision to select Mr. Coram was not unreasonable and should not be changed. As the Employer's representative, Mr. Milich, stated "no competition can be 100% perfect, nor does it have to be". There was no evidence of any intent on the panel's part to upset the grievor and even if this did occur, it does not in itself justify another competition. For these,reasons I would have dismissed the grievance. w W. A. Lobraico, Member