Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-2149.Oyston.91-06-20SETI-LEMENT RkGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 2149/86 IN TRB RATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under ', THE CROWN ENPLOYFZS COLLRCTIVR BARGAINING ACT Before TREGRISVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN BEFORE: OPSEU (Oystbn) . Grievor - anp - " 1' . " The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) -. Employer J. Samuels Vice-Cha&peyson J. Carruthers Member A _ ,F. Collict Member FOR THE GRIEVOR R. Blair Counsel _1 Cavalluzzo, Hayes h Shilton Barrister & Solicitors FOR THE EMPMyER J. Gallagher Staff Relations Advisor Ministry of Transportation HEARING January 24 1991 May 21, 1991 . 2 The grievor is a Driver Examiner at the Driver Examination Centre in Brantford. He is one of the two employees at this Centre who does the in-car testing for driver’s licences. At the Centre there is also an inside examiner and several clerical staff. He is classified as a Driver Examiner and he says that this is not the appropriate classification. He suggests that he ought to be classified as a Driver Examination Supervisor 1. The grievor’s position specification is found as Appendix A to this award; the class standard for Driver Examiner is Appendix B; and the standard for Driver Examination Supervisor 1 is Appendix C. The grievor’s claim is based on the fact that, for a significant period each year since 1986, he has acted as’ the Driver Examination Supervisor in place of Mr. L. Ellis, when Ellis has been off work because of vacation or illness. In this capacity, the grievor has performed the full range of administrative and supervisory,duties normally performed by Mr. Ellis. In 1986, the grievor replaced Mr. Ellis for 54 days, one-half of which time was because qf vacation and the other half because of illness. The 54 days were not consecutive, but consisted of a number of separate periods. The grievor testified, and he was not contradicted, that he received only one day off in lieu for all of the time he spent as Mr. Ellis’ replacement. The Union argues that the duration, frequency and regularity of the grievor’s supervisory duties take him out of the Driver Examiner class standard. The Employer, on the other hand, argues that, if any remedy is available to the grievor, it falls under Article 6.1.1 of the collective agreement, which provides for acting pay for an employee who is temporarily assigned to perform the duties of a position in a classification with a higher salary for a period in excess of five consecutive working days. - ’ ,3 In our view, the- issue is whether~ ,the duration, frequency and regularity of the grievor’s assignment to supervisory duties is such that this assignment (or series of assignments) can ,np longer be characterized as “temporary”, but rather that the supervisory duties have become ,a part.of his position. T&re are several previous decisions ,of this .Board, which might prove helpful in our determination. In Boyle, 67’5/85 .(Branclt), the grievors were Renewal Processing Clerks in the- Mi&ry of Transportation and .Communications. They’ were classified as Clerk 3 General, but were trained in atid rotated through a number of .functions ,which were peculiar :to the Clerk 4 General classification. The Board decided that, in ,order for the grievors to be lifted out of ,the .Clerk 3 classification, it was sufficient that the employer Could call up011 the clerks to perform level 4 functions and expect the em@loyees to measure.up to the standard expected of that higher level of classification (at page 12). Given the training received by t&e grievors in the level 4 functions, and their responsibility to perforn~~these functions properly if called upon, the.extent to which the clerks were actually called upon to perform the leyel 4 functions, was not-relevant to the question of the classification, of their posjtions (at page 13). i In. Dunning, !574/88 (Gorsky), $e grievor w+s~ classified as an Electronic T&$nicia+ His positioq had evoived over the years, and.had gradually come, JO include ! gumbe? of;tasks which were beyond fhe standard for Electronic Technician., The ,Boafd ordered the Employer to classify -Jh,e grievor properly, either in q existing classification or in a new classification created to cover his position. In Wortfzy et al,, 94/89 (Gorsky), the grievor: were Driver . . Examiners in. Scarbordugh., Their claim f?F reclassificatipn was based on duties outside the Driver Examiner class standaid. However, after 4 reviewing the evidence at some length, the Board concluded that the nature and extent of the additional duties did not warrant any change in classification. In MyerslPerrin, 75IJ90, two grievors, who worked in’the dietary and stores area at the South-Western Regional Centre of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, sought reclassification. They were both classified as Clerk 2, Supply. The Board found that Myers’ normal duties did not fit comfortably within the class standard for Clerk 2, Supply. But h4r. Myers replaced another employee for roughly two months every year, and the duties of this other employee were within the standard for the grievor’s current classification. The Employer argued that these replacement duties ought to be considered and this would support a conclusion that the grievor was properly classified. However, the Board noted that the Employer had characterized these replacement duties as a “temporary assignment”, and therefore could not argue that these duties were part of the grievor’s normal position (at page 19). Thus, the Employer was held to be committed to its own characterization and was not permitted to argue the alternative position. Taken as a whole, these decisions suggest to us that, when an employee is called upon to perform duties which are beyond the duties contemplated in the employee’s classification, a reclassification will be warranted if the nature and extent’of these additional duties is sufficient to change the characterization of the grievor’s position. In other words, reclassification is not warranted merely because there are duties which are outside the duties contemplated in the employee’s current classification. Reclassification is only warranted when these additional duties become significant enough in the overall constellation of duties performed by the grievor. All of which may be helpful as a general notion, but it offers little guidance in drawing the line in any particular case between a true 5 “temporary assignment” and a restructuring of an employee’s basic job duties which warrants reclassification. .‘. a In our case, was the grievor siinRly filling in for the Driver Examination Supervisor while the Supervisor was on vacation (for which there is no additional pay, because section.4(5) of Regulation 881‘under the Public Service Act says that there cannot be a designation to perform duties in an acting capacity when the incumbent is absent due’ to vacation, and Article 6.4 of the collective agreement echoes this provision by providing that the whole of Article 6, dealing with temporary assignments, does not apply to the situation where an ‘employee is temporarily assigned to perform the duties and responsibilities of another employee who is on vacation), and on a “temporary assignment” while ‘the Supervisor was ill (for which the grievor ‘ought to have received acting pay for any period in excess of five working days, pursuant’ to Article 6.1.1 of the collective agreement)? Or had the supervisory and administrative duties become an integral part of the grievor’s position, so that the grievor ought~ to be reclassified? .’ ,~,~ ‘-.’ Let us consider two extreme &uati&is’~before coming to Mr: Oyston’s case. ” , Suppose an employee fills fin for an ail&g super&or every second day throughout the year. In this situation, there would be no acting pay under Article 6.l.l;‘becausZ the .employee is not doing the duties of the higher classification’for any period ih excess of five consecutive working days. Would this mean that, in effect, the emmoyee woul’d be the . supervisor for half the year but receive no extra pay? Surely not. In such a case, one would have to conclude that the supervisory duties had become an integral part of the employee’s job, and the employee ought to be reclassified.~ ‘. . I ‘t’ ~,., I -. 6 Or, suppose’that an employee fills in for an ailing supervisor for one period of six days during a year. Surely this is precisely the situation which is covered by Article 6.1.1, and the employee would receive acting pay for the six days only, remaining in his or her regular classification for the balance of the year. Somewhere in between these two situations, the nature and extent of the supervisory duties become such an integral part of the employee’s position that these duties can no longer be characterized as a “temporary assignment” and reclassification is warranted. Where does Mr. Oyston’s case fall? Jn ‘1986, he spent 54 days, being 20% of the year, acting as the Driver Examination Supervisor in,Brantford, replacing Mr. Ellis. One- half of this time was because of vacation and the other half because of illness. The 54 days were not consecutive, but consisted of~a number of separate periods. And this type of pattern appears to have continued for several years. It is useful to look at 1986 in some detail. Mr. Ellis was off sick on January 23, then on vacation from January 27 to February 7. He was off sick on February 20 and March 14. Then he took a day of vacation on March 21. He took one day off sick on April 3, then was off sick from April 14 to May 9. He returned to work on May 12, but was off sick again on May 15. He was onvacation on May 23 and 26, sick on May 29 and off on vacation on the 30th. In June, he was off sick on the 1201, 26th and 27th, and then on vacation from June 30 to July 7. He was off sick on July 10, 17 and 24. And this on and off pattern continued throughout the year. In our view, with a vacation and sickness pattern like this, the need to replace Mr. Ellis was part of the warp and woof of Mr. Oyston’s position. This was not simply a case of vacation replacement or temporary -. 7 ~assignment to cover for another employee’s illness. Mr. Ellis was away from work on a very frequent basis, a day here, a week there, in an irregular but insistent pattern. Mr. Oyston, had to take on,the supervisory and administrative duties as part of his.regular duties throughout the year. In these circumstances, in our view, Mr. Oyston was not properly classified throughout this period as a Driver Examiner and ought to have been classified as a Driver Examination Supervisor 1. We order that he be reclassified and compensated as of twenty days before he first made a formal .complaint about his classification on November 18, 1986. And we will remain seized to deal with any matter arising out of this order. Done at London, Ontario, this.*oth ,’ day of June ) 1991. '* I Dissent " ( dissent attached) F. Collict, Member : .” ,,\ ’ ., UUIDIAIC I”?C”YISOW, TltLr Driver Examination Supervisor Brantford ;i~,Ji~;.. -. ,,, _. .-- -- -A- - . . Transportation end Communications .-___.. - -._ _- . ..- lnn”Cll iiCiG-- ----- i~~i?jrlGz~,n, Regional Operations ;nw~ic9i;;~~ ~v=!!ic_l~,~-.----- ,__ ..___ - tlamiltoQ_i_et,. 14 lloliday Inn Drive, y&y~ sy~,rm~s~::,” 1PK”YDC”II 1”IZ”“ISFD 0lnlCrt.I lNLM”lClC” P.O. Box 1554, 1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Llrantford, Ontario N3T 5v6 !. PURPOSE OF POSITION,~~Y DDE, T!!M rns~no~ LX~I~STI)TE GW.L~ ~BI~CIWEI EX.I To examine applicants for original driver licenses and to re-examine licensed drivers required to aubmf.t to re-examination for cause or change of license. To provide license information and related transactions. TO assist public who have licensing problems. lWDlCA,E SC FE. IO”I,HEH,.YIOnKINO COhl”l,,OHS UNUSUAL ? FEI\I”“ES iK.I Under tte general direction of the Centre Su 1. Testing applicants or retesting licensed -. determining the fitness, compete being tested. 7 ’ applying test procedures app 0 appropriate level of licence - conducting vision tests an - giving oral tests If neces - giving actual road test on iate type,of vehicle in accordance with level of license. . observing applicant the mechanical and the handling of the vehicle; 707. noting compliance 0 , rules of safe driving, and skill in handling the vehicle. - observing actual ri motorcycle from a p making a written as assessing total per - determining the suit persons, or determini , skill and demonstrated ability in operating a ed vantage point. ,an applicant’s performance. d making a judgement decision. specialfred controls used to assist handicapped special licensing conditions should be applied. public and administrative tasks by: istance to public and others on the licensing of classified der The llighway Traffic Act and testing requirements - booking test appo ta, collecting fees and issuing permits end temporary 257. driving licenses. - keeping accurate a unt of money received and banked and permits issued and ’ stock balances. - determining wheth to exchange licenses from other jurisdictions for provincial equivalent or re t the applicant. (continued on back) I. SKlLLSAN” KNOWLEDGE flEOUlllED TO PEl-lF0flf.l TIIE WO~~KIST~IE~DUC~~,ON.~~A~NIHO.~X..IIIEHCEIIC.I Good knowledge of Acts 6. Regulations applicable to the position, driving licensing and rules of the road. good commpnicetion skills, oral and written. Extensive driving experience. Must ooesess and maintain a valid Class “D” or hinher class license issued by the Province -. .- -... ^^._ .^., I .,’ I., S-ry of Duties & Besponsibflitibs (Cont’d) 3. Attends travel points if required to provide tasting and licensing services by: - providing testing procedures as described under #l . - providing administrative,and informational.services as described under 02. ; 5% - Performs other related duties es assigned. Skills & Knovle&e (Cont’d) Sound .judgementi and d&al tactfully and intelligently with the public. Must maintain a driving reCord’thatw&d bear examination and meet the requirements as proscribed by Regulation 464, Section 3, Subsection I, clauses b, ba, c & d and meet medica : qualifications as required by Regulation 462, Section 9, Subsections 1 & 3 of the liighway Traffic Act of Ontario. . : . : . . . APPENDIX B i;',ASS 5ir:N:TION : -hasa employees determine the competence of dpplicdnts for drivers' ii~4n~43 throuqh application of a variety of accepted examination Lcchniques. In addition, they are expected to assess the faults 11f aonlicants and to suqqest how driving habits may be inproved. Considerable initiative and ability is required in giving examinations in view of the wide variations in ability; temperament and emotional s:ability of applicants and also in the traific conditions. GenetdI suoarvision is received from a more senior driver examiner. Howeve:, since :hese employees are fully qualified examiners, they work with considerable independence at examination centres or scheduled examination field trips to designated travelling points. They may assist in training probationary examiners. ‘Ability to handle the --ublic diplomatically. is a requirement. ‘.‘, : I .iARACT”RISTIC D'tiTISS: , Accompany applicants for drivers’ licence3 over prescribed routes entailing a variety 0 f-traffic conditions and regulations: determine competence of applicant3 and their~knowledge of driving requlations under the Highway Traffic Act. Observe applicants' mental and physical f i:ness to operate motor vehicles: determine what licence restrictions or specialised equip- ment :o compensate for physical impaizment are necessary. Conduct vision tests, sign recoqnition tests and wiitten and oral examinations; qive special driving examinations to elderly or handi- capped persons. ?articipatc in office administration including the collection of fees as required. -Advise applicant3 of examination results and in cades of rejections, : ndicatc errOr and necessary improvements; submit detailed reports ‘<:'n each examination. On request, qive information on the issuing o f licen'ces and provisions of the Righvay Traffic Act as they affect the licensing of drivers and their conduct on the Highway. Nay operate an office in a small community where there is no responsi- bility for any full-time employees or for any "travelling points”. Perfo'rm other 'related duties as aisigned. UXi'PICXTiONS: I- . A mini-mm of six months' performance as a Driver Examiner (3robationa:y) AND successful completion of examination requirements for positions in ZZs class; muat maintain a commendable driving record. 1ClOBER 1. 1974 . CIASS STANDMID: DPSVEREXAiUHATION SUPEP.VIX)RSgRIES .~ ~,. ? m&3 series covem cnpiopes who, +i suparrrisors either of Exadnation Centreh located throughaut'Oa&io or of Districta , cwrised of wo or mare Centres , are responsible for a-taring the Province's Driver Exaindtioa prcqram. ! There are 3 levela in the series and d.~c.ati~n OF psfttai+ to the appropriate level is governed by a det ednation of the nmbw of l wrk unita’ peculi.a.t to it., A work unit La h =asUrtmant +=dard inC0rparating factora’uhich indicate the extent of ‘dvity’kr the following areas: i) th setting up of appoiiatamts b) the adainisterjng of prelir&mry tes'k8 c) the iae#ng of teqarary peimita t-i) the conducting of -road test.3 e) the m2wicinq of "travel.pointi' (a travel point ia a location rmote frca an sxaainatfon Centre and ia provided seLpice on an intermittent .baaial . Class allocationa vill.generally be baaed on a determimtion as ta whether the vork unit rating peculiar to individual positions is ~'relatively low", 'high", or "extremely high". The followi.Bg qe general definitkons of the ave mentioned terms. , DEFINITIONS AS APPLICASLE TO A DRNER ExAKIN?iTION CEKmcE Rrlat&vely Lpw: A “work unit? rating the sane as of less thdn the average of all Centres ccmbined. High: A "work unit. rating which eXCea3dS the aVerage of all Centres combined. Extrewly Sigh: A %ork unit. rating which i8 aeVs3i timZa greater than the average of all Centrea ce*ined. DZFIXITIQIS AS APPLICbSLETOA DISTXICP Relatively LYW: A “wrk unit’ rating tbc same aa or leas than the average of all Dintricts combined: High: A "wrk~unit" rating which elCad8 the average of all Districts ccmhined. ,Ertreedy High: Not applicable to Districts. . tnc uxdmumc ‘¶JlO ~eCEL;*C‘aLI"u ui .q+uAL-dx crbah¶"our~ u *ain Driver- Licences of vuiOW classes. lney OrqdAixt the operation of the Centre to ensue M acceptable standard of service is bing provided to the public and work to kee? to a waay vaiting period required for a Driving tut. They ue reeponeible for the security of a.U fur& received, for the proper recardiaq of feu collected and licences issued, and for the banking i.n Umrdance with WpWVcd PmcedLUU. In relation tot.hmDdver Exed.nation progrJm, they mka deeisinna in such areaa N rustrictinqlicencee inn-of phy~i~dl~abUties, the im~~~ce of pmi+s uithout tutiaq to amwrist quaUfbd by other jurisdictions, the certification of pmb1amapplicant.s who have failed successive examine tiON, and the investigation and rtilutiml of any cNplainu lodged aqainso indivi:'.ualEmmlaus or the Centre. As Supemirora of the Drivu examination program in assigned Diuricts, employees work tn pramote the program’s acceptance, ta ensure operational efficiency is kr l ecardanca with approved standarda and to sureire finaickl control. They conductrequlu inspcctfone of allcentrma wit8.i.a their Dietrict and arrange fi.nanclal audita to ensure adlmrence to prescribed procedures. In the interesta ofprwidhqinfo~tion conoerdaq the Driver Examination program, tbey make tlnmedvu available to local service club8 and other. lntereeked groupr and nuy oftan act M judges at truck rodeoe or pae.idpate ae penelmembers at seminars concerned with hlqhuay safety. ._ April 1. 1974 . - -,. . -. ! _ CLASS STANDARD: DRIVER EXAMINATION kJPERlSOR 1 05914 This lsuel normally mven Supervisors of small Driver l&ninadon etre~ where it hsr ban demrmined that tlw “work unit” rating is relatively low. . April 1, 1974 1 DISSENT Re: GSB. #2149/86 (OYSTON) m mls (Member dissents with thrs award. l The parties have addressed speclflcolty In the Collecttve Agreement the matter robed In this case and have agreed. In meir borgaln. to me way ln which such matters shall be managed. Notwlmstandlng this bargoln. the effect of this award ls to, 0) result In 0 reclasslflcotion of on employee when. In fact, me Collective agreement speciffcafly deals with a borgaln to provide octlng pay when reassignment takes place on a temporary basis. and b) results In a reclosWIcotion of an employee, when. In fact, the core duties of me posItIon from which the employee bus been reasslgned. have not changed ot all. m The two cl&coticns at issue In this case, DriveVExomlner and Drlver/Examlner SupervIsor are separate and dlstlnct; and this Is not an issue between the parties. However, me Union’s prWtion. os stated In me award at page 2 Is mot. ‘Ahe duration, frequency und regularity of the grievor’s supervisory duties take him out of the Driver/Exomlner class standard’. And. notwlthstanctlng me temporary nature of the reassignment of. Mr. Q-ston from one distinct closslflccrtion to another and me fact that the core duties In the Drtver/Examlner posItton remain unchanged, this reassignment should result In a reclosskIcattcn. n Counsel for me Union has cited the Boyle case (GAB. #675/M) to support Its claim for reclassJflcottcn of Mr. Oyston. : 2 ’ Counti argued. that where the Employer has employees In a posltlon where the empioyees move back and !orth between dlfferent clcssiflcctlons, that there is c price mat has to be paId for It - mot k. reclctiflcction. However, mat is a what Boyle stands for. in Boyle, (at page 10). it Is stctec that, ‘...a rot&lonal system was establIshed (for Clerk 3 and Clerk 4 work0 and me Renewal Processing Clerks were all tralned In all of rnh functions, Thus, OS of June, 1985. the Renewal Processing Clerks were all qucllfled to perform all of the Clerks functions and could be called upon by thelr employer to perform all of them.’ Essentially; In Boyle. management 1ntroduced.a rotatlonal tralnlng system to provlde flexlblliiy and, on a continuing basis throughout any~ day, a Clerk 3 employee could be called upon and dld, In fact, perform Clerk 4 duties even when Clerk 4 employees were in ,ottendbnce performlng their regular Clerk 4 duties. IA ” Certalniy this Is not the subject Oyston casewhere. on the evidence. Mr. Oyston and a OS part of his replaced the Drive/Examiner Supervisor, a In his absence; own Drlver/Examlner Job. The Unlon also advanced Dunning (G.S.B.~ tff1574/BB) to support Its posltlon. This case resulted In a Berry-type Ward where, on an on-aolna b&s an Electronics Technlclon performed adminlstrdtlve’dutfes normally car&d out by his supervlsor - (eg. the checking of tlme~sheets for errors, acting as &expert wltnessfor the MInIstry, representlng his super-v& at m.&tlng concemlng controcts.‘representng his sup&&or ct .meetings, etc.). ~’ ~. .” The Union concluded that Dunning Is comparable to me subject Oyston case. c,eorlv _ i.,s nOtl ‘~’ -~ ,. ” .’ ;‘. : _ 3 Dunning is quite dlstingulshoble from me subject case inasmuch 0s the undisputed evictexe Is m& Mr. Oyston. We grievor. pcTs for his scper\r:sor In me DriverjExominer SupervIsor posItIon and performs al of The otivitles asocloteo wim his ]Ob. Most slgniflcontiy also. he a for hls supervisor. win the absence of ml.5 sucervisor. 8 Although me Myefs/Pefrin case. G.S.B. #751/90 does not provide us wim case low to support a position one way or another, It does provide some dlrecl!on. In this case, employee Myers (Clerk 2 - ShlppeVReceiver) replaced Mr. Hawkes (Clerk 3 - Stockroom) for two months of me year (vocction plus Illness time. etc.). In mls sense. me case porollels the Oyston case. At page 19, me following Is stated. ‘It may be xlld that because Mr. Myers repbces Mr. Hawkes for opproxlmately two months per year and perKxms slgnlflcant stockman dui!es that mls would be enough to keep hlm withln me (Stockman Gloss Wes) standard. The dlfflculty with that however. ts that Mr. Myen replacement responslblUt@s ore not seen to be part of the duties of his substantive position (le. Shlpper/Recehrer). They were chorocterized by the employer as ‘tempaory osslgnmenft’ to which orticle 6 of me Collective Agreement would apply. Having mode that character’zonon B con not at the same time be orgued that the temDororv o.%lqnment 0Vt of his normal gosltion chonaes the e%ientlol or core responslbllltv of Mr. Mvets.’ (underxorlng odded) This Is me poaon In vhlch we llnd ourselves In me Oyston ccsel Has me temporcry assignment of Mr. Oyston out of his namal posltion of DrIverExamIner, changed the Bssenficl or core responsibilities of his posltlon 0s Driver/Examiner? Clec~riy, they hove not: for when me Driver/Examiner Supe~lsa returns from vacotlon or Illness. etc.. Mr. Oyston returns to hk pcdticn as Drlver/Exomlner. The posftfon remalns the some at all times and the essential or core responslbllltles remain me some. . At page 6 of me award In me Oyston case, the followlng extreme hypothetical ccse is drown. IZ .\ 4 ‘Suppose an employee fills In for an clllng supervisor every second dcy throughout the yecr. In this sltuoiion there would be no ccting pcy under Artlcle~6.1 ,l, beccuse the employee IS not doing the duties of the highest closslfldction for cny p&cd in excess of flve conseCstive worklrgdays. Would this mean that, In effect, the employee would be the supervlsor for hclf the yecr but receive no extra poy? Surely not. In such c case, one would hove to conclude thct the supervisory duties had become on integrcl port of me employee’s lob. ond the employee ought to be reclosstrlecl.’ with me utmost respect, In me oplnlon of this Member me cbove conclusion Is absolutely wrong. The effect of the lcnguage of the Collective Agreement in the obove scenorlo is correct. However, the ‘employee Is not filling two seporote ClcsslftcctIons ot me same rime. The employee Is asslaned to the supervisory position and Is ACTING In mat poslnon. Meanwhlle, me core responslbllltles of the employee’s regular posltlon of , Drlver/Excmlner, while not ACTlNG for the supervlsor. remain the same. n To further contemplate hypothetic01 sltuotlons, consider the following: . An employee Is assigned this yeor. to &t in place of her/his supervisor for three months owlng to a sick le&e. Next ye&r. the super&or is absent for two‘months for another type of leave. In me followlng year, me supervlsor~ls c&sent for three ., months wlm 0 hecrt attcck. It need not be the same super&or who is replaced each nme, but cssume that the fame employee who replaces the absent super&or ls css!gned on on octlng bcsls to replace the super-&or(s) over the period of temporary absence over sever01 consecuttve yecrs and Is pcld In cccordance wtth Article 6.1 .l . Is this scenorlo. an Issue of recloulflcctlon? Or Is It o mot-6 of temporcry csslgnment which was contemplated by the parites in fhelr negotlotlons? - 5 Although pdld ocnng pdy In me obove scenario. me dword ot page 6 would contend thdt the consecuttve temporcry csslgnments over several years have mode the supervisory position an lntegrcl port of me employee’s job. This Member is in comolete dlsagreement with mls pcsltlon. n The Collecttve Agreement is clear as to the mdtter of when ACTING pay shall be pdld. It Is not pald for acting assignments during vacdttw or for periods of less - than f?ve consecutive days. The Collective Agreement Is silent on the regulortty or frequency of these acting csslgnments. me matter of temoorarv csslanments has been addressed bv me eornes ond It was ooen to mem to deal kim me matters of ‘r~ulgrlh/ and ‘freauencf. Cleariv Mev chose not to do so In their neaotlationg The end result of thelr negligence. Ovdght or Intent ts the potentlal for the hypothetIcal situation described above (page 6 of award): but certolniv It Is not goen to thb Board to recldsslfv on IndMdual who oerfwns temDorarv ass&nment$ when, In tact, the core dunes of hk oosltlcn renxrln comoleteiv unchanaed anQ wtthln his class standard. m In me vtew of ttik Member. me issue In mk case ts a matter of temporary redssQnment. which hos been deatt with and ogreed to by the partles. QS opposed to me allegatIon of the Unlon that Mr. Cyston’s )ob has changed. It has not chmged. To mts day, it rem&s m6 sume. In me view of mls Member. me subject grievance should be dtsmksed. .