Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-1388.Tangie.89-04-28SE-ITLEMENT EMPLOV~SDEL4 CO”RONNE DE “ONT.4mO C(lMMISSION DE REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS IN TEE HATTER 0-F AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before TEE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMRNT BOARD Between: OPSEU (T.A. Tangie) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of COrCeCtiOnal SeWiCeS) Employer J. Forbes-Roberts - Vice-Chairperson G. Nabi - Member M.F. O'Toole - Member APPEARING FOR J. flasher THE GRIRVOR: Counsel Gowling & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors APPEARING FOR G.F. Luborsky TEE EMPLOYER: Counsel Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart, Storie Barristers & Solicitors BEARING: August 4, 1987 This case involves job competition CI-1035-85 in the Ministry of Correctional Services (‘the Ministrywl. The grievor, Mr. T. Tangie clealms that he vas improperly denied the position of Correctional Officer III (“C.O. III”) in contravention of article 4.3 of the collective agreement. While there vere numerous applicants for the posting and a total of eight (8) employees were granted intervievs the griever vas the only person who formally contested the result of the competition. By way of remedy the Union therefore requests that the griever be put in the job. The successful candidate, Mr. Haydor, vas notified of these proceedings and informed of his right to participate. Article 4.3 of the collective agreement states: 4.3 In filling a vacancy, the Employer shall give primary consideration to qualifications and ability to perform the required duties. Where qualifications and ability are relatively equal, length of continuous service shall be a consideration. It vas agreed that the griever’s seniority exceeded that of the successful candidate. The Union’s did not allege any bad faith or unfairness on the Employers part but rather contended that the griever was at least relatively equal in qualifications and ability to the successful candidate, and therefore that the former’s seniority had not been given appropriate consideration. The Unlon called Messrs. Tangle and Haydor to substantiate this contention. At the end of Mr. Haydor ‘s evidence the Employer moved for a non-suit arguing that the Unlon had failed to discharge the onus of establishing at least a e facig case of relative equality. When put to his election Employer counsel chose to call evidence. Therefore the Board reserved on the motion for non-suit until the full merits of the case had been heard. The Employer called Ms. Mary Copobianco, the Area Personnel Administrator. She vas also a member of the job selection panel. Ms. Copoblanco testified as to the procedure used in the instant competition and the Employer’s rational for choosing Mr. Haydor. There were six (6) steps in the competition procedure. 1. The competition notice vas compiled as per the job’s requirements. 2. All ten applicants vere pre-screened for minimun -I -2- qualifications.’ 3. The nine qualified applicants (of which the grievor was one) vere given; (a) a vritten test vorth tventy-five (25) per cent of the total score and (b) an oral interview worth seventy-five (75) per cent of the total. 4. All members of the selection panel consulted the candidates’personnel files. 5. The candidates* supervisors vere asked for current written appraisals. In the event a candidate had had the opportunity to fill the (3.0. III position in an acting capacity, his or her shift supervisor vhile while in that capacity vas consulted. Specifically they were asked to address the can- didates’ vorking relationships, ability to perform C.O. III duties, communication skills and leader- ship abilities. 6. Test scores vere tallied and ranked. Ultimately the successful candidate ranked first with a score of 11.5 %, and the grlevor ranked eighth, with a score of 49.15 %. We vi11 deal first vith the Employer’s motion for non-suit. As indicated above the Board heard yiva vote testimony from both the grievor and the incumbent. Both appeared, to have con- siderable experience, qualifications and ability. We did not have the benefit of ap’plication forms or resumes. Solely on the basis of the yiva vote testimony ve find that the Union dis- charged its onus to make out a a facie case. The motion for non-suit is therefore dismissed and the onus shifts to the Employer to justify its choice of the incumbent over the grlevor. On the merits ve find that the Employer has adequately met this onus. The G.S.B’s jurisprudence provides ample guideance for job competition panels. Appropriate selection criteria and procedure are vell itemized in re: w, (G.S.B. 414/83). At page 5 Arbitrator Samuel5 states: The jurisprudence of this Board has established various criteria by which to judge a selection process: 1. Candidates must be evaluated on all relevant quali- fications for the job as set out in the~job speci- cation. -3- 2. The various methods used to assess the candidates should address these relevant qualifications insofar as 15 posalble. For example interview questions and evaluation forms should cover all the qualifications. 3. .Irrelevant factors should not be considered. 4. All the mcmebers of a selection committee should re- vlev 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. We find that the selection panel in the job competition before us f olloved these nrecommendations w virtually to the letter. All relevant information and materials were considered and all relevant persons were consulted. There was no evidence that irrelevant factors were taken into account. The grievance is hereby dismissed. Dated at Toronto this 28th day of April, 1669. J. Forbes-Roberts, Vice-Chairperson G. Nabi, Member N.i. O’Toole, -