Union News April 2018
In a very recent ITPR decision, we successfully demonstrated the employer acted in an arbitrary manner when they selected a referee i.e. the manager filling the reference check was also a candidate in the same staffing process. The reviewer agreed with our arguments and found that the employer placed the referee in a potential or apparent conflict of interest.
Excerpt of the decision:
Because [the referee] was a candidate in the same staffing process, [their] private interests (as a candidate in the same staffing process) could reasonably be perceived to impair [their] ability to perform [their] duty to complete the reference check for [the requestor] in an “objective” and “impartial way”.
The staffing board’s request that [the referee] provide a reference for [the requestor] created at least a potential or apparent conflict of interest, which is contrary to the Code of Integrity and Professional Conduct and the Directive on conflict of interest, gifts and hospitality, and post-employment.
The reviewer also took into consideration the length of the supervision and found that 31 days of supervision was unreasonable and not done according to reason or judgment:
Turning now to the definition of “arbitrary” in the Procedures for recourse on staffing (Staffing Program), I find that the decision of the staffing board to ask another candidate in the same staffing process, who had only supervised the Requestor for a period of 31 days, to complete the reference check for the Requestor was made in: “an unreasonable manner… not done or acting according to reason or judgment” and “not based on rationale or established policy”. The treatment of the candidate (Requestor) was therefore arbitrary.
In this particular case, the error was corrected by the employer and the candidate was appointed.
David Girard
Labour Relations Officer