GSB#2013-3397; 2013-3398, 2013-3399, 2013-3400, 2013-3401, 2013-3402, 2013-3403, 2013-3404, 2013-3405, 2013-3406, 2013-3407, 2013-3408,

UNION#2013-0504-0042, 2013-0504-0043, 2013-0504-0044, 2013-0504-0045,

2013-0504-0046, 2013-0504-0047, 2013-0504-0048, 2013-0504-0049,

2013-0504-0050, 2013-0504-0051, 2013-0504-0052, 2013-0504-0053

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Ramlogan)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Treasury Board Secretariat)

Employer

BEFORE

David Williamson

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

John Brewin Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Jonathan Rabinovitch Treasury Board Secretariat Labour Practice Group Counsel

HEARING

May 29, October 30, 2014; February 3, March 4, March 31, May 7, October 5, and December 2, 2015

Decision

1On August 2, 2011, Ms. Vidia Ramlogan received written notification from the then Ministry of Government Services, now Treasury Board Secretariat, that her position as Telecommunication Resources Information Management Services (TRIMS) Coordinator was being declared surplus. Ms. Ramlogan commenced work in the Ontario Public Service on August 2, 1989, worked her entire time in the telecommunications area in a number of different positions, and performed the duties of this TRIMS position at the SO3 level from October 1, 2001 to January 23, 2012. Subsequently, and pursuant to a Memorandum of Settlement, Ms. Ramlogan worked in a temporary assignment at the SO3 level and during this time remained eligible for assignment to permanent vacancies in accordance with the provisions of Article 20.3 of the collective agreement. Ms. Ramlogan’s actual lay-off date was November 8, 2013.

2On November 8, 2013, Ms. Ramlogan filed a grievance (OPSEU # 2013-0504-0042) to the effect that the employer had failed to assign her under Art. 20.3 of the collective agreement to any one of a number of twenty-six vacant positions for which she deems she is qualified and to which she applied. That grievance is identified as GSB File # 2013-3397. This Decision deals with one of these twenty-six positions that counsel asked to have addressed discretely from the other issues set out in that grievance.

3As such, the specific matter that came to be heard at arbitration was that the employer had improperly failed to assign Ms. Ramlogan to the vacant position of Service Order Fulfillment Analyst in the Ministry of Government Services (MGS), Job I.D. # 57835. On November 8, 2013, Ms. Sharon King Wilson of MGS who had been asked to review the applications for this position from a number of candidates, including one from Ms. Ramlogan, advised the Redeployment Services Office that she had reached the conclusion that Ms. Ramlogan was not qualified to perform the duties of this position.

4Article 20.3 states in relevant part as follows:

20.3 TARGETED DIRECT ASSIGNMENT

20.3.1.1 An employee who has received notice of lay-off in accordance with this article shall be assigned to a position that becomes vacant in his or her ministry or in another ministry during his or her notice period provided that:

(a) The employee applies for and indicates on his or her application for the vacancy that they have received notice of layoff and are eligible for a targeted direct assignment; and

(b) he or she meets the entry level qualifications for the position; and

(c) the vacancy is either:

(i) in the same classification, or in the same class series within a range of two classifications below the employee’s current home position; or

(ii) in the same classification of a position that the employee previously held either on a full-time basis or where the employee performed the full range of job duties on a temporary basis for at least twelve (12) months; and

(d) there is no other person who is qualified to perform the required duties, who has a greater length of continuous service and who is eligible for assignment to the vacancy either pursuant to Article 20.3 or Article 20.6 (Recall). Where two or more employees with the same continuous service are matched to the same targeted direct assignment, and one of the employees’ surplussed positions is in the same Ministry where the vacancy is, he or she will be assigned to the vacancy.

5The parties are in agreement that the sole issue between them in this instant matter is whether, under the terms of Art. 20.3.1.1(b) of the collective agreement, Ms. Ramlogan possesses the entry level qualifications for the Service Order Fulfillment Analyst position (Job # 57835).

6The parties placed before the Arbitrator the OPSEU Collective Agreement Explanatory Note in relation to Targeted Direct Assignment under Article 20.3 (full-time), which was developed by the employer in consultation with OPSEU. The Arbitrator’s attention was drawn, without any expression of disagreement by either party, to the following statement therein as to what is meant by entry level qualifications:

Entry level qualifications mean that the employee must have the necessary skills and knowledge to perform the major components of the position on an entry level basis.

7By the Targeted Direct Assignment Process the employer prepares a Job Information Package (JIP) which includes a description of the vacant position and its duties, the knowledge and skills required, and the selection criteria to be used. An employee such as Ms. Ramlogan, seeking a targeted direct assignment completes an Employee Portfolio (EP) with the assistance of Human Resources in which they set out the skills requirements of their present and previous jobs and the designations and accreditations held. The employer then engages in a matching process. Where an employee meets the criteria set out in Art. 20.3.1.1 they are assigned to the position.

8Ms. Sharon King Wilson is a Resource Manager at IT Source, an in-house consulting group inside MGS/TBS. Her evidence discloses that she has a work background in computer related technology and that prior to her present position was a technology manager in several organizations and a consultant for recruitment into technical positions for seven or eight years. Ms. King Wilson testified that she has been asked by the Redeployment Service Office (RSO) five or six times on a monthly basis to review employee portfolios for matching suitability in relation to a job description, and that the number varies from as few as fifty to as many as two or three hundred each month. The process she said is to compare each individual Employee Portfolio to the specified requirements for the job and she looks for applicants who are entry level qualified, namely those who have indicated on their Employee Portfolio that they have the skills necessary to perform the duties of the position at a competent level within a period of three months or so.

9It is the evidence of Ms. King Wilson that she reviewed the Job Specification of the Service Order Fulfillment Analyst (SOFA) position, particularly the type of expert knowledge required, the skills sought, the emphasis on security and disaster recovery, together with the relative weighting of the specified criteria, and concluded that this job is a hands-on technical position that requires a thorough understanding of the technical aspects of the job of e-mail systems, mailboxes, security levels, and providing or denying access to certain area of the mainframe computer, as well as how to execute all this and provide solutions.

10The Job Specification of the SOFA position sets out that certain types of knowledge, working knowledge, and expert knowledge are required for this position. The first paragraph under the heading of knowledge states the requirement for certain expert knowledge in the following way:

Job requires expert knowledge of Active Directory Users and Computers, to create, modify Active Directory user accounts, Distribution lists and security groups. Job requires expert knowledge of Enterprise Email service, understanding mailbox creation, email protocols and knowledge in standard windows products such as such as MS Office applications to create secure email/mailbox accounts. Job requires expert knowledge of RACF (Mainframe) in order to provide support to clusters and ministries, including activities around disaster recovery. Knowledge of MS Excel and Word are also required for report generation.

11Ms. King Wilson testified that she then reviewed the Employee Portfolio prepared by Ms. Ramlogan that also included a Factor Report in which were set out the duties and responsibilities of her job as TRIMS Coordinator and the skills and knowledge required for that position. It is the evidence of Ms. King Wilson that she did not see any indication of knowledge by Ms. Ramlogan of mainframe computers, or expert knowledge of e-mail, and formed the conclusion that from a technical perspective there was little in Ms. Ramlogan’s Employee Portfolio that matched the knowledge required for the SOFA position as set out in the Job Information Package.

12It is the further evidence of Ms. King Wilson that she concluded that Ms. Ramlogan was not entry level qualified to move into the SOFA job, and wrote to advise Ms. Twiggy Joseph in the Redeployment Services Office of this on November 8, 2013. Her supporting comments for this conclusion read as follows:

There is no demonstrated expert knowledge of Active Directory Users and Computers to create, modify Active Directory user accounts, Distribution lists and security groups. As well, there is no demonstrated knowledge of Enterprise Email service, understanding mailbox creation, email protocols and knowledge in standard windows products such as MS Office applications to create secure email/mailbox accounts, nor the required knowledge of RACF (Mainframe) in order to provide support to clusters and ministries, including activities around disaster recovery.

Ms. King Wilson testified that she is still of that same view today even after having read the document prepared by Ms. Ramlogan, not previously provided to her, in which Ms. Ramlogan set out the key responsibilities of the TRIMS position that she had held.

13Ms. Laina Dominelli is the Manager of Service Order Management, a position she has held since 2011. In this position she is responsible for the e-mail accounts in the OPS, the activation and administration of BlackBerry devices in the OPS, and the permissioning, commissioning, and securing of folder shares and all data in these folder shares. Those fifteen persons holding the SOFA position and working in three locations report to her, and she is responsible for the delivery of the whole service. Ms. Dominelli did the SOFA 57835 job when it was linked to the Justice cluster, and now the job is OPS wide. It is the evidence of Ms. Dominelli that should the Redeployment Service Office have determined that Ms. Ramlogan may be entry level qualified then her job package would have been forwarded to Ms. Dominelli for the final decision as to whether Ms. Ramlogan was indeed entry level qualified for the SOFA position.

14It is the evidence of Ms. Dominelli that the SOFA 57835 job is an extremely technical role handling 72,000 requests per year and that the team of fifteen can complete their work without interaction with any other groups and spend their entire days inside active directories, remotely connecting to both physical and virtual servers, and inside the BlackBerry Enterprise Service Console. The type of requests handled range from simple modification of distribution lists, to securing access to Ontario Budget Documents, information related to Cabinet Shuffles, and requests from the Premier’s Office that require confidentiality and secure and limited access. Ms. Dominelli stated that if work of this type is not done correctly then the downside implications are huge.

15Ms. Dominelli testified that the technical skills required for the SOFA position that are set out on job posting at page 3 of the Job Information Package are accurate, and that the Job Specification at page 5 of this same package is accurate as to what the job entails particularly in relation to the first two lines that state the purpose of the position, namely:

To take the lead or participate in the creation/ modification/ deletion of Active Directory User Objects, Distribution Lists, Enterprise Email accounts, BlackBerry Enterprise Servers, and to provide the necessary access to file shares and administer mainframe solutions (RACF).

She testified that the SOFA job is an extremely technical position that requires a computer science background and technical experience in order to be able to do the job. It is the evidence of Ms. Dominelli that she herself has a computer programming background and did the SOFA job in 2001 when it was only one domain at Justice. Since that time the whole environment has become more complex with the E-Ontario consolidation and that now ten domains exist across the OPS. It is Ms. Dominelli’s testimony that she herself could not do the SOFA job today.

16The Employee Portfolio and the Factor Report of Ms. Ramlogan, completed in October 2013 in support of her application for the 57835 position by way of Target Direct Assignment, was placed before Ms. Dominelli for her comments on the applicability of Ms. Ramlogan’s stated skills to the 57835 position. It is the evidence of Ms. Dominelli that there is no component present in the SOFA job of vendor liaison, or telecommunications knowledge, or financial work in relation to billings and recoveries. Ms. Dominelli testified that Ms. Ramlogan is not entry level qualified for the SOFA job and stated further, that upon reviewing the document in which Ms. Ramlogan set out the key responsibilities in her TRIMS position this did not change her opinion that Ms. Ramlogan was not entry level qualified for the SOFA 57835 position.

17Ms. Dominelli testified that she received three sets of applications for the SOFA position by way of the Target Direct Assignment mechanism and considered one of the applicants possessed the skills needed to be entry level qualified. This person had worked in a server administration environment, had skills in active Directory design and MS Exchange e-mail account creation, and in ensuring the safety and security of information. All of these were seen to be core skills for the position. She also possessed designations as a Microsoft Certified System Engineer and in Digital Forensics Analysis, among others, that related to the core functions of the SOFA position. Ms. Dominelli testified this individual is working in the SOFA job today and that for the first two weeks received training that particularly focused on anomalies and exceptions, but not on the tools of what the job entails. Following this two weeks of training, said Ms. Dominelli, she could do work orders and then it took another two to three months to be fully functional.

18In cross-examination, Ms. Dominelli provided her understanding of Entry Level Qualified to be that the individual has the skills and abilities to be able to perform the job at a minimum level, and that with a small amount of training they can move up to a level above that. Ms. Ramlogan, she said, was deficient in the skill set needed for the position and was therefore just not entry level qualified. Ms. Dominelli disagreed with the proposition put to her that all employees at the SO3 level have different skill sets of the same complexity but have the same abilities. She disagreed further with the suggestion put to her that Ms. Ramlogan could learn the required skill set in short order, by pointing out the complexity of the material in the skill set and the absence of the base knowledge in the area on the part of Ms. Ramlogan that would enable her to readily comprehend the elements in the skill set. Ms. Dominelli pointed out, further, that if one doesn’t fully know how the technical environment in this area works then one can inadvertently do a lot of mischief.

19Ms. Vidia Ramlogan, the grievor, testified that she has worked for over fifteen years in the telecom branch as a project coordinator, and has been at the SO3 level for more than ten years. Ms. Ramlogan gave evidence that she joined the OPS in 1989 until laid off as TRIMS co-ordinator in the telecom area in 2011, and during that time gained wide experience in voice telecommunications in the government service and in co-ordinating with outside telecommunication carriers. It is her evidence that she has worked in situations of cabinet shuffles requiring secrecy and rapid responses, and that she understands OPS policies and procedures. Ms. Ramlogan testified that she has some familiarity with the mainframe computer as the Telecom Resources Information Management System (TRIMS) sits on the mainframe.

20Ms. Ramlogan’s Employee Portfolio was placed into evidence and shows that she has taken a number of professional further education courses in the telecommunications field as well as the Microsoft software programs of Excel 2010 and Word 2010, and courses such as Managerial Skills and Techniques for New Supervisors. Her Employee Portfolio discloses that Ms. Ramlogan does not have credentials in any of the areas such as computer systems engineering, computer programming, information technology, or computer science.

21It is the evidence of Ms. Ramlogan that she believes she has the skill and the ability to do the SOFA job as she is of the view it is the same job that she did before, but only on a different platform; namely computer based versus telephone based. Additionally, it is her evidence that she understands OPS policies and procedures, and that she considers herself to be a sufficiently fast learner so that with one to two weeks training she could do the job and then with two to three month’s work she could fully perform on her own. Ms. Ramlogan testified that she had to learn the job of TRIMS co-ordinator on her own following a half day training and that in three months she had learnt the job and felt comfortable doing it. It is the evidence of Ms. Ramlogan that from reading the SOFA job description and by speaking with some people and asking about the position, she considers the SOFA position and the TRIMS co-ordinator position to be of similar complexity. It is the testimony of Ms. Ramlogan that in order to do the SOFA job at a reasonable level she would be able to sit with someone who would introduce her to the different types of screens and applications so that she would be able to respond to tickets at the service desk. She also said she understands the systems are user friendly and that there is a knowledge base she could tap into to learn how to meet a client’s request.

22Evidence was given by Ms. Nancy Richardson who appeared under summons. Ms. Richardson was the Co-ordinator of voice telecom services in the Ministry of Government Services from 2004 up to the time of her retirement in mid-2014 and had worked in the telecom area for the Ontario Government for the full thirty-three years of her service. It is her evidence that for the period from approximately 2005 until 2012 she was responsible for the TRIMS service and oversaw the daily duties and work of Ms. Ramlogan. Ms. Richardson testified that Ms. Ramlogan was a good worker and a quick learner who completed her assignments very well. It is the evidence of Ms. Richardson that she does not know the nature of the SOFA job but expressed the view, after reviewing the description of the job, that her expectation of Ms. Ramlogan’s ability to learn this job would be high because she considers her to be good at learning new programs. The programs learned by Ms. Ramlogan by Ms. Richardson’s testimony include Online Billing Manager (OBM), Business Intelligence (BI), Station Configuration Management (Station CM), and Octel.

23Ms. Richardson testified that knowledge records exist in the Government for certain services and from which Ms. Ramlogan could learn how to do the job and that, if she were given the time to learn, Ms. Richardson considers that Ms. Ramlogan would have a high degree of success in being able to perform the duties of the SOFA position. In cross-examination the employer put it to Ms. Richardson that it would be their reply evidence that no such knowledge records exist for the SOFA position records, but instead there was a technical guide of some 250 pages that required one to have a technical foundation in order to be of any assistance. Ms. Richardson made it clear in her response that she had not seen this technical manual, and that she did not in fact know whether knowledge records existed for the SOFA position.

24Evidence was given by Mr. Richard King, a Steward for Local 633 who has been supportive of Ms. Ramlogan in her grievance. He testified he has never done the SOFA job and that the information he has about the position came from a series of telephone conversations he has had with Ms. Candy Seymour who, he understands, performs SOFA duties at the SO3 level, and from Mr. Hugh Lindsay who works on the Help Desk. Mr. King started with the employer thirty-three years ago in desktop services and worked in this technical position for ten years. Following this he worked as a network analyst for ten years. From 2002 he has worked at the SO4 level as a Performance Capacity Analyst where he monitors the response time for transactions and enquiries on the mainframe computer in relation to Social Assistance Services.

25It is the evidence of Mr. King that based on the screens he was able to view that pertain to the SOFA position, the nature of the job is to generally fill in the screens and get the right information into the screens in relation to taking requests from a client and putting it on the computer system and then ensuring they go to the vendor or the Ontario Public Service for implementation. Mr. King testified that on the basis of his conversations with Ms. Seymour and Mr. Lindsay he looked to see if there were some particular and unique impediments to Ms. Ramlogan being able to do the SOFA job and that he did not find any. It is the evidence of Mr. King that he considers that with just training and mentorship Ms. Ramlogan would be able to perform the duties of the SOFA position at the entry level within a short period of time. In particular, Mr. King testified that from what he has heard he considered Ms. Ramlogan would be able to perform 60% to 70% of the full SOFA job duties and responsibilities within one week, with 80% after 2 weeks, and 90% to 95% within three weeks.

26It is the evidence of Mr. King that he interacted with Ms. Ramlogan in a work capacity in relation to putting in telephone job requests when she was a TRIMS co-ordinator and that he found her to be efficient, effective, and informed, as to the limitations of what could be done. From his past experience in dealing with her and from what he has found out about the SOFA position Mr. King testified that he considered Ms. Ramlogan would be entry level qualified to do the SOFA job and would be able to quickly learn this job. It is the evidence of Mr. King that he has a somewhat incomplete picture of what SOFA’s do but that he understands that SOFA’s fulfill requests for e-mail accounts, requests for mobile phones, and to set up accounts on the mainframe with varying levels of access to the materials there. In order to execute these requests and to create accounts, Mr. King said he understands from his discussions with Ms. Carly Seymour that one puts information into a screen on a Microsoft Program that then creates the required account. Mr. King expressed the view that, subject to receiving the right training, an SO3 in one area can do the work of another SO3 in a different area and that Ms. Ramlogan would be able to do this SOFA work at the SO3 level.

27The employer called Mr. John Nishio and Ms. Laina Dominelli to give evidence in reply. John Nishio is a senior manager in the telecom branch of Infrastructure Technical Services (ITS) and it is into this branch that the TRIMS position fell. The SOFA position, by contrast, is in the service management branch of ITS. It is the evidence of Mr. Nishio that he first met Ms. Ramlogan when he joined the telecom branch in 2004, and that in 2009, when he took over the area of enterprise voice services that contained TRIMS, Ms. Ramlogan indirectly reported to him until the time she was surplussed in 2011. Following this Ms. Ramlogan received four contract extensions during which time she worked on the Station CM project that was an ordering tool with Bell Canada, and then on Project Octel. It is Mr. Nishio’s testimony that from the time her position was surplussed Ms. Ramlogan received four extensions and was told that her number one priority was to work on contacts and self-development to secure herself a new position.

28Mr. Nishio gave evidence on the nature of the programs referred to by Ms. Richardson in her testimony that were learned by Ms. Ramlogan and that she said served to demonstrate she was a quick learner. The Online Billing Program, he said, is offered by Bell and is designed to be easy to use to obtain financial information and requires an orientation to a web page layout, following which it is easy to use. The Business Intelligence program is canned software that allows one to analyze the information in a database. It is easy to use testified Mr. Nishio and requires limited training. The Station Configuration Management program is a Bell Canada tool for the purposes of placing orders that requires a half day of training to use, and Mr. Nishio testified that Ms. Ramlogan’s work on Station CM was non-technical in nature as was her work on Octel that was a voice mail platform. It is the evidence of Mr. Nishio that all the foregoing programs are designed to be user friendly and that Ms. Ramlogan’s knowledge of these does not establish that she is qualified to perform the duties of the SOFA job. These programs, said Mr. Nishio, are not used by SOFA’s in their work.

29Mr. Nishio gave evidence to distinguish between the duties of a Service Order Fulfillment Analyst (SOFA), a Service Order Processing Analyst (SOPA), and a Service Desk (Help Desk) Analyst. It is his evidence that the Help Desk Analyst is the first point of contact for someone seeking help with a computer problem or seeking help to place an order. The SOPA co-ordinates with an external vendor or a group inside government to order network services or voice services. The SOFA works to fulfill a request with the order going into the active directory of the computer system and that to do this requires advanced technical knowledge of computer systems. Mr. Nishio testified that he does not have these technical skills as it is data centre operations work which is a different technology from his area of telephone services. With SOFA work, entries and changes are made directly into the active directory of the computer and mis-entry can have significant consequences for staff, such as losing computer service or having access to information they are not supposed to see. He said that with TRIMS, in contrast, the impact of mis-entry is that Bell puts a phone in the wrong place or inadvertently shuts down a phone.

30Evidence was given by Mr. Nishio in the matter of Ms. Richardson’s testimony that she considered Ms. Ramlogan to be a quick learner. It is Mr. Nishio’s testimony that quickly gaining knowledge of the computer programs referenced by Ms. Richardson does not demonstrate Ms. Ramlogan is a quick learner as these programs are straight forward and end-user friendly. It is the evidence of Mr. Nishio that he would not consider Ms. Ramlogan to be a quick learner. This opinion, he said, is based on his experience of having her on his team and comments received from his managers of her ability to engage in more challenging and difficult work. In order to determine that someone was a quick learner, testified Mr. Nishio, he would look for evidence of ability to take on difficult work and thrive on it, or express the desire to learn more challenging work and learn it in faster than normal time periods. It is Mr. Nishio’s testimony that he did not see this with Ms. Ramlogan. He testified further that he received the indication from Ms. Ramlogan in the 2007 – 2009 period when Ms. Ramlogan was a TRIMS analyst that she did not wish to see the TRIMS position evolve into a service order provisioning analyst position that would also involve servicing requests for data as well as voice.

31The employer called Ms. Laina Dominelli to give reply evidence in response to the testimony given by Mr. King, whose evidence was based largely on what he had been told by Ms. Candy Seymour about the nature of the SOFA position. It is the evidence of Ms. Dominelli that Ms. Seymour is a SOPA who does also a small amount of SOFA work, and who reports directly to Ms. Dominelli. Ms. Dominelli’s evidence discloses that Ms. Seymour does not do the full duties of a SOFA as she is trained on only the easiest of the ten domains and that she was unable to handle the work from the other domains that was placed before her. As such Ms. Seymour only performs a small portion of the SOFA role and does not have a full understanding of all the domains worked on by SOFA’s. Further, said Ms. Dominelli, Ms. Seymour is currently on sick leave and has been away from the office for 248 days over the past three years.

32Ms. Dominelli testified that the work of a SOFA does not involve tasks pertaining to BlackBerry mobile phones, and advised that the ordering of BlackBerry devices is completed by the mobile IT team in Service Order Management. Nor, she testified, does the work of the SOFA position involve either interaction with vendors or performing work coming from the help desk. Neither, she testified, does the work of a SOFA generally involve simply filling in boxes on the screen. The work of a SOFA, by the testimony of Ms. Dominelli, comes from client requests through an on line ordering tool and is done in the data centre. A person needs the appropriate technical background in computers in order to do the SOFA job, said Ms. Dominelli, and that this cannot be learned on the job. It is the evidence of Ms. Dominelli that SOFA’s do not use knowledge records to perform their work, but rather, have access to a 250 page reference guide in One Note that is in place to document all the anomalies and differences in the work instructions across the various domains in which the SOFA’s work. Ms. Dominelli made clear in her evidence that it is not possible for a person to just read the reference guide and then be able to do the job of a SOFA. Neither, testified Ms. Dominelli, can she agree that all SO3’s are interchangeable with some training, and pointed to Ms. Seymour as an illustration of the fallacy of that suggestion. Ms. Seymour transitioned into ITS as an SO3, she said, and after many years of attempted training she still can only work on one domain and is unable to work at an acceptable level as a SOFA.

33It is the position of the Union that Ms. Vidia Ramlogan is entry level qualified for the SOFA position which is at the same SO3 level to the position from which she was surplused. The union submits the evidence discloses that Ms. Ramlogan has spent a significant period of her career dealing with service requests, fulfilling requests, and creating accounts on the voice side of the IT department, with the job she seeks carrying out similar duties on the data side of the same department. It is the submission of the union that the format of the job she seeks is similar to the job she has done, only using different tools and skills. With Ms. Ramlogan being a fast learner by the union’s evidence and given the importance of protecting the grievor’s seniority interests in this situation, the union argues it has made a prima facie case that Ms. Ramlogan is able to perform the duties of the SOFA position and that the employer has failed to show that she is not entry level qualified and unable to carry out the essential duties of the SOFA position.

34In support of its position and submissions the union made reference to the following arbitral authorities: OPSEU (Galluci) v. Ontario (Ministry of Government Services), GSB No. 2012-1007, (Lynk, 2013); OPSEU (Falco) v. Ontario (Ministry of Labour), GSB No. 2011-4120, (Devins, 2013); OPSEU (Bazinet) v. Ontario (Ministry of Environment and Energy), GSB No. 1298/96, (Mikus, 1998); AMAPCEO (Policy) v. Ontario (Ministry of Government Services), GSB No. 2008-2144, (Dissanayake, 2009); and to OPSEU (Strunc) v. Ontario (Ministry of the Environment and Energy), GSB No. 1655/96, (Harris, 2000).

35It is the position of the employer that the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Ramlogan is not entry level qualified to perform the duties of the SOFA position and that the grievance should be denied. The employer submits that the job information package for job #57835 makes it very clear this is a technical job that requires a real depth of knowledge in a few areas and that there is very little in Ms. Ramlogan’s employee profile that matches the particulars set out in the job information package. The employer submits further that this is a front-line technology job working with mainframe computers, that there is a huge difference between mainframe technology and telecommunications technology, and that the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Ramlogan does not have the background technical knowledge that is needed to do this job whether or not Ms. Ramlogan is a fast learner as contended by the union.

36It is the submission of the employer that the steps set out in Article 20 of the collective agreement pertaining to a Targeted Direct Assignment for a vacant Position have been followed, and that indeed the grievor was given time extensions in excess of the time frames specified in Article 20. As such, submits the employer, it has followed the process agreed to by the union as set out in the collective agreement, and that there is no guarantee or entitlement that upon completion of the process there will be a job position found. Further, and in relation to the matter of onus, it is the position of the employer that it is for the union to demonstrate and make the case that Ms. Ramlogan is entry level qualified for the SOFA 57835 position, as they claim, and not for the employer to demonstrate that she is not. The employer submits that the union has not shown that Ms. Ramlogan has the technical skills to be entry level qualified for the SOFA job.

37In support of its position and submissions the employer made reference to the following arbitral authorities: OPSEU (Loebel) v. Ontario (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing), GSB No. 331/82, (Verity, 1983); OPSEU (Ansari) v. Ontario (Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs), GSB No. 0482/97, (Abramsky, 1998); AMAPCEO (Policy) v. Ontario (Ministry of Government Services), GSB No. 2008-2144, (Dissanayake, 2009), OPSEU (Henderson) v. Ontario (Ministry of Citizenship), GSB Nos. 1097/91 and 1269/91, (Barrett, 1992); OPSEU (Union) v. Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources & Management Board Secretariat), GSB No. 318/96, (Briggs, 1996); OPSEU (Cotter) v. Ontario (Niagara Parks Commission), GSB No. 2009-0437, (Williamson, 2014); OPSEU (Rolston) v .Ontario (Ministry of the Environment), GSB Nos. 2012-1848, 2012-1849, 2012-1850, 2012-1851, (Tims, 2014); and to OPSEU (Sessions) v. Ontario (Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care), GSB No. 2012-4593, (Williamson, 2015).

38The parties join issue on whether Ms. Ramlogan has the necessary skills and knowledge to perform the major components of the SOFA position on an entry level basis. In doing so, it is clear that the parties have significantly different views of what the SOFA job entails. For the union it is a position not much different from the TRIMS position, but dealing with data issues rather than voice. For the employer it is a technical position requiring certain expert knowledge of computers. Having heard the evidence put forward by the parties the conclusion that must be reached is that the employer’s position as to the nature of the SOFA position must prevail. That is, it is a front-line job requiring expert knowledge of computers and how they function. The reasons for this conclusion are set out below.

39First the job specification itself. The Job Specification for the SOFA position sets out in unequivocal terms that certain expert knowledge is required for this position, namely:

Job requires expert knowledge of Active Directory Users and Computers, to create, modify Active Directory user accounts, Distribution lists and security groups.

Job requires expert knowledge of Enterprise Email service, understanding mailbox creation, email protocols and knowledge in standard windows products such as such as MS Office applications to create secure email/mailbox accounts.

Job requires expert knowledge of RACF (Mainframe) in order to provide support to clusters and ministries, including activities around disaster recovery.

40Second, the views expressed by Ms. King Wilson who has a work background in computer related technology and has significant technology-related work experience. It is her evidence that after reviewing the job specification for the SOFA position she concluded that this was a technical position requiring certain expert knowledge.

41Third, the testimony of Ms. Laina Dominelli who has in the past performed the duties of the SOFA position and is the manager to whom the SOFA position reports. As such, she must have a close understanding of what the SOFA job involves. It is the evidence of Ms. Dominelli that the SOFA job is an extremely technical position that requires a computer science background and technical experience in order to be able to do the job. It is the evidence of Ms. Dominelli that she herself has a computer programming background and did the job a decade or so ago, but that since then the OPS computer environment has become much more complicated and that she could not do the SOFA job today.

42Fourth, the evidence of Mr. Nishio who is a senior manager in the telecom branch of Infrastructure Technical Services (ITS) into which the TRIMS position fell. Mr. Nishio testified that a person in the SOFA position works to fulfill requests with orders going into the active directory of the computer system, and that to do this requires advanced technical knowledge of computer systems. Mr. Nishio testified that he does not have these technical skills as it is data centre operations work which is a different technology from his area of telephone services. Mr. Nishio also distinguished the work of the SOFA position from that of a Service Order Processing Analyst (SOPA) and a Help Desk Analyst

43Fifth, the evidence of Mr. King, a union steward who has been supportive of Ms. Ramlogan in her grievance, is hearsay based largely on speaking with Ms. Candy Seymour. Mr. King has no direct knowledge of the SOFA position and has never performed the duties of that position. As such, his testimony cannot be preferred over that of Ms. Dominelli who has first-hand experience of what the job entails, both from having worked in the position and now managing the position. Further, the evidence discloses that Ms. Seymour is on a reduced work load, spends only a small part of her time performing SOFA duties, and that she does not have a complete understanding of the nature of the SOFA position. As such, it must be concluded that Mr. King did not receive full and complete information as to the duties of the SOFA position and the knowledge and skills required to do the SOFA job.

44Sixth, the evidence of Ms. Richardson, a retired co-ordinator of telecom services, is not of assistance in this matter as she testified she does not know the nature of the SOFA position.

45Seventh, Ms. Ramlogan testified that she was of the view that the SOFA job and the TRIMS co-ordinator position were of similar complexity, and that the SOFA job was the same job she did in TRIMS except that one is telecom based and the other is computer based. Her evidence is that she formed this view on the basis of talking to some unspecified people and reading the SOFA job description, but did not explain how she arrived at this conclusion. Nor did Ms. Ramlogan identify the information source that led her to believe the computer systems were user friendly, that the SOFA job entailed working with different types of computer screens and applications so that she could respond to tickets at the service desk, or that there are knowledge records she could access to quickly learn how to meet requests from clients. In as much as this information is not contained in the SOFA job description, the basis for Ms. Ramlogan’s view of the nature of the duties of the SOFA position is found to be based on hearsay evidence from unspecified sources and, to the extent it conflicts with the testimony of Ms. Dominelli, cannot be preferred over the evidence of Ms. Dominelli who has first-hand direct knowledge of what the SOFA job entails.

46Having reached the determination that the SOFA position is a technical one that requires expert knowledge of computers, we turn to consider whether Ms. Ramlogan meets the entry level qualifications for the position as set out in Article 20.3.1.1(b) of the collective agreement. In doing so we will be guided by the explanatory note prepared by the employer in conjunction with OPSEU whereby the term entry level qualifications means the employee must have the necessary skills and knowledge to perform the major components of the position on an entry level basis.

47A review of the evidence leads compellingly to the conclusion that Ms. Ramlogan has not demonstrated that she possesses at this time the technical skills and knowledge that would enable her to step into the SOFA job and perform the major components of the position on an entry level basis. The evidence supporting this conclusion is the clear absence of any reference on the face of Ms. Ramlogan’s Employee Portfolio to having any technical knowledge of computers, computer programming, or computer systems engineering. There is additionally the testimony given by Ms. King Wilson and Ms. Dominelli on the matter of Ms. Ramlogan not having the technical skills and knowledge to perform the duties of what has been found to be a technical position.

48Ms. Dominelli, who must be seen to understand the nature of the SOFA position having both performed the SOFA duties in the past and now managing the personnel in that position, reached the conclusion that Ms. Ramlogan is deficient in the skill set and knowledge of the technical environment required for the SOFA position and is not entry level qualified.

49Ms. King Wilson, in making the determination that Ms. Ramlogan was not entry level qualified and would not be able to perform the duties of the SOFA position at a competent level within a period of three months or so, supported her conclusion with the following comments which are hereby adopted by this Arbitrator:

There is no demonstrated expert knowledge of Active Directory Users and Computers to create, modify Active Directory user accounts, Distribution lists and security groups. As well, there is no demonstrated knowledge of Enterprise Email service, understanding mailbox creation, email protocols and knowledge in standard windows products such as MS Office applications to create secure email/mailbox accounts, nor the required knowledge of RACF (Mainframe) in order to provide support to clusters and ministries, including activities around disaster recovery.

50It is the grievance of Ms. Ramlogan that the employer has failed to assign her, by way of the Targeted Direct Assignment process contained in Article 20.03 of the collective agreement, to a vacant position for which she meets the entry level requirements, namely the Service Order Fulfillment Analyst (SOFA) position, Job I.D. # 57835 in the Ministry of Government Services. In bringing this grievance forward to arbitration it is incumbent on the grievor, as in all matters of this kind, to adduce evidence that she possesses the skills and knowledge to be able to perform at the entry level the duties of the SOFA position. The evidence pertaining to Ms. Ramlogan’s skills and knowledge in relation to the requirements of the position has been duly considered and it is found, for all the foregoing reasons, that Ms. Ramlogan is not entry level qualified to perform the duties of the SOFA position. As such, Ms. Ramlogan does not meet the requirements stipulated in Article 20.3 for a Targeted Direct Assignment to the Service Order Fulfillment Analyst position.

51Accordingly, this particular grievance of Ms. Ramlogan must be denied.

52The undersigned Vice-Chair remains seized of jurisdiction of GSB File # 2013-3397 in regards to the other issues raised by Ms. Ramlogan in OPSEU grievance # 2013-0504-0042, as well as the other grievances filed by Ms. Ramlogan with GSB File #’s 2013-3398 to 2013-3408 that reflect OPSEU grievance #’s 2013-0504-0043 to 2013-0504-0053.