Red Falls Transit Authority

The Red Falls Transit Authority $($RFTA$)$ operates transit services in a regional center with a population of $400,000.$ Full$-$time and part$-$time RFTA employees are represented by Unifor.

RFTA posted a job opening for an inspector. Inspectors act as lead hands and are not supervisors. They ensure that schedules are met and signs are correctly displayed, deal with complaints from the public, distribute monthly passes, approve the trading of shifts by drivers, and allocate authorized overtime. The job posting provided that the minimum requirements were as follows: Grade $12$ education, three years$$ experience in the transit industry, the ability to make decisions, the ability to complete projects and meet deadlines, the ability to deal with the public, written communication skills, good health, and the ability to walk for extended periods of time.

Five individuals applied for the inspector job. As part of the selection process, the Authority gave all five employees a test they had first used for the inspector$$s job six months earlier. The applicants were tested when they were interviewed and were not told about the test in advance. The test used was developed after input from current inspectors had been received and an analysis of the inspector$$s job had been completed. It included questions regarding terms of the collective agreement, mathematics, problem solving, and health and safety.

Jill Akerman, who had been employed as a full$-$time driver for $10$ years, was one of the applicants$$her first application for an inspector$$s job. The position was awarded to Jonathan Noakes, another applicant who had less seniority but a higher test score. It was later determined that Akerman$$s score on the test had been $38$ percent, while Noakes had scored $68$ percent. It was also found that he had written the same test six months earlier as part of a previous application for an inspector$$s job. He had improved his score by $22$ percent. Noakes had not been provided with a copy of the first test or been advised about the test results. This decision resulted in the union filing a grievance on behalf of Akerman.

Sections from two relevant articles in the collective agreement were cited in the grievance.

Article $4.$ Management rights

The Authority shall retain the exclusive right and power to manage its business and direct its working forces including but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the right to hire, suspend, discharge, promote, demote and discipline any employee for just cause.

Article $10.$ Job postings

$10\mathrm{.}7$ Seniority shall always be given utmost consideration in making promotions, demotions and transfers, and when skill, knowledge and ability are equal, seniority will prevail.

Questions

What arguments would the union make at the arbitration hearing?

What arguments would the employer make at the arbitration hearing?

As the arbitrator in this case, state whether you would uphold or dismiss this grievance. Give your reasons to support this decision.

As an HR professional working for RFTA what changes might you make regarding selection testing for unionized job postings?