HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0391.Hazlewood.90-07-30· :' . ' ~. ,'. ~ ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
.' . 'T' ' CROWNEMPLOYEES DEL~ONTARfO
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT R =GLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAs STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTAR/O~ M$~ ?Z$- SUITE 2~00 TE(.EPHONE/T~L~PHONE
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG 1Z8 - BUREAU 2100 (416) 598-0688
391/88
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITP. ATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Hazlewood)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community & Social Services)
Employer
- and -
BEFORE: A. Barrett Vice-Chairperson M. Vorster Member
H. Roberts Member
FOR THE L. Trachuk
GRIEVOR Counse%
Cornish Roland'
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE W. Emerson
EMPLOYER Employees Relations Officer
Human Resources Branch
Ministry of Community&
Social Services
HEARING: August 18, 1989
July 4, i990
This is a classification grievance. The grievor is
classified as a Psychometrist 1 and says that she should be
ciassified as a Psychometrist 2 because she performs functions
"substantially similar" to another psychometrist 2 employed in the
same facility. The grievor did not attempt to fit herself within
the class standard for Psychometrist 2 and proceeded solely on the
"usage" test; that is, that she is performing substantially the
same duties as one Mr. Corbin, who is classified as a Psychometrist
2 - Atypical.
At the hearing both parties submitted statements of.facts
and issues and we proceeded to hear evidence concerning the areas
of disagreement. After all of .the evidence was in, employer
counsel conceded that the grievor had met the usage test in that
herduties and responsibilities were substantially similar to those
of Mr. Corbin.
The union says that the grievor, having met the usage
test, is entitled to succeed in her grievance.
Employer counsel, citing Bahl .G.S.B. 891/85, says that
it is not sufficient to simply show that one employee in a higher
classification performs the same work as the grievor where it can
be shown that the comparison employee is wrongly classified
himself.
Mr. Corbin was a Psychometrist 1 and filed a
classification grievance in 1985. The grievance was eventually
settled in 1988 with him being reclassified as a .Psychometrist 2 -
Atypical. He was granted the re-classification retroactive to the
date of his grievance. There was some evidence led at our hearing
that Mr. Corbin does not perform all of the duties of other
Psych°metrist 2's, but this evidence fell far short of persuading
us that Mr. corbin is Wrongly classified. In fact, it is hard to'
imagine what evidence an employer could lead which would persuade
us its own uncorrected classification of an employee is'too high.
Accordingly, the grievance succeeds and the grievor shall
be re-classified as a Psychometrist 2 - Atypical, and compensated
for lost wages and benefits to the date of the filing of her
grievance. We retain our jurisdiction to resolve any difficulties
arising out of the implementation of this order.
DATED at Toronto, thJs 30~h day of July 1990.
A. BARRETT, ~ice-Chairperson
M. VORSTER, Member
H. ROBERTS, Member