Job interviews don't have standard of perfection, says arbitrator
A tough job competition between two registered nurses was assessed by an arbitrator recently after the union filed a grievance, claiming the selection process was fatally flawed and should be re-run.
The case involved Heidi Taylor, who lost out on the posted position of nurse clinician-educator at Hamilton Health Services to her colleague Ellen Begin. Both women began their careers at the hospital in 1991.
When it came to competitions, for jobs, the collective agreement with the Ontario Nurses’ Association stated: “Nurses shall be selected for positions… on the basis of their skill, ability, experience and qualifications. Where these factors are relatively equal amongst the nurses considered, seniority shall govern.”
But the union said Taylor was prevented from demonstrating she was “relatively equal” to Begin, and the hospital did not consider qualifications in making its assessment. Instead, it said the employer relied entirely on the employees’ respective performances during their interviews.
But the hospital said the two candidates were considered equal when it came to qualifications and experience, based on their application letters and resumes, and one supervisor’s familiarity with their work.
The definition of “qualifications” is particularly germane to this case, said Dana Randall, and although the 15 questions in the interview did a poor job of exploring qualifications, this was not a fatal flaw to the process.
“It would serve no purpose to ask them what their qualifications were, in the interview, when the panel already had that information before them.”
The union also said the marking system bore little resemblance to the four factors or the questions asked and answers given, and panel members did not prompt Taylor to give more fulsome answers, to her detriment.
Again, while the marking grid could have been improved to better reflect the skills and abilities being assessed, “that cannot be dispositive of the grievance,” said Randall. “The standard of review of job competitions is not perfection… The panel used the grid to mark the candidates to the best of their abilities in order to distinguish between them with respect to the factors of skill and ability. Where there is neither an allegation of favouritism nor reliance on irrelevant or improper considerations by the panel members, arbitrators have rarely second-guessed the marks awarded by a competent panel and I see no reason to do that here.”
As for prompting during the interview, Begin “nailed” the interview, being well-prepared and seizing the moment, said Randall.
“(Taylor) appears to have had no such strategy. Her answers to the 15 questions asked by the panel were brief; her interview half the length of Ms. Begin. She was less confident and far less engaging.”
The interview was meant to assess the candidates with respect to skills and ability as those related to the qualifications for the educator position, said Randall.
On a standard of reasonableness, the interview process did that fairly and dispositively,” he said.
“The hospital acknowledges that the interview played a determinative part in the selection process, but makes no apologies for that. The position of educator demanded an assessment of a variety of soft skills and abilities specific to that role and the interview was ideally suited to demonstrating Ms. Begin’s superiority regarding same.”
Hamilton Health Services assessed all four factors, said Randall, in dismissing the grievance.
“The hospital did not rely on the interview to the exclusion of all other assessment tools and I so find (w)hile the interview process was not perfect and the marking scheme problematic, I have no doubt that the panel, which was both highly competent and completely unbiased, made a unanimous decision that Ms. Begin’s skills and abilities for the educator position were superior. Frankly, there is no basis for me to overturn that decision.”
Reference: Hamilton Health Services and the Ontario Nurses’ Association. Arbitrator — Dana Randall. Theodore Kovacs for the employer, Rob Dobrucki for the union. July 5, 2016.
