HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-2273.Bellemare et al.92-03-24 DecisionONTARIO DE LA COURONNE CROWNEMPLOYEES DEL 'ONTA RIO GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 160 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G 1z8 160, RUE
DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G 1Z8 (4 16) 326-1388 326-1396 2273/90 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE
GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Bellemare et al) Grievor and -The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Environment) Employer BEFORE : FOR THE GRIEVOR FOR THE EMPLOYER
HEARING P. Knopf Vice-Chairperson T. Browes-Bugden Member D. Daugharty Member P. Lukasiewicz Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors C. Peterson Counsel Winkler,
Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors July 2, 1991 November 14, 1991 February 6, 1992
DECISION T h i s is a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n case. I t was o r i g i n a l l y b r o u g h t by t h e Union on b e h a l f o f a number of g r i e v o r s . However, when t h e
case proceeded to h e a r i n g , a l l t h e g r i e v o r s withdrew e x c e p t S t a n K a r p i n s k i . Thus, t h e p a n e l heard t h e e v i d e n c e and s u b m i s s i o
n s o n l y on t h e K a r p i n s k i c l a s s i f i c a t i o n g r i e v a n c e . The f a c t s g i v i n g rise to t h e case were n o t i n d i s p u t e . Indeed, c o u n s e
l and t h e p a r t i e s were a b l e to give t h e Board t h e b e n e f i t of an agreed s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s on a g r e a t deal of t h e case. The a g r e e d f a c t
s r e v e a l t h e f o l l o w i n g . The g r i e v o r is employed a t t h e Lakeview Water T r e a t m e n t F a c i l i t y ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as Lakeview)
i n M i s s i s s a u g a , O n t a r i o . There a r e two s e p a r a t e a s p e c t s to t h i s f a c i l i t y . One deals w i t h water t r e a t m e n t . The o t h e r p a r
t d e a l s w i t h sewage t r e a t m e n t . A l s o a s s o c i a t e d with t h e Lakeview f a c i l i t y is a s a t e l l i t e f a c i l i t y known as Lorne P a r k . T o g e
t h e r , t h e s e t w o f a c i l i t i e s e n s u r e s a f e d r i n k i n g w a t e r and p r o p e r sewage control f o r t h e P e e l Region. The g r i e v o r w o r k s i n
t h e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t p a r t of t h e Lakeview f a c i l i t y . T h a t p a r t of t h e f a c i l i t y has t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to t r e a t and p u r i
f y water f o r purpose of d r i n k i n g . Lakeview i t s e l f s e r v e s t w o -t h i r d s o f t h e M i s s i s s a u g a and most of t h e Brampton a r e a . Lakeview o p e r
a t e s and is s t a f f e d on a 24-hour b a s i s w i t h t h r e e d a i l y s h i f t s w i t h i n t h e p l a n t . A t t h e t i m e of t h e g r i e v a n c e , t h e day s h
i f t c o n s i s t e d of one foreman who w a s c l a s s i f i e d a t an O p e r a t o r 2 l e v e l , t w o O p e r a t o r 1’s one s p a r e S h i f t Foreman and one spare O p
e r a t o r 1. The n i g h t s h i f t consisted of one Foreman and t w o O p e r a t o r s .
-2 -In a n u t s h e l l , t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e O p e r a t o r s is to e n s u r e t h a t a l l equipment i n t h i s v e r y s o p h i s t i c a t e d p l a
n t i s k e p t working w i t h i n t h e r i g i d s t a n d a r d s t h a t a r e set o u t €or t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e c i t i z e n s of t h e P r o v i n c e by t h e
M i n i s t r y o f t h e Environment. I n o r d e r to f u l f i l t h i s mandate, t h e f a c i l i t y goes through a number of s t e p s : 1. 2. 3 . 4 . 5. The p l a n t draws i
n d i r t y water. "The p r e -t r e a t m e n t phase" i n v o l v e s t h e s u p e r c h l o r i n a t i o n , t h e c o a g u l a t i o n and t h e f l u o r i d i a t i o n of the-water
t a k e n i n t o t h e p l a n t . The t r e a t e d water is allowed to s e t t l e so t h a t t h e s e d i m e n t g o e s to t h e bottom and t h e p u r e r water f l o a t s t
o t h e t o p . The t r e a t e d w a t e r is f i l t e r e d to remove any r e s i d u a l s e d i m e n t . S u l p h e r d i o x i d e and amonia are a p p l i e d to t h e water.
The g r i e v o r is c l a s s i f i e d as an O p e r a t o r I. The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e bulk of t h e work done by t h e g r i e v o r is d e s c r i b e d i n t
h e Job S p e c i f i c a t i o n set o u t a s Appendix "A" of t h i s D e c i s i o n . Much of what t h e O p e r a t o r does is to t e s t t h e water 'at v a r i o u s s t e p
s i n t h e process to e n s u r e t h a t t h e M i n i s t r y of t h e Environment s t a n d a r d s a r e being m e t and t h a t t h e equipment is o p e r a t i n g p r o p e r
l y . To do t h i s , t h e g r i e v o r m u s t perform l a b tests e n s u r e ' t h a t t h e water is flowing p r o p e r l y i n t o t h e p l a n t , e n s u r e t h a t t h e
pumps are o p e r a t i n g p r o p e r l y , check t h e equipment t h a t inserts t h e c h e m i c a l s i n t o t h e w a t e r t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e
-3 -proper doses a r e g i v e n and check t h e f i l t e r s to e n s u r e t h a t t h e y are o p e r a t i n g p r o p e r l y and b e i n g c l e a n e d p r o p e r l y . I n
a d d i t i o n , t h e g r i e v o r is called upon to perform minor r e p a i r s i n t h e e v e n t o f some breakdowns, a l t h o u g h major r e p a i r problems a r e handled
by maintenance p e r s o n n e l . F i n a l l y , t h e g r i e v o r ' s f u n c t i o n s also i n v o l v e r e c o r d i n g and r e p o r t i n g d a t a . Some of t h i s is done
manually and t h e n t r a n s m i t t e d onto a computer. Other d a t a is recorded by t h e computer a u t o m a t i c a l l y . The p o s i t i o n t a k e n by t h e Union on b
e h a l f of t h e g r i e v o r is t h a t t h e g r i e v o r is i m p r o p e r l y c l a s s i f i e d because t h e C l a s s S t a n d a r d s do n o t r e c o g n i z e t h e
importance of t h e p o s i t i o n , t h o nuances of t h e p o s i t i o n or t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l changes t h a t have come a b o u t since t h e S t a n d a r d s were
d r a f t e d . The Class S t a n d a r d s f o r t h e O p e r a t o r series a r e appended h e r e t o as Appendix "B" to t h i s D e c i s i o n . Thus, t h e remedy sought i n t
h e g r i e v a n c e is to have t h e Class S t a n d a r d s r e d r a f t e d to p r o p e r l y r e f l e c t t h e work being done and to have an a p p r o p r i a t e p o s i t
i o n created. In t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h e Union took t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e job ought to be r e c l a s s i f i e d on the b a s i s of a usage argument b e
c a u s e , a t t h e t i m e of t h e g r i e v a n c e , two O p e r a t o r 2 ' s a t t h e Lorne Park f a c i l i t y were doing e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same work as t h e g
r i e v o r . With respect to t h e l a t t e r argument, t h e Employer conceded a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t a t t h e t i m e of t h e g r i e v a n c e t h e t w o r e l e v a n
t i n d i v i d u a l s working a t t h e Lorne Park f a c i l i t y who were c l a s s i f i e d as Operator 2 ' s were indeed doing b a s i c a l l y t h e same kind of work as t h
e g r i e v o r . Thus, t h e Employer conceded t h a t t h e Union had made o u t a prima f a c i e c a s e of usage. However, t h o Employer called e v i d e n c e on t h e usage i
s s u e to e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e t w o employees i n q u e s t i o n o b t a i n e d t h e i r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by way of t h e Employer's m i s t a k e .
-4 -Given the parties' positions and the many facts which were agreed upon, the only evidence called by the parties related to the grievor's perception of the issue and the Employer's-assertion
of mistake. Mr. Karpinski testified on his own behalf. He was passionate, articulate and eloquent in his testimony. He made clear to the Board that the aim of his grievance was not to
establish any higher wage classification just for himself. Instead, he was seeking recognition for his fellow workers as to the high degree of knowledge, ability, capacities and qualities
expected of the people who perform this work. He explained to us how the present classification system fails to recognize the expertise required of the incumbent and the tremendous degree
of responsibility upon the shoulders of the people who perform this work. He Stressed how much our community depends upon their work and their ability to provide safe, clean drinking
water. He explained that technology has developed rapidly and dramatically over the time he has worked in the facility. He told us that he and his colleagues were required to continually
upgrade themselves and keep abrest of new developments in technology and computerization. A s he described it, "This is a new, responsible profession." However, Mr. Karpinski's deep
concern is that the Ministry fails in its classification system to recognize the distinct and important differences between the responsibilities within a sewage plant as opposed to those
within a water treatment plant. Mr. Karpinski explained to us that the job's classification system, as it now exists, fails to recognize the distinction between these two responsibilities
and yet that the distinction ought to be recognized for purposes of understanding the distinct
-5 -r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and to g i v e p r o p e r job r e c o g n i t i o n to t h e men who f i l l t h e s e jobs. M r . K a r p i n s k i made it c l e a r t o us t h
a t he f e l t t h a t t h e p r e s e n t job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system f a i l s to g i v e proper r e c o g n i t i o n and d i g n i t y to t h e p e o p l e who perform
t h e s e r e s p o n s i b l e jobs and f a i l s to r e c o g n i z e t h e h i g h degree of knowledge and e x p e r t i s e r e q u i r e d to perform t h e s e j o b s p r o p e
r l y . Thus, he e x p l a i n e d to u s t h a t new C l a s s S t a n d a r d s ought to be c r e a t e d to r e c o g n i z e t h e d i f f e r e n c e between water t r e a t m e
n t and sewage t r e a t m e n t and to r e c o g n i z e t h e d i s t i n c t and d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of t h e O p e r a t o r s , t h e S e n i o r O
p e r a t o r s and t h e Foremen. In s u p p o r t of t h e M i n i s t r y ' s d e f e n c e to t h e "usage" case, L a u r i e Manoin t e s t i f i e d . She h a s worked w i t h
t h e M i n i s t r y i n t h e Human R e s o u r s e s Department s i n c e F e b r u a r y of 1989 It is h e r job to deal w i t h c l a s s i f i c a t i o n cases w i t h i n t h
e M i n i s t r y . She ' t e s t i f i e d r e g a r d i n g t h e h i s t o r y of t h e employment of t h e t w o i n d i v i d u a l s a t t h e Lorne P a r k f a c i l i t y who
were t h e b a s i s of t h e U n i o n ' s u s a g e argument. These people were Messrs. P u n t e r and R o u t e l y . In 1988 Routely was c l a s s i f i e d a s an O p e r a t o
r 2 and Hunter was c l a s s i f i e d as an O p e r a t o r 1. They both worked a t Lorne P a r k and on t h e same s h i f t . Routely as an O p e r a t o r 2 w a s working as a lead
hand v i s -a -v i s Hunter when t h e y were on t h e same s h i f t . In e a r l y 1989, t h e s h i f t s c h e d u l e was changed so as Routely and Hunter were no l o n g e r working
t o g e t h e r on t h e same s h i f t . On March 2 1 , 1989, s h o r t l y a f t e r t h i s s h i f t c h a n g e , H u n t e r f i l e d a g r i e v a n c e c l a i m i n g he ought
to be c l a s s i f i e d a s an O p e r a t o r 2 on t h e b a s i s of u s a g e b e c a u s e he was doing t h e same w o r k a s R o u t e l y . When t h e g r i e v a n c e w a
s r e c e i v e d L a u r i e Manoin asked H u n t e r ' s s u p e r v i s o r to review t h e Job S p e c i f i c a t i o n s i n v o l v e d and make h i s recommendation. The s u
p e r v i s o r a d v i s e d Manoin t h a t i n d e e d H u n t e r and Routely were doing t h e same work and s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e g r i e v a n c e be a l l o w e d . Having
reviewed t h e Job S p e c i f i c a t i o n s , M s . Manoin took t h e recommendation of t h e s u p e r v i s o r w i t h o u t c o n d u c t i n g
a p e r s o n a l a u d i t of t h e s i t u a t i o n and settled t h e g r i e v a n c e by r e c l a s s i f y i n g Hunter to t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of O p e r a t o r
2. She admits t h a t had she done an a u d i t a t t h a t t i m e she would have found o u t t h a t t h e P o s i t i o n S p e c i f i c a t i o n was i n a c c u r a t e i n t h
a t it s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e men were working a t t w o f a c i l i t i e s and had s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . In f a c t , they were o n l y working
i n one f a c i l i t y and d i d n o t e x e r c i s e s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . She e x p l a i n e d t h a t had she done t h e a u d i t a t t h a t
tine she would have d i s a l l o w e d t h e Hunter g r i e v a n c e and r e c l a s s i f i e d Routely down to t h e p o s i t i o n of Operator 1. The a c t u a l f a c t s came-to
Ms. Manoin's a t t e n t i o n i n June of 1990 when t h e s e n i o r O p e r a t o r s a t t h e f a c i l i t y , i n c l u d i n g R o u t e l y , f i l e d a g r i e v a n c e s
e e k i n g r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n upward. In i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h a t g r i e v a n c e , Ms. Manoin determined t h e f a c t s about R o u t e l y ' s job and she
found o u t more about H u n t e r ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . S i n c e t h e r e was no group l e a d e r s h i p r e q u i r e m e n t i n R o u t e l y ' s r e s p o n
s i b i l i t i e s , M s . Manoin m e t w i t h t h e Union P r e s i d e n t and p o i n t e d o u t t h a t he r e a l l y ought n o t to be c l a s s i f i e d a s an O p e r a t
o r 2 , b u t i n s t e a d to be r e c l a s s i f i e d down. Thus, t h e r e was no p o i n t i n p u r s u i n g a g r i e v a n c e s e e k i n g to r e c l a s s i f y him h i
g h e r . A f t e r t h i s , Routely withdrew h i s g r i e v a n c e . Although M s . Manoin's i n s t i n c t s were to t h e n r e c l a s s i f y Routely and Hunter c o r r e c
t l y , she was a d v i s e d by t h e Human Resources Department i n h e r M i n i s t r y t h a t to do so a t t h a t t i m e would amount to poor l a b o u r r e l a t i o n s ,
g i v e n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e o t h e r g r i e v a n c e s were p r o c e e d i n g . Thus, no a c t i o n was taken on her p a r t . However, when t h e g r i e v a n c e s
which were p a r t of t h i s f i l e were lodged d e a l i n g w i t h t h e O p e r a t o r 1’s M s . Manoin put t h e Union on notice t h a t t h e Employer f e l t t h a t Messrs.
Routely and Hunter were improperly c l a s s i f i e d . She t r i e d to pursuade t h e Union a t t h a t p o i n t t h a t a usage argument was n o t a p p r o p r i a t e . M s .
Manoin e x p l a i n e d t h a t s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r t h e M i n i s t r y
-7 -r e c l a s s i f i e d Routely and Hunter to t h e l e v e l of O p e r a t o r 1 and red-circled t h e i r s a l a r i e s . M r . K a r p i n s k i e x p r e s s e d g r e a t
d i s t r e s s o v e r t h e f a c t t h a t Messrs. Routely and Hunter were r e c l a s s i f i e d . H e p e r c e i v e s t h i s as " r o b b i n g " them of t h e d i g n i t y
t h a t t h e y de s e r v e . Argument On b e h a l f of t h e g r i e v o r , c o u n s e l f o r t h e Union argued t h a t t h e M i n i s t r y ought n o t to be a b l e to r a
i s e t h e d e f e n c e o f m i s t a k e i n t h i s case. I t was p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e M i n i s t r y conceded t h a t it had n o t done a p r o p e r a u d i t of
Messrs. Hunter and R o u t e l y when t h e i r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f i r s t came to t h e M i n i s t r y ' s a t t e n t i o n . Had a p r o p e r a u d i t been done, M r
. Hunter would never have been c l a s s i f i e d to t h e O p e r a t o r 2 l e v e l and t h e usage i s s u e may never have a r i s e n . However, as a r e s u l t of t h e M i
n i s t r y ' s f a i l u r e to a c t w i t h due d i l i g e n c e , t h e m i s t a k e was c r e a t e d . I t was s a i d t h a t t h e M i n i s t r y ought n o t to be allowed
to f a i l i n its d u t y t o d i s c h a r g e its o b l i g a t i o n s and t h e n be allowed to r a i s e t h a t f a i l u r e as a d e f e n c e i n a usage argument. Having made
o u t what t h e Employer concedes to be a prima f a c i e case on t h e b a s i s of usage, and g i v e n t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e m i s t a k e , c o u n s e l f o r t h e Union
argued t h a t t h e d e f e n c e of m i s t a k e ought n o t to allowed to succeed i n t h i s case and t h e g r i e v a n c e ought to be allowed. Counsel f o r t h e Union t h
e n i n v i t e d Mr. K a r p i n s k i to make c l o s i n g s u b m i s s i o n s w i t h r e g a r d to t h e other i s s u e s raised by h i s g r i e v a n c e . On h i s own b
e h a l f , M r . K a r p i n s k i a g a i n p a s s i o n a t e l y stressed t h e f a c t t h a t t h e Class S t a n d a r d s f a i l e d to r e c o g n i z e t h e changed technology
and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s s h o u l d e r e d by t h e incumbents. H e urged t h i s Board to order the M i n i s t r y to r e d r a f t t h e S t a n d a r d s , i n such
a way t h a t
-8 -r e c o g n i z e s t h e q u a l i t i e s , t h e c a p a c i t i e s , t h e a b i l i t i e s and t h e knowledge of a l l . t h e p e o p l e working i n t h e f a c i l i t
y who endure e x a c t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s and d i f f i c u l t working c o n d i t i o n s i n order to e n s u r e t h a t s a f e d r i n k i n g water is p r o v i d e
d to t h e community. On b e h a l f of t h e Employer, c o u n s e l responded to t h e U n i o n ' s argument on t h e i s s u e of m i s t a k e by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i n
a l l c a s e s of m i s t a k e t h e r e p r o b a b l y would have been a l a c k of due d i l i g e n c e t h a t caused t h e m i s t a k e i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . The case
a t hand was s a i d to be no d i f f e r e n t t h a n e a r l i e r cases decided by t h i s Board i n i n s t a n c e s where m i s t a k e s had been made. T h i s Board was reminded
of t h e t e s t i n t h e Carvalho d e c i s i o n , GSB F i l e 1484/84 ( R o b e r t s ) , wherein it was s a i d t h a t i n order f o r a usage argument to p r e v a i l , " t h
e Union must show t h e e x i s t e n c e of a c o n s i s t e n t p r a c t i c e o f v a r y i n g t h e Class Standard regardless of mistake.!' On . t h e f a c t s a t hand, it w
a s s a i d t h a t the U n i o n had n o t shown a c o n s i s t e n t p r a c t i c e t h a t c o u l d be s a i d to change t h e Class S t a n d a r d . I n a d d i t i o n , c o
u n s e l f o r t h e Employer stressed t h a t t h e f a c t s i n t h i s case e s t a b l i s h that t h e " m i s t a k e " i n c l a s s i f y i n g Messrs. Routely and Hunter came
a b o u t i n a bona f i d e way and came to l i g h t i n a bona f i d e i n v e s t i g a t i o n p r i o r to t h e s e g r i e v a n c e s being f i l e d . It was stressed t h a
t t h e Union was p u t on n o t i c e even b e f o r e t h i s g r i e v a n c e was f i l e d t h a t Routely and Hunter were i m p r o p e r l y c l a s s i f i e d and t h a t t
h e matter was r e c t i f i e d once t h e Employer f e l t c o n f i d e n t t h a t doing t h e r e c t i f i c a t i o n would not have a " c h i l l i n g e f f e c t " on t h e
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s as warned a g a i n s t i n t h e Holley and M i n i s t r y o f Natural. R e s o u r c e s d e c i s i o n , GSB F i l e 1162/88 ( F r a s
e r ) . With regard to t h e U n i o n ' s p o s i t i o n on t h e i s s u e o f c l a s s s t a n d a r d s , counsel. f o r t h e M i n i s t r y stressed t h a t t h e broad wording
of the Class S t a n d a r d encompassed t h e d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of t h e g r i e v o r and t h a t no e v i d e n c e
-9 -g i v e n to t h e Board would have taken him o u t s i d e t h e C l a s s S t a n d a r d . Hence, he o u g h t n o t to be r e c l a s s i f i e d . The t e s t a s a r t i c
u l a t e d i n t h e Aird and E l i n i s t r y o f Consumer and Commercial R e l a t i o n s case, GSB F i l e 1349/87 ( S l o a n ) was said to be an a p p r o p r i a t e and a p
p l i c a b l e test i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The Decision The g r i e v o r was very p e r s u a s i v e i n h i s e v i d e n c e and i n h i s arguments. He h a s succeeded
i n c o n v i n c i n g u s t h a t t h e r e are d i s t i n c t d i f f e r e n c e s between water t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s and sewage t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t
i e s . H e has also convinced u s t h a t he and people l i k e him do n o t f e e l t h a t t h e M i n i s t r y u n d e r s t a n d s t h e s e d i s t i n c t i o n s or t h a t
t h e M i n i s t r y is g i v i n g s u f f i c i e n t r e c o g n i t i o n to t h e d i f f i c u l t and demanding r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f p e o p l e called upon to
o p e r a t e t h e s e f a c i l i t i e s . H i s t e s t i m o n y r e v e a l e d a h i g h degree of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n r e q u i r e d of t h e incumbent and a very real
s e n s e t h a t he f e l t t h a t h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h e community was n o t b e i n g s u f f i c i e n t l y r e c o g n i z e d . The g r i e v o r also spoke p
a s s i o n a t e l y a b o u t h i s b e l i e f t h a t h i s d u t i e s could b e t t e r be supervises by o t h e r m i n i s t r i e s t h a n t h e E l i n i s t r y which p r
e s e n t l y is i n h a s c o n t r o l . A l l t h e p o i n t s made by t h e g r i e v o r were c l e a r l y based on c a r e f u l and serious r e f l e c t i o n on h i s p a
r t . H e p a s s i o n a t e l y b e l i e v e s them to be t r u e . However, as t h i s p a n e l e x p l a i n e d to t h e g r i e v o r a t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e j u r i
s d i c t i o n of the Grievance S e t t l e m e n t Board on a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n case is very l i m i t e d . We cannot nor should we enter i n t o a p o l i t i c a l , p
h i l o s o p h i c a l or p s y c h o l o g i c a l a s s e s s m e n t of a job or its o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n w i t h i n t h e C i v i l S e r v i c e . A l l
we can do i n a case l i k e t h i s is examine t h e job i n q u e s t i o n and d e t e r m i n e whether or n o t it is p r o p e r l y c l a s s i f i e d .
LO In order to d e t e r m i n e whether t h e job is p r o p e r l y c l a s s i f i e d , we m u s t f i r s t t u r n to. t h e Class S t a n d a r d . I t is t r u e t h a t t h
e C l a s s S t a n d a r d was d r a f t e d i n 1973 and t h a t it is very broad and g e n e r a l i n its n a t u r e . No one i n 1973 could have a n t i c i p a t e d t h e e x
t r a o r d i n a r y advances' i n technology t h a t have developed s i n c e t h a t t i m e . However, t h e f u n c t i o n s of C l a s s S t a n d a r d s are to he b r o a d
, a l i v e and f l e x i b l e i n order to a d a p t to changes i n technology and human development. As so e l o q u e n t l y described by Vice-Chair Sloan i n h i s Aird d e c i
s i o n , s u p r a : A Class Standard must-n e c e s s a r i l y c o n t a i n some g e n e r a l language b u t it must n o t be p h r a s e d i n such g e n e r a l i t i e s as to
make t h e d e s c r i p t i o n m e a n i n g l e s s . L i k e t h e s t r i n g s of a musical i n s t r u m e n t , t h e S t a n d a r d must be n e i t h e r too t i g h t nor
too loose. The Class Standard t h a t we a r e d e a l i n g w i t h i n t h i s case must be r e c o g n i z e d as being j u s t such a job s t a n d a r d . It is g e n e r a l i
n i t s language b u t it is n o t m e a n i n g l e s s . I t r e f e r s to both waste t r e a t m e n t and water p u r i f i c a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s . T h u s , it does deal
w i t h t h e g r i e v o r ' s f a c i l i t y which d e a l s with water p u r i f i c a t i o n . In its preamble, t h e Class S t a n d a r d makes r e f e r e n c e to f a c i l
i t i e s s e r v i n g d e n s e l y p o p u l a t e d areas w i t h a l a r g e and d i v e r s i f i e d s t a f f o p e r a t i n g on a c o n t i n u o u s s h i f t system. T h
i s c o v e r s t h e g r i e v o r ' s type of f a c i l i t y . The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s l i s t e d i n t h e preamble a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h o s e of t
h e g r i e v o r . When we t u r n to t h e a c t u a l Class S t a n d a r d of an O p e r a t o r 1, the agreed s t a t e m e n t o f f a c t s and t h e g r i e v o r ' s e v i d
e n c e show t h a t he does e v e r y t h i n g c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h a t Class S t a n d a r d . The S t a n d a r d is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s Job S p e c i
f i c a t i o n . When we t u r n to t h e Class S t a n d a r d of an O p e r a t o r 2 , we see t h e o n l y d i f f e r e n c e between t h e O p e r a t o r 2 and t h e O p e r
a t o r 1 is t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of p r o v i d i n g " t e c h n i c a l a d v i c e , a s s i s t a n c e and g u i d a n c e to one or more working l e v e l o p e r
a t o r s . " The g r i e v o r t o l d u s t h a t
11 he t a k e s on such r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r h i m s e l f when he f e e l s it is n e c e s s a r y and t h a t , a t t i m e s , he is c a l l e d upon to perform
such d u t i e s . However, t h e w e l l s e t t l e d j u r i s p r u d e n c e o f t h i s Board, as e x e m p l i f i e d i n t h e Aird d e c i s i o n , is t h a t any a d d i
t i o n a l d u t i e s which might seem to take a job o u t of its o r i g i n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o n l y become d e t e r m i n a t i v e when t h o s e d u t i e s are
of ''such a kind or o c c u r i n such a degree as to amount to a d i f f e r e n t job a l t o g e t h e r . " In t h e g r i e v o r ' s c a n d i d , h o n e s t and f o r t h r i
g h t t e s t i m o n y t h e r e w a s no s u g g e s t i o n t h a t he was called upon to perform t h e a d v i s o r y or g u i d i n g d u t i e s to such a d e g r e e or w i t
h such r e g u l a r i t y t h a t it could be seen to t a k e him o u t s i d e h i s o r i g i n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a s an Operator 1. Thus, o n -t h e basis of t h e
C l a s s S t a n d a r d argument and t h e e s t a b l i s h e d j u r i s p r u d e n c e of t h i s Board, t h e g r i e v a n c e c a n n o t s u c c e e d . W e t u r n now to
t h e usage argument. P u t v e r y s i m p l y , t h e usage argument is t h a t because t h e g r i e v o r was p e r f o r m i n g e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same d u t i e s a s
t w o employees a t a s i m i l a r f a c i l i t y a t t h e t i m e of t h e g r i e v a n c e who were c l a s s i f i e d a s O p e r a t o r 2 ' s , t h e g r i e v o r should also
be c l a s s i f i e d upwards. However, t h e e v i d e n c e is clear t h a t t h e Hunter and Routely c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s came a b o u t as a r e s u l t of a bona f i d
e m i s t a k e on b e h a l f of management. The m i s t a k e was based on a m i s c o n c e p t i o n as to t h e a c t u a l d u t i e s of t h e job. As soon as t h e m i s t a
k e came to t h e a t t e n t i o n of management, even p r i o r to t h e f i l i n g of t h i s g r i e v a n c e , t h e Union was p u t on n o t i c e t h a t management considered
t h o s e t w o p o s i t i o n s to be anomo 1 i e s The usage argument -e x i s t s to p r e v e n t management from s u b v e r t i n g i t s own c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system.
However, on t h e
-12 -u n u s u a l f a c t s as r e v e a l e d i n t h i s case, and g i v e n t h e c l e a r e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t h e two gentlemen i n q
u e s t i o n was c l e a r l y an anomoly w i t h i n t h e P r o v i n c e and i n no way a f f e c t e d t h e way t h e Employer was a p p l y i n g t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i
o n system with r e g a r d t o O p e r a t o r s , t h i s is simply n o t a case where it is a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e Union to be a b l e to s u s t a i n a usage argument.
T h i s is e s p e c i a l l y so because t h e Union was a d v i s e d even b e f o r e t h i s g r i e v a n c e was f i l e d t h a t t h e Employer h a s r e a l i z e d its error
and wished to r e c t i f y t h e s i t u a t i o n . Hence-, f o r t h o s e r e a s o n s a s w e l l , t h e g r i e v a n c e must be dismissed. Before c o n c l u d i n g , w e
w i s h to F i r s t , we wish to e x p r e s s o u r respect t h e g r i e v o r f o r h i s ' s u b m i s s i o n s to u s make t w o remarks. f o r and a p p r e c i a t i o n of
and t h e c o u r a g e -h e e x h i b i t e d i n s t a t i n g h i s case on h i s own b e h a l f and on b e h a l f of h i s f e l l o w w o r k e r s . H e c e r t a i n l y succeeded
i n c o n v i n c i n g u s t h a t t h e y d e s e r v e a h i g h degree of d i g n i t y and respect f o r t h e job t h a t they perform. Secondly, we wish to thank c o u n s e l
€or both p a r t i e s . T h i s case could have p o t e n t i a l l y i n v o l v e d a g r e a t number of d a y s of h e a r i n g and complex e v i d e n c e a s to t h e job d u
t i e s . However, due to c o u n s e l s ' s k i l l and p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m , t h e y were a b l e to come to agreed f a c t s on t h e a p p r o p r i a t e aspects of t
h e case. They both r e p r e s e n t e d t h e i r c l i e n t s well and were of tremendous a s s i s t a n c e to t h e Board i n r e a c h i n g i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n .
13 However, for all t h e reasons mentioned above, t h e g r i e v a n c e m u s t be d i s m i s s e d . DATED a t T o r o n t o , O n t a r i o t h i s 2 4 t h day of March, 1992 rson
T. Browes-Bugden Member D. Daugharty Member
11 0 0 Chief Operator 37-5617-20 Purporr of ponuon Irhv does IMI position To perform operational d u t i r s as prescribedI i n the South Peel Water system i n accordance with established
n t n f s t r y p o l i c i e s and procedurea, /o 121 70 CIIll aIloullon CI.0 IIIU Waste & Water Project operator Effective date Oev Yonrn Yew Ciasr code Oauwilomc n-4 0 4 0 2 M-0 2C
01 11 83 ! . . . ... . --11 12 90 Laurie flanofa, Human Remoorces Con
I 1 4 Instructions for cornpletlng form CSC-6150 Instructions for codlng Seasonal Work Perlod Dutiea C Related Tasks Cont'd: inapecting and testing tho process and oparatfng mrmao on
a r e g u l a r b8ais to enmure proper operationt a c t i v a t i n g various procena u n i t e as required; adjusting chemical dosages a s requaatad by the S h i f t ?oreman to maintain
v a t e r q u a l i t y standards: monitoring plant performance -by recording chemicals used8 f l o v , pressurer levels, lab test r e s u l t s and other proceas variables: reporting
to the S h i f t loreman any breakdoma and equipment requiring s e r v i c e I or o t h e r unusual o p e r a t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s rncountered on the s h i f t : informing
the S h i f t Foreman of adjustm+nts required before carrying them outt s v i t c h i n g and changing chlorine tanks according t o established procedures: i.) a a a i s t i n g In the
unloading of a l l water treatment chemicals f i l l i n g in f o r S h i f t Coraman uhnn required: cleaning and dusting lab cquipmintr e x t e r i o r QC procesa equipment, and other
d u t i e s as aaaiqned: c o r r e c t i n g errore in p l a n t records and r.QQCting #am to S h i f t loreman; maintaining an accurate 8nd. informative plant log of plant operations;
monitoring and c o n t r o l l i n g l a r g e *rapid aancl. f i l t e r s and aaaoctated equipmontr displaying data ouch a s OPF/OH, flov, loas of heed, t u r b i d i t y , f i l t
e r runr washwater usedr ntmber of f i l t e r s backvashedr etc. : ennuring t h a t a l l f i l t e r backwashing takes place a t e a t a b i i s h e d times and t h a t t h e proper
procedurea are follovedt operating wastewater ayatcmt ensuring t h a t a l l operating d u t i e s a r e c a r r i e d out in the Lotne Park Water Troatment P l a n t a a required: Cont'dr.....
-AdDENOUn COR: 37-5817-24, Operator Duties and Related Taskb Cont‘dr -checking Lornc Park f a c i l i t i e s on site as required; 11 -maintaining c l o s e s c r u t i n y of Hydro
demand meter to f a c i l i t a t e t h e most economical operation of pumps and reporting I exceptions to S h i f t ?oreman. . i i ! . , . Computer Monitoring and Control System: Using
t h e main computer system and i t a associated peripherals to monltor and c o n t r o h t h e Lorne Park Water Plant, 8 pumping s t a t i o n s and aosociated reservoirat 2 elevated
tank., and part of t h e Lakeview Hater Plant by: /L-using the functional Alphanumeric and special function keyboard for t h e C.R.T. t o provide reportar s t a t i s t i c a l a n a
l y s i s , operating e f f i c i e n c i e s , logsr t r e n d s r d a t a a c q u i s i t i o n , s t o r a g e r e t r i e v a l I control, alarming, 4nd display of operational data
including s t a t u s r control commandmr flows, pressuros, temperature, l e v e l s # c h e i i c a l a r analyslsr -lab r e p o r t s r d a i l y r e p o r t s r monthly r e p o r
t s t yearly reportar demand summaries, etc., are required: /2 -reporting any computer breakdovnn on formn provided and forwarding to S h i f t forwaan? /t-responding to alarm conditions
and taking c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n ; 12-checking t h e back-up power supply for t h e computer and reporting any problems. 101 2. Lab Duties: /3 -c o l l e c t i n g chemical
and b a c t r r i o l o q i c a l eample. regularly or aa directod for shipment t o prrforming routine lab trot.? 13-requesting maintenance for f a u l t y equipment to the S h i f t
Foreman : 1 3 -performing routine lab test: 13-performing b a c t e r i o l o g i c a l t e s t s on veekends and hol idays or when lab s t a f f is absent: 13-maintaining laboratory
s t a t i s t i c a l recording sheeta as 13-a s s i s t i n g Lab Technician aa requi6edt 13-other r e l a t e d d u t i e s as required. ~ required: P ob 1 i c Re 1 at i on. 8 /$ -maintaining
good public r e l a t i o n s and conducting p l a n t t o u r s r requested information. 1 -checking with S h i f t ?oreman for a u t h o r i t y before giving Cont ‘ d , . .. . . I
1
ADDENDUM ?OR: 37-5817-24, Operator DUtf.8 and Rolated Tm8ka Cont'da Othorr /9 -tZo/---v o t k i n g on s p a r e a h i l t a s r e q u i r e d ; operating U . 0 . t . oehiclo for dalioory
or .amplo pick up am required: taking t r a i n i n g courscm am roquiredt ascristinq Haintcnanee mtaff aa tequiredt 108 3. Safety: ' l b -0 /7-/Y -0 following the established procodurem
and mafety regulations and using correct p r a c t i c e s and safety equipment i n p t r s c r i b r d manner : ensuring chemicalsr s o l v e n t s , t o x i c matorial# a r e unloaded,
handled and stored properly; taking veokly a i r pack drill., temting and s t o r i n g t checking and t o s t i n g a11 aafoty devicaa -9.8 8ctubberr c h l o r i n e d e t e c t o r
, elargency alarms# emergency r i g h t r e fire alarms# etc. : reporting unsafe equipment; keoping a11 doors t o t h o c h l o r i n e Room clo8.d to prevent chlorine from seeping to
oth9r #action# of the plant i n tho event of a chlorine s p i l l ; keeping the Chlorine Room area off l i m i t s on plant tours; cooporating w i t h t h e o t h e r men on s h i f
t to go PfdfiQtlY to t h e Central Control Room for any omergency vhera the problem w i l l be .valuated and c o r r e c t i v e action taken? recording a l l important f a c t a and
f i l l i n g out an Incident Report from an required. S k i l l s & Knovledge Canted: driver's l i c e n c e ; good physical condition; willingness t o take t r a i n i n g couraes:
8uccessful completion of t h e n.0.t. Ba8iC Water Course within 12 months. Candidates vi11 be requirod t o obtain c e r t i f i c a t i o n In the Water end Waatevater U t i l i t y
Opotation C e r t i f i c a t i o n Program.
APPENDIX "B" CLASS STRNDARD: CATEGORY : CROUP: SERfES : class CODE: 552 Malntenance Services MS-OX Trades and Crafts Waste and Water Project operator 40402 to 40404 WASTE AND WATER PROJECT
OPERATOR SERIES This series covers positions of employees engaged in the operation of either waste treatment or water purification facilities. related to the monitoring and control of
waste and water treatment processes in installations located throughout the Province . These employees carry out a variety of duties The size of the faciiity ranges from projects serving
small municipalities and requiring only one or two employeesj to installations tervizg densely .populated areas with a relatively la'rge and diversified staff operating on a contAnuoq
shaft system. The responsibilities of these positions involves the carrying out 'of regular inspections of the project, operating and maintaining process control equipment and undertakinq
various assignments to ensure that the project is operatir.9 ir. accordance w i t h establrshed standards. ?he series conta1r.s a trainee l e v e l covering 3ositions of ernploye5.s
lacking the necessary knowledse and/or ex?erience to o p e r a t e a t the full workir.5 l e v e l . Exclllei frcn: t h i s s e r i e s are 2csrcior.s wkeze t?.e primary responsibility
i s the repair and maintenance or' p l a n t equipment, the conducting of laboratory test-groundskeeping, caretaking and unskilled manual lhour. Such positions should be allocated to
class series more specifically designed to cover t h e i r responsibilities. Also excluded fran this series are positions of C h i e f Operator (no more than one per plant for each s
h i f t ) end higher l e v e l p o s i t i o n s concerned c h i e f l y with the nanasemect of t k e plant. I
CLASS STANDARD: CATEGORY: Maintenance Services GROUP : MS-02C Trades and Crafts SERIES : CLASS CCOE: 40402 Waste and Water Project Operator WASTE AND WATER PROJECT OPERA'POR 1 This class
covers positions of employees who, under the supervision of a Chief Operator, carry out a variety of operating and inspectional duties in e i t h e r a waste treatnent or a water gurification
f a c i l i t y . These employees carry out regularly scheduled inspections of a l l equipment-in buildings, collect samples perform routine laboratory t e s t s , i n order t o ensure
the e f f e c t i v e oFeration of tSe f a c i l i t y . h e y perform preventi maintenance procedures by checking machinery and e l e c t r i c a l equipment when required, and may
overhaul or a s s i s t in the overhaul of equipment i f necessary. and tre In some Flants these employees may also be required. to perfom some groundskeeping and caretaking duties.
SKILLS AND :CC:C'fl23GE: Mechanical and e l e c t r i c a l aptitude; fanilrsr:=y wi:k and u n c e r s ~ a n c ~ n053 t;?p c_cerat,:or. of a vaxiet:, of xoisratelcomplex process control
equipment.
CUSS STANDARD: CATECORY: Maintenance Services a GROUP : MS-02C Trades and Crafts SERIES: CLASS CODE: 40404 Waste and Water Project Operator WASTE AND WATER PROJECT OPERATOR 2 This class
covers positions of employees in waste treatment or water p u r i f i c a t i o n p l a n t s who, in addition to performing any or a l l of the duties of a Waste and Water Project Operator
1, also provide technical advice, assistance and suidance to one or more working level operators. employees report to a Chief O e r a t o r or other managenect Fosition. -j These As
for Waste and Water Project Operator 1;plus ability to provide techni'cal leadership to other employees.