Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0657.Lapraik.85-02-011NTHEMATTEROFANARBlTRATION Under THECROWNEMPLOYEESCOLLECTh'EBARGAININGACT Before THEGRIEVANCESETTLEMENTBOARD Between: OPSEU (Carroll Lapraik) Before: For the Crievor: and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General) For the Employer: Hearing P. M. Draper G. Nabi A. C. Stapleton Vice-Chairman Member Member A. Ryder, Q.C. Counsel Gowling & Henderson Barristers d! Solicitors S. Hodgson Manager Personnel Services Ministry of the Attorney General December 6, 1984 Grievor Emploier -2- The Grievor, Carroll Lapraik, grieves that as an applicant in job competition AC 97, she was not interviewed for the vacant position and requests that she be granted an interview. The position was that of Bilingual Cashier in the office of the provincial court (criminal division) for Cochrane South district at Timmins, classified Clerk 3, General. The duties of the position, as posted, include answering routine inquiries in English and French, and fluency in both languages is listed among the qualifications. The Griever is not bilingual and it is not in dispute that she was denied an interview because she does not speak French. Despite the wording of the grievance, it is obvious that the grievance is not over the simple denial of an interview, and that the matter would not be resolved were the Board to order the Employer to grant the Grievor an interview. What is really in dispute, as the parties agree, is the addition by the Employer of the requirement of bilingualism to a position classified Clerk 3, General, the class standard for which does not contain that requirement. That action stemmed from a ministry policy, dating from 1980, of providing basic French-language services, including over-the-counter and telephone services, in counties and districts designated under the Judicature Act. Among these is the District of Cochrane, where French is the first language of some 48 per cent of the population. The policy is implemented only as vacancies occur in appropriate positions in designated areas. Prior to job competition AG 97, the title of the position in question was “Cashier”. In ,March, 1984, when the posi:ion w;t~i to beco,ne vacant becstise of the I -3- resignation of the incumbent (who, incidentally, was bilingual) the Position Specification and Class Allocation Form was revised to include the requirement of fluency in English and French. The Grievor is a Clerk Typist 2 in the office where the vacancy occurred whose duties include relieving the cashier as necessary. She became aware through a conversation and later by reading the posting in “topical” that bilingualism was a requirement of the position. Nevertheless, she applied and eventually grieved when she was not interviewed. The posting in “Topical” identifies the classification and pay range of the vacant position, as required by the collective agreement. The description of the requirements of the position in the posting adheres closely to the language of the position specification and so signals to applicants the criteria - the knowledge, skills, abilities and experience necessary for the position - that will be applied in the selection process. It is to be noted that this is not a classification case in which an incumbent claims a higher classification for the position held. Here the claim made is that the Employer cannot add to a pwition specification a requirement not contained in the class standard for the classification to which it is allocated; that either the class standard must be amended so as to include the new requirement, or the position must be allocated to a new or different classification containing the requirement. It seems to us logical that in job competitions, selection criteria are determined by the position specification, since the latter establishes the -4- requirements of the position. Class standards are not designed for use in the selection process. They are the basis of a job evaluation (classification) system having as its immediate purpose the determination of the relative worth of positions and, as an ultimate objective, the establishment, through negotiation, of appropriate rates of pay. They are necessarily drafted in general terms and do not purport to include every requirement of every position they cover. They describe characteristic duties and responsibilities and do not dictate the specific requirements of individual positions, Thus, while they are, as the Board has frequently found, absolute standards for classification purposes, they are not useful as selection criteria. The position specification is drawn up to define the particular job to be done. The class allocation is then made to give the position its proper place in the hierarchy of classified positions. We consider that the Employer would be unreasonably and, in fact, unnecessarily restricted in updating individual position specifications if, in every case where a new requirement was added, the class standard had to be amended or a new class allocation made to accommodate the change. It seems to us that, for example, on the facts of the present case, it would be difficult to argue that the Clerk 3, General classification is no longer the proper classification for the position in question. This is not to say that there might not be so material a change in a position specification that its class allocation warrants review. In such event, we would expect that the Employer would take any necessary action, failing which the incumbent(s) would file a classification grievance. In any case, as we have already noted, this is not a classification .-. -5- grievance, so that the question whether or not the position involved is improperly allocated to its present classification is not before us. What we are called upon to decide is whether or not the requirement of bilingualism was improperly added to the position specification and applied as a criterion in the selection process. For the reasons given, we have concluded that it was not. In addition, we cannot conceive of an applicant in a job competition being prejudiced by the fact that a particular qualification required to be met is not found in the relevant class standard. Provided that, as here, the posting fairly sets out the criteria that will be used in the selection process and that those criteria fairly represent the requirements of the position as contained in the position specification, the applicant is properly informed about the object of the competition. In the present case, the Grievor knew that the previous incumbent of the vacant position was bilingual, knew in advance that there was a requirement to speak French, and saw that requirement spelled out in the posting. We can only surmise that she hoped, in an interview, to prove that she could do the job despite not being fluent in French. We understand her disappointment but we do not consider that her grievance raises any valid claim. In the result, we find that the Employer was not precluded from revising the position” specification for the vacant position by adding the requirement of bilingualism, and including it among the selection criteria, because of the absence of that requirement from the Clerk 3, General class standard. The grievance is dismissed. -6- Dated at Consecon, Ontario this 1st day of February, 1985. P. M. Draper, Vice-Chairman G. Nabi, Member A. C. Stapleton, Membe;