HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoyuk 98-31-07
..
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRA nON
BETWEEN:
NETWORK NORTH
The Employer
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION,
LOCAL 666
The Union
)"" AND IN THE MATTER of the grievance of Bob Boyuk regarding a reduction of
'~
part-time hours.
Arbitrator:
I.G, Thorne
Appearances for the Employer:
GeoffJeffery, Counsel
Marc Piquette, Manager, Labour Relations
George Dockery, Director of Housekeeping and Plant Maintenance, Sudbury-Algoma Hospital
Nancy Hanwell; Director of Materiel Management, Sudbury Regional Hospital
Mary Condratto, Director of Food Services, Sudbury-Algoma Hospital
Appearances for the Union:
Jim Gilbert, District Grievance Officer
Don Malette, Staff Representative
Bob Boyuk, Grievor
, A hearing in this matter took place on October 20th, 1998, at Sudbury, Ontario.
2
"
.
AWARD
The grievor, Bob Boyuk, is a part-time employee in the position of Buyer. He has grieved
that his assigned hours of work have been reduced from 20 hours per week to 6 hours per week.
The Union contends that the reduction in Mr. Boyuk's hours was improper in that some of the
work he used to perform is now being done by members of management and other employees
excluded from the bargaining unit. To the extent that some of the grievor's former duties may be
being performed by other members of the bargaining unit, the Union indicates that any such hours
are not the focus of the grievance, although it does seek the reinstatement of the grievor's 20-hour
assignment.
..
)
It was common ground at the hearing that a proper understanding of the grievor's
situation required examination of Ills employment situation over a number of years. Both parties
led evidence in that regard.
The Employer provides community mental health services over an extended territory in
the vicinity of Sudbury, Ontario, Services are provided at a number of locations which include
several clinics, detoxification services and, of particular importance for this grievance, at
Sudbury-Algoma Hospital and Sudbury General Hospital. The employees covered by the
,
3
,~
-
collective agreement include paramedical, office and clerical employees, both full-time and
part-time, in a number of bargaining units. The grievor is a part-time employee who now works
at the Sudbury General site and formerly worked atthe Sudbury-Algoma location.
Buying and distributing supplies and equipment for the organization was done for a
number of years from a central source, although there were, always some exceptions, and it was in
this function that the grievor was employed. He started with the Employer in 1986 when he was
hired as a part-time employee in the classification of Shipper/Receiver and was regularly assigned
for 22.5 hours per week. In 1990, his position was reclassified to Buyer and his hours were
reduced to 20 hours per week In the early years of his employment, Mr. Boyuk's position was
!
nominally that of an assistant to the purchasing agent, a position most recently held by Don
Palmer. The working relationship between Mr. Boyuk and W.ír. Palmer was a unique one which
involved Mr. Boyuk in exercising a wider range of responsibilities than his nominal position might
have suggested and which will be described shortly. Both individuals worked in the purchasing
department and reported to the Director of Finance. At first neither person's position was in the
bargaining unit, but at some point in the early 1990s the grievor's position was deemed to be in
the bargaining unit, while Mr, Palmer's was not.
In March 1994, Mr. Palmer was laid off. The Director of Finance, Harold Shirley, asked
4
..-
-
i Mr. Boyuk to take on an acting position which included the duties of purchasing agent and buyer.
His pay was increased by 50 cents per hour and he was assigned full-time hours. He was also
removed from the bargaining unit for the duration of that assignment. The reasons for the
placement of the grievor within and outside the bargaining unit over a number of years were not
described in evidence; whatever the reasons may have been, for the purposes of this arbitration
the parties made no issue of the correctness or otherwise of the grievor's bargaining unit status as
it stood ITom time to time.
Until late 1995, Mr. Boyuk had carried out his duties as buyer and then as acting
purchasing agent at the Sudbury-Algoma site. At that point he was informed that he would be
I
moving to the Sudbury General Hospital site, and would also report to a new supervisor, the
Director of Materiel Management at Sudbury General Hospital, a position held at the time by
Nancy HanwelL About three months later, in February 1996, he was advised that the would revert
to his former part-time status working 20 hours per week, would no longer receive the 50 cent
per hour supplement, and would move back into the bargaining unit. He would also report to a
new superviSOr. Subsequently, effective June 16th, 1997, Mr. Boyuk's hours were reduced to 6
per week. It was at that point that he filed the present grievance. (His hours have since been
slightly increased to 8 per week.)
5
.'
Much of the evidence concerned the duties which Mr. Boyuk had perfonned during his
time in the positions of buyer and acting purchasing agent, the degree to which other individuals
performed some purchasing duties during the same period, and the way in which purchasing
duties had been carried out since the grievor's move to the Sudbury General site.
As mentioned above, for some years the grievor's relationship to his immediate supervisor
was a unique one. His evidence was that he and Mr. Palmer got on well and essentially shared the
work. Mr. Palmer's approach, the grievor testified, was to malœ the job as interesting as possible
for him and to let him do any aspect of Mr. Palmer's job that he could. In effect, he said, he did
the purchasing agent's job. The grievor accepted that Mr. Palmer had authority over him and he
J
would consult him when the need arose. For the most part, however, they shared the work, each
man handling the areas in which he had the greatest expertise. The grievor was emphatic that he
considered that he had as much authority as Mr. Palmer to enter into agreements with suppliers.
This arrangement appears to have been in existence since at least November 1991 when Mr.
Palmer was the incumbent in the position of purchasing agent when a position description was
prepared. That position description made it clear that the purchasing agent was the person
primarily responsible for purchasing materials, supplies and equipment, supervising the buyer in
doing so. The purchasing agent had responsibility for supervising stores and for the maintenance
of inventory levels, for receiving mail and for supervising the operation, supplies and repair of
6,
,.,
photocopy machines and fax machines, among other duties, The buyer's position description
described his primary function as coordinating stores receipts and issues, and assisting the
purchasing agent in purchasing materials and equipment. He was also to relieve the purchasing
agent when required. The buyer was also' to receive all goods ordered by Purchasing and to
maintain stores. It is clear from the grievor's evidence, however, that the reality of the situation
was that the dividing line between the two positions was somewhat blurred and that the grievor in
fact exercised responsibilities beyond those in his job description, and not only in situations where
he relieved the purchasing agent.
After Mr. Palmer was laid off in March 1994, the grievor continued to work as before.
i
The only difference, he said, was that the workload was very high. The way he looked at the
situation he considered that he was in effect doing the same job both before and after his
appointment as acting purchasing agent, After acting in the position for about two years, the
grievor stated, he approached the president of the union local to ask her to check out what was
happening, since he had some hope that there might eventually be a full-time position available in
purchasing. It was shortly after that, he testified, that he was informed that he would be relocated
to the Sudbury General Hospital site. At this point there were certain changes in his job
functions. He did not do purchasing for Sudbury General; since supplies continued to be received
at Sudbury Algoma, he could not do receiving at his new location; his core duties did not
)
7
immediately change in other respects, There were some changes, however, which can be
summarized,
The receiving function at Sudbury Algoma, which he was no longer present to perfonn,
was largely taken over by the Food Services Supervisor, Sharon Neely, he testified. The Food
Services Department had always been solely responsible for receiving food products Gust as the
processing and receiving of drugs for the phannacy had always been done by persons other than
the grievor). However the grievor's understanding was that Ms. Neely's responsibilities had
expanded to include the receiving of supplies generally which he had previously done, Ms, Neely
receiving product, removing the packing slips and forwarding them to him. . At the time he was
,
moved to the Sudbury General site his supervisor had asked him who would be the best person at
the Sudbury Algoma site to do receiving and he had recommended Ms. Neely. He also
understood that Ms, Neely had taken over his function of coordinating the delivery of supplies to
the floors, including delivering supplies herself on occasion; he had received this understanding
from Ms. Neely herself. His own practice before the change, he said, had been to deliver supplies
himself, although he would sometimes rely on delivery drivers to deliver supplies elsewhere as he
directed. The only other evidence of Ms. Neely's responsibilities so far as receiving product was
concerned came from Mary Condratto, the Director of Food Services at the Sudbury Algoma site.
In the past, she testified, in addition to receiving the food supplies which were their responsibility,
8
her staff had received product which would normally have been the responsibility of the
Purchasing Department if Mr. Boyuk or Mr. Palmer were not there to do so, This might happen
if supplies came before or after Boyuk's or Palmer's hours or if they were on the phone and the
person could not wait - although that did not happen often. Ms. Neely probably received product
at such times, she thought, because her office was closest to Receiving, It was Ms. Condratto's
evidence that Ms, Neely had been receiving some more product since Mr, Boyuk's departure, for
example office supplies and paper products. She was not aware of Ms. Neely doing any delivery
of product. Ms, Neely did not testify at the hearing.
Some of the grievor's other responsibilities did continue for a time after he had been
j
relocated to the Sudbury General site. Before the move he had been responsible for the leasing
and maintenance of photocopying machines. (This was among the enumerated duties of the
Purchasing Agent position in which the grievor had been acting.) He had also had responsibilities
for telephones involving such matters as arranging for lines and for repairs. He continued to carry
both of these responsibilities for a period of four to six months after his move to the Sudbury
General site. Quite some time later, on August 22nd, 1997, a memo to all staff directed that
requests for repairs, changes and additions to the telephone system should be made to George
Dockery (Director of Housekeeping and Plant Maintenance at Network North) or to Linda
Deshevy (a Coordinator who, like Mr. Dockery, was not in the bargaining unit). Although by Mr.
)
9
Bayuk's account he had ceased to have these duties some time before this memo, it certainly
clarified that others now had them. Mr, Dockery's evidence was that the memo did mark a
change in his own responsibilities, although he had done some of the work before; there had been
an overlap, After the memo his secretary had handled most of this work under his direction.
Another duty which continued after the grievor moved to the Sudbury General site,
though in a different way, was the ordering of medical supplies for Network North. Before the
move he had ordered supplies from various vendors while after the move he had access to the
supplies maintained by Sudbury General and no longer had to order from outside vendors in the
normal course. It appears that the new arrangement resulted in a reduction of work for the
;
grievor. He agreed that this was an improvement in efficiency - in his estimation, the only such
benefit from moving him to Sudbury General.
A duty which did change following the move was that of ordering supplies for the
Housekeeping and Plant Maintenance Department. Before the move, the Director of
Housekeeping, Mr, Dockery, had the final say about what was ordered, and the grievor agreed
that the Housekeeping Department took matters up to the ordering stage while the Purchasing
Department placed the orders and maintained the stock which Housekeeping wanted. At that
time, the grievor testified, it would not be a common occurrence for the Director of
)
10
Housekeeping to place orders and then advise Purchasing, but it might happen if the need arose
after hours or if the person at the purchasing department was not available. Evidently the
arrangements changed after the grievor's move. Housekeeping then became solely or largely
responsible for its own purchasing.
The foregoing details about Housekeeping purchases were drawn from the grievor in
cross-examination. The Employer later called Mr. Dockery as a witness. The essence of his
evidence in the area was that he had always done the bulk of the purchasing for Housekeeping so
that there had been little change when the grievor moved to the other site. Counsel for the Union
objected that the evidence called contradicted the grievor's evidence and that he had not had an
~ )
opportunity to explain the contradiction, thereby offending the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893), 6
R. 67. Having heard the parties' submissions, I am of the view that the griever was not
sufficiently warned during his cross-examination that there would be evidence which would
contradict his evidence. In my view it was not sufficient simply to ask him questions in the area,
since nothing about the way the questions were framed would suggest to the witness that his
answers were not accepted or that they would be contradicted by other testimony. Whether a
witness might understand that his evidence was likely to be viewed as contentious would no doubt
depend on the context in which the questions were asked; in this case, it did not appear to me that
the thrust of the cross-examination would suggest that the accuracy of the grievor's account was
11
in issue. Accordingly I was not prepared to give weight to the contradictory evidence in this area,
and I must say that I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the grievor's own testimony so far as
his purchasing for Housekeeping was concer:ned.
Another change in the grievor's work which occurred at about the time of his move to the
Sudbury General site was the institution of a cart, system for supplying medical and surgical
supplies to various areas at the Sudbury Algoma Hospital site. Instead of ordering supplies
through the grievor on an as-needed basis, the areas involved now had a supply on site which
could be replenished periodically. The grievor's involvement was reduced; he saw it as a removal
of responsibility from him to the ward clerks.
\
Nancy Hanwell, the Director of Materiel Management who became the grievor's
supervisor at the time of his move, testified that she was given the responsibility of evaluating
how the work of the grievor and of others was being done and to seek efficiencies. The plan to
relocate the grievor to the Sudbury General site resulted from her observations. She felt that this
would result in a number of efficiencies, the main one being that the grievor would have more
access to medical supplies so that there would be a reduced requirement for him to place orders
for them. It was at about this time that the cart system was established to streamline the provision
of medical supplies for the Algoma site. Another reason for the move, she said, was an effort to
12
establish clerical support for the grievor since there had been none for him at Algoma.
F or about three months after the move to the Sudbury General site the grievor continued
to work full-time hours and indeed the weight of the evidence was that he continued to have
much the same responsibilities as before the move, apart :lTom the changes mentioned above. As
noted earlier he was then informed that he would return to part-time status, would work 20 hours
per week, and would move back into the bargaining unit. Mr. Boyuk did not grieve the reduction
in hours, Although he did not like what was going on, he testified, he felt that he could not grieve
since he was reverting to the situation before his acting assignment. The way he looked at it, he
was hired as a steady part-time employee working 20 to 22 hours per week and he was now back
\
¡
in that position.
Ms. Hanwell testified that it became clear a few months after the grievor had been
relocated that the volume of his work had declined. After looking at the number of purchase
orders which were going through and the amount of work involved, she felt that 20 hours of work
per week would be sufficient to cover the grievor's duties, A factor contributing to the reduction
was Network North's participation in a committee of all the hospitals to oversee purchasing, with
the result that fewer negotiations with vendors were required on the part of Network North.
i
13
The grievor identified certain changes as having occurred after the reduction in his hours.
From that point on, he said, dealing with suppliers and ordering was transferred to a great extent
to the various departments of Network North. While there had always been a degree of local
purchasing for reasons of economy or local public relations, he had been responsible for
purchasing for the various clinics in many cases. When his hours were cut, he stated, secretaries
and managers had to handle purchasing for their departments. They would obtain a purchase
order number from the Materials Management Department at Sudbury General and would then
negotiate terms and delivery directly with vendors. The grievor identified another change which
he said coincided with the reduction of his hours: the secretary in Housekeeping and Maintenance
had taken up a lot of the slack and at about this time her position was changed from a part-time to
)
a full-time one.
The grievor's hours were then cut to 6 per week effective June 16th, 1997. At that point,
he testified, he felt he had the basis for a grievance as his hours had been cut below what he had
been hired to do. So far as his duties were concerned he testified that, after the reduction to 6
hours week, gradually a lot of the people in the front line ended up having to do purchases
themselves, For a while, some of them would wait until he was in and ask him to place the
orders, but they gradually took on the task themselves. The result was that the purchasing
workload was reduced drastically as others took over the responsibility, to the point that 90% of
¡
14
his work had become clerical and he was doing very little purchasing. The purchasing work was
now being done by managers or secretaries in the departments of Network North.
Ms. Hanwell's testimony did not address directly the reasons for the further reduction of
the grievor's hours of work. She had examined the volume of purchase orders handled by the
grievor during the six months preceding the hearing, a period during which the grievor was
working 8 hours per week. During this time, she stated, he had been processing approximately 25
purchase orders per week or 13 per four-hour shift. She agreed that this was a somewhat crude
measure of the grievor's level of activity since there was no way of factoring in the number of
items which a given purchase order might involve. However it was her view that the volume was
\
.'
appropriate for an 8-hour week. She had not made a similar review at the time the grievor's hours
were reduced ITom 20 to 6 per week.
* * *
Reviewing the evidence, the Union's representative argued that it demonstrated that much
of the grievor's work had been reassigned to others. Some of it had gone to bargaining unit staff
However some had gone to persons excluded from the bargaining unit and such a reassignment of
the work was improper: the Union argued that the work had not disappeared and its assignment
,
15
to non-bargaining unit staff had caused a reduction of hours for the grievor. As the result of the
Employer's actions, the Union argued, there had been a dramatic drop in the grievor's hours.
Although there was no specific provision in the collective agreement, it was argued, there
was an implied restriction in the collective agreement preventing the transfer of hours to excluded
staff. 'Mr, Gilbert noted the reference to "fair hours" in the preamble to the collective agreement.
Coupled with the recognition of the Union as exclusive bargaining agent for members of the
bargaining unit, he argued, the effect was to prevent the transfer of the work to persons excluded
from the bargaining unit In this respect the Union relied on Re North West Company Inc. and
Retail. Wholesale & Department Store Union- Local 468 (1996), 57 LAc.(4th) 158 (Freedman).
Counsel for the Employer stressed the distinctions between the responsibilities of the
buyer position and those of the purchasing agent position, The grievor's responsibilities when he
reverted to the bargaining unit position of buyer, counsel suggested, were considerably less
extensive than they had been when he had acted as purchasing agent He also argued that the
evidence showed that the relocation of the grievor's place of work had resulted in efficiencies and
thus in the need for fewer hours of work. 'Further, he argued, the work previously done by the
grievor which now was being done by others was in fact being performed by members of the
bargaining unit; some work was done by managerial staff but they had always had such
16
responsibilities,
Counsel pointed out that the grievance followed the reduction ofthe griever's hours to 6
per week, whereas much of the Union's evidence had to do with the period around the earlier
reduction to 20 hours per week which had not been grieved. To that extent there was a question
of the timeliness of the grievance. In addition to the provisions of the agreement relating to the
timeliness of grievances, the Hospital also relied on the management's rights clause and on the
provision that there was no guarantee of any particular hours of work.
The Hospital referred to Re Salvation Army Grace Hospital and Ontario Public Service
Employees' Union.. Local 425 (unreported, November 26th, 1996, R. Brown), Re Vaughan
Hydro-Electric Commission and Canadian Union of Public Employees. Local 2246 (1995), 51
LA.C.(4th) 129 (Beattie), and Re Centre Grey General Hospital and London & District Service
Workers' Union (unreported, August 6th, 1996, Dunkley). Counsel suggested that the Union
here had been unable to show that specific bargaining unit work had been lost to the grievor,
many of whose responsibilities had been described at a time when he was in a non-bargaining unit
position. He pointed out that nothing in the collective agreement defined what was bargaining
unit work.
17
* * *
The portions of the collective agreement referred to in argument were the following:
PREAMBLE
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide orderly collective bargaining relations
between the Employer and its employees covered by this Agreement, to promote the
morale, well-being and security of all employees through the prompt and fair disposition
of grievances, and to provide fair wages, hours and working conditions for the
employees.
ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE AND RECOGNITION
1.01 The Employer recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for all
employees in the seven (7) separate and distinct bargaining units described below: ,..
ARTICLE 3 - MANAGEJ\1ENT RIGHTS
\, 3.01 The Union acknowledges that it is the exclusive right and function of the Employer
to hire, assign, retire, discipline or discharge for just cause, classify, transfer, layoff or "
recall employees.
3.02 Generally to manage Network North - The Community Mental Health Group and
all its enterprises in which the Employer is engaged in all respects and in accordance with
its obligations, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the location of
machines and equipment to be used, the location and number of employees required from
time to time, the qualifications of employees, the assignment of work and the assignment
of overtime work, the locations of its enterprises, subcontracting of work, the extension,
limitation, curtailment or cessation of operations, schedules of work and vacations,
reasonable standards of performance of all employees, and all other matters concerning
the Employer's operation not otherwise specifically dealt with elsewhere in this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 6 - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
6.04 Complaints
An employee with al complaint shall discuss the matter with her immediate Supervisor
within ten (10) days of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint, or of the date on
which the employee ought reasonably to have become aware of the circumstances.
During this discussion, the employee will inform the immediate supervisor that such
I discussion should be considered as a complaint under the Grievance Procedure of this
18
Agreement. Her immediate Supervisor shall give her answer within five (5) days of the
discussion of the complaint. Failing settlement at the Complaint Step, within five (5)
days of the answer or deadline for giving the answer, the matter may then be taken up as
a gnevance.
6.08 The time limits imposed on either party may be extended by mutual agreement in
writing, but otherwise time limits shall be strictly adhered to and should the grievor fail
to observe the time limits, the grievance shall be deemed to be abandoned. If either party
fails to reply to the grievance within the time limits set out herein, the grievance may be
submitted to the next step.
23.01(a) The Employer does not guarantee to provide employment or work for normal
hours, or work for any other hours.
APPENDIX D - PART-TIME PROVISIONS
D.O8 Hours of Work
a) The Employer does not guarantee to provide employment or work for normal hours
or work for any other hours.
b) The normal hours of work for all part-time employees within this bargaining unit shall
be up to seven and one-half (7-1/2) hours per day excluding the lunch period which shall
be unpaid.
This collective agreement does not contain any express reservation òf certain work to
employees who are members of the bargaining unit. Yet the parties have recognized the Union as
sole bargaining agent for groups of employees and have gone on to classify certain work for
compensation purposes. The grievor in his position as a buyer fell within one of the bargaining
units. While it is correct to say that there were some overlaps in the sense that non-bargaining
unit employees have in the past performed some of the grievor's functions on an occasional basis,
it is also the case that certain duties were identified with the grievor's position as a member of the
bargaining unit. I accept that it is a necessary implication ITom this collective agreement that the
19
grievoÙ responsibilities were bargaining unit work and that the Employer was restricted in its
right to have non-members of the bargaining unit perform the functions of the grievor's position,
for the reasons expressed in Re North West (supra) at pp 168-69.
While the Employer was restricted in the extent to which it could assign work of the sort
done by the grievor to non-members of the bargaining unit, it was not totally precluded from
doing so. The evidence was that there had always been cases in which supervisory personnel did
some work of the sort done by the grievor; since this practice was evidently accepted on both
sides for reasons of practicality or convenience, there is no need to inquire into the legal basis for
it. As was the case in Re North West however, the Union is entitled to object if the extent of the
,
1
assignment to non-members of the bargaining unit of work of the sort done by the grievor has
been increased beyond the accepted prevailing level. Whether that has happened must be
detennined on the evidence, and the principal difficulty in doing so arises out of the changing
status of the grievor's position as he performed his duties over a period of years.
In examining the evidence it must be borne in mind that the grievance was filed when the
grievor's hours were reduced from 20 hours per week to 6. If the grievance is to succeed, the
Union must show that the reduction in the grievor's hours at that time resulted (at least in part)
from the assignment of work which the grievor would otherwise have done to non-members of
)
20
the bargaining unit and to a greater extent than had been the case in the past, While that is the
time period during which any reassignment of duties must be assessed, it is appropriate to
examine the evidence of the nature of the grievor's duties, and the extent that such duties were
also performed by non-members of the bargaining unit, over a period of years in to the past.
Determining the duties of the grievor's position as Buyer is not simply a matter oflooking
at his job description and distinguishing it from that of his former supervisor, the Purchasing
Agent. It is clear from the evidence that the grievor carried out duties well beyond the Buyer's
job description when he worked under the supervision of the Purchasing Agent; he did much of
the work of the Purchasing Agent during that time and in many respects the duties of the two
\
/
positions were indistinguishable. This situation was not an anomaly in which one person was
given different duties from others in the same classification. The grievor was the only person in
the classification and his duties were determined by his supervisor, In these circumstances it is
not surprising that the grievor's duties continued more or less unchanged after his supervisor was
laid off, even though he was nominally acting in his former supervisor's position. When the
grievor was then moved to the Sudbury General site the amount of work for the grievor to do
declined and ultimately his hours were 'reduced to 20 per week.
On the evidence it is clear that the reduction of the grievor's hours at that time was due in
21
part to new and different ways of carrying out the work so that the grievor's services were not
required as much as before: the more efficient way of handling medical supplies and the setting
up of the cart system were examples of this. However it is also clear that certain of the grievor's
duties were simply distributed to others, in some cases to non-members of the bargaining unit.
Receiving had for a long time been part of the grievor's work as Buyer. Receiving at Sudbury
Algoma was now done on a regular basis by the Food Services Supervisor who had previously
done it only occasionally. The purchasing of housekeeping supplies, formerly part of the grievor's
work as Buyer, became the responsibility of the Director of Housekeeping. These changes
occurred in the period leading up to February 1996. The grievance was filed in June 1997. It was
not argued that the assignment of some of the grievor's duties to supervisory personnel before
)
February 1996 gave rise to a continuing grievance and it seems to me that the assumption of
receivi11g work at Algoma and purchasing for housekeeping by supervisory personnel, which
clearly had an effect on the grievor's workload, were matters which could have been grieved at
the time and should have been if they were to have been properly grieved. However those
matters did not directly result in the reduction of the grievor's hours from 20 to 6.
The latter reduction can be identified with a combination of changes. The removal from
the grievor of responsibility for leasing and maintaining photocopying machines and of
responsibility for telephone arrangements occurred after the reduction of his hours to 20 per week
22
and must be seen as contributing to the later reduction of his hours to 6 per week. I find that
those responsibilities had become part of the duties of the Buyer position and that the
responsibilities were transferred to supervisory personnel. While some of the actual work was
carried out by members of the bargaining unit under the direction of those supervisory personnel,
it is clear that there was a real shift of responsibility from the Buyer to supervisors resulting in a
diminution of the amount of work available for the Buyer. There was another shift in duties
which can be identified with the reduction to 6 hours per week for the grievor, and that was the
decline in purchasing work as it moved to the component clinics and departments of Network
North. While Ms. Hanwell's analysis of the amount of purchasing work being done by the grievor
indicated that 20 hours per week was appropriate for the amount of work involved in or about
)
February 1996, the grievor's evidence was that purchasing work declined substantially after that
time. He stated that the purchasing work which he ceased to do during that period was taken up
by secretaries and managers elsewhere in the organization and his evidence was not contradicted.
The analysis done immediately before the hearing simply confirms the reduction in workload but
does not contradict the grievor's assertion that the work had gone in part to managers.
On the evidence I am satisfied that the reduction of the grievor's hours from 20 to 6
resulted substantially from a transfer of the grievor's duties as Buyer, particularly purchasing
work, to other personnel within the organization, some of whom were members of the bargaining
)
23
.
unit and some of whom were supervisory personnel. The grievance succeeds to the extent that
the reduction in the grievor's hours results ITom a transfer of some of his duties to persons who
are not members of the bargaining unit.
The Union requested an order reinstating the grievor's hours and compensating him for the
wages and benefits lost, together with interest, as well as for the appropriate crediting of
seniority. The Union also asked for an order that the Employer cease assigning bargaining unit
work to employees who are not members of the bargaining unit. The present state of the
evidence does not clearly establish how much of the work previously done by the grievor as
Buyer was passed to non-members of the bargaining unit, that being the aspect of the matter
)
which most concerns the Union. In response to a question ITom me at the hearing, counsel
indicated that they expected to be able to resolve that question in the event of a finding such as
the one I have made. I will therefore not make the requested order for the reinstatement of the
grievor's hours at this time since the portion of the hours involved cannot be determined on the
evidence. I therefore remain seized of that matter, including the calling of further evidence to
quantify the amount of work involved if that should be necessary. I also remain seized of every
aspect of the implementation of the award which may result ITom the eventual order made.
It was my impression at the hearing that the parties would work to resolve the assignment
,
,
24
-\ of the grievor's bargaining unit work on the basis of the findings of this board. For this reason,
and also because the extent of the work assigned to non-members of the bargaining unit is not
year clear, I am not at this point responding to the Union's request for an order to the Employer
to cease making such assignments. Nonetheless I remain seized of that matter also.
Should it be necessary, I will schedule a further hearing at the request of eitherparty.
Dated at Kingston, Ontario, this 7th day of December 1998.
~hat=
)
1