Questions could have been better phrased: Arbitrator
When the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) posted for a position as temporary administrative officer at its Ottawa office, the most senior candidate was not hired into it.
Genevieve Romard applied for the position after it was posted on July 19, 2018.
“Under the direction of the director of information technology, the administrative officer for the CUPEcloud project is primarily responsible for working with the CUPE leadership team and CUPEcloud project team and coordinating and driving activities based on different phases of the CUPEcloud project,” read the posting.
The project was a cloud-based file system that could be accessed by CUPE members from anywhere.
Romard had worked as an administrative officer between March 2015 until February 2017, testified David From, director of information technology, when she replaced the previous employee.
From said that Romard’s performance was good during that time and he even sent a few congratulatory emails for her service. However, the job description had changed slightly as the project had moved further along.
Romard and three other employees applied for the position and because she was the most senior candidate, her resume was placed on top, said From.
On Aug. 17, Romard was the first candidate to be interviewed. A series of 13 questions was prepared by From to assess the candidates and to give them some idea of what the job entailed. The answers provided formed the basis of the hiring decision, he said.
After a review of Romard’s answers, only 10 of 27 were rated as qualified criteria, said From. “Interviewee was tentative with answers to questions. Answers to relevant questions lacked speaking to collaboration, single source of truth and security as a key objective and benefits of the project.”
As well the “interviewee also missed speaking to being a team player, positive working relationships and motivated and capable in helping breakdown barriers to acceptance and silos of work within CUPE,” he wrote.
The Canadian Staff Union (CSU) grieved the decision. It argued that Romard’s seniority was not given enough weight during the hiring process.
As well, said CSU, some of the questions asked were vague and could not have possibly been answered to the interviewer’s satisfaction, which was unfair to Romard.
However, CUPE countered and said that Romard lacked in communication experience, which was a major factor in the decision to deny her the position.
Arbitrator John McNamee said the employer acted fairly in making its decision.
“There is no allegation or evidence that discrimination or bad faith tainted CUPE’s decision not to award the temporary position to (Romard). Further, I do not believe that the decision can be described as arbitrary, despite the fact that the interview process was, in some respects, imperfect. While I agree with the CSU (Canadian Staff Union) that (Romard) appears to have been a remarkably good candidate for the job for which she applied, and that some of the interview questions might have been better phrased in order to elicit the answers which From sought, the phraseology of those few questions does not rise to the level of arbitrariness,” said McNamee.
“The language of article 11.04 is broad enough to grant the employer considerable leeway in its evaluation of (Romard’s) qualifications, and I find that the CUPE did not exceed that leeway in its assessment of the factors set out in the relevant article.”
As well, Romard’s service time was fully considered, according to the arbitrator.
“From did give sufficient attention to seniority as a factor. He interviewed (Romard) first because she was the most senior applicant and testified that, if she had passed the interview and been found to be qualified, she would have been offered the job. Her seniority therefore was fully taken into account,” said McNamee.
Reference: Canadian Union of Public Employees and Canadian Staff Union. John McNamee — arbitrator. Kevin MacNeill for the employer. John McLuckie for the employee. May 6, 2019.
Correction: The original story said the grievor was represented by the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union in this case. Canadian Labour Reporter regrets the error.
