Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0668.Boudreau et al.90-11-08 ONTARIO EMPLOY~-S DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG IZ8- SUITE2100 TELEPHONE/T~L~PHONE 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG IZ8-BUREAU2100 (416)598-0688 1346/87, 1636/87, 1783/87, 668/88 IN THE 14~TTER OF AN ARBIT~ATION Under THE CROWN EHPLOYEE8 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT ' Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Boudreau et al) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario ' (Ministry of Transportation) [ Employer BEFORE: A. Barrett Vice-Chairperson M. Gandall Member F. Collict Member FOR THE S. Ursel GRIEVOR Counsel Cornish Roland Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE K. ReYnolds EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HEARING: December 13, 1989 February'7, 1990 February 8, 1990 March 23, 1990 - I - These are the grievances of George Boudreau, Arthur Desormeau, Doug Johnson, and Fred Start, all of whom hold the class titl~ Drafter 3 and a position title Examiner-Plans, in the North Bay office of the Surveys and Plans section of the Engineering and Right-of-Way branch of the Ministry. These grievors are all of the incumbents in the position, and all filed their grievances on June 9, 1987, alleging that they are improperly classified as Drafter 3's. On consent, Mr. Desormeau is the representative grievor, and his evidence applies to all grievors. Essentially, it is the union position that the duties and responsibilities these grievors actually perform go beyond their job description to the extent that they should be re-classified to a higher position. We are given three alternatiwe proposals: 1. Elevate them to the position of Supervisor-Plans, a management 'position, and the position held by their immediate supervisor, Mr. Bullard. 2. Elevate them to the status of Plans Examiner-Technician 3, which is alleged to be a comparable job in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. 3. Declare that the job description is so obsolete and out- dated that it is no longer reflective of the actual duties and responsibilities of the grievors and ~equire management to find a new classification for the grievors in the form of a Berry order (G.S.B. #217/83). We will deal first with proposition number 2, the "usage" argument. On the evidence it was clear that the plans examiner in - 2 - the Consumer and Commercial Relations Ministry examines more complex plans, has a greater deal of autonomy, bears greater responsibility, and has greater authority. Essentially, the Drafter 3's in North Bay examine plans for the benefit of an Ontario Land Surveyor who eventually signs the plans and takes full responsibility for them. The Technician 3 reviews plans already signed and submitted by Ontario Land Surveyors and has authority to overrule the surveyor. Thus,. the usage argument fails. Arguments I and 3 tend to overlap because of an unusual situation that arose in the North Bay office back in 1983. Prior to 1976 the Surveys and Plans office was divided into two sections: engineering and legal. Engineering'plans are drawings used for the construction of roads and bridges. Legal plans are registered on title to property and are subject to statutory requirements and user requirements. In 1976 the--two sections were amalgamated and each drafter and supervisor was to learn the skills and requirements of the other section. At that time the current Drafter 3's were called Unit Supervisors and were part of the management team. In authority over these Unit Supervisors were two Supervisor-Plans, Tom Richardson for legal, and Larry Bullard for engineering. In 1978 the Unit Supervisors were moved from management positions into the bargaining unit but - 3 - continued to ~o the same job, essentially as group leaders of junior drafters. In 1983 one of the two Supervisor-Plans,-Mr. Richardson, retired, and a decision was made not to replace him. Hence forward, Larry Bullard would be the only Supervisor-Plans in the office. It is alleged by the union that Mr. Richardson's duties and responsibilities were thereafter assumed by the Drafter 3's. Before leaving, Mr. Richardson constructed a manual of precedents and procedures so that. the Drafter 3's would know how to carry on with his ~ob. This manual consisted largely of check lists, sample letters, and sample documents. Thus, the 'argument of the union i~ that because these grievors assumed the core duties of a Supervisor-Plans they must have moved out of their existing classification into a higher one: either Supervisor-Plans or at any rate something higher than Drafter 3. ~ It is the employer position that the .grievors fit squarely withln the position specification and class standard for Drafter 3's, and that although the grievors assumed some of Mr. Richardson's duties, those duties were maiDly procedural and no - 4 - substantial additional responsibilities were given to the Drafter Ail legal plans are signed by an Ontario Land Surveyor who takes ultimate responsibility for their accuracy. Some of the 24 types of legal plans also have a signature line for an Examiner- Plans who certifies that: "the plan agrees with instructions and approvals". The drafter and tracer are also named on the document but do not sign it. Pre-1983, it was always Mr. 'Richardson who signed the legal plans, where necessary, but now the grievors do it. There is no legal'liability on the Drafter 3's however if the plan is later found to be defective. The accurate completion of plans depends upon a meticulous and detailed chedking and re- checking'of all of the supporting material and drawings. It is noted in the Drafter class series ".. . in the field of drafting, the normal pattern is for all completed work to be reviewed for accuracy regardless of the level at which it was performed." It appears that with the retirement of Mr. Richardson one of the checks in the progressive system of checks has been eliminated. Now the.legal plans go from the Drafter 3 right to the Ontario Land Surveyor for final approval or revision. In order to compare the positrons of Examiner-Plans and Supervisor-Plans, we have reviewed the position specifications, the - 5 - class definition for Drafter 3 and the evidence. The position specification for Examiner-Plans is appended as Schedule "A" to this decision. The class definition for Drafter 3 is attached as Schedule "B". The position description for Supervisor-Plans is attached as Schedule "C" It is clear that the grievors hold responsible positions supervising six or seven junior drafters. Their job includes allocating work to the drafters, assisting the drafters as problems arise, examining their work in detail, and dealing directly with the Ontario Land Surveyor about problems. The grievors also draft performance appraisals for their staff, validate time sheets, approve non-working time, maintain discipline, ahd train and develop their staff. All of these duties and responsibilities are encompassed in the position specification for Examiner-Plans. While Mr. Richardson used to have most of the direct dealings with the Ontario Land Surveyor, now the grievors 'take legal plans directly to him. However, point 7 in their position specification would appear to encompass these duties. "Consulting and corresponding with the signing O.L.S., Land Registrars, District Officers, and MNR~ for the processing of plans and documents." We now look at the position description for Supervisor- Plans and in particular at the list of major responsibilities.. The - 6 - first four items'listed under major responsibilities deal with time tabling and scheduling the.work. When each new piece of work comes into the department, Mr. Bullard sets a target date for it. If one of the Drafter 3's determines that the work cannot be completed by the target date, he must get an extension of time. from Mr. Bullard. The Supervisor-Plans also consults closely with senior Ministry staff, municipal officials, private surveyors, and/or land registry office officials - something the grievors do not usually do. The Supervisor-Plans provides liaison services between head office, cartography section, region and districts, and provides input into the Section's annual fiscal year budget - again something the grievors do not do. The Supervisor-Plans provides office management, personnel administration and labou~ relations supervision for the entire staff. The Examiner-Plans participate with the supervisor in labour relations Supervision, but do not have the~final responsibility for same. The supervisor is als0 responsible for resolving unusual or unprecedented legal and engineering plan problems. The Drafter 3's will go to Mr. Bullard for advice on unusually complex problems. In general terms, it appears that the Supervisor-Plans has a broader range of responsibilities and liaison duties than the Examiner-Plans. The chief duty of the Examiner-Plans is to ensure that the plans drafted by his staff are accurate. There is' considerable over-lap of duties' between the Supervisor-Plans and the Examiner-Plans. Each is constantly checking for errors and each is supervising the staff. This does not make their jobs the same, however. It appears that the responsibility for scheduling the work and maintaining liaison with various people outside the office are the major responsibilities of the Supervisor-Plans. The duties of Mr. Richardson that have been assumed by the Examiner-Plans do not include those scheduling and liaison duties that mark the distinction between the supervisor and the examiner. The Examiner-Plans did not assume al__~l of Mr. Richardson's duties, and the ones they did assume are mainly procedural in nature; that is, they now sign the form letters and complete steps on a check list. After a detailed examination of the exhibits and the evidence, we cannot find that the new duty of signing plans certifying that "instrUctions and approvais have been met" carries with it any legal liability or much greater responsibility than the Drafter 3's held before Mr. RichardNon's retirement. Mr. Buliard 'is still ultimately responsible for all of the work produced in his department, as set out in his position specifications, and the O.L.S. is still ultimately responsible for the accuracy of all legal Plans. Based on the findings set out above we cannot say that the Drafter 3 job is "substantially different" now than it was prior to 1983, nor that it is a "different job altogether" so that we could take it out of its original classification. The onus is on the grievors to show that they are actually performing a job, the essence or core duties of which do not fit within the class standard to which it has been assigned. (GSB Aird #1349/87, GSB Boileau #724/88). The degree of extra responsibility assumed by these grievors after the departure of Mr. Richardson is not sufficient to take the work out of the Drafter 3 class standard. Accordingly the grievances are dismissed. DATED at Toronto, this 8th day of November , 1990. "I DISSENT" (Dissent to follow) j...-:.; ~..,.~.~., _, ...... ~::~:.~::~: MARVIN GANDAL~, Member FRED COLLICT, Member