Northern Health Authority has been found to have breached its collective agreement when it failed to properly assess two senior respiratory therapists who applied for a chief position at University Hospital of Northern British Columbia in 2022.
An arbitrator ruled the employer did not reasonably consider the qualifications and performance of the two workers and failed to follow its own selection process when filling the chief respiratory therapist role. Both applicants had significantly more seniority than the successful candidate but were passed over after a flawed interview process.
The two workers applied for the position in August and September 2022. One had worked as a respiratory therapist at the hospital since 2001, the other since 2004. Both were classified as grade 1 respiratory therapists at the time. A third candidate was also interviewed.
The applicant with the highest interview score — 83.62 points — had been with the employer since 2004. The successful candidate scored 79.93 points. The most senior applicant scored 62.54 points.
The union argued the employer relied too heavily on interview scores and failed to assess clinical skills, despite the fact that approximately 40% of the chief role involved direct clinical practice. The job posting described the position as responsible for delivering professional, clinical and academic services, and providing practice leadership.
Selection process criticized
The director who led the selection process created 13 interview questions focused exclusively on managerial duties. No questions addressed the clinical component of the role. The director also created her own scoring matrix that assigned point values of 15, 20 or 25 to each question, but provided no explanation for why different questions received different values.
The scoring matrix included an additional review section worth 90 points for observed work performance, attendance and file review. However, no work performance observations were conducted during the selection process. All three candidates received maximum scores for attendance and file review because no performance appraisals or documented issues existed in their personnel files.
The employer did not check references for any of the candidates. The manager of the respiratory therapy department — who was married to one of the applicants — was excluded from the process. The employer said it did not contact the previous incumbent in the chief role because she had worked closely with the excluded manager and there could be bias.
The union also pointed to irregularities in how the employer followed its own process. Human resources had sent the director a chart titled “breakdown of factors based on document review” that identified documents to be reviewed and scoring criteria. The director testified she did not use this chart and could not explain why.
During the interviews, panel members took turns asking questions and took notes but asked no follow-up questions. Both applicants testified they were surprised at the lack of questions about their clinical experience and assumed the employer would review their resumes for additional information.
One applicant’s resume included extensive detail about acute care experience, neonatal resuscitation instruction, certified respiratory education, preceptor duties and management certificates obtained since 2014. She had also worked at a sleep apnea clinic where her duties included recruiting, interviewing, hiring and training staff.
The other applicant’s resume noted experience as a preceptor, student instruction and one year as neonatal intensive care unit supervisor. She had also co-owned a small business for 10 years that involved managing staff and completing payroll and budgeting.
Employer’s defence rejected
The employer argued the successful candidate was the most qualified applicant and that seniority did not need to be considered. It said the candidates’ resumes were reviewed to award interviews but that the selection decision was based on interview scores. The employer noted it is not held to a standard of perfection in selection processes.
The arbitrator found the employer did not provide a persuasive explanation for why the successful candidate received a higher score for qualifications than both applicants, particularly regarding the assessment that she possessed the required supervisory experience. None of the employer’s witnesses could identify specific aspects of the successful candidate’s resume that demonstrated supervisory experience such as scheduling or discipline.
“I am unable to pinpoint any reasonable basis for its conclusion that [the successful candidate] was so superior to either grievor, on the basis of the selection criteria in Article 10.01(b), that seniority did not need to be considered,” the arbitrator wrote.
The arbitrator noted that one applicant was eventually awarded the position on a temporary relief basis in June 2024 after the successful candidate went on leave. That applicant has held the role successfully for over a year. The arbitrator said if the employer reasonably concluded the applicant was not qualified initially, it should not have awarded her the position even on a temporary basis.
Collective agreement requirements
The collective agreement states that in promotions, capability, performance and qualifications shall be the primary consideration. When such factors are equal between employees, seniority shall be the determining factor.
The arbitrator found the employer gave arbitrary consideration to performance on the basis that all three candidates were long-serving respiratory therapists.
“If the mere fact that an employee had long service with the employer was sufficient to discharge the obligation to consider the performance criterion, it would never need to be applied to senior employees,” the tribunal wrote.
The arbitrator declared the employer breached the collective agreement and allowed the grievance. The union requested a monetary remedy for one applicant for loss of opportunity. That issue was remitted to the parties for mutual agreement, with the arbitrator retaining jurisdiction if they cannot agree.
The successful candidate was given notice of the proceedings but chose not to attend or participate. She commenced working in the position in September 2022 and went on leave approximately 18 months later.
For more information, see Northern Health Authority (University Hospital of Northern British Columbia) v Health Sciences Association of British Columbia, 2025 CanLII 100973 (BC LA).
