Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-1526.O'Neill.89-09-26EMPLOYt+SDEL4 CO”RONNE OEL’ONTARIO Cf3MMISSION DE REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under 1526/87 Between: THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD OPSEU (O'Neill) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources) Before: For the Grievor: For the Employer: Hearings: Employer N.V. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson P. Klym member W. Lobraico Member A. Ryder Counsel Ryder, Whitaker, Wright and Chapman Barristers & Solicitors M. Failes Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors May 15, 1989 June 9, 1989 DECISION The grievor, Hr. Darrell O’Neill, grieves that he is wrongly classified as Resource Technician 3 (RT3) and seeks re-classification as Resource Technician Senior I (RTSI). RT3 is the highest in the Resource Technician Series of class standards, while RTSI is the lowest in the Resource Technician Senior Series of class standards. The RT3 class standard reads as follows: RESOURCE TECHNICIAN 3 This class covers positions of employees performing more complex, demanding and responsible technical duties containing considerable latitude for decision making e.g. check scaling; compiling lake development data; training fire crew, operating type “C” parks or type ‘C” hatcheries; carrying out Fish and Wildlife management and/or enforcement work; gathering, assembling and compiling technical or scientific data, preparing technical reports and/or plans; assessing technical needs of management or scientific projects and submitting technical recommendations, etc. in any assigned area of responsibility. They may supervise and/or train regular employees or take charge of groups of casual employees and, in this context, organize and schedule activities within the general framework of laid down plans or instructions and assume responsibility for the quality and quantity of production and for the work performance of assigned staff. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED: Ability to organize projects and supervise implementation; initiative and ability to assimilate new techniques to be applied in a variety of situations; good understanding of resource management principles. -2- The class standard for the classification sought, RTSI, is as follows: RESOURCE TECHNICIAN, SENIOR I This class covers positions of employees responsible on a district-wide basis for technical control of a sub-service; OR who act as senior assistants to district technical or professional specialists in determining methods and techniques, implementing policy and controlling standards in one or more services on a district-wide basis. Also included are positions of employees who assist professional staff e.g. Foresters, Biologists, etc., in the management of Forest Units, Lake Units, Private Lands, etc. They participate in the development management plans, prepare initial agreements with private land owners, prepare work plans and annual budget estimates, organize and schedule units work and exercise budget controls. Positions of supervisors who on year-round basis have administrative responsibility for a formal unit of organization (functional or territorial) and who, in this context, prepare work plans and annual budget estimates, organize and schedule the unit’s work and exercise budget controls, are also allocated to this level. Positions of employees in charge of type “B” parks or type “B” hatcheries or second-in-charge of type ‘B” tree nurseries, are included at this level. In the Research Branch, this class covers positions of non-professional, fully trained and experienced research assistants in various disciplines of scientific research who under direction of a Research Scientist, carry out assigned technological phases of research and have full responsibility for the validity of obtained or processed data and -3- the preparation of reports involving : preliminary analysis of such data. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED: 1. Supervisory ability; some administrative ability; ability to co-ordinate several projects and to prepare work plans; personal suitability. 2. Extensive knowledge and thorough understanding of objectives, methods and techniques applicable to the assigned work area; good working knowledge of relevant legislation. The grievor commenced employment with the Ministry in 1975, became a RT3 in April 1978, and transferred to the present location, Pakwash Park, in the Red Lake District, on December 1, 1980. At the time of the grievance on Hay 25, 1987, his position was Parks and Recreation Areas Technician, classified as a RT3. Pakwash is a provincial park ranked as a “C” park. stipulate the criteria for ranking parks The class standards as (1) camper days environment and (4) (2) User days (3) Large natural Complexity because of special situations. Under this ranking system “C” parks are the lowest ranked among provincial parks. Furthermore, the evidence is that in terms of user days and facilities, Pakwash is one of the smallest in the province. It also had the shortest season among the provincial parks, from the First Friday in June to the Labour day holiday in September. : ‘. - 4 - ‘? When the grievor transferred to Pakwash he was responsible for the operation of the park, including responsibility for the operation of Ministry’s Crown Land Recreation programme within the park. This included the maintenance of canoe routes, boat launch access points, parking areas, ski and snow-mobile trails. In February of 1987, the grievor was additionally assigned responsibility for the Junior Ranger programme. While counsel for the grievor submitted that the grievor was wrongly classified even without the addition of the Junior Ranger programme, it is clear that in his own mind the grievor felt aggrieved because of that added responsibility. Thus it was after the assignment of the Junior Ranger programme that he first raised his desire for reclassification. The union led evidence that another employee at a different park, who had no responsibility for the Crown Lands Recreation Programme or the Junior Ranger programme, was classified as a RT3. The crux of counsel’s submission is that the grievor should be classified higher than RT3 to reflect his additional duties. The evidence establishes that while the Junior Ranger programme was an additional responsibility assigned to the -5- grievor, since he commenced,in 1980 at Pakwash his duties had diminished in certain other areas. For example, he no longer had responsibility for ski and snow-mobile trials. The entrance gate to the park was converted to a self-service operation as a result of which he no longer has gate staff. While in 1980 access points were maintenanced by the park staff, those functions have now been contracted out to the private sector. As a result of these changes the budget of the park was significantly reduced. The issue before the Board is whether the position as presently constituted is appropriately classified as a RT3. Counsel for the grievor was necessarily faced with the fact that Pakwash was a type “C’ park. The RT3 class standard clearly contemplates “the operation of type “C” park”. On the other hand the RTSI class standard envisages positions “in charge of type “8” parks”. Counsel submits that the additional duties performed by the grievor, namely the Crown Land Recreation Programme and the Junior Ranger Programme, make the job equal to being in charge of a type “B” park. After careful consideration of the evidence and submissions, the Board is of the view that the grievor’s classification is not inappropriately classified as RT3. From the evidence relating to facilities and user days at Pakwash it is clear that under the ranking criteria it is -6- designated as a “C” park. There is no basis for us to conclude that the designation is incorrect. What the evidence indicates is that while the grievor performs a range of duties in operating the park, because the operation is a small one, the volume of his work-load is lesser than at a larger park. Thus, he has been assigned certain additional duties. While the grievor performs a greater variety of duties, the issue is simply whether those duties can reasonably be encompassed within the RT3 classification. ,We have come to the conclusion that they do. In assigning classifications, it is not essential that all incumbents within a particular classification perform identical duties. Duties may differ depending on the needs of the particular operation. The assignment of the RT and RTS series of classifications are dependent not on the volume or the diversity of the duties performed, but on the degree of skill and knowledge required and the complexity of the work involved. All of the duties performed by the grievor fit reasonably within the RT3 class standard. One factor emphasized by union counsel was that the grievor prepares the budget for Pakwash. While the class standard for RT3 does not refer to responsibility for budgets, we are of the view that that is included in the phrase “operation” of a type “C” park. The evidence is that the budget for Pakwash is very small and that budgeting is - 7 - done on the basis of a Form.1 level budget form, lwhich is the lowest level of the budgeting process. There is very little discretion left to the grievor in preparing the budget. Instead, his function is to follow fairly precise guidelines set out for him. In our view, this responsibility does not take his position out of the RT3 class standard. In coming to our conclusion we have also considered the evidence that shortly after the Junior Ranger programme was added, the grievor’s supervisor, Mr. Peter Pincombe, the Lands Management Parks Supervisor, revised the grievor’s position specification and forwarded it to the the Human Resources Branch with a recommendation that the grievor’s position be “upgraded”. The classification staff refused to accept the position specification as drafted because in their opinion that would have taken the grievor out of the bargaining unit and in to a management category. In our view, this evidence is not conclusive or even persuasive as to what is an appropriate classification for the grievor. The Board must decide the appropriateness of a classification, not on the basis of a supervisor’s opinion (which he had changed by the time he testified at the arbitration), but on the basis of evidence before it as to the grievor’s job function. On the basis of all of the evidence, the Board finds.’ that’ the grievor is not inappropriately classified as RT3. Accordingly, this grievance is dismissed. Dated at Hamilton this 26th day of 6eptwberl989. Nimal V. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson W. Lobriico, Member