Canadian Labour Reporter

8 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2017 ARBITRATION AWARDS March 13, 2017 Steffen met with Tim Willis, head of the learning department, to discuss the transition. After the meeting, on Dec. 12, she sent him an email: "Why move me to learning when my skills and knowledge are in archaeology? For now, I would like to retain my posi- tion as senior collections manager of archaeology here. I've requested a meet with (CEO) Jack (Lohman) to discuss opportunities." Steffen was repeatedly told by Willis, Lohman and human resources representative Karen Fudge-Jensen over various emails that the matter was closed and she would be moving into her new de- partment beginning Jan. 3, 2013. Eventually, Willis wrote on Dec. 19: "I think it is important to draw this conversation to a close. The decisions regarding the re- organization were made at the executive level. The decision has been made and there is no further negotiation." But in subsequent emails, it was clear that Steffen didn't fully ac- cept the move and continued to ask to be kept in the archeology department. On Jan. 14, Steffen missed a meeting with Janet MacDonald, who would become her new boss. The next day, she missed a staff meeting to discuss the new ar- rangements. Training for Steffen's new job assignment began Jan. 16. She at- tended the sessions but was even- tually sent home due to her behav- iour in the training room, which was disruptive to the other staff members. She was given a two-day sus- pension due to the "impact of ar- riving one hour late; banging on the door; questioning the atten- dance of a co-worker and leaving the room to look for this person; returning 10 minutes later in an agitated state; responding to ques- tions from the trainer in a confron- tational manner; tearing blank sheets of paper from a pad, crum- bling them into balls and forcefully throwing them on the floor in an aggressive manner," according to a letter detailing the suspension. Another staff meeting on Jan. 22 resulted in Steffen again behav- ing poorly by not greeting fellow workers, turning her chair around and scratching noisily on a writing pad, all of which disturbed her col- leagues. The next day, she was termi- nated. The letter accused Steffen of having "a challenging attitude towards your new role and contin- ued to demonstrate a refusal to ac- cept your new responsibilities and assignment." The union, British Columbia Government and Service Employ- ees' Union, grieved the firing and said it was excessive and didn't follow progressive discipline. As well, no union steward was pres- ent during the issuing of the ter- mination letter, which breached the collective agreement, it ar- gued. Arbitrator Christopher Sulli- van agreed with the union and up- held the grievance. "The two-day suspension was not excessive, but the discharge was." However, at the time of termi- nation, Steffen had been accepted into a PHD program at the Uni- versity of Arizona and was not honest about this, which would have affected her employment status with the museum. "Stef- fen's misrepresentations to others on this matter during the period of time in question is also another example of her being untruthful about her circumstances, in all likelihood with a view to maxi- mizing her employment income before commencing school," said Sullivan. Steffen's "overly strong and emotional resistance to the re- organization manifested in non- professional, childlike behaviour, and untruthfulness, that has es- sentially destroyed the ability to resurrect any continued relation- ship at the museum for her," said Sullivan. "Steffen's self-serving vague acknowledgements to the effect she was 'on board' with the reor- ganization and its effect on her job were without foundation in reali- ty. She was given every opportuni- ty to get on board but her actions indicate she chose otherwise," said Sullivan. Sullivan awarded damages to Steffen but he did not order her reinstated. Reference: Public Service Agency and British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union. Christopher Sul- livan — arbitrator. Denise Pritchard for the employer. Britt Skinner, Catherine Sullivan for the employee. May 30, 2016. Food worker loses promotion to less-senior colleague A PART-TIME worker at an Ed- monton'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 em- ployed for seven years as a part- time food service aide, when in November 2015, a posting for a full-time food service aide posi- tion was posted. Each of the five selected candi- dates was given a 35- to 40-minute interview with facilities manager Pierre Plamondon, his manager and a human resources represen- tative. The candidates were given a 17-point questionnaire and the an- swers were catalogued and scored. The scoring system allowed 35 points each to be given under the knowledge and skills catego- ry, 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 col- league 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 ser- vice with the employer, the Alberta Teachers' Association. Randolph's score on the knowl- edge 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 "rela- tively equal" promotions clause should apply. The scores were close enough to be considered the same, therefore, the senior appli- cant should be awarded the posi- tion, 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 inter- view test became the sole deter- minant 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 per- forming it qualified Randolph for the promotion. "We find that in these circumstances, where the position in question is for a rela- tively junior, low-skilled position, the interview scoring reflects rela- tive equality between the two can- didates. 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 mak- ing the decision to award the po- sition to Singh was incorrect, said Kanee. "The evidence of the associa- tion does not demonstrate that Singh's related abilities and quali- fications were substantially or materially superior to those of Randolph. Plamondon offered no specific examples that dem- onstrated Singh's superiority. He spoke several times of his per- ception 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 knowl- edge 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.

• Cover