I have to confess that I don't really know what you mean by this. Jobbing is a term from professional wrestling that simply means to lose. A jobber is a wrestler who loses routinely. In the parlance of analyzing fiction, it has come to refer to bringing in a character to lose just to show off how tough the winner is. Strictly speaking, Batman has been brought in to this story to create dramatic tension with the Huntress, because they have competing goals in this case, and conflict is the essence of drama. More germanely, though, you are begging the question.
That is, I think that you, and a lot of other people who have a problem with the thesis I'm advancing, are starting from the assumption that Batman must be stealthier than the Huntress, because he must be the best at everything. Having begun by assuming what you have set out to prove, you then can reject out of hand any contrary evidence, and so maintain that there is insufficient evidence to support the thesis.
A more logical way to begin, in my opinion, would be to say that we don't know who is stealthier, and to only make judgments based on the evidence before us. Now, at this moment, all the evidence that has been presented indicates that the Huntress is stealthier than Batman. Saying "oh, he's just jobbing to her" does not constitute evidence.