Nunavut employee disagrees with evaluation
An employee of the Nunavut government disagreed with her performance evaluation, and the union said the process was counter to the collective agreement.
Laudeline Atienza had worked as a physician recruiter for two years under three supervisors. While the first two did not conduct formal evaluations, the third did so in October 2013. The latter manager said he had received complaints about the department, and wanted to address the matter specifically through the appraisal process.
Atienza’s evaluation was not good, and she disagreed with many of her new manager’s concerns. As such, she left work early, immediately after the meeting, on account of stress.
She claimed she was not given an opportunity to discuss personal goals or objectives, nor was she given any guidance or coaching on how to fill out the self-evaluation part of the process to begin with, while her co-workers were given ample time.
As her union — the Nunavut Employees Union — saw it, the employer violated the clause in the collective agreement that deals with the employer’s performance management by failing to allow the grievor the opportunity to state her career goals, failing to properly explain the review process and failing to provide the reviewer’s proper forms and instructions.
The grievance did not dispute the contents of the review, but rather the method in which it was conducted.
As such, the evaluation should be "expunged" from Atienza’s personnel file.
"It is unfair and absurd for the employer to publish directives to supervisors that can be ignored without consequence," counsel for the union argued, adding that the evidence established that the supervisor failed to follow several of the procedural aspects of the performance review system with respect to Atienza.
Despite the fact that Atienza’s review did not follow all the steps to a T, the government argued it did not violate the collective agreement.
According to the employer, the full extent of its obligation was that management had the right to assess performance, unrestricted. Further, it was established that supervisors are instructed to follow their own human resources manual, as opposed to the collective agreement, and "do their best" to comply when evaluating employees.
Arbitrator decides
Arbitrator Paula Knopf sided with the employer — but with the caveat that there were indeed procedural violations.
Knopf said the employer’s human resources manual had not been incorporated into the collective agreement, and though there were procedural violations in particular, no prejudice resulted.
Nor had any substantive breach of the collective agreement been proven.
Reference: Government of Nunavut and the Nunavut Employees Union. Paul Knopf — arbitrator. Trisha Paradis for the employer, Jonathan Park for the union. Aug. 4, 2015.
