Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-2017.Colangeli and Patrick.90-06-26EMPLOY~S DE LA COURONNE I CROWNE!.4PLOYEES OEL’ONTARIO GRIEVANCE CqMMISSION DE 1 SETTLEMENT Fl;l\tWWF”s’ BOARD IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT B'OARD BETWEEN: OPSEU (Colangeli/Patrick) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) - Andy- BEFORE: R.L. Verity Vice-Chairperson M. Vorster member D. Daugharty Member FOR THE GRIEVOR: C. Wilkey Counsel Cornish Roland Barristers & Solicitors FOR TEE EMPLOYER: S. McDermott Counsel Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie Barristers & SOliCitOrS HEARINGS: December 18, 1989 February 8, 1990 Employer , -2- i DECISION In this matter, the grievors Victor Peter, John Colangeli and Mary Joan Patrick work as Stores/Reproduction Clerks at the Ministry's Head Office in K.ingston. Each grievor alleges improper classification,as Clerk 2, Supply (atypical).. The classification sought is Clerk 3, Supply (atypical). The Peter grievance is dated October 2, 1987 while the two remaining grievances are dated December 7, 1988. The parties agreed that Mr. Peter's claim would proceed as a representative grievance. The grievances arose as a result of a Ministry reorganization in October, 1987 at Kingston whereby the stores area and the reproduction area were amalgamated into a single unit. Prior to~,redrganization, Mr. Peter held the position of Stores Clerk and was classified as Clerk 2, Supply. However, with the..acquisition of additional duties at the time of reorganization, the position was renamed Stores/Reproduction Clerk and was given the atypical allocation. The Ministry's rationale as expressed in the Position Specification and Class Allocation Form reads as follows: The classification is atypical due to involvement in tasks which are normally not associated with the operation of a stockroom (eg. providing duplication services; relieving in microrecords and,mail units). The purpose of the position of Stores/Reproduction Clerk is "to assist in the operation of the Stationery Stores and Confidential Waste Management and -3- Reproduction Units.in support of OHIP Head Office and supporting programs". The stock component is said to consist of some 255 line items in printed form. Mr. Peter testified at some length as to his duties and responsibilities following reorganization. We do not intend to repeat that evidence. Essentially, the duties are reasonably reflected, in point form, in the relevant Position Specification Form as follows: 1. Assist with the collection of confidential waste material for destruction by: - collecting regularly from designated areas all confidential material for destruction and delivery to 25% collection area; - placing materqal in bags or cartons and placing on skids for pick up; - loading skids of material on vehicles as arranged by supervisor. 2. .Receives forms, stationery and related supplies, processes requisitions and provides an internal delivery service by: - 20% unloading vans, trucks and trailers mechanically 0; manually as appropriate; verifying quantity and conditions of items,to packing slip; placing stock in proper warehouse location and ensuring stock rotation; forwarding packing sljps to supervisor; packaging and addressing supplies; determining mode of dispatch, i.e. internal delivery, mail, courier, etc; located within the Macdonald-Cartier Building; maintaining a delivery log book. 3. Performs a number of inventory management tasks such as: - replenishing computer stockroom supplies by taking physical stock of the inventory on hand; - preparing requisitions for required items to increase 10% balance on hand stock to predetermined stock quantities; - selecting required items and placing in proper location within the computer stockroom; - assisting with weekly perpetual inventory counts; -4- ,- - maintaining stock levels appropriate at self-service copiers located throughout the Macdonald-Cartier Building; - advising supervisor when stock, services~, etc. are required. 4. Operates high volume, high speed duplicating equipment such as Xerox 1090 duplicator and related bindery equipment by: - progrannning the equipment's operational features to ensure the desired results and copy quality are. maintained; - replenishing fuser oil, toner and developer as necessary; 25% - performing operator's maintenance tasks on a daily, basis; - ensuring duplicator is kept clean and in good working order - free of dust, staples, paper clips and other foreign objects; - assisting in the bindery functions such~as padding, stapling, cutting, thermal binding, drilling, collating etc. as required. ,: 5. Ensures work areas in Stationery Stores and, Confidential Waste Management/Reproductions are maintained in a clean and hazard free condition by adherence to safe work methods and by performing such tasks as: 5% - assisting in housekeeping and equipment maintenance by sweeping, collecting and disposing of debris,, removing and stacking skids for removal; -. checking acid levels and connecting battery charging equipment to .the powered forklift equipment. 6. Performs other duties as assigned: I Regional Mail and Messenger and Microrecords as back-up .5% support of regular mail clerks/inserting operators and camera/reader printer operators on an as required basis; - provides back-up driving services for the Regional Mail and Messenger Unit as required. - assists in the activities of two (2) operational units: The grievor maintains that 30-35% of the job is involved with the reproduction area (duty 4). However, Regional Manager Supply and Services Branch, Mrs. Debra Lowry disputed that.contention. It was agreed that the volume of reproduction output from the high-speed Xerox 1090 was approximately 300,000 -5- ‘I impressions per month. The grievor's supervisor, Bob Morrow, testified that the job specification form may have overlooked the customer service aspect of the job, The evidence established that the unit work load is assigned so that one employee was dedicated to the reproduction area, one employee to .the stores.area, and one employee who acts as "a floater" to assist in either area. The assignments are rotated on a weekly basis. Mr. Morrow testified that he performed all administrative duties including budgeting, personnel matters and ordering of stock and worked with each of the three Clerks as required. Despite designated assignments, all Clerks were required to unload trucks at the receiving dock as a priority task. The grievor challenges his present classification under the Class Standards approach. The preamble to the Clerk Supply Series reads as follows: PREAMBLE CLERK SUPPLY SERIES . These classes cover the positions of employees who perform a variety of clerical, manual, administrative repair or purchasing functions that are common to stockkeeping operations in the Provincial Government Service. If any employee specializes in only one of the many tasks involved in the operation of a stockroom, the position should be classified in another. series more appropriate to the type of work. For example, positions concerned entirely with the clerical .recording of transactions should be allocated to the Clerk, General series~. Positions in which purchasing is the main function should not be classified in this series. Many factors, such as the maintenance of the necessary ledger or other records, inventory control, establishment of minimum - maximum requirements etc., are common to all stockrooms and vary significantly only to the extent that the size of the stockkeeping function varies. Thus, the overriding criterion in making allocations in this series is the size, as -6- defined in this preamble, of the stockkeeping function rather than any variation in the clerical or administrative functions associated with it. Supervisory positions covered by the classes Clerk 3 to Clerk 6, Supply will be assigned to one class higher in the series if purchasing, as defined below, is one of the functions requiring.a minimum of 20% of the working time. DEFINITION: Size of Operation: Because of the tremendous variation in the nature and organization of stockkeeping functions between departments, the number of staff required for the operation of a particular unit is the only practical basis of comparison for classification purposes, in all departments except Health and Reform Institutions. In the latter departments, patients or ~inmates are often employed in stockkeeping operations. Consequently in Ontario Hospitals, the size, in terms of bed capacity, is the criteria used. The size alone of a Reform Institution ignores the possible existence of' industries, which complicate the stockkeeping function, therefore the value of annual'stock turnover is used as a basis of comparison for the determination of level. Stockrooms having less than 100 different types of stock are, for the purpose of this class series, considered to be equivalent to specific specialized sections of larger stockrooms, and the positions will be classified accordingly. Types of Stock:~ Each type of stock normally requires a separate bin card and consists of a number of identical items. Stockroom: An area specifically designated for the receipt, secure storage and issue of equipment and/or supplies and which requires the full-time attendance of one or more employees. Cabinets, closets or cupboard lock-ups used for the storing of small quantities of materials are excluded. SUBSIDIARY STOCKROOM: A stockroom which is physically separated (remotely or by Partition or as a secure compound) from the other supply areas and which, although operated as an entity, forms part of a larger unit of supply organization. -l- Specialized Section: A component unit of a large stockroom having a specialized function e.g. plumbing supplies, clothing, linens, office Supplies, etc. which may or may not be physically separated or partitioned from the main supply area. Apart from the exceptions mentioned above, the sizes of stockkeeping operations are defined as follows: Small Stockroom - This is a small stockroom operated by one employee or by one employee and an assistant. Medium Stockroom - This is a stockroom which requires a supervisor'and two to four subordinates. Large Stockroom - A stockroom which requires a supervisor and five to nine subordinates. Very Large Stockroom - A stockroom which requires a supervisor and a minimum of ten subordinates. Supervision: Positions supervised include only those filled by temporary or permanent Civil Servants or by continuously employed public servants who report to the supervisor for discipline, work assignment and administrative control. This includes all clerk supply, clerk general,.machine operating, clerk messenger and driver positions concerned in the overall operation of the duties assigned to the stockroom supervisor. No credit for supervision will be given for non-continuous help, or for employees temporarily on loan from other organizations. Neither is credit given for employees who report to the supervisor purely for administrative~convenience, w.hen these employees are not involved in the operation of the stockroom or any of the auxiliary duties assigned to it. Purchasing: In respect to stockroom operations involves locating suppliers, interviewing salesmen,~evaluating prices submitted by tender, deciding on the articles to purchase and the actual placing of purchase orders or the submission of ,purchase orders to a superior for signature. No credit can be given for the purchasing function unless the supervisor is held responsible for the articles purchased and the quotation prices accepted. The automatic requisitioning of standard items or the ordering of standard items from assigned sources is excluded from purchasing under this definition. REVISED JANUARY 1970 -a- ‘! The Class Definition for the current classification reads: CLERK 2, SUPPLY CLASS DEFINITION: This class covers the positions of employees performing a variety of routine manual and clerical duties in stockrooms. Under general supervision, they carry out a number of the various tasks connected with the receiving, storage, handling and distribution of a wide variety of equipment and supplies. They check incoming shipments against weigh bills for shortage and damage in transit; check quantities against packing slips, and purchase orders; contact suppliers regarding short shipments, delays, back orders etc; place items on shelves or bins, adjusting bin cards to keep perpetual inventory. They also maintain stock ledgers or cards showing the receipt and issue of all articles including the value of items on hand. They assemble orders for authorized requisitions; tag and address shipments; contact the conveyor and complete necessary records for the transaction. This is a terminal class for employees who perform in a supply area, simple clerical duties in conjunction with tasks requiring the frequent application of considerable physical effort or the operation of mechanical equipment. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 10 or equivalent in academic training and practical experience with a good working knowledge. 2. A minimum of two years' stockroom or related experience. 3. Ability to follow simple, specific, oral or written instructions; ability to maintain clerical records; good physical condition; personal suitability. The Classification sought reads: CLERK 3, SUPPLY CLASS DEFINITION: This class covers the positions of employees who alone, maintain a very small stockroom where the record keeping function is elementary. They are responsible for checking that the correct amount and type of goods are received, maintaining -9- security, issuing stock to authorized persons and checking stock levels. This class also covers the positions of employees who, under the general supervision of a higher level supply clerk are in sole charge of subsidiary specialized technical or trade stockrooms. They requisition supplies; ensure the careful checking of incoming stock; the shipment of stock against authorized requisitions and the security of the stockroom. The responsibility for these stockrooms is a full time occupation often including the repair and adjustment of technical equipment. This class also covers the positions of employees acting as group leaders. Some of these are in charge of functi;;a;,uiits in large stockrooms, such as shipping or receiving. positions they assign and check the work of two or more subordinate personnel. This class also covers the positions of employees who spend at least 20% of their working time in purchasing as defined in the preamble of this series' and who report to a supervisor whose position has bee&upgraded by one level .because of purchasing responsibilities. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 10 or an acceptable equivalent combination of academic tra,ining and experience. i. A minimum of three years' stockroom or related experience. 3. Ability to follow specific written and oral instructions; a good knowledge of the type of stock involved; ability to maintain records; good physical condition; supervisory ability; personal suitability. REVISED, FEBRUARY 1969 The Union characterized the workplace as a "medium stockroom" with two specialized sections; namely, computer. supply room and confidential waste store room together with additional duties acquired at the time of reorganization. Ms. Wilkey alleges that the grievor is entitled to the higher classification on an atypical basis because he functionally maintains the designated area alone (paragraph 1 - Clerk 3) or is in sole charge of subsidiary specialized technical Or - lo- trade showrooms (paragraph 2 ~- Clerk 3). She contends that the grievor operates at a level of autonomy or independence in both the stock area and-the reproduction area to justify the higher classification sought. In the alternative, the Union requests a a Order to create a proper classification. The thrust of the Union's position was that the grievor's duties are underestimated at the Clerk 2, Supply level. In support, the Union cited the following authorities: OPSEU (N. Tutt) and Ministry of Transportation and Communications, 1429/84 (Brent); and OPSEU (D.W. Kelly) and Ministry of Transportation and Communications, 1362/85 (Fisher). The Employer argued that the grievor was properly classified as Clerk 2, I Supply (atypical). Ms. McDermott contended that 60% of the grievor's duties are i common to the Clerk Supply Series and that in these circumstances the atypical allocation is appropriate. She maintained that at all times the grievors worked under general supervision and that there was no requirement to work alone or to have sole responsibility as required in the higher classification sought. The Board was referred to the following authorities: OPSEU (Kuntz) and Ministry of Housing, 85/8g (Verity); and OPSEU (Borraccia et al.) and Ministry of Government Services, 0114/86 (Watters). On the evidence, the grievor performs assigned duties on a rotating basis subject to established practices and procedures. Clearly, he is a competent employee who enjoys the confidence of his supervisor. The grievor is gi,ven the latitude, quite properly we think, to perform his job with limited direct supervision. However, there can be no doubt that the grievor performs all assigned tasks under the general supervision of Bob Morrow. ‘8 ‘, I - 11 - The supervisor is absent from the workplace on an average of four weeks a year. Normally,he is away no longer than one week at a time. In the absence of supervisor Morrow, general supervision is provided by Regional Manager Debra Lowry, 'although to a lesser extent. It cannot be .said that the grievor has any supervisory duties as contemplated in the classification sought. The grievor is not expected to assume sole responsibility or to work alone in any assigned area. All three Clerks are required to perform essentially the same duties. At all times, there is one Clerk who performs as a "floater" between the stores area and the reproduction area. Briefly stated, either Mr. Morrow, or in his absence Mrs. Lowry, exercise full supervisory duties for each area in the unit. For these reasons, the Board is not persuaded that the grievor is entitled to the classification sought. The grievor works in a medium stockroom with two specialized sections. In that respect;he falls within the Clerk 2, Supply Class Definition. However,', there are significant. additional duties acquired at the time of reorganization in the reproduction area and in two separate back-up support services. For that reasons, the Employer designated the classification as atypical. In OPSEU (Kuntz) and Ministry of Housing, supra, the Panel considered atypical allocation, following the release of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Reid dated March 13, 1986 in OPSEU (Carol Berry) and Ministry of Community and Social Services. At p. 10, the present Chairperson stated: .j . ..the Board's jurisdiction is with the results of the employer)s cl,assification system and not with the methods employed. At the present time, the atypical allocation is an integral part of the employer's classification system. In the result, the Board is obliged to consider the merits of an atypical classification on a'case by case basis. In the instant matter, the parties, did not refer to the Ontario Manual of Administration. However, it may be,helpful to set out two definitions as contained in the Manual: 'Class", or 'Grade" A distinct level and type of work with: . the complexity, skill and responsibility exemplified as a class standard; and . a specific pay range. iAtypical Allocation" The allocation to a class of a position that in general fits that class better than any other, but is significantly different from other positions in the class with 1 respect to the: . function(s) carried out; or . skills and knowledge required. The definition of "atypical allocation" contemplates significant difference from other positions in the class with regard either to functions carried out or to skil.ls and knowledge required. The real issue; we think, is whether it can be said that the grievor is properly classified as Clerk 2, Supply (atypical). In OPSEU (Kelusky et al) and Ministry of Transportation, 1098/86, Yice-Chairperson Wilson stated at p. 10: I am of the opinion that while the Berry decision may not have invalidated atypical classifications, this Board given its clear mandate to direct that a new classification be established when it is satisfied that a grievor is improperly classified must insist that an atypical classification, not vary widely in its core features from the archetype of the classification. - 13 - :. Similarly, Vice-Chairperson Knopf followed the same rationale in DPSEU (Jagger et al) and Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations), 696/89 when she states at p. 5: Thus, while we accept the concept of an atypical classification, and we accept the importance of generalized Class Standards, we must ensure that there not be a wide variation in the position in question from the "core features" of the "archetype" of the classification. In these particular circumstances, since the reorganization in 1987, the grievor is called upon to perform many functions not covered.by the Clerk 2, Supply class standard. The,Employer acknowledges that only 60% of the job is encompassed .: in stockroom duties. The evidence established that reproduction duties (25% of the job) and support service duties involving microrecords and mail room (15% of the job) do not.fit within the class standard. Can it be said that the grievor is properly classified. as Clerk 2, Supply (atypical) in these particular circumstances.where 40% of the duties bear no relationship to the Class Standard? In our opinion, the answer is no. In this case, the extent of the variation from tasks normally associated with stockroom operations and the archetype of the class standard is so substantial that we must conclude that the grievor is currently misclassified. In the result, the grievance is allowed~and we direct the Ministry to create a proper classification for him. The Employer shall be given 90 days to complete the reclassification. The grievor shall be entitled to retroactivity on the usual basis of 20 days prior to the filing of the grievance. The Board shall . * - 14 - retain jurisdiction pending the implementation of this dedision. DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 26thday of June 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. L. VERITY, Q.C. - VICE-CHAIRPERSON Q!e-%dtiG (Addendum attached) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*....... M. VORSTER - MEMBER " I DISSENT" (Dissent attached) . . . . . . . . ..*................................... D. DAUGHARTY '- MEMBER Re: OPSEU (peters, Colangeli, Patrick) and The Ministry of Health, - 42017'/87, #3'7'/89 I disagree with a number of the arguments raised by Mr. Daugharty in his dissent, and wish to add these comments as an addendum to this award. The question before this panel is straightforward. Namely, is the grievor properly classified as a Grade 2 Supply Clerk, ADDENDUM BY MENNO VORSTER - UNION NOMINEE / :iL'cGm regardless, the atypical designa;tion. The Board's jurisdiction in this matter, as summarised by Vice Chairperson Verity, is worth repeating and is as follows: I, . ..the Board's jurisdiction is with the results of the employer's classification system and not with the methods employed. At the present time, the atypical allocation is an integral part of the employer's classification system. In the result, the Board is obliged to consider the merits of an atypical classification on a case by-case basis." In order to judge the merits of the grievance, the panel must determine where the duties of the position of the grievor fit within those assigned to the various levels of the class series. The atypical designation results only if a significant number of the duties performed do not conform to those within the class standard. I must therefore disagree with Mr. Daugherty when he ssserts: Page 2 , - ,& OPSEU (Peters et al) #2017/87, #37/89 "The majority of the Panel are correct in focusing in on the issue of the atypical designation and it is unfortunate that neither party pursued the matter in any great detail." On the contrary, counsel for parties did indeed address the atypical designation. They appropriately elicited evidence o the nature of the job specifications and how these related to the class standards. It was as a result of this evidence tha the Board made its determination. In this case, the majority judged that while!the actual duties performed did not justify change in classification to Supply Clerk Grade 3, a significa: ~enough portion was at variance with those detailed in the cla: standard to judge they were in excess of those contemplated b: the definition of an atypical designation. The definition ret as follows: "The allocation of a class to a position that in general fits that class better than any other, but is significantly different from any other.positions in the class with respect to the functions'carried out, or skills and knowledge required." In other words, the atypical duties were only defined as a consequence of determining where the actual job duties belonqe in the class standard. "Atypical" is not a class standard unt itself, but rather it is only a degree of variation from the class standard of the duties assigned to an individual. * i.. Page 3 OPSEU (Peters et al) #2017/87, #37/89 Mr. Daugharty further points out that the remedy requested by the union was an order by the Board for the Ministry to reclassify the grievors only if the category of Grade 3 Supply Clerk (Atypical) was not deemed appropriate. Therefore, he argues, the atypical designation was the union's first choice of remedy. From this Mr. Dauqharty~extrapoiates the suggestion that the "responsiveness of the union" to the atypical classification should testify to a level of agreement'between the ~parties that the atypical designation is ~appropriate in this case. 'd Mr. Daugharty finally concludes that the Board should have viewed this mutual agreement as dictating its approach in choosing a remedy. If the Board could not find in favour of a change in the grievors' classlfic~ation he argues, then it should' have left the positions with the atypical designation, albeit Supply Clerk Grade 2 (Atypical). I cannot disagree more. The union does not like the atypical designation. However, because of the limits to the jurisdiction of this Board, there is nothing to be gained by the union in making arguments to end the atypical designation because the Board can't order any Ministry to do so. . Page 4 OPSEU (Peters et al) #2017/87, #37/89 In this case, the employer assigned an atypical designation to positions only when a significant number of job duties which were beyond those of the class standard were added. These added duties changed the job sufficiently so that the grievors, through their union, reached the opinion that-their positions should be reclassified upwards. To penalize the grievors by preventing them 'from achieving an appropriate classification merely because the employer has designated their position as atypical is unjust. iJ Finally, Mr. Daugharty argues that the Board's order to reclassify the positions "May well serve to burden an already overburdened system". I must again reiterate that it is the duty of the employer'to designate positions to the appropriate class standard and,it is up to this Board to ensure that the,results are fair when they are challenged. The Board does not structure the job classification system and neither does the union. The employer has long argued that the atypical designation is necessary to prevent a proliferation of classifications. If the atypical designation is misued, however, even inadvertently, it is not up to this Board to thwart justice merely to keep the system neat and tidy. DISSENT Colangeli, Patrick, Peter- 2017/87,37/89 A ,different type of classification case. As a result of a reorganization, a lesser position was merged with a Clerk 2 position and renamed Stores/Reproduction Clerk and designated a Clerk 2 Supply (ATYPICAL). At the commencement of the proceedings, the Employer and the Union agreed that there was no dispute with an atypical designatton. The Union claimed that the position was clearly a.better fit as Clerk 3 Supply but stated ‘lf the Board does not agree then we will ask for an order to reclassify, but it is not our first choice’. It IS noted that the various grievances all, claimed that the settlement desired was Supply Clerk 3 (ATYPICAL). In reviewing the decision of my colleagues, I concur with their assessment that we are not~persuaded that the classification sought is appropriate; however, I do not agree with the other condusion that the grievor(s) are nevertheless misclassified and that the Ministry be directed ‘to create a proper classification for him’. I would have dismissed the grievance As a result, I wish to dissent for the following reasons: The majority ‘of the Pad are correct in focusing in on the issue of the atypical designation and it is unfortunate that the Al?-. ‘es before the Panel did not pursue the matter in any greet detail. The Atypical ocauon is defined as: The allocation to a class of a position that in general fits that class better than any other? but is significantly different from other positions in the classs with respect to the. functton(s) carried out or skills and knowledge required.’ The majority of the Panel cited two previous cases (Kelusky et al @ Jagger et al) which take the position that, in cases of an atypical allocation, ‘there not be a wide variation in the position in question from the “core features” of the “archetype” of the classificatiorr’;. In Iight of these cases and the evidence which indicated that a substantial component of the job (40%) is dearly not a Clerk 2, Supply, the majority of the Panel coududed that the grievor(s) is misclassified. In the grievance before the Panel, I am not convinced that the position taken in ‘Kehrsky et al’ & ‘Jagger et al’ is the only criteria to use m deadmg whether an .atypical position -especially in the case before us- is misclassified. In deciding whether an atypical position is properly classified or not, the answer surely lies on. hearing evidence and deciding the matter based upon a variety of factors such as .the position content; then fundamental nature of the position; the skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions associated with the position; the class in which the atypical position is placed; the series in which the atypical position is placed; and, perhaps, the responsiveness of the union to an atypical designation. The res onsiveness of the union to an atypical classification has some application in the case be ore the Panel. The Employer obviously accepts the atypical designation. The F Union preferred the atypical designation although, as a last resort, it would accept ‘a Berry-type ordel’; presumably, if the order was the vehicle for bettering the grievors’ situation. In support of my understandin of the Union’s position, the Panel heard the Union state in its opening remarks that ‘I the Board does not agree then we will ask for F an order to reclassify, but it is not our first choice’. Later in argument, the Union stated: ‘We suggest Jobs are atypical due to the co-operative approach (ie. regular rotation).’ Finally, the Union spent some time in evidence and argument explaining that this job belonged in the ‘continuum’ of the series. In G.S.B./Hooper (1977), Mr K. P. Swan states ‘it would be improper for us to ignore the clear agreement of both parties that there are only two places for the grievor’s position to be classified, either Level 2 or Level 3...‘. Although our case is not as clear as that identified in Hooper (i.e. a choice of Level 2 or 3) due to the request for an ‘order’, their preference for an atypical designation within the series should be of significance in deciding whether the position is rmsclassified as Clerk 2, Supply (ATYPICAL). Iu reviewing the evidence before the Board in terms of the position content (60% Clerk 2, merging with a lesser position), the fundamental nature and ‘core features’ of the position, the class and series, and the Union’s first choice for an atypical designation, I would have decided the matter and dismissed the grievance. A Clerk 2, Supply (ATYFTCAL) is an appropriate fit. There is one final reason for favouring a Clerk 2, Supply (ATYPICAL,) and not making ‘a Berry order’ - what purpose will it serve to make an order. The new class may well involve placin the incumbents into a lesser osition. In addition, this exercise ma well serve to bur rf en au already .overburdene B system. In this regard, I will re er to r G.S.B./Klng et al where Prof. R. J. Roberts states: ‘We can imagine that it might be reasonable to allow an atypical allocation to stand where the position in question is unusual, in the sense of being occupied by only a few incumbents. It might well be unreasonable to expect the Ministry to proliferate classifications for such individuals like so many rabbits in a warren. It, indeed, would be unreasonable to make arr order which would have the effect of “gridlocking” what might seem to be an already overburdened classification system.’