HomeMy WebLinkAboutDavis 03-01-21In the matter of an arbitration
between
Cambrian College of Applied Arts and Technology
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 656
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievances of: 1. Bernard Davis, 02A471
2. Jean Claude Davis, 02A472
Sole Arbitrator: Gregory J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Andre Durette, Co-ordinator, Staff Relations
Guy Charron, Manager, College Services Department
For the Union: Mary Jane Veinott, Chief Steward, Local 656
Bernard Davis, Grievor
Jean Claude Davis, Grievor
Raymond Decosse, Union Representative
Hearing: Cambrian College, Sudbury, Ontario
January 16, 2003
2
AWARD
1. Introduction
Each of the grievors is employed as a caretaker in the College Services
Department of the College. They are each classified as Caretaker B, Payband 4 and have
Position Description Forms which are, in all material respects, identical. The grievors
claim that they are improperly classified and seek re-classification to the position of
General Maintenance Worker, Payband 7.
The Arbitration Data Sheet setting out the respective ratings of the job factors
provides as follows:
College Union
Level Points Level Points
1. Training/Technical Skill 3 52 3 52
2. Experience 2 20 3 32
3. Complexity 2 25 2 25
4. Judgement 2 30 2 30
5. Motor Skills 2B 10 4B 16
6. Physical Demand 3 28 5 50
7. Sensory Demand 2 16 4 39
8. Strain- Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines 2 16 2 16
9.Independent Action 1 16 3 33
10. Communications/Contacts 1 16 1 16
11. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 1 8 3 44
12. Work Environment 3 55 5 100
TOTAL POINTS 282 453
PAYBAND 4 7
The PDF filed by the College with the Arbitration Data Sheet provides, inter alia,
as follows:
1. Position Summary:
3
Performs a variety of duties on college grounds and is assigned to various duties
throughout College Services Department.
2. Duties and Responsibilities
SUMMER
A - General lawn maintenance and involvement in maintenance of the outdoor Athletics
facilities 37%
B- General Grounds maintenance on satellite campuses 2%
C - Flowerbed arrangements and maintenance; maintain plants shrubs and trees; seasonal
grounds preparation pruning trees/shrubs; clearing brush 5%
D- Outside pool cleaning 1%
WINTER
E - Snow Removal on roads, walkways and entrance ways; sanding and salting 37%
YEAR ROUND
F - minor equipment maintenance 2%
G- interior plant care 2%
H- minor road and sign repair 2%
I- sweeping, litter pickup, spring/fall cleanup 10%
J - other duties as assigned 2%
C Skill
1. Training/Technical Skills
Grade 12
2. Experience
One year practical work experience to become familiar with machine operation and
grounds maintenance.
3. Complexity
4
Duties perform required some judgement on choice of action within limits.
Some tasks require utilization of motorized vehicle, i.e. utility tractor, 4 x 4 ton truck
forklift, snow blower and tiding lawnmower.
4. Judgment
Duties performed require some judgment. Problems are referred to Lead Hand or
Supervisor.
5. Motor Skills
Utilization of 4x4 truck or utility tractor for snow removal or lawn maintenance
Snow removal 45%
Lawn Maintenance 40%
D. Effort
6. Physical Demand
Standing 28%
Walking 27%
Straining 25%
Kneeling 10%
Sitting 10%
7. Sensory Demand
Job Duties require moderate visual or sensory demand on mental energy for short
periods of time.
Safely Operating machinery 50%
8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
Job duties involve some work pressure, interruptions and pressing deadlines tend
to be predictable.
E. Responsibility
9. Independent Action
9.1 - Work is performed in accordance with general procedures and past practices
Unfamiliar situations are reviewed with supervisor.
9.2 - When following work orders, specific guidelines must be followed in
completing a project. Verbal instructions
9.3 - Lead Hand inspects work progress daily
Special Projects - supervisor inspects the process daily
Work assignments are intermittently and/or periodically checked for quality
9.6 - Problems referred to supervisor
Breakdown of machinery
Horticultural problems
Complaints
Potential Health/Safety Hazards
10. Communications/Contacts
Supervisor Problems, consultation, inspections Daily
Lead Hand consultation, direction Daily
Suppliers delivery and pickup Monthly
11. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions
Decisions and actions have limited impact on the organization. Errors are
detected easily and quickly
Process used to detect errors and effect if errors not discovered
Job Inspection
Safety of the College community is in jeopardy
12. Work Environment
Continuous exposure to slightly disagreeable and hazardous elements 65%
6
The union disagrees with 2 portions of the Position Description Form
1. Communications/Contacts.
The union claims that the grievors' contact with their Supervisor should be stated as
being on a Monthly rather than a Daily basis.
2. Work Environment
The union claims that the PDF for this factor should reflect the fact that the work
environment is one of working in combined poor weather and noise conditions for 80% of the
time. It is suggested that during the Step 1 meeting the PDF provided by the College included a
reference to Noise - 20% in the Sensory Demand factor; that at that meeting the union agreed to
move the reference to Noise to section 12.1 of the PDF, viz, Work Environment, but that when
the PDF was revised by the College and core point rated the reference to Noise in section 12.1
was eliminated. The College agrees that there was a discussion to move the reference to Noise
to Work Environment but states that its understanding was that it would simply be folded into
the general reference to "slightly disagreeable and hazardous elements" and would be
specifically identified as a factor to be weighted under section 12.1.
2. Decision
a) The Position Description Form.
I deal initially with the disagreement concerning the Position Description Form.
1. Communications and Contacts.
It is clear from the evidence of both of the grievors and of Mr. Charron himself that the
grievors certainly do not have contact with Mr. Charron on a daily basis as is indicated in the
PDF. It would be closer to describe their contact as being on a monthly basis. They do,
however, have daily contact with the Lead Hand, Mr. Richard Gervais, who gives them their j ob
assignments and checks on their work progress throughout the day.
The College argues that, since the Supervisor's instructions are relayed on a daily basis to
the grievors through Mr. Gervais, that is a form of indirect contact between the grievors and the
supervisor that is sufficient to treat them, for the purposes of section 10.1 of the PDF, as having
daily contact with the supervisor.
In my view that argument does not have merit. The Job Evaluation Manual, Section IV,
page 1, specifically provides that a "Lead Hand is not a supervisor but is involved mainly in
passing supervisor's instructions to members of a work group." Section 10 of the PDF is a
description of the "nature of contact and purpose involved in communicating information etc.".
In the absence of an indication that this contact is to include indirect contact (of the sort relied on
here by the College) it is my view that the best interpretation of this provisions is the one that
accords with its ordinary meaning, ie. direct contact. When viewed in that manner section 10 of
the PDF is clearly inaccurate.
2. Work Environment.
The dispute here appears to concern the issue as to whether or not the PDF should make
some specific reference to Noise in its description of the Work Environment. There is no
question that, as a matter of fact, the grievors work in a noisy environment. Virtually all of the
work that they do in connection with lawn maintenance or snow removal, that is, 74% of their
time, requires them to operate machinery which produces, to varying degrees some noise. The
PDF attached by the College to the Arbitration Data Sheet is not inaccurate insofar as it notes
that the grievors are exposed to "disagreeable and hazardous elements" - which would clearly
include noise. What the union seeks is that this be made more specific and that the PDF be
amended to reflect what it considers to be a more accurate estimate of the degree of that
exposure expressed in percentages of time.
Given the willingness of the College to include a reference in the PDF to working in a
noisy environment for 20% of the time - albeit originally under the Sensory Demand factor - !
can see no reason why that should not be included under section 12 of the PDF, Work
Environment. The College does not dispute that there was an agreement to move this reference.
The only disagreement is as to how it was to be expressed. ! am satisfied that the PDF should be
amended in the manner suggested by the union.
8
b) The Job Family
The Union claims that the position should be classified as a General Maintenance
Worker.
The Job Evaluation Manual makes it clear that the first step in classifying a position is to
determine its appropriate Job Family. To that end the Manual provides various Job Family
definitions to guide raters (and arbitrators) in assigning positions to the most appropriate j ob
family.
The Job Family Definition for General Maintenance Worker provides as follows:
This family covers positions that perform semi-skilled work in tasks usually associated
with one or more of the skilled trades in the installation, maintenance, repair and
general upkeep of buildings, g rounds, equipment and facilities.
In determining what is the appropriate Job Family the Manual (Section 11, page 1) directs raters
to review the PDF, particularly the Position Summary and the Duties and Responsibilities, and to
compare this with the j ob family definitions and to then select the j ob family that "most
accurately describes the position being evaluated." Although the grievors' PDFs list duties that
relate to "maintenance, repair and general upkeep of buildings, grounds and facilities" they are
silent on one of the key components of the definition, viz, that they work "in tasks usually
associated with skilled trades".
It was suggested by the union that working with a Horticulturalist involved working with
a skilled trade. It is not clear to what extent a Horticulturalist can be treated as a skilled trade. !
was advised that, while there is a one time examination that must be passed in order to obtain a
Certificate of Qualification there is no period of apprenticeship and no Certificate of
Apprenticeship given as is normally done with Skilled Trades. It appears also that some of the
grievor's tasks are performed in the company of another employee who is a certified Landscape,
Nursery and Groundskeeper, particularly in connection with tree pruning and fertilizing of
shrubs.
However, even if that is regarded as work performed "in association with" a skilled trade,
it would occupy only a small proportion of the grievors' time. Their PDF lists flowerbed
arrangements and maintenance and tree pruning as occupying only 5% of their time. That
9
clearly would not be sufficient to elevate them into the General Maintenance Worker Job Family
which requires that work be done "usually" associated with a skilled trade.
Thus, I find that they are appropriately placed in the Caretaker Job Family defined as
covering positions that "perform housekeeping, cleaning, moving, outside grounds work,
operation of mechanized equipment and related repair and maintenance activities."
c) Core Point Rating
The College submitted that the position could be classified as a Caretaker B through use
of the Classification Guide Charts.
The grievors' Duties and Responsibilities fall comfortably within the Typical Duties and
Responsibilities as set out in the Classification Guide Chart for Caretaker B, viz, the Caretaker A
duties of snow shovelling and ground maintenance, as well as the Caretaker B duties of using
maintenance vehicles to maintain college grounds and maintaining it in good order and
performing minor repairs to buildings and equipment. However, when the PDF is compared
with the 12 Job Evaluation Factors it becomes clear that in at least 3 of those factors there is a
mismatch with the level set out in the Guide Charts: Training/Technical Skills, Experience, and
Independent Action. In my opinion that is enough of a mismatch to warrant core point rating.
In this regard I consider the PDF itself (particularly to the extent that it has been agreed
to by the union) as the best guide for ratings purposes. It is a document which is arrived at
through extensive consultations between the College and the employees concerned and must be
treated as far more reliable than the snapshot glimpse at the position that is arrived at through an
expedited arbitration hearing. Nevertheless, where appropriate I will refer to the evidence
adduced at the hearing.
I shall deal with each of the disputed factors in order.
i) Experience
The College rates this factor at level 2 - "more than 6 months and up to one year of
10
practical experience".. The union seeks level 3 - "more than 1 year and up to three years of
practical experience"
The PDF provides for "one year of practical experience."
The grievors claim that, owing to the seasonal nature of the work (with different duties
and equipment involved in those seasons) and the need to become familiar with a relatively large
campus, it takes more than a year to become familiarized with all of the aspects of the job.
However, the difficulty which they face is that the PDF is quite clear in requiring only 1
year of practical experience. In order to justify a rating at the next level the experience required
would have to be "more than one year" - which it clearly is not. ! cannot agree with the union's
argument that the reference to "one year of practical work experience" should be interpreted as
extending beyond that year. The Core Point Rating Plan draws a line between "up to one year"
and "more than one year" and the grievors" PDF clearly states that only 1 year of experience is
required. While the phrase "up to one year" can be interpreted as "up to and including one
year" ! do not see how the phrase "more than year" can be sensibly interpreted as meaning one
year only.
Accordingly, ! would rate this position at level 2- 20 points.
ii) Motor Skills
The parties are agreed on the rating of level B, viz "non complex fine motor movement,
involving limited (some) dexterity, co-ordination and precision is required." They disagree on
the prevalence of that activity. The College rates it at level 2 - occasional (10-30% of the time).
The Union seeks level 4 (frequent- more than 60% of the time).
The PDF refers to the "utilization of the 4 x 4 truck or utility tractor for snow removal or
lawn maintenance" as an example of a task that involves this factor. In argument the union bases
its claim on the need for the grievors to operate the various pieces of machinery used to cut grass
11
and remove snow. In that regard reliance was placed on their need to manipulate various levers
when operating the snow plough or the sanders and to co-ordinate their movements accordingly.
While ! would agree that there is a need for co-ordination of movements and some
dexterity ! find it difficult to consider these motor skills as involving "fine motor movements".
In the factor definition for Motor Skills the term fine is redefined as meaning (delicate, intricate
or precise). In my view that kind of movement must to some extent require the use of the
fingers. However, apart from occasionally being required to push a button or flip a toggle
switch on the vehicle control panels to turn on lights etc. the grievors are rarely required to
make use of their fingers in the performance of their duties.
Accordingly, ! agree with the College rating of B2 - 10 points.
iii) Physical Demand
The College rates this at level 3, - "regular" physical demand. The union seeks level 5 -
"constant physical demand".
The PDF lists a number of physical activities, standing, walking, straining, sitting,
kneeling - with various percentages of time.
Virtually all of the grievors' work in connection with lawn maintenance and snow
removal (which accounts for 74% of their duties) involves the use of various pieces of
machinery. For lawn and property maintenance in the spring/summer season they use 2 tractors,
4 push mowers, a whipper snipper and a leaf blower For snow removal in the winter season
they use 2 snow ploughs with snow blowers, a bucket tractor (to pick up snow and load on a
truck), and a truck (with a plough on the front to clear pathways and a sander attached. Further,
in winter they are required to use a shovel to clear snow away from doorways that cannot be
accessed by any of the vehicles and also to spread sand on areas that are iced up and where
12
pedestrians may walk. Parking Lots are cleared of snow by an outside contractor.
Apart from pushing the lawn mower, some raking of grass clippings in some areas (more
commonly bags are attached to the mowers) and shovelling snow or carrying sand most of the
grievor's duties in connection with lawn and property maintenance and snow removal are carried
out with the assistance of motorized vehicles. Thus, the maj or physical effort expended by the
grievors is in pushing the lawn mower - where it may be necessary to stand on an awkward angle
while cutting the grass on an incline, in carrying a gas powered whipper snipper, and in doing
some shovelling work. Although there is other physically demanding work involved in the
maintenance of flowerbeds and the planting and pruning of trees and shrubs and occasionally
lifting and replacing interlocking stones those duties do not occupy the grievor for as significant
period of time as does lawn maintenance and snow removal. During the summers the College
also hires students who do much of the lawn cutting and weeding - freeing up the grievors to do
special projects such as the interlocking stones or some painting.
I see little basis for justifying a rating at level 5 as sought by the union. Given the
amount of time that is spent operating the various pieces of machinery in summer and winter it is
difficult to see how the grievors can be seen to be using "continuous heavy physical effort". Nor
is there a "repeated use of muscles and/or awkward, uncomfortable bodily positions "for most of
the time."
In my opinion level 3 more closely captures the physical demand put on the grievors.
Lifting of interlocking stones probably requires heavy physical effort - but only occasionally.
Shovelling snow or sand probably requires moderate physical effort - but only on a recurring
basis. While pushing a lawn mower may also involve moderate physical effort and may last over
a period of an entire day - the grievors are rotated between that j ob and operating a vehicle and
are also given a lot of relief in the summer from students. Consequently, ! would also consider
that to be moderate work done on a recurring basis. What remains, the operating of the various
vehicles, is in my a physical demand that involves "continuous light physical effort".
13
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3 - 28 points - which is also the Guide
Charted rated level for this factor.
iv) Sensory Demand
The College rates this factor at level 2 - moderate visual, auditory or sensual demand and
occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy. The Union seeks level 4 - extensive visual,
auditory or sensory demand on mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and
accuracy."
The Union argues that the need for the grievors to concentrate closely on who and what is
around them while operating the vehicles - while at the same time having to suffer the distraction
of noise from those vehicles -justifies a claim at level 4.
While ! would agree that this is a relevant consideration it is to be noted that the grievors
are scheduled to start their work early in the morning (7:00 a.m. in the summer and 6:00 a.m. in
the winter) generally before other pedestrians and vehicles arrive. However, the principal
difficulty faced by the union is that the language of the PDF - which the Union does not dispute
on this factor - describes the demand on mental energies as "moderate visual or sensory demand
on mental energy for short periods of time. This description is very close to that set down for
level 2.
Accordingly, since (as indicated above) the PDF (where agreed upon) is the most reliable
indicator of what are the best descriptors of a j ob factor, ! would rate this factor at level 2 - 16
points
v) Independent Action
The College rates this factor at level 1 - duties performed with specific and detailed
instructions under direct, day to day supervision. Little freedom to act independently. The Union
14
seeks level 3 - duties performed in accordance with general procedures and past practices under
periodic supervision, with occasional periods of Supervisor input or verification. Moderate
freedom to act independently.
The evidence is that each day the grievors receive their work instructions verbally from
the Lead Hand, Mr. Gervais. When Mr. Gervais is on holidays he prepares a written list of tasks
to be done while he is gone. However, the instructions are not detailed in nature. Rather, they
simply direct the grievors as to, for example, which lawns to cut, which areas of the College
grounds to clear of snow or which special projects, eg. painting, interlocking stones, etc. need
doing. In winter the grievors are rotated on a monthly basis as between different areas of the
campus where the tasks are to be performed. In summer these assignments are given on a daily
basis by Mr. Gervais. It is also Mr. Gervais who inspects and checks on their work throughout
the day and who may take them from one j ob and put them on another if necessary. Where the
grievors encounter problems it is Mr. Gervais to whom they report the problems or, if he is
absent to their supervisor. Mr. Charron.
The grievors rarely saw Mr. Charron - although they admitted that he could have checked
their work without their knowing it. Even when Mr. Gervais was absent, the grievors carried out
the tasks on the list provided since, as one of the grievor's observed, "we know basically what
we have to do."
Mr. Charron stated that he and Mr. Gervais are in contact daily; that Mr. Gervais decides
on what routine seasonal work needs to be done and assigns the work to the grievors- while he
[Charron] sets up the special projects and passes them on to Mr. Gervais for assignment to the
grievors. Similarly, when Mr. Gervais is away on holidays, it is Mr. Charron who would decide
which of the work listed by Mr. Gervais to be done was to be done. Mr. Charron also assigned
work to the students while Mr. Gervais was away. Mr. Charron agreed that he rarely spoke to
the grievors about their work but stated that if, on his rounds, he saw something that needed to be
done he would tell Mr. Gervais who would, in turn, assign the work to the grievors in the usual
15
manner.
This account of the day to day assignment of duties is in keeping with the PDF which
speaks of work being performed "in accordance with general procedures and past practises with
unfamiliar situations being reviewed with the supervisor." For the most part the grievors' work
involves assignments to do lawn maintenance and snow removal with which they are familiar
from having done the same assignments over the years. Thus, except for special projects like
painting or fixing a fence, there is little need for specific instruction. As indicated in s. 9.3 of the
PDF their work is inspected daily, albeit by the Lead Hand and not the Supervisor - except in the
case of special projects.
! am unable to agree that the College rating of this factor is correct. ! cannot see any
sense in which the instructions which the grievors receive are "specific and detailed" as is
required for level 1. In my view level 2 better captures this job factor. In that there are certain
routines that have been established as to how and when to do the lawn maintenance and snow
removal, those duties are performed in accordance with "general procedures and past practices".
They are "under regular supervision" albeit from Mr. Gervais and Mr Charron, through his
contacts with Mr. Gervais, monitors their progress.
Although admittedly Mr. Gervais is not their supervisor the Lead Hand Definition in the
Job Evaluation Manual nevertheless contemplates that a Lead Hand, in addition to passing on the
supervisor's instructions, may also
allocate daily work assignments according to established methods and procedures and
establish priorities as required:
lay out work, indicate sequencing of work processes; showing employees how to do tasks
when difficulties arise; checking completeness and accuracy of finished tasks; keeping
supervisor informed of progress;
recommend changes to existing work methods and procedures.
16
This definition of Lead Hand is broad enough to encompass the kind of situation that
exists at the College; that is, Mr. Charron, the Supervisor, has responsibility for a number of
areas and, in order to allow him to discharge all of his responsibilities, his "supervisory"
responsibilities for the grievors has in effect been delegated to the Lead Hand, all the while
retaining his ultimate authourity in relation to them. Thus, in this context it is appropriate to
consider the grievors to be "under regular supervision" within the meaning of level 2 - when
their supervisor is in reality the Lead Hand and not Mr. Charron.
Finally, it is my view that the grievors do have "limited" and not a "moderate" freedom
to act independently. Admittedly, they do spend a good deal of their working day alone, driving
their vehicles. However, they were limited in what they can do in connection with the carrying
out of their duties.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 2 - 19 points - which is also the Guide
Charted level for this factor..
vi) Responsibility for Decisions/Actions
The College rates this factor at level 1- minimal impact on the organization. The union
seeks level 3 - moderate impact - errors detected by verification and review may result in
disruption of workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited waste of resources.
The union argues that, as many of the grievor's duties are performed in areas where there
is often pedestrian and vehicular traffic, careless operation of one of the vehicles that they
operate could result in personal injury or damage to property.
The difficulty with this position - and with the position of the College as well - is that the
PDF for this factor states clearly that "decisions and actions have limited impact on the
organization - and that errors are detected easily and quickly.". That language almost duplicates
verbatim the factor description for level 2, i.e. "Decisions and actions have limited impact on the
17
organization. Errors are detected easily and quickly and may result only in minor
embarrassment, confusion or expense for correction."
Since both parties have agreed to this section of the PDF neither can, in the absence of
some convincing evidence to the contrary, ignore the PDF by claiming that this factor should be
rated at level 1 (the College) or level 3 (the Union). ! noted also, in this regard, that level 2 is the
Guide Charted level for this factor.
Thus I conclude that the factor should be rated at level 2 - 26 points.
vi) Work Environment
The College rates this factor at level 3 - continuous exposure to slightly disagreeable
and/or hazardous elements. The Union seeks level 5 - continuos exposure to extremely
disagreeable and/or hazardous elements.
The PDF uses language that is identical to that used to describe level 3 for this factor -
which is also the level at which this position is Guide Charted for this factor. However, as noted
above, the union disagrees with the PDF in respect of this factor. Accordingly, it is necessary to
review the evidence and determine, apart from the PDF, what the appropriate level should be.
The two relevant elements that need to be dealt with are weather conditions and noise.
Almost all of the grievors' work is performed outside in all seasons of the year. During the
summer if the weather is very hot they are given more relief than their twice daily 15 minute
breaks and lA hour for lunch (eg. 20 minutes on and 10 minutes off) throughout the shift and an
entitlement to leave early before the end of their shift. Students are also hired to do much of the
lawn maintenance work in the summer as vacation relief. The grievors are also provided with
sun glasses and sun block, and, if required to work in the rain, they are provided with rain suits.
However, they are not expected to work in very heavy rain and would instead be assigned to do
some work in the garage, maintenance work on the vehicles. During the winter they are
18
provided with hats, gloves, skidoo suits and are also permitted to come in from the cold to warm
up. Further, much of the winter snow removal work is done while operating a vehicle with a
heated cab.
As for noise, the grievors stated that the worst noise came from the push lawnmowers,
the whipper snipper and the leaf blower; that there was admittedly less noise from inside the cabs
of the trucks and other vehicles that the grievors were required to operate. They are provided
with ear protection - which cuts out some but not all of the noise.
There is little question that the grievors are exposed "continuously" to the elements of
weather and noise. Their PDF reflects that - and the parties agree that such exposure is
continuous. Where there is disagreement on is how to characterize the elements. Are they
"slightly disagreeable" - as the College maintains or "extremely disagreeable" as the Union
maintains?
Although there may be occasions when the weather conditions are extreme it cannot be
said that the grievors are exposed to those extremes on a continuous basis. Put simply, the
weather is not harsh and inclement all of the time. Similarly, their exposure to the kind of noise
that might be said to be extremely disagreeable is limited to those times when they push the lawn
mower and operate the whipper snipper and leaf blower. When driving the trucks and tractors
and snow plough they work from inside a cab.
The College argues that, insofar as the grievors are provided with various protective
devices that shield them from the worst of the elements (ear protection, climate clothing,
sunblock, etc.); their exposure to those elements is reduced to some extent. I am not persuaded
that this kind of argument can be made. In my view, when rating the Work Environment factor,
the elements must be taken as they are found and it is not open to the College to, in effect, buy
relief against a higher rating by the provision of protective clothing and equipment, etc. For
example, if an employee was required to work in the presence of noxious fumes, a College could
19
not argue that he/she was not exposed to hazardous elements by reason of the fact that he/she
was provided with a gas mask.
In any event it should also be noted that the ear protection does not shut out the noise
entirely when the grievors are operating lawnmowers or leaf blowers; that skidoo suits would
continue to leave the face exposed and that sunblock or sunglasses provide no relief from
oppressive heat and humidity. Thus there remains some exposure to "extremely disagreeable"
elements. The question is whether or not that exposure is best described as "occasional" (level
3) or "recurring" (level 4).
In my opinion, as the circumstances in which such exposure would occur are during the
performance of a substantial portion of the grievors' duties (lawn maintenance and snow
removal), the exposure is best described as occurring on a "recurring" basis - level 4.
Although this rating would be higher than the Guide Charted rating for this factor it may
be noted that the grievors perform none of the typical indoor duties of a Caretaker B, viz, those
indoor Caretaker A duties that are a part of the complement of the typical duties of a Caretaker
B. Thus, to the extent that the guide charting of this factor takes into account those various
indoor activities of a Caretaker, it has little application to the grievors virtually all of whose work
is performed outside.
Accordingly, ! would rate this factor at level 4 - 77 points.
22
3. Summary and Conclusion
Based on these findings the core point rating for the position is as follows:
1. Training/Iechnical Skill 3 52
2. Experience 2 20
3. Complexity 2 25
4. Judgement 2 30
5. Motor Skills 2B 10
6. Physical Demand 3 28
7. Sensory Demand 2 16
8. S~'ain- Work Pressures/Demands,Deadlines2 16
9.Independem Action 2 19
10. Communications/Contacts 1 16
11. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 2 26
12. Work Environment 4 77
TOTAL POINTS 335
PAY'BAND 5
Accordingly, the grievance is allowed and the College is directed to m-classify the
grievors as Caretaker B, Atypical, Payband 5 and to compensate the,m for losses sustained
as a result of their improper classification.
I remain seised of jurisdiction to deal with any issues arising out of the
implementation of this award.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this '~ [ day of c---'~~ ,2003
Gregory J. Brandt, Sole Arbitrator