Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0192.Ewing, Currie, Taylor, Burden & Adamson.91-10-25." ONTARIO EMPL OY~:S DE LA COURONNE · ..~ - ,~. CROWNEMPLOYEES DEL'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG IZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHOhJE~ (416) 326-1388 180, RuE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARtO). MSG 1Z8 FACSIMILE/T~I..~COP)E : (416) 326-1396 :[92/88, 359/88, 544/88 IN THE I~TTER OF Unde~ THE CROWN EHPLOYEES COLLECTIVE B~RGAINING ACT Be£o~e THE GRIEVANCE SETTLF~ENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Ewing, Currie, Taylor, Burden, Adamson) Grievor - The Cro~n in Right off Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer BEFORE: M. Watters Vice-Chairperson I. Thomson Member 'M. O'Toole Member FOR THE L. Newton GRIEVOR Counsel Cornish Roland Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE J. Saunders EMPLOYER Counsel Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart, Storie Barristers & Solicitors HEARING June 29, 1990 January 22, 23, 1991 April 29, 1991 June 4, 1991 This proceeding arises from the grievances of L.F. Bur-den, H.S. Adamson, H.C. Taylor and J.W. Ewin9. The first three (3) of the 9rievors are Firearms Instructors at th~ Ontario Police College (O.P-.C.) in Aylmer, Ontario. They are classified at the Instructor 1 level. They claimed that they are improperly classified and requested a reclassification to Instructor 3. Mr. Ewing is a Self-Defence Supervisor (Armed and Unarmed) at the O.P.C. He requested that he be reclassified from Instructor 2 to Instructor 3. The class standards for the Znstructor, Ontario Police College Series are appended to this Award.as Schedule 'A' The Union advanced two (2) grounds in support of the reclassification sought. Firstly, it argued that all of the grievors instruct in an academic type subject thereby entitling them to the higher classification under the language of the class standards. Secondly, it submitted that the grievors engage in work substantially similar to that performed by Mr. G. George and Mr. D. McKnight, both of whom are classified as Instructor 3's. The class standards and usage tests have previously been approved by this Board: see OPSEU (Beals and Cain), 30/79 (Draper) and OPSEU (Anstett et al.~, 5/85 et al. (Knopf). The following comment, with which we agree, is found at page 12 of the former award: "It is well established that in position classification cases, the Board must direct 'its inquiry to the questions, first, whether or not the work actually performed by the employee is that set out in an appropriate class standard and, second, whether or not he is performing work substantially similar to that being performed by an employee whose position has been placed in another classification. Zn the first instance the employee's work is measured against class standards and in the second it is measured against that of an employee in a position that has been differently classified. The purpose is to establish either that the employer is conforming to its classification standards or that the employer has, in effect, modified those standards." A similar statement is found'at pages 20 to 2~ of the latter decision. Mr. Ewing, Mr. Taylor and Mr. George gave evidence on behalf of the Union. It was previously agreed that Mr. Taylor would serve as a representative witness in respect of the grievors classified at the Instructor 1 level. Mr. Burden and Mr. Adamson agreed to be bound by the result in his case. Mr. L. Godfree, the Director of O.P.C., was the sole witness for the Employer. At the outset, the Board must state that it was extremely impressed with the knowledge, commitment, and professionalism demonstrated by all of the witnesses. Cases of this nature, however', are not to be decided on the basis of the superior abilities of the employees in question. Rather, the ultimate result must flow from the application of the two (2) tests referred to above. Mr, Ewing has been employed at the O.P.C'. since May, 1985 and has been in his current position since October of that same year, The Position Specification And Class Allocation form for 2 Self-DeFence Supervisor (Armed and Unarmed) is appended hereto as I Schedule 'B' Hr. Ewing stated that, with some limited exception, the job description was relatively accurate. He noted that the provision and supervision of instruction in respect of the use of firearms, officer safety and weapons retention amounted to between fifty (50).and s~xty percent (60%) of his job rather than the thirty percent (30%) as shown on the job description. Similarly, he assessed the time spent'on the provision and supervision of instruction in unarmed police self- defence techniques as being approximately five percent (5%) of his job in contrast to the twenty percent (20%) shown on the face of the specification. This grievor also advised that he no longer trains on the twelve (12) gauge shotgun due to the constraints on his time. Nr. Ewi'ng agreed that his group leadership functions, including the administration of the range and self-defence areas, comprised forty-five percent (45%) of his work. Generally, this Board is satisfied that the position specification accurately describes the major responsibilities o¢ his gob. The Firearms Course is part of the constable training program provided by the O.P.C. to recruits from police forces across the Province. The overall program runs for forty-seven (47) days. Approximately three hundred (300) recruits attend the College at any one time. These recruits are divided into ten (10) separate classes for purposes of the Firearms Course. There 3 are, consequently, about thirty (30) students per class. Each class is subdivided into two (2) relays so that 'the instructor- student ratio is enhanced. All of 'the classes are given twelve (12) periods of firearms instruction, with each period being ninety (90) minutes'in duration. The classes are conducted in the firearms range. This area includes a modern firing range, a range masters booth, a viewing gallery, a classroom, a storage area, a working area as well as office space for the instructors. The range itself will accomodate sixteen (16) shooters at any one time. In periods $1 and 2 of the Firearms Training Program, the. recruits are exposed to the following topics: r~nge safety; safety at home; nomenclature; proving weapon; Regulation 790 of the Police Act (concerning the carrying, use and discharge of a firearm); function of the revolver; components of ammunition; loading and unloading; cleaning and inspection; and Criminal Code (use of force and storage provisions). Subsequently, a number of practical drills are conducted in periods ¢3 through 8. One of the Firearms Znstructors briefs 'the recruits on the practfica] skill to be developed. This segment of the period also includes a demonstration by the experienced officer of the skill or procedure in question. The recruits are then provided with an opportunity to apply the information conveyed in a practical manner. More specifically, they a~tempt, practice and refine the skill under the careful supervision of the Firearms Instructors. in the case of exercises on the firing range, the recruit's performance is closely monitored. Depending on the size of the class, the recruit-instructor ratio will vary between four (4) to one (1) and three (3) to one (1). During these periods, the exercises become progressively more difficult. Following the drill, the recruits are debriefed by the instructing officer. The use of barricades, cover and concealment is also canvassed within this segment of the training. The recruits are given their first test in period ¢9. They are ~equired to record five (5) out of six (6) hits at a rectangular target from twenty (20) yards. The rounds are fired in a pre-set series. A session on soft-body armour is also presented at this time. Periods ~ 10 and 11 focus on a review of the operation and use of the holster. This includes drawing and firing exercises. A second test is conducted in period ¢12. In this instance, the recruits are required to score eighteen (18) hits out of a round of twenty- four (24). Both of the aforementioned tests are graded on a pass-fail basis and must be passed in order for the recruit to graduate from the O.P.C. with a diploma. The final class also includes an introduction to street velocity ammunition. It is apparent from the evidence that very few handouts are given to 'the recruits during, the Firearms Course. While reference is made to the Police Act, the Police Services Act, and the Criminal Code, the only material actually distributed relates to Regulation 790 and to the Range Safety Rules. Furthe¢, it would seem that these statutes, and others, are addressed in other academic courses in a more comprehensive fashioh. ,Notes are not taken by the students in the classroom sessions and there are no written tests administered. Mr. Ew'in9 testified that approximately thirty-three percent (33%) of the course is spent in the classroom. Mr. Taylor, after bein§ taken through a series of arithmetic calculations relating to the breakdown of the course, stated in cross-examination tha~ it "sounded reasonable" that only five percent (5%) of intake time was devoted to classroom work. The Position Specification And Class Allocation form for Instructor-Firearms is appended hereto as Schedule. 'C' Mr. Taylor, who has worked at O.P.C. since 1985, t6stified that "for the most part" the job description reflected the duties of the Instructor l's. He noted, however, that the specification did not mention certain other courses and responsibilities assigned to each of these grievors by Mr. Ewing. These individual responsibilities are addressed in more detail below. It is clear from all of the evidence that the Instructors primarily instruct in the use of firearms. They do not instruct in the area of unarmed self-defence: Further, they do not, in our judgment, act as group leaders. These latter two (2) responsibilities are. found solely in the job description of Mr. Ewing. As of 'the date of the gr'ievances, each of the 9rievors served as the principal instructor for two (2) of the classes in the Firearms Course. In 'that capacity, they provided the initial theory and subsequent debriefing to the recruits. They would also act as the range instructor during the practical exercises. At other times, the grievors would act as line instructors. They were then responsible to develop and correct the technique being used by the recruits. Each line instructor would work with between three (3) to four (4) recruits. When engaged in this role, their instruction can best be described as being "hands-on" in nature. Mr. Ewing indicated that the instructional work in the recruit course was equally divided amongst all of the grievors, including himself. Two (2) additional seconded officers are also now used in the course. Mr. Taylor, in his evidence, reviewed the changes which have occurred in the Firearms Course. From his perspective, the course has greater theoretical content than was the case in 1970 when the class standards came into effect. At that juncture, the course was taught by only one (~) instructor with the emphasis being on marksmanship. The recruits did not then have to pass the course in order to graduate from the O.P.C. Mr. Taylor noted that up until 1985, the instructors did not possess police experience. By December of that year, all of the instructors had such experience. Lastly, it was this grievor's opinion that the instructors now utilize more sophisticated equipment in the conduct of the course. 'The SeiY-Defence course also forms part of the recruit training program. The course consists o¢ twelve (12) ninety (90) minute periods, all of which are conducted in the Drill Hall area. Three (3) seconded instructors provide ali of the training under the supervision of Hr. Ewing. As stated earlier, the other grievors are not involved with the course. The format for the course is similar to that employed in respect of the firearms training. More specifically, classroom instruction or theory 'is presented at the beginning of each session. An explanation is then provided as to why things are done in a.particular way by police officers. Some reference is made to case !aw and to statutory provisions of the Criminal Code, Demon'strations are also given by the instructors as to the proper performance of the exercise or skill being 'considered. Thereafter, the recruits have an opportunity to practice the task. The Self-Befence course encompasses the followin9 topics- importance of physical conditioning; proper mental attitude; principles of self-defence; leverage; breath control; stances; footwork; blocking; punching and kicking; heavy bag practice; col]trolling techniques; defehce · to full-nelson/V-type strangle; defence to headlocks/bear-hugs; defence to front/rear sthangle; handcuffing technique; search technique; arrest and control of an armed suspect; revolver retention; baton techniques; blocks and counter attacks; baton figure eight technique; baton retention; defence to body grabs; refusal techniques; and carotid restraint. The last method noted is a technique which induces unconsciousness by reducing the flow' 8 oF oxygen bo the brafn. The only handout and test ~n the course relates to carotid restraint. As. in the firearms course, the recruits are not required to take notes during the various sessions. Hr. Ewing testified at some length as to the purpose of the Firearms and Self-Defence Courses. With respect to the former, he stated that it was designed 'to develop the concept of "police use" of a weapon in contrast to a"civilian use" such as hunting or target practice. Mr. Ewin9 stressed that the objective of the course is to create and foster a professional attitude in the recruit towards the use of the firearm. He noted in this regard that the officer may be required to use the weapon against other persons in situations of great risk to both themselves and other members of the public. In his judgment, the course increases the likelihood that the weapon will be used in a safe and professional manner. In terms of the Self-Defence Course, Mr. £wing stated that it serves to acquaint the recruit with the "force continuum." The instructors strive to teach the de9ree of force applicable to particular situations. It is expected that the recruits wilt develop a sensitiv.ity to the potential criminal and civil liability that may flow from use of excessive force. Zn cross-examination, Mr. Ewing acknowledged that the law relating to self defence, use of force, search and seizure, and evidence is canvassed in certain of the other academic courses. He further agreed that such courses are designed to provide the 9 foundation for appropriate police action. He still deemed it necessary, however., that these matters be addressed in the courses he supervises. Both Hr. Ewing.and Mr. Taylor'conceded that they are teaching a physical skill. The former emphasized that the recruit is also learning a method for dealing with people as police officers. The latter focused'on the fact that the police action taught in the courses has to be premised on theory; that is, the recruit has to gain an understanding through the course as to why a police officer acts in a particular way in certain identified situations. Mr, Taylor is not presently involved in the recruit program. Since October 1990, he has coordinated and taught the Range Officers Course on a full time basis, His initial involvement with such course commenced in late 1988. The course was later cancelled but then reinstated in 1990 when the complement of the firearms training section was increased by one (1) seconded officer. In this course, the grievor works with four (4) experienced police officers 'for a full week. The course is designed as an introduction for officers who will be involved in firearms training with their own forces. Primarily, the Range Officers Course deals with the standard issue service revolver and holster. Zt also exposes the officer to 'the running of a range. Topics covered include: safety; storage of firearms and ammunition; parts to the revolver and ammunition; fundamentals of using a weapon; Regulation 790; holsters; drawing of the 10 revolver; reloading; use of cover; co¢~cealment; one hand shooting;'weak hand shooting; and combat course of'{iFe. These subjects are addressed in both the classroom and on the range. One (1) day is also spent at a nearby outdoor range. Mr. Taylor testified that eight (8) of the twenty (20) periods, or forty percent (40%) of the course time, is spent in the classroom. He later acknowledged that not all of these periods are spent entirely in the classroom. Students are not given a written test during the course. They are, however, given a practical shooting exercise at both the start and end of the course. A "has attended" certificate is provided to the °fficers on the completion of the program. Since October 1990, Mr. Taylor has. been the sole instructor in the course. Prior to that date, he did involve other instructors in various aspects of the course. While he considered this to amount to supervision of his peers, we are inclined to view this as more of a coordinating function. Mr.'Taylor agreed that there 'is some overlap between the Range Officers Course and the firearms training provided to the new recruits. Mr. Adamson, in addition to his duties in the recrui~ program, also coordinates the Firearms Instructor Course. This nine (9) day intensive course is offered to approximately fifteen (15) experienced police officers twice each year. Its purpose is to expose these officers to the different forms of firearms training that they should be doing with their own forces. The 11 course is oF an advanced nature for officers taking a principal role in the training of their own recruits and officers. Mr. Adamson does the majority of the teach.ing in the course. A11 of the other Firearms Znstructors, however, take an active part in the program. The course includes what is taught in the Range Officers Course plus an additional sess.ion in respect of instructional techniques. The topics considered include police pis'bo] and shotgun; ]iability; court process; and civil problems. The officers taking the course complete an entry test as well as written and skill level exams at the end of the program. They are a]so graded on their instructional techniques presentation. Prior to his ~nvo]vement in th~s course, Mr. Adamson coordinated the Range Officer Course. Mr. Burden, in ~ddi~ion ~o his responsibilities ~s a Firearms Zns~ruc~or, serves as the armourer. While all of the 9r~evors do minor weapons maintenance, this gentleman ds principally responsible for weapons repair. This function does no~ involve the ~eaching o'¢ students and is performed outside of c]ass. Hr. Burden does %each, however, in ~he recrui~ and Fire~ arms Znstructor courses. Further, he sporadically engages in certain studies invo]vSng the O.P.C. The extra assignments described above are made by Mr. Ewing in his capacity as group leader. It is clear that certain of the other grievors have rotated through these assignments over the 12 course of time. Indeed, the Board was ted to believe that the Firearms Instructors could be assigned to any of these additional responsibilities. Similarly, it is apparent that Mr. Taylor could revert to teaching in the Firearms Course should that be required in the future. Mr. Ewing expressed the opinion that he teaches neither "weaponry" nor "police holds" These are cited in the class standards as examples of "physical activity subjects" taught by those classified at the Instructor 1 and Instructor 2 levels. This §rievor believed that the term "weaponry" applied to those weapons used in the marshall arts. He further stated, that the expression "police holds" is not part of the terminology employed at the O.P.C. In his judgment, the term is'not interchangeable with "self-defence" Mr. Ewing testified that he instructs and leads in courses which are best described as "police methods" This description is referred to in the class standards as an "academic type subject" falling within the domain of the Instructor 3 classification. Mr. Ewin9 stated that he does more than just teach the physical act of shooting. Rather, he provides the recruits with the reasons for operating the revolver in a particular way. He believed that the course embodies a combination of thought and action such that the recruit will become aware of the totality of responsibilities inherent in the discharge of a firearm. Simply 13 put, Mr. Ewin9 was convinced that the Firearms Course molds the attitude necessary for the effective use of the weapon by a ~police.officer. Zm thfs'sense, he felt that both he and the other grievors were engaged in.the instruction of a police method and should, therefore, be classified at the higher Instructor 3. level. Mr. Taylor also believed that he teaches a "police method", tn his judgment, the training provided is unique and specific to the police, unlike courses which might be offered in the areas of target or competition shooting. Mr. Taylor acknowledged in cross-examination that this would mean thab all courses taught at the O.P.C. could be considered as a "police method". He further conceded that the standard issue revolver is a weapon. Mr. Graham George was presented by the Union as a usage witness. Mr. George is the Course Coordinator for three (3) courses taught at O.P.C~, all of whioh are considered to be "academic type" courses for purposes of the class standards. He. is, consequently, classified at the Instructor 3 level. The courses in question are Scenes Of Crime Officer Course; Forensic Identification Officer Course; and Colour Photography. All of these courses are offered'to senior police officers from across the Province. These are the sole courses taught by Mr. George. ~e does not instruct recruits as do the other grievors. ~4 The Scenes of Crime Course is divided into two (2) components. The first component generally canvasses the various types of investigations undertaken at ~he scene of a crime. This part is taught by Mr. Geor9e and includes consideration of the following topics: Identification of Criminals Act; Youn~ Offenders Act; finger print pattern recognition; support services such as the Centre For Forensic Sciences; development of latent finger prints; powder testing; footwear and tire impressions; three dimensional impressions; crime scene sketching; hand lettering; and measurement of crime scenes. The second component is Photography which is conducted by Mr. D. Johnston, another Instructor 3. It was Mr. George's evidence that he and Mr. Johnston equally share in the workload generated by the course. The Photography segment of the course includes the following: photographic process and film development; photographic papers and printing; lighting; filter; lens; tripods; print evaluation and exposure; flash photography; perspective; victim photography; 'and aerial photography. The entire course runs for five (5) weeks] The Forensic Identification Officers Course focuses on work to be performed after the scene of a crime has been thoroughly reviewed and investigated. For example, exhibits found at the scene are subjected to chemical analysis. Additionally, there is a photographic element to the course as the officers are exposed to the use of ultra violet, infrared and florescent photography, The course lasts for nineteen (19) days. t5 Lastly, the Colour Photography Course, which is of nine days duration, provides an introduction to colour processing. The officers have an opportunity to print photographs taken in the Scenes Of Crime Course. These courses generally follow a similar format. Theory is canvassed in classroom sessions. Demonstrations of the technique or process being discussed are provided by the instructors. 'The officers taking the course are then required to complete a number of practical assignments. We were left with the impression that about one-third (1/3) of the time in the Scenes Of Crime Course and the Forensic Identification Course is spent in the classroom. Students in those courses are expected to take notes. A large number of handouts are provided to them. The officers are expected to read and digest such material, This Board was provided with many of the handouts distributed in the courses. The topics include: collection and handling of forensic laboratory evidence; photographic practice; black and white film; black and whfte paper; film processing; chemistry of the development process; cases relating to identification photography and videotape evidence; photo light; filters; flash; perspective; personnel photography; ridgeology; physical matching; the use of bite marks as an investigative aid; forensic identification manual; negative materials; scenes of crime manual; photographic lens; analysis comparison evaluation; ultra violet and infrared photography; aerial photography; value of shoe sole imprints; 16 bloodstain pattern interpretation; criminalistics; impression casting; fingerprint pattern interpretation; trace metal- detection; glove print identification; identification of human remains; taking fingerprints; tire impressions; and exposure determination. The officers understanding of these materials i.s tested in the practical assignments and in the final examinations conducted for both the Scenes of Crime and Forensic Identification Courses. A similar examination is not conducted in respect of the Colour Photography Course. An informal evaluation, rather than a grade, is given in that course. Mr. George testified that a11 three (3) of the above- described courses relate to a police method. It is clear to the Board that the courses within his mandate also deal with both "'investigation procedures" and "identification techniques" These subjec'bs are listed as academic type subjects in the class standards. In addition to instructing, Hr. George has certain administrative duties in respect of these courses, including the ordering of supplies. The Union also relied on this panel's award in McKniHht, t92/88, 544/88, 359/89 (Watters) in support of' its usage argument. Mr. McKnight is the Co-ordinator, Police Driver Training at the O.P.C. He grieved that his position was improperly classified as Instructor 2. This panel of the Board ultimately agreed with that assertion. While we had certain 17 reservations as to the appropriateness of the Instructor 3 class standard, the majority of the Board determined that Nr. McKnight was instructing in An academic type subject and, for tha% reason, should be placed at the higher level. Zn summary, that conclusion was founded, inter alia, on the following grounds- (i) the Police Driver Training Course was not exclusively designed to teach the mechanics of a physical act or skill. It was noted that the course did not teach the recruits to drive. Rather, it'was intended bo teach the proper operation of a police vehicle, (ii) thirty-five perceft (35%) of the course time was spent in the classroom, The theory end substantive material studied during the classroom sessions was intended to affect the nature and quality of future police action, and to maximize the likelihood'that correct decisions would be made in selecting a particular response. (iii)the course could be described as "applied learning" as the theory taught, in conjunction with practical application, would enhance the officem's level of skill and judgment; (iv) the course was closer in kind to "investigation procedures" and "identi,fication techniques" as it interfaced significantly with law and policy. This was contrasted with "physical activity" subjects in w~ich the theoretical base for the physical activity being developed is not of the same magnitude or complexity as that underlying the academic subjects. 18 Mr. Godfree, the Director of the O.P.C., was the only witness called on behalf of the Employer. Zn his evidence, he provided the reasons why the College treats the courses taught by the grievors as "physical activity" subjects. Firstly, he noted that the recruits in those courses are not given a "voluminous" amount of theoretical or academic material to review and digest. In contrast, he stated that students in the academic courses are provided with a significant amount of substantive material of a broad and varied nature. Secondly, Mr. Godfree emphasized that the intent of the physical activity courses is to make the recruit as competent as possible in the physical skill in question. From his perspective, this objective is met by the repetitive practice of the various skills the College wishes to develop. In essence, the students "learn by doing" In this regard, he stated that students in the Firearms Course are on the range to the maximum extent possible. At that location, they receiYe immediate feedback on their performance. Mr. Godfree contrasted this with the more delayed form of evaluation practiced in the academic courses. Thirdly, he differentiated between the instructor-student ratio. The Director indicated that such ratio was much higher in respect of physical activity subjects in which the primary consideration is the development of a physical skill under on-going supervision.. Lastly, Mr. Godfree contrasted the testing methodology employed in the two (2) categories of courses. In the Firearms Courses and the Sel¢- Oefence Course, the testing is performance based. The Student is ~9 tested to determine whether they can satisfy a defined standard, For example, the recruit is required to score a m~nimum number of hits i.n a target within a specified period of time. Similarly, in the case of un'armed self-defence, the student must demonstrate -competence in the performance of a particular hold. Mr, Godfree distinguished such testing from the more formal examinations' given in the academic courses. Mr. Godfree described the training given at the O.P.C, as "sequential" in nature. In his opinion, the instructors of academic subjects are the "prime delivery agent" in respect of the theoretical component of the pro9ram. This would include consideration of the Police Act and Regulations, other provincial statutes and the Criminal Code, He acknowledged that som~ reference to these sources is made within the courses taught by the grievors. It was his judgment, however, that in so doing they were simply reinforcing mateniat taught elsewhere. To quote Mr. Godfree, the 9rievors merely '"reference" these items, In his mind, 'they do not "teach" this theory'. It was .the position of the Union that all of the courses taught by the 9rievors are "academic type courses" ?or purposes of the. class standards..Counsel suggested that the distinguishing feature is simply the level of expertise found in the students.. She submitted that the nature of the instruction offered in all of the courses is markedly similar. More 2O specifically, it was argued that the Firearms Courses all seek to prepare the officers'for the use of the weapon and to provide them with the necessary context for such action. Counsel stated that the courses create the appropriate attitude for the use of the weapon by a police officer. The instructors accomplish this objective by bridging the gap betweem theory and practice. Ultimately, the course is designed to develop, what was described as, a "psycho-motor" skill. This was defined as the "thought and application of concepts within the bounds of governing legal authority." Relying on the grievors' evidence as to the nature and purpose of the courses, it was the Union's position that such courses deal with "police methods" We were umged to conclude that the courses go well beyond what is meant by the words "weaponry" or "police holds" as found in the class standards. Zn this regard, considerable reference was made to the changes which have occurred in the Firearms Courses since 1970, the effective date of the standards. In summary, it was submitted by the Union that all of the grievors are improperly classified. The Instructor 3 classification was claimed on behalf of each grievor. As an alternate argument, the Union submitted that the gr'ievor's perform substantially the same work as Mr. George and Mr. McKnight, both of whom are.classified at the Instructor 3 level. Simply put, it was the Union's position that all of the courses teach a "police method" through the integration of theory and practice. Counsel argued that the intent of all of these courses is to enhance the level of skill and judgment ~uch that the officers will 'make sound and professional decisions in their future work. Similarities were also drawn between the experience of all of these instructors and the techniques and testing utilized in their courses. In the final analysis, we were asked to reject a rigid approach in the delineation between.academic and physical activity subjects. In response, it was the position of the Employer that att of the grievors are properly classified as they engage in physical activity subjects under the class standards. Counsel submitted that their courses are encompassed by the words "weaponry" and "police holds" It was further argued that the recruit courses here in issue are substantially different from the academic type subjects for tf~e reasons advanced by Mr. Godfree. From the perspective of the Employer, the grievors are teaching a skill rather than an academic course. Counsel noted that the Union's broad interpretation of "police method" would destroy the distinction found in the class standards. In this regard,' he acknowledged that all courses taught at the O.P.C. relate to the development of a "police attitude". Indeed, it was suggested that this was the raison d'etre for the College. It was further submitted that the extra responsibilities assigned do not change the fundamental character of the grievors' work. Counsel for the Employer argued that the instruction of trainers also focuses on 22 the teaching of a physical act or skill. It was the further position of the Employer that the class standards are as applicable today as they were in 1970. While the Employer conceded that changes may have occurred in teaching methodology, it stressed that the emphasis, both then and now, is on the use of weapons and on unarmed self-defence. The Employer noted that Mr. Ewing is classified as an Instructor 2 as a result of his group leadership responsibilities in respect of the grievors and others. Counsel argued that if the Union was successful, the result would destroy'the historic relationship between the group leader and those supervised. He suggested that the differential treatment should 'be maintained if the Instructor I grievances were allowed. In those circumstances., counsel submitted that a Berry order might be more appropriate. Lastly, the Employer argued that the work performed by the grievors is not substantially similar to the instruct~o~ provided by either Mr. George or Hr. McKnight. The former's course is listed in the class standards as an example of an academic type course. The latter's subject.was found to be of a similar nature by virtue o¢ a decision of this panel. Counsel, again relying on' the evidence of Mr. Godfree, stated that the grievor's courses were of a substantially dissimilar nature. For all of these reasons we were asked to dismiss the grievances before us. As stated in HcKnf~ht, it is readily apparent from the preamble to the Instructor series that the main factor in determining position level is.the type of subject being tau9ht. Instructor'and Group Leader positions specializing in "physical activity subjects" are classified at the Instructor I and Instructor 2 level whereas Instructors of "academic type .subjects" are classified at the Three (3) level. The threshold issue in this case, in respect of the class standards, is whether the 9rievors instruct in an academic subject. If they do, follows that they must be reclassified to the higher Instructor 3 level, subject to a possible Berry order in respect of Hr. Ewing. In McKniqht, this panel had a more difficult task, The class standards shed little light on how the position should be classified as they did not make direct reference to the Police Driver Training Course. The Board, consequently had.to determine the nature and status of the course from first principles. As stated above, the majority found with some reservation that the course was an academic subject. Zn our ~udgment, the present dispute is dist4nguishable in that the class standards expressly state that courses in'"weaponry" and "police holds" are physical activity subjects. After considering all of the evidence and argument, the Board is satisfied that all of the courses taught by the 9rievors fall within these he~dings. 24 Generally, 'the Board is not inclined to draw a distinction between the recruit course and the Range Officer and Firearms Instructor Courses. While the expertise of the students and the rationale for the courses may differ, ultimately the instruction relates to the proper use of a police weapon. .In this sense, we think that all of the firearms courses are examples of "weaponry" as that term is commonly understood. Similarly, the Board finds that the Unarmed Self-Defence Course, administered by Mr. Ewing, falls squarely within the category of "police. holds" for purposes of the class standards. The course is designed to teach the recruits the principles and practices of unarmed self-defence. Its curriculum is heavily weighted towards the teaching of holds and the defences to same. While certain of the topics such as revolver retention, baton techniques and handcuffing techniques may not relate to police holds in the strict sense, they do call for the development of what is primarily a physical skil'l. We are unable to conclude that such topics are academic endeavors. In summary, the Board has been convinced that the courses here in question are physical activity subjects within the meaning of the class standards. The Board also accepts the distinction drawn by Hr. Godfree between academic and physical activity subjects. While the factors he listed may not be exhaustive, we think it appropriate to consider the following matters when attempting to categorize a particular course: amount of substantive and theoretical material 25 distributed; amount of classroom time devoted to the study 'of such material; amount of time spent on practical drills and exercises outside of the classroom; type of feedback and student- instructor ratio; number and type of course examinations; and intent of the course, The Board agrees that the application of these factors leads readily to the conclusion that the courses taught by the grievors are best described as physical activity subjects. Generally, we find as follows' (i) there is not a substantial amount of theory distributed in the courses offered by these grievors. Further, much of what is circulated', particularly to the recruits, refers to the proper development of physical skills. (ii) while it is not entirely clear, it would seem that the amount of strict classroom time is less than that found in academic subjects. It would also appear that a large percentage of such time is used to cover material, and to demonstrate -techniques, relating to the development of physical skills. In this respect, the percentage of classroom time may be somewhat misleading. What is of greater significance is how such time is actually used. (iii) while certain substantive materials are co~ered in the grievors' courses, we have not been persuaded that they are the primary focus of the class, Rather, the material is'referenced tc reinforce what has been covered earlier, or wha.t will be taken later, in the academic courses. It is our assessment that matei-'-ia], such as Regulation 790 and the Criminal Code 26 provisions, 'is reviewed in a more comprehensive and intensive fashion in those academic courses. (iv) a considerable amount of time is spent on the range or in the Drill Hall in the Firearms and Unarmed Self Defence Courses. Time is there spent in the development of a physical skill in a practical setting. Emphasis is piaced on almost immediate feedback from the instructors who clqsely monitor the student's performance. This differs from bhe more delayed form of feedback given in the academic courses. Further, the instructor-student ratio' is 9rearer in the courses given by these grievors. The existence of these factors suggests to us that the courses are i~tended to develop what 'is primarily a physical or practical skill, albeit one that must be exercised within certain legal and social parameters. (v) the testing in the grievors' courses is more performance based. The students are required to meet defined standards or to master certain other physical techniques. In contrast, the academic type courses utilize the more formal or traditional form of evaluation by way of examination. All of these distinctions are consistent with the evidence presented by Mr. George relating to the nature of the courses in which he instructs. The above comments apply in their entirety to the recruit courses. We think that, for the most part, they also apply to the Range Officers Course taught by Mr. Taylor. It would appear 27 that more substantive' material is c~nvassed in the Firearms Instructors Course and that a written, as well 'as a skills, test is given. While these features are more closely associated with academic courses, we are disinclined to find that Mr. Adamson and the other grievors are improperly classified on the basis of a nine (9) day course offered only twice each year. In any event, the Board is satisfied that this latter course primarily relates to the use of certain potice weapons. It is closer in kind to the physical activities courses than it is to the academic type subjects. Lastly, we find that Mr. Burden's extra responsibilities as an armourer are not relevant to the resolution of this dispute. We note in this regard that the weapon repair 'is performed outside of the classroom and that it does ~ot involve the instruction of students. As previously indicated, the Union argued that the 9rievors are engaged in the teaching of police methods and should, therefore, be considered as instructors of academic subjects. This position was largely premised on the. purpose and ultimate significance of the respective courses. To repeat what was stated earlier, the Union submitted that the course are designed to positively shape future police action through the creation of a professional "attitude". ?hi.s was e~uated with a police method. The 8oard is unable to accept this position. We agree with the Employer that to do so would eli.minate the distinction pr'ovided for by the class standards vis a vis the type of courses 28 taught at the O.P.C. in our judgment, it is likely that all of the courses offered at the College intend, to shape an appropriate attitude that will enhance future police conduct. Given the distinction contemplated in the class standards, that intent or purpose cannot be treated as the determinative factor in the classification of this group of employees. Simply put, 'acceptance of the Union argument would result in all courses being treated as academic subjects. That result would clearly be contrary to the language and intent of the class standards. The Board accepts the fact that the courses may have changed somewhat since the class standards became effective in 1970. We have ultimately concluded, however, that the changes advanced by Hr. Taylor have not rendered the standards obsolete. We find that the courses continue to fall within the cited examples of physical activity subjects. From the evidence, it is clear that all of the 9rievors perform or assist with various administrative duties, Further, they all work under minimal supervision. These facts do not assist the Union in this case as the class standards provide that all instructors in the series will perform these and their other responsibiliti'es under minimal supervision. The more problematic aspect of this case arises from the usage arguments presented by the Union. Without doubt, there are 29 certain similarities in the jobs pe~"formed by the gr~ev'ors and by the instructors of academic subjects. This results from the fact that all of these employees spend the bulk of their time teaching police officers who attend at the O.P.C. for courses. Our task has been to determine whether the similarities between the two (2) groups of instructors are "substantial" for purposes of the usage test. After considering all of the evidence we find that we must answer this question in the negative for the reasons set out below. The Board has previously accepted Hr. Godrree's views as to the distinction between academic and physical activity subjects. We also noted the significant differences between the courses taught by the grievors and those offered by academic instructors such as Hr. George. Zn ~he fina~ ana~ys~s, we have been persuaded that the differences relating, inter alia, to the extent of theory distributed and reviewed; classroom time devoted to consideration of substantive material; type of feedback and student-instructor ratio; time spent outside of the classroom on practical skill development; number and type of course examinations; and objective of the courses; all point to the conclusion that the jobs of instructing and administering the two (2) types of courses are substantially different. .Fundamentally, we think that the two (2) categories of instructors serve different purposes. In our judgment, the instructors of physical activity subjects strive to develop and refine specific skills 3O w~ich are for the most part .physical in nature. In contrast, the instructors of academic courses seek to impart a broad range of theory which forms the base for a wide spectrum of police procedures and techniques. The variances in teaching methodblogy and testing techniques highlight these distinct objectives. The above reasoning also encompasses the job performed by Mr. McKnight in the Driver-Training area. We have determined in our earlier Award that his course fit best, albeit not perfectly, within the academic group. Having heard the evidence in both cases, the Board is left with the impression that significantly more theory is covered in Mr. McKnight's course. We also note in this regard that examinations are conducted at the mid and end points of the course. While there are certain similarities between his course and those taught by the grievors, we are not satisfied they are substantial when seen in the context of the two (2) distinct subject types taught at the O.P.C. Additionally, it is clear that Mr. McKnight does not instruct recruits on an extensive basis. At most, he spends approximately twenty percent (20%) of his time in the classroom. Further, thirty-five percent (35%) of his efforts relate to group leadership functions. These constitute substantial differences in terms of the application of the usage test in respect of grievors Taylor, Adamson and Burden. While Mr. Ewing also performs group leadership functions, they are completed in respect of physical activity courses. To repeat, we find this to 31 be a material difference. In summary, the Board is unable to conclude that any of the grievor$ perform substantially the same job as either Mr. George or Mr. McKnight. For all of the above reasons, we find all of the grievors to be properly classified within the Instructor, Ontario Police College Series. Accordingly, the grievances must be dismissed Dated atToron~o ,Ontario thislSth day of October ,1991. M.V. Watters Vice-Chairperson ~Member M, O'Toole, Employer Member 32 · ' 07444-46 CLASS STanDARD: PREAMBLE INSTRUCTOR, ON'TARZO POLYCE COT.T.~,GE SERIES' The class series covers positions of Instructors, below the level Chief Instructor, at the Ontario Police College. DETERMINATION OF LEVEL_: -' Basically, the levels are determined according to the ~ype of subject being taught. At the lower levels are Instructor and Group Leader positions specializing in physical activity subjects, ;such as: weapo .n~y, police holds, drill, physical training, and swi~xaing. In 'the h~.'~h.e.r .l~evel pgsitions~_ Instructors specialize in academic type subjects, such as: ~ng~sh, .aw, police methods., tra~£ic control, investigation procedures, and identification techniques. At all levels, Instructors may also be required to assist with various administrative or other related duties, such as: preparing instructional material, conducting tests, evaluating students, recommending changes in c'ourses, ensuring proper discipline, and supervising recreational activities. ..June 1, 1970 07444 CLASS STANDARD: INSTRUCTOR 1, ONTARIO POLICE COLLEGE This class covers positions of Instructors who provide instruction in physical activity subjects as outlined in the preamble to the series. They normally carry out their duties with a minimum of supervision. The class may also be used as an entry level for employees selected as instructors of ~ademic.subjects who do not fully meet the qualification requirements at the senior~level. After an appropriate period of time, these employees are evaluated on their ability as classroom instructors. Suitable employees are Pmam0~ed~to the level of fully qualified instructors of academic subjects. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE R~IUIRED: (a) Physical Activities Inztructor. Good practical knowledge in one or more areas of physical activity training, such as: weaponry, drill or police holds. Aptitude and-skill in teaching and demonstrating physical activi~-y subjects. (b) Academic type subjects instructor. Some knowledge of police methods and law ~nforcement techniqoes. Ability to instruct students in a variety of academic type subjects.~ Revised, June 1, 1970 o74~$ CLASS STANDARD: INSTRUCTOR 2, ONTARIO POL/CE COLLEDE This class covers the position of group leader of physical activities Instructors. In addition to instructional duties, this employee assists in scheduling classes and in organizing recreational activities. He also helps to organize parades, inspections ar~ other ceremonies as required. He assists with the maintenance of discipline among students, instituting corrective measures or reporting serious breaches to higher authority. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE RB~UI~: Extensive practical knowledge in one or more areas of physical · activity training, such as: weaponry, drill or police holds. Teaching skill, plus ability to organize and implement ceremonia2 and recreational activities. June 1~ 1970 07446 CLASS STANDARD: INSTRUCTOR 3, ONT~IO POLICE COLLIE This class covers, positions of.fully qualified academic type subjects at the Ontario Police College. Employees carry out the full range of duties, outlined in the preamble to the series~ with aminimum of supervision. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED: Expert knowledge of pdlice methods and law enforcement techniques. Ability to organize material and to instruct effectively. Revised June 1, 1970 CL~S STANDARD: CHIEF INSTRUCTOR, ONTARIO POLICE COLLFx~E This class covers the position of Chief Instructor at the Ontario Police College, who under the general direction of the Deputy Director, provides administrative and supervisory assistance for the instructional programm6. The employee has the responsibility for compiling timetables covering ~bout 14 courses and seminars involving about 20 full-time and part-time instructors. He assists in determining the scope of lessons to be taught and assigns individual work-loads to instructors. The employee monitors the performance of instructional staff, giving guidance and advice on all aspects of classroom work. ~e constantly assesses the effectiveness of course content, as well 'as instructional methods used, reco~ending changes as necessary. He also assists in counselling and evaluating the progress of students. The employee assists the Deputy Director in the overall planning of courses, revisions in curriculum, standards for examinations, and other · related aspects of the instructional programme. He also carries out the duties of a classroom instructor by teaching a number of advanced police training courses. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE R~UIRED: Extensive knowledge of police methods and law enforcement techniques. Administrative and supervisor~ ability. Skill in counselling and evaluating the progress of students. June 1, 1970  *: I' * ~'' '':' Position Specification & Ck. ~Allocation-CSC 6150 -' (Refer to back of form for completion instructions} Us8 Gal} .,~.~ Self-Defence $upervi?~r (Armed & Unarmed) 41-9210-24 O1 ' Su~e~w~r~ & Self-~f~ 41-9210-24 I~t~or 2, O~ 07445 ~rio ~ii~ ~ll~e Ay~r, ~io 1 1' 3 ~ief I~t~or, ~t~l ~ I 41-9210-20 To ~t~ ~ %o su~i~ ~t~io~l delive~ to all stud~t levels ~ ~li~ ~ ~ ~ ~lf~ef~ ~i~ ~ to ~ni~r p~ ~nt~t. : ' 3. Dutie* and related t~k$ (what is employe, e required tO do, how and why7 I~dicate perce~ta~ o~ time T~t o~ rich 1. ~id~ ~ ~i~ ~ion ~ ~e ~e of fir~ ~ offi~r ~fety .... w~ re~tion by: - ~u~ class~ 1~, d~tio~ ~ p~i~ ~ ~t~t ~ ~ ~~ of all s~a~ ~li~ issue w~ (e.g..38 ~l~re revolver, 12 ga~e ~o~) ~ offi~r ~fety ~ w~ re~tion; - ~nitor~ ~ eval~t~ s~t pr~s; - id~ti~ ~ ~~ ~rfo~ fault; - ~ ad~ p~isio~ of ~fety for s~ff ~ stud~ on ~e fir~ _ l~e; assist~ ~li~ fo~ by r~~ ~ r~ to pr~ide ~ual ~alifi~tion ~ ~ ~~ ~e o~rator ~ for d~i~ - pre~ F~ Faille re~ ~ r~ir~, del~t~ probl~ r~~ ~ific a~ion; - ~~ ad~ s~ff h~l~ ~ p~isio~ ~ ~ s~ff ~e~o appropria~ ~ri~ic ~, e.g. h~ .ass~ ~ l~d bl~ ~n~t; - ~nitor~ ~ ~n~t ~ r~~ ~~ as r~ir~. 2. ~id~ ~[~l~~on ~ ~ ~1!~ self~ef~ t~i~ by: - ~u~ clDssr~ ~1~, d~tio~ ~ pra~i~ ~ all pr~ · ~"/ ~a[~ ~t def~ive ~i~; ~0% - ~~ a ~r~ive, ~t ~I~ge of ~lf~ef~ p~~ , rela~ skills ~ d~t~, ~ ~ ~, ~ ~e ~ of self,eft; - (s~ o~) ~orough ~i~ge of ~ d~~ p~fici~ ~ ~e ~ of fir~, offi~r ~fety ~ w~ ret~tion ~ ~ ~t t~i~; Well develo~ ~i~tio~ ~ ~~ s~lls wi~ dist~ (S~ 0~) . J.H.D. ~e~, ~ief I~r ' . L.W. ~, A~ Dir~or. ~S~c~r 2, ~io ~lice ~l[~e I 07445 Gl .~ ~ g~up l~der ~ 7 self~ef~e I~c~rs (~ ~d U~) at ~e ~rio ~lice j ~,%~e, assi~s classes, ~rs ~d e~luates ~st~ctio~l ~rfo~ce and prov{das 9. ~5%~cts ~ ~e use of fir~, ~fficer sa~etv, a~d ~ ~ ~lice self~ef~ce tec~es; ~nitors ~d ev~tes stud~t pr~ress ~d ~ndu~s r~ial sessions n~ess~. c. ~sition ~rfo~ a~is~ati~ duties such as e~g ~e safe ~d prc~ f~ction~ of ~ ~d ~i~t, ~~g ~v~ ~d ~ni~ring ~e self~ef~ce b~get. POSITION ~PECI~''' - %TION AND CLASS ALLOCATION. FORM ..... ,,;~=T*Or~ ~210--35 Range, De~or~ent and ~ut- O=,. ~_ Clerk 6 General ] 51009 F ~ u y <z~¢=~ ............... ~ [ 41-9210-38 Ontario Police college .................. Satires_ To provide inspection in the safe and competen~ use and mainten~ce of firearms, Lear and ~ear gas ~u~ent.at ~e Ontario Police College. ' :,. .~ili~IMAHY OF OUTIESAND RESPONSIBILITIES ,.,VnlCATE pEFICENTAGEOF TtM,[ SPENT ON EACH SiGNiFiCANT ~:UNC.r~Or..;. .t [ A;; AC. OPE EOU ;'~EN'T. WOFIKING CONDI?IONS UNUSUAL !CEATURE.~ ETC..) 1..Provides instruction in the use of firearms and tear gas by: - conducting classroom lectures, demonstrations a~%d pr&ctic~s according to established course guidelines, providing comprehensive information and training in the safe and competent u~e and maintenance of the .38 revolver, the use of the 12 gauge shotgun and ammunition, tear gas and tear gas equipment; - demonstratiog how to rend.er various weapons safe; - performing ~ange Master duties for assigned classes by operating range control console .-- regulating li~hting, signal lights, targe~ distance and oscillation, etc. and issuing instruction~, e.g. time~l fare, ~low aimed fire, load, etc.; 10% - ensuring safety on the range by reiterating safety rules/procedures prior to e'ach range session and monitoring student actions =o correct improper procedure/practice; - observing a~d evaluating,, on an ongoing basis, student performance on the range; correcting mistakes and advising students how' to improve their proficiency, identifying students wi:h shooting problems/diffic~lties and conductin~ remedial sessions as required; maintaining scoring sheets and assessment notes; - conducting and assessing tests on range; i rovidtn~ supervisor with appropriate recommendations and verbal and/or written assessments of students failing to qualify; -' maintaining currency in knowledge of firearms use, techniques, etu.; - ~ec0mmending changes in course conten~ as required, e.g. techniques, etc.; - conducting range sessions for members of local police departments as required; ' - issuing and/or placing in stalls tS=gets, firearms and ammunition for range sessions; - assembling :raining tear gas projectiles; 2.Performs othe~ related duties, such as: -providing minor weapons maintenance; repairing, ~djusting and performing touch up rebluing of College weapons inventory; maintaining record of repairs; completing requisitions for parts for submission to ~0% supervisor 8. S required; - as assigned. SKI LiS ANO K. NOWLEOGC.. ~ E. QUIF~.[D TO PF'fl~OR'M TH,~ 'WC,'R K ISTA?E EDUCATION. TFIAtPIiNG, EXP.F. FIIFNCE Thorough knowledge of and demonstrated proficiency with firearms, tear gas and ~ear gas equipment. Knowledge of related instructional techniques. Well developed communication interpersonal skills. The ability to exercise sound Judgement. 51GNATUB~S ........... . .............{ 7f W.D. Drinkwalter,~ir~¢tor CLASS ALLOCATION .*S~'~,T ~-~ .................. ; ..... ~'~ ...... -. C~CO0~ ..... . ; · ~0 C C j,~%~ ~ ~-U-~-~ provides instruction in physical activity subject, i.e. use and maintenance of .38 revolver, _ -~ s~Otgun and ammunition, tear gas and related equipment. Recommends changes in course ~./content as required. ,~ Evaluates ~tude~t p~forma~c~ ~ %~e rsnge, ~o~r%ctin~] mistakes an~!.provi~ing appropriate advice to students. Conducts tests and provides superuisor with verbal and/or written c Performs duties with a minimum of supervision. ........... ~. ~'~ 1~7 c. ?~man __ ~"l~-- ..............