Case citation: Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of thhe Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298
Facts:
The respondent started to work at the Royal Canadian Mint in 1979 as an operator.
At the time when he was hired he already had experience as a tinsmith and electrician's helper for 1 year and ½. Both as an operator and in his prior occupations he has been a member of the union and thus subjected to the collective agreement. The Royal Canadian Mint poster a position on January 18 1982 for a maintenance man, that required the person to have a minimum two years experience in an industrial environment. The respondent along with other 3 employees applied for the position. Article 38.16 of the collective agreement …show more content…
The article reads:
“In filling the vacant and newly-created positions as per the provisions of Clauses 38.14 and 38.15 as stated in the document, the Employer shall evaluate the applicants according to the following decisive factors: skills, ability, seniority, knowledge, and previous experience. These factors shall be considered with equality in the process of decision.”
With the union's approval the Mint prepared a document for promotion assessment which set out these key factors. These factors will be tested using a points system of 20 points based on experience both with the Mint or outside. The respondent received 20 points for previous experience which made him the perfect candidate for the position and was advised by the mint of his position. On March 15 and 16, 1982, the three unsuccessful candidates for the position, Lorne Cavers, John S. McKenzie and Michel Hébert, grieved the decision of the employer appointing the respondent to the position of preventive maintenance man on the ground that the determining factor of previous experience had not been properly applied and that the scores should be re-evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted. Following the presentation of the grievances by the three
Facts:
The respondent started to work at the Royal Canadian Mint in 1979 as an operator.
At the time when he was hired he already had experience as a tinsmith and electrician's helper for 1 year and ½. Both as an operator and in his prior occupations he has been a member of the union and thus subjected to the collective agreement. The Royal Canadian Mint poster a position on January 18 1982 for a maintenance man, that required the person to have a minimum two years experience in an industrial environment. The respondent along with other 3 employees applied for the position. Article 38.16 of the collective agreement …show more content…
The article reads:
“In filling the vacant and newly-created positions as per the provisions of Clauses 38.14 and 38.15 as stated in the document, the Employer shall evaluate the applicants according to the following decisive factors: skills, ability, seniority, knowledge, and previous experience. These factors shall be considered with equality in the process of decision.”
With the union's approval the Mint prepared a document for promotion assessment which set out these key factors. These factors will be tested using a points system of 20 points based on experience both with the Mint or outside. The respondent received 20 points for previous experience which made him the perfect candidate for the position and was advised by the mint of his position. On March 15 and 16, 1982, the three unsuccessful candidates for the position, Lorne Cavers, John S. McKenzie and Michel Hébert, grieved the decision of the employer appointing the respondent to the position of preventive maintenance man on the ground that the determining factor of previous experience had not been properly applied and that the scores should be re-evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted. Following the presentation of the grievances by the three