Only one person applied for the promotion, and he had the degree and the years to qualify
The only person who applied for the promotion did not get it. He had the credentials and the experience, his union argued, yet he was passed over after a scored job interview, and an arbitrator declined to overturn the result.
Arbitrator Michael Bendel dismissed the grievance on July 6, 2026, rejecting the Ontario Public Service Employees Union's challenge to Seneca Polytechnic's refusal to promote a bargaining-unit worker to senior business intelligence analyst. The sole internal applicant scored 35 per cent on a panel assessment that set 75 per cent as the promotion mark.
The only applicant, and the score that sank him
The worker, already an intermediate analyst in the college's IT department, was the only applicant for the senior role posted on Aug. 16, 2023. At a Sept. 6 interview, a panel of two senior managers scored him on seven weighted factors, from technical knowledge to diversity, equity and inclusion, plus a separate skills test.
His master's degree in computer science earned a four, exceeding the posting's requirements, and his experience drew a three. Technical knowledge, innovation, communication skills and the skills test each scored a one. The overall figure came to 35 per cent, below the 75 per cent target set in advance.
A talent acquisition specialist told the worker the panel found him short in three areas: the data process ETL, the language SQL, and communicating with non-technical audiences. He testified he was surprised, calling those his strengths. An email two days later confirmed the rejection and offered help to build his skills. The college hired externally.
A union grievance built on the collective agreement
The union grieved under Article 17.1.1 of the collective agreement, which tells the college to select on qualifications, experience and seniority in relation to the job, with seniority deciding when qualifications and experience are relatively equal. The union argued the panel leaned too hard on the interview and skills, and too little on the worker's record.
It maintained the worker had over a decade of experience and was qualified, and that the 75 per cent target sat above the proficiency the plan described. The union asked Bendel to install him in the role with back pay, or re-run the competition.
The college countered that the decision was reasonable and grounded in the worker's résumé and answers. It pointed to the agreement's recognition of management's right to promote, and said it could weigh a candidate against all the job's demands, not just the minimum posted qualifications. A panel member testified the senior role demanded stronger communication and leadership.
Why the arbitrator wouldn’t second-guess the panel
Bendel narrowed the fight to three questions: whether the interview questions were fair, whether the panel accurately recorded the answers, and whether it ranked them fairly. On each, the only evidence was the clashing testimony of the worker and the panel member, with no appraisals or independent analysis to break the tie.
On the union's objections, Bendel disagreed. Interviews are a legitimate selection tool, he held, and reviewers intervene only when one strays from the job's requirements. He recalled a caution from an earlier award: "The criticism, valid in my view, has been made that interviews tend to favour applicants who (to use the vernacular) can "talk the talk", and that the questions asked often do not probe the applicants' true ability to perform the work, merely their ability to articulate interesting or insightful ideas about the job."
Satisfied the interview had focused on the job, Bendel rejected the complaint that skills outweighed experience, saying reviewers should defer to a panel's weighting of selection factors and not intervene when its approach is "not unreasonable." He saw nothing unreasonable, and put the burden on the challenger: "Since the burden of proof was on the union to demonstrate the flaws in the process which it had alleged, I can only conclude that I am not in a position to accept the grievor's view of any of these alleged flaws." The grievance was dismissed.
See Seneca Polytechnic v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2026 CanLII 66945 (ON LA)
