Manager felt junior worker was more qualified
A part-time worker at an Edmonton’s teachers’ association conference centre was denied a promotion to full-time work after a less-senior colleague received higher scores during an interview process.
Georgina Randolph was employed for seven years as a part-time food service aide, when in November 2015, a posting for a full-time food service aide position was posted.
Each of the five selected candidates was given a 35- to 40-minute interview with facilities manager Pierre Plamondon, his manager and a human resources representative. The candidates were given a 17-point questionnaire and the answers were catalogued and scored.
The scoring system allowed 35 points each to be given under the knowledge and skills category, with an additional 30 points awarded under suitability. Once the answers were tallied and scored, Randolph posted a score of 77, which was second to her colleague Kamla Singh, who scored an 83.
Despite having just five months of part-time experience with the centre, Singh was awarded the job.
Plamondon testified that Singh had 23 years of experience in the industry, and rated superior in all categories despite her short service with the employer, the Alberta Teachers’ Association.
Randolph’s score on the knowledge portion was 28 versus 30 for Singh. Her skills were rated 25, while Singh’s were judged to be 27. Finally, Randolph’s suitability score registered at a 24 to Singh’s 26.
The union, Unifor Local 777, grieved the decision and argued the collective agreement’s “relatively equal” promotions clause should apply. The scores were close enough to be considered the same, therefore, the senior applicant should be awarded the position, according to the union.
As well, the union said not enough consideration was given to Randolph’s performance while on the job, but instead the interview test became the sole determinant in awarding the position to Singh.
Arbitrator Lyle Kanee upheld the grievance as the scores of 83 and 77 “are within the range of relative equality.”
Because the job was rated as not being technical, it should be assumed that satisfactorily performing it qualified Randolph for the promotion. “We find that in these circumstances, where the position in question is for a relatively junior, low-skilled position, the interview scoring reflects relative equality between the two candidates. This is consistent with the fact that Randolph has performed the duties and responsibilities of the posted position satisfactorily for seven years,” said Kanee.
Plamondon’s opinion in making the decision to award the position to Singh was incorrect, said Kanee.
“The evidence of the association does not demonstrate that Singh’s related abilities and qualifications were substantially or materially superior to those of
Randolph. Plamondon offered no specific examples that demonstrated Singh’s superiority. He spoke several times of his perception that Singh would have received superior training at her previous workplaces but his cross-examination revealed that his perception was premised on speculation rather than knowledge about what training she had received,” said Kanee.
Randolph was awarded the promotion and both sides had to work together to decide any further compensation due, said Kanee.
Reference: Alberta Teachers’ Association and Unifor Local 777. Lyle Kanee — arbitrator. James Casey, Jason Kully for the employer. Patrick Nugent, Mark Wells for the employee. Feb. 6, 2017.
