Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPorco 05-12-05IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE ("the employer") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the union") AND IN THE MATTER OF CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCES OF A. MATALLO, R. PORCO AND J. SEVERINO (NO. 455716) BOARD OF ARBITRATION: Ian Springate, Chair Ann Burke, Employer Nominee Sherdl Murray, Union Nominee APPEARANCES: For the Employer: Paul Jarvis, Counsel For the Union: Nelson Roland, Counsel HEARING: In Toronto on February 10; March 15, 16; June 16, 29; July 13, 2005 2 DECISION INTRODUCTION These proceedings relate to grievances filed in March 2004 by Mr. Aldo Matallo, Mr. Rudy Porco and Mr. John Severino. In their grievances .they .challenged their classification as an Atypical General Maintenance worker at payband 8. They asked to be reclassified as an Atypical Trades Worker at payband 9. The manner in which the employer rated the grievors' pOsitions resulted in a total of 547 points under the applicable job evaluation system. The union's rating would result in 611 points. Payband 8 encompasses point totals from 511 to 570. Payband 9 applies to point totals of 571 to 630. Mr. Matallo and Mr. Porco are employed at the employer's Casa Loma campus. Mr. Sevedno is employed at the St. James campus. · At the hearing the parties agreed to treat Mr. Porco as a representative grievor such that a determination with respect to his classification would also apply to Mr. Matallo and Mr. Severino. The parties entered a number of documents into evidence. Mr. Porco was the only person to testify at the heating. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS On November 16, 1994 Mr. Matallo, who at the time was classified as a General Maintenance Worker at Payband 7, filed a grievance in which he claimed that he should be classified as an atypical employee at payband 9. Mr. Porto, who was similarly classified, filed a like worded grievance on February 9, 1995. The'two grievances came before a board of arbitration comprised of lan Springate, Kevin Mailloux and Sandra Nicholson. Neither Mr. Matallo nor Mr. Porco testified at the hearing. Instead evidence was given by Mr. Sam Reid, a sheet metal worker/heating and air conditioning mechanic who had previously served as a lead hand and union steward, and by Mr. Michael McGee the campus manager. In the prior arbitration proceedings the union contended that Mr. Matallo and Mr. Porco had performed a number of tasks that are typically assigned to skilled trades workers and accordingly should be rated at Payband 9. This is the payband appropriate for a ty?ical skilled trades worker. In his submissions union counsel noted that certain 3 skilled trades workers with the employer, including plumbers, had actually been rated at payband 11. In a decision dated April 2, 1998 a majority of the arbitration board (Ms. Nieholson dissenting) concluded that although Mr. Matallo and Mr. Porco had at times performed tasks that had also been assigned to skilled trades workers this did not by itself justify rating them on the same basis as a qualified skilled trades worker. The majority commented in this regard as follows: Position description forms for a number of skilled trades, as well as regulations respecting the trade qualifications for an electrician, painter- decorator, general carpenter and plumber were filed at the hearing. These documents indicate that skilled trades workers are expected to be able to perform a wide range of functions, not all of which require the same level of skill, training or experience. The fact that an individual can perform some of the lesser .skilled functions associated with a trade does not logically mean that he or she should be given the same ratings as a typical fully qualified trades worker. When core point rating the two grievors' duties and responsibilities the majority of the arbitration board concluded that their positions should receive a level 3 rating for the factor of training/technical skills. This was higher than the level 2 rating assigned by the employer but lower than the level 4 rating that the union had requested. The increase in points associated with a level 3 rating did not move the two gfievors' positions beyond payband 7. CHANGES SUBSEOUENT TO THE PRIOR GRIEVANCES Subsequent to Mr. Matallo and Mr. Porco filing their initial grievances the employer made a number of staffing changes. Mr. Porco testified that previously there had been a plumber at payband 11 employed at the Casa Loma campus and a plumber and a plumber's apprentice emPloyed at the St. James campus. He said that as of March 1996 there was no plumber at the Casa Loma campus and by March 2004 there was also no plumber at the St. James campus. Mr. Porto indicated that at one time there had been a carpenter at both the Casa Loma and the St. James campuses but this was no longer the case by the time he filed his grievance relating to these proceedings. He added that the number of carpenters had gone to zero at the same time as had the plumbers. Mr. Poreo testified that when he started at the Casa Loma campus there were three electricians but this was reduced to two and then in or about March 1996 reduced again 4 to one electrician. He said that the number of electricians at the St. James campus went from two to one. Mr. Poreo said that there had been four mechanics at the Casa Loma campus but in or about March 1996 this was reduced to two mechanics. He noted that there had been a painter at both the Casa Loma and St~ James campuses but as of March 1996 there was not a painter at either campus. In response to questions from employer counsel Mr. Poreo agreed that in March 2004 there continUed to be two mechanics, one electrician and two maintenance workers at the Casa Loma campus and a similar complement at the St. James campus. He also agreed that one of the mechanics at the St. James campus functioned as a lead hand. Subsequent to the filing of his February 1995 grievance Mr. Poreo received increased training. He testified that in approximately 1995 he obtained a Certificate of QualificatiOn as a Gas Technician which allowed him t° work on gas fixtures and gas lines and in or about 1996 he received a Residential Heating and Air Conditioning Certificate. He said that in 1995 or 1996 he took four or fewer hours of training from Honeywell on a Delta so,ware system that enabled him to know the status of different pieces of equipment. Mr. Poreo agreed with employer counsel that a mechanic might ask him what the Delta System was reading with respect to a particular application. Mr. Porco testified that in 1998 or 1999 he attended a one-day Ingersoll Rand workshop related to door hardware. The most important aspect of Mr. Porco's continuing education involved a Facilities Maintenance Mechanic apprenticeship program (also called a Building Maintenance Mechanic program) that he took in 2001-2. This was a two-year program that involved 240 hours per year at night school at Humber College. It also involved 3,520 hours of on-the-job training for which Mr. Poreo received credit 'for his work with the employer. Mr. Porco testified that as part of the program he tOok theoretical courses with respect to building maintenance, welding, plumbing, electrical, carpentry, trade calculations, and the envelope of a building. He said that the course also touched on building codes, fire codes and building safety. In response to a question fxom employer counsel Mr. Porto agreed that the following list contained in an Ontario Training and Adjustment Board publication reflected the in-school courses that he took as part of the program. CA_AT In-school schooling Basic Level - Health and Safety General Building Maintenance Procedures Bench Work Machining Practices Ladders/Scaffolds/Work Platforms/Rigging Basic Welding Cutting Custodial Applications 5 Basic Building Systems/Automation Trade Calculations Blueprint Reading Advanced Level - Ventilation and Heating Systems Pumps and Compressors General Plumbing General Electrical Advanced Building Systems/Automation Trade Calculations Plans, Specifications and Code Regulations A job description for a Building Maintenance Mechanic contained in the same publication concluded with the following statement: This individual is required to perform in-house and first level maintenance, repairs and diagnostic duties. A qualified joumeyperson must be notified for major repairs and maintenance for the trades of electrical, plumbing, stream fitting, sheet metal work (ventilation), and refrigeration and air-conditioning.- At the hearing Mr. Porco agreed with employer counsel that the job he was being trained for contemplated that there would be circumstances when a Certificate of Qualification plumber or electrician would need to be called in. He also agreed that he was not trained to be a plumber or an electrician. In 2002 the employer prepared a new position description form ("PDF") respecting the grievors' position and reclassified them as Atypical General Maintenance Workers. The PDF was evaluated by the Support Staff Classification Committee as being at the payband 8 level and this rating was adopted by the employer. At the hearing employer counsel explained that the new rating had been the result of increasing the factor of training and technical skills from level 3 to level 4, raising the factor of independent action fxom level 3 to 4 and raising the factor of communications/contacts from level 1 to level 2. Employer counsel submitted that the grievors' job functions had not changed in a fundamental way since then so as to justify a change in their job title or payband. In his f'mal submissions union counsel contended that to the extent Mr. Porco's evidence added to or contradicted the description of his job contained in the PDF his uncontradicted evidence should be accepted. MR. PORCO'S NON-PLUMBING DUTIES Mr. Poreo testified that prior to the staffing changes he spent 20 to 30% of his time performing electrical work but this was now down to 5 to 10%. He attributed this decrease to the fact that within "the last year or so" buildings on the Casa Loma campus had been relamped and the ballasts replaced by an outside contractor. He said that because of this there are now fewer lighting calls to deal with. Mr. Porto testified that prior to the reduction in the number of tradespersons he would go with an electrician to change non-functioning light bulbs and the electrician would check locations where the new bulbs did not work. Later in the' hearing, in response to questions from employer counsel, Mr. Porco indicated that he had changed light bulbs and ballasts both in the presence and in the absence of an electrician. Mr. Porco indicated that he now always performs this task alone or with Mr. Matallo. Mr. Porto testified about replacing lamp holders. He agreed with employer counsel that ballasts and lamp holders are meant to be replaced. Mr. Porco testified that at times he would replace a wall receptacle or a switch by turning off the power, removing the receptacle or switch using a screwdriver, disconnecting the wires and then putting in a new one. As discussed again below, during the hearing a number of work orders were put into evidence. Work orders dated March 8, 15, 18 and 22, 2004 related to work that Mr. Porco performed replacing burned out lights or ballasts. An October 27, 2003 work order referred to a need to "replace burnt out lights/ballast". Mr. Porco attended at the location and discovered that about half of the lights in a women's washroom and nearby area were not working. Mr. Porco testified that he tried a number of unsuccessful approaches to correct the situation and then concluded that it involved an overload situation. He said that he discussed the matter with a lead hand and subsequently an outside electrical contractor was called in to address the problem. Two work orders dated December 1, 2003 and March 11, 2004 related to situations when Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo replaced lights in a gymnasium. They were required to set up scaffolding to get at the lights. A march 15, 2004 work order assigned Mr. Porco to the task of replacing a florescent light cover. He noted on the work order that he was waiting for parts to arrive. 7 Mr. Porco indicated that prior to the staffing changes he. spent 5 to 10% of his time doing carpentry work and he continues to spend about the same amount of time on this function. He said that he and Mr. Matallo had previously performed some of this work with a carpenter but had also done some of the work on their own. He said that the work they performed on their own when a carpenter was employed at the campus included repairs to drywall, tiles, door hardware, door closures, glass and locks. In his evidence Mr. Porto discussed an October 8, 2003 work order that related to work he had performed on October 14, 2003. He disassembled a door lock and aligned the various parts so that the lock was now sitting in its proper setting. Mr. Poreo said that in the past a carpenter had looked after door locks. In response to questions from employer counsel Mr. Porto said that if part of a lock was missing he would check to see if the part was in the shop and if not he would talk to the manager who would get in a locksmith. He said that a locksmith would also be called in to pin a lock. A March 8, 2004 work order led Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo to remove a Unican lock from a room. Mr. Porto said that it was an expensive lock and he had been told to save it. He testified that he and Mr. Matallo used a wrench specifically designed for this lock. He agreed with employer counsel that with the right wrench removing the .lock had been a simple task. A work order dated March 11, 2004 resulted in Mr. Porto addressing a loose doorknob. He testified that he would have either adjusted the knob, taken the lock apart to see what was loose or adjusted the latch plate if that had been the cause of the problem. Still another work order dated March 15, 2004 referred to Mr. Matallo and Mr. Porto removing two deadbolts from a door. The March 2004 work orders included one dated March 1, 2004 that resulted in Mr. Porto replacing broken tiles beneath a door entrance. Mr. Porco agreed with employer counsel that he had been doing this type of work ever since he became a maintenance worker. He said that this was also the case for work that he and Mr. Matallo performed with respect to a March 3, 2004 work order when they installed an existing corkboard above a desk. A work order for March 3, 2004 resulted in Porco and Mr. Matallo removing a radiator cover in order to retrieve a student's tag. Mr. Porto testified that it required using an Allen key to unscrew the cover. A work order dated March 8, 2004 resulted in Mr. Matallo and Mr. Porto working on a door with loose hinges. At the hearing ' Mr. Porto indicated that he did not recall what they did to remedy the situation but suggested that they had probably replaced the 8 hinges. He noted that the door in question was a huge wOoden door that had been an on- going problem. A March 18, 2004 work order referred to Mr. Poreo and Mr. Matallo working on a door closing mechanism. Mr. Porco testified that this might have involved adjusting the settings, replacing the mechanism or perhaps moving the mechanism if the drill holes had become enlarged. Notations on a work order dated March 22, 2004 indicate that'the next day Mr. Matallo and Mr. Porco worked on an entrance door that was not closing properly. Mr. Porco testified that it was an electrical door. He indicated that he and Mr. Matallo might have used a screw driver to adjust the electrical mechanism to either.speed it up or slow it down or they might have addressed a hinge if that had been the cause of the problem A March 8, 2004 work order led Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo to move a chalkboard drafting arm from one room to another. Mr. Porco agreed with employer counsel that' this had involved unscrewing the mechanism from one location and screwing it in at another location. Another work order dated March 15, 2004 referred to the two men removing safety mirrors. Mr. Porco testified that this work had involved unscrewing mirrors with the assistance of a ladder. A work order dated March 8, 2004 resulted in Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo replacing some missing ceiling tiles. Mr. Porco testified that using a ladder they had removed debris, cut tiles to measure and inserted the new tiles. The work order contained the statement "noise coming from surrounding shops". Mr. Porco testified that he and Mr. Matallo had probably investigated noise from the surrounding shops. A work order dated March 15, 2004 referred to some blinds that needed adjustment and repair. At the hearing Mr. Porco indicated that he and Mr. Matallo had repaired what they could by lining the blinds up with guide tracks and replacing pullies and lines that were worn. He said that they verbally reported to the manager that the blinds were ripped. A March 15, 2004 work order indicates that the following day Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo re-patched a hole. At the hearing Mr. Porco said that he believed they had filled in the hole with concrete. Another work order dated March 15, 2004 indicated that the following day Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo installed some banners for a Labour Fair. Mr. Porco said that they used ladders, drilled into concrete and put plugs in the wall. A work order initially dated March 22, 2004 indicates that on March 24th Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo installed two shelves. Mr. Porco testified that he believed they had used toggle bolts because drywall was involved. Employer counsel put it to Mr. 9 Porco that this was a simple procedure. Mr. Porto replied that it was and it wasn't. He noted that a contractor had put up some shelves using plugs and these had fallen down. Two March 24, 2004 work orders resulted in Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo rehanging sound barriers using a caulking gun. Mr. Porco testified that although he had previously spent 10.to 15% of his time doing mechanical work by the time of the grievance this had decreased to 1% or less. He also said that he had previously spent 5% of his time doing painting work but by the time he filed his grievance he was not doing any painting. MR. PORCO'S PLUMBING DUTIES Mr. Porto testified that when a plumber was employed at the Casa Loma campus he had assisted the plumber as a helper. He said that if a drain was blocked the Plumber would say this is what they were going to do and he would assist the plumber to perform the work. Mr. Porco said that he did some independent plumbing work but not as much as he does now and his work now is more involved. Mr. Porco testified that when a plumber was employed at the Casa Loma campus he spent 30% of his time either assisting the plumber or doing plumbing work on his own. He said that he now spends 60 to 70% of his time doing plumbing work, either working alone or with Mr. Matallo. Employer counsel challenged this estimate. He noted that only 14 out of 49 work orders for the month of March 2004 related to plumbing work. Mr. Porco testified that when the plumber left the Casa Loma campus his tools remained behind and were added to. He said that the tools were fOr everyone to use but basically he and Mr. Matallo had used them. He stated that both previously and more recently a lot of big jobs were performed by outside contractors. Mr. Porco testified that in an emergency situation either he or Mr. Matallo would be paged. He said that for the past year or two they have carried pagers but previously they had carded walkie-talkies. He said that emergency calls could relate to a leaking supply line or a toilet overflowing. He indicated that if a problem was caused by a leaking pipe he and Mr. Matallo would cut out the faulty piping and replace it with a new piece that they would solder into place. Mr. Porco referred in his evidence to a situation "a few years ago" when he was paged to address copper piping that was leaking over some light fixtures and onto the floor of a classroom. He indicated that he and Mr. Matallo put out garbage cans to catch 10 as much water as possible and then located an isolation valve and stopped the flow of water. He said that.they discovered the pipe had pin holes and as a temporary measure they put a clamp on the pipe to prevent leaking. He testified that they later cut out the pipe, put in an appropriate sized piece and soldered it. Mr. Porco said that leaking water can destroy walls and tiles, lead to carpet stains and' depending on its severity even cause structural damage.' Union counsel asked Mr. Porco what wOuld happen if an error was made when replacing a pipe. Mr. Porco replied that if the soldering technique was not any good it could result in a bigger leak. Employer counsel put it to Mr. Porco that cutting out a small length of pipe and soldering a replacement was something he had been doing ever since he started with the employer. Mr. Porto disagreed. Employer counsel then asked him if it was something he had done since the plumbers left in 1996. Mr. Porco replied that he did not know the timing involved; it was something that had just evolved. Mr. Porco testified that at times he removed urinals to see if a pipe was leaking and if' it was he replaced part of the pipe. Notations on a work order dated March 26, 2004 referred to two hours of work performed by Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo three days earlier on March 23, 2004. This appears to have been one of a number of instances where either Mr. Porto or Mr. Matallo was orally advised of certain work that needed to be performed and a work order was prepared after the work had been completed. The only description of the problem on the work order was "Men's urinal not working". Mr. Porco testified that he had no recollection of the incident but given the time involved the urinal could have been blocked and they had snaked it or it could have been leaking and they had replaced.part of the piping. Mr. Porto testified that he and Mr. Matallo serviced, repaired and replaced valves, which was work the plumbers had previously performed. In response to a question from employer counsel Mr. Porco agreed that repairing a battery operated valve on a water closet might involve replacing the battery. Employer counsel then put it to Mr. Porco that in other cases the repair would involve using replacement parts. Mr. Porto replied that it would also involve cleaning out debris and scale and taking the valve apart in order to decide what parts needed to be replaced. A March 4, 2004 work order asked Mr. Matallo to address some very cold tap water. The next day Mr. Matallo and Mr. Porco spent half an hour on the problem. Mr. Porco testified that it involved a relatively new installation and they had likely adjusted the water temperature by adjusting a mixing valve under the sink. Mr. Porco said that he and Mr. Matallo would also check, replace and regulate mixing valves for showers and a hand-washing station. He said that this was something the plumber had previously done. tl A work order dated November 27, 2003 indicated that the previous day Mr. Porco had been assigned to what was understood to be a leaking sprinkler. Mr. Porco testified that a hose bib off a coil had been leaking and he had rethreaded the hose bib, something a mechanic or plumber would have done in the past. Later, in response to questions from employer counsel, Mr. Porco agreed that the leak was where a valve attached to the coil. When asked by employer counsel how he had rethreaded the valve Mr. Porco recalled that he did not in fact rethread the valve but had instead tightened it and resealed it with Teflon tape. Mr. Porto testified that at times a tap would not be working or it might have been torn off by a student. Three work orders issued to Mr. Matallo, two dated March 24 and one dated March 26, 2004, related to the same incident when water was leaking through a ceiling because of tap problems. Mr. Porco indicated that he and Mr.' Matallo had turned off the water to three taps in a ladies washroom and when new' taps.arrived they had installed them. A work order dated November 24, 2003 asked Mr. Porco to "replace two faucets missing handles". The work was performed by Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo on December 1, 2003. The work order contained the following hand-written statement by Mr. Porco "verbal to Dave BrOwn 11/26/2003 to order faucet handles - also went'to trade because cartridge broken and replaced them as well". Mr. Porco explained that he had asked Mr. Brown, the lead hand, to order faucet handles since there were none in stock and "we" went to a nearby plumbing store to get the handles and cartridge. Counsel for the union asked Mr. Porto who had made the decision about what to purchase. He replied that "we", presumably meaning him and Mr. Matallo, had probably asked the manager who said OK. Mr. Porco said that this was something the plumber probably would have done in the past. A March 15, 2004 'work order referred to a broken handicapped toilet. Mr. Porco testified that he believed the problem had been with the flush bulb which he replaced with a new one. In his evidence Mr. Porco indicated that when a plumber was employed at the Casa Loma campus he would either assist the plumber to snake floor drains to clear them or he would do the work by himself. He said that after the plumber left he and Mr. Matallo continued to do this work. Mr. Porco noted that a snake could be electrical or hand operated and that different heads could be used. Mr. Porco indicated that toilets and urinals could be snaked. One work order dated March 4, 2004 refers to Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo having worked on a plugged toilet. Mr. Porco testified that they most likely had snaked the toilet. 12 Mr. Porco testified that although individual urinals would sometimes become plugged typically urinals would back up because a main drain line had become plugged. He indicated that sometimes he would use an industrial drain opener to rectify, the problem but because the chemicals involved could erode the copper piping his preference was to remove the urinals and use a snake. Mr. Porto testified that in the late 1990's the employer began to use an outside housekeeping service. He indicated that prior to then housekeeping staff would treat drains with chemicals and remove paper from urinals but such was no longer the case. He said that recently the Casa Loma campus had acquired some new urinals without strainers, which had led to backups since strainers would intercept things like tissue paper. Mr. Porco agreed with counsel for the employer that some urinals have a sensor' on the water closet and that a manual would explain how to analyze problems. In response to questions from employer counsel Mr. Porco agreed that when the employer had plumbers he would remove a urinal from a wall in order to do a repair without a plumber being present. Mr. Porco testified that at times he and Mr. Matallo would be required to break through a wall to access pipes. He said that if the wall was made of drywall he and Mr. Matallo would later fix it but if it was a block wall a contractor might be called in to do the repair. Mr. Porco agreed with employer counsel that when the employer had plumbers there was a time when he had used a hammer to break a wall and he then cut out a piece of pipe, installed some new pipe, performed the soldiering and then reinstalled the urinal, all without any involvement of a plumber. Mr. Porco testified that if he received a call that a toilet was either overflowing or not flushing he would check it out and make the necessary repairs. He said that this might involve addressing a worn handle assembly. He also noted that "the other day" a sensor had not been working on a water closet and he and Mr. Matallo had opened it and discovered that the wiring was loose and reconnected it. Mr. Porco indicated that frequently flushing problems were related to a flushometer. He said that he would mm off the water supply, take the flushometer apart and fix it. Mr. Porco agreed with employer counsel that he would either make a minor adjustment to a part or replace a part with a new part. He said that if the diaphragm was ripped he would replace it. Employer counsel put it to Mr. Porco that he had worked on flushometers ever since he began with the employer. Mr. Porto disagreed..He indicated that he learned .13 how to work on flushometers by watching the plumber and also by having the plumber assist him to do the work. Mr. Porco agreed with employer counsel that he had worked on flushometers by himself when a plumber was employed at the campus. He said, however, that this was only in an emergency situation when the plumber was not around. Later in his evidence Mr. Porto said that the lead hand would send him to work on a flushometer if the plumber was sick or on vacation but if the plumber was present the plumber would be sent. Several of the work orders put into evidence related to problems with flushometers. One was an October 10, 2003 work order with respect to what was described as three plugged toilets. Hand written notations on the work order indicate that on October l0 and 14, 2003 Mr. Porto and Mr. Matallo snaked two of the three toilets "& rebuild 1 flushometer (concealed units)". When discussing this work order at the hearing Mr. Porco said that a concealed unit is one where the flush valve is behind the wall. He said that in "the old days" the plumber together with Mr. Matallo or himself would have done this work. Another work order dated October 20, 2003 referred to urinals not flushing. Mr. Porco spent an hour on the job that day. He noted on the work order that what he did was "rebuild & service flushometer". At the hearing Mr. Porco said that he probably took the flushometer apart and replaced the necessary parts. He added that in the old days the plumber would have done this work. A December 4, 2003 work order referred to a water leak. Handwritten notes on the work order indicate that the preceding day Mr. Porto and Mr. Matallo corrected the problem by snaking a blocked toilet that had been continuously flushing and by readjusting the flushometer. Mr. Porco testified that he and Mr. Matallo shut off the valve to the toilet, cleared the toilet using a hand snake and took apart and serviced the flushometer. Mr. Porto added that this type of call was quite common but in the old days the plumber would have been called. Two work orders from March 2004 referred to flushing problems. The first was dated March 4, 2004. The complaint was that a toilet was continuously flushing. The work order noted that Mr. Matallo and Mr. Porto worked on the problem for half an hour. Mr. Porco testified that while he did not recall the incident given that the toilet had been continually flushing it was likely a flushometer problem. It was inthe context of addressing this work order that he agreed with employer counsel that he would either make a minor adjustment to a part in the flushometer or replace a part with a new part. The second work order was dated March 17, 2004. It noted that a toilet was continuously running. The problem was addressed by Mr. Matallo and Mr. Poreo for about an hour the following day. We infer from Mr. Porco's evidence that the incident likely related to problems with a flushometer. 14 A work order dated December 1, 2003 referred to a flood at a certain location. Notations on the work order indicate that on November 27, 2003 Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo investigated the situation and discovered that the water was coming from a toilet and then running through holes in the ceiling made by a contractor. Mr. Pore° testified that he had fixed the flood. He indicated that because he did not write down the cause of the problem he assumed that it had related to a flushometer. Mr. Porco testified that he dealt with a lot of traps designed to hold water and thereby prevent gasses from the drainage system coming into the building. He said that these traps commonly leak and he and Mr. Matallo would replace and solder new traps. He added that previously the plumber would have done this work. Mr. Porco testified that he and Mr. Matallo serviced plaster traps. He said that previously the plumber had primarily done this work. A work order dated March 9, 2004 contained a direction to "clean 3 traps in room B302". Notations on the work order indicate that on March 11, 2004 Mr. Matallo and Mr. Porco spent about 'an hour and a half performing this task. Mr. Porco testified that plaster of pads had accumulated in the traps. He said that to clean a trap he would remove the trap, take out a liner, dispose of the contents, check the drain for poSsible blockage, put in a new liner and the lid and then ensure that water could flow through the liner and that it had sealed. Employer counsel suggested to Mr. Porco that this was a relatively simple procedure. He replied: "it's simple to a person who knows what they are doing',. Mr. Porco noted that some students had put a trap back together and it had leaked. A work order dated March 11, 2004 referred to "B305 & 317 sinks plugged and overflowing". Notations on the work order indicate that both Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo worked on the problem for about three hours. Mr. Porto testified that the rooms in question had plaster traps. He said that he and Mr. Matallo had likely cleaned out the traps and snaked the drains. Mr. Porco referred in his evidence to a construction interceptor designed to catch sand. He said there was a check valve to prevent debris from going into the piping system. He indicated that at one point the valve had become plugged and he and Mr. Matallo had cleared it. He added that in the old days the plumber would have done this work. The College's Jewelry Arts program utilizes glass piping that connects to the plumbing system. Mr. Porco said that at times eXPensive items would fall down the drains and he and Mr. Matallo would be called to retrieve them. He also said that it was common for the trap system to leak and theY would tighten clamps to correct this. He testified that previously the plumbers had done this work. Later, .in response for questions from employer counsel, Mr. Porco agreed that his connection with glass pipe 15 had involved loosening fittings to remove things and then tightening the fittings. He added that he would also replace glass piping with a newer product but he would not cut the glass. The students in Jewelry Arts use gas torches. A work order dated November 8, 2004 directed that gas valves be checked for leakage. Mr. Poreo and Mr. Matallo attended to the matter the following day. Mr. Poreo testified that they soap tested the equipment at all of the workbenches in order to fred a natural gas leak and to ensure that there was only one leak. He said that after they found the leak they replaced about four feet of pipe. In response to questions from union counsel Mr. Porto testified that a bad repair job could have led to an explosion, although this was unlikely. He also said that if the pipe were not threaded properly one could end up with an even bigger leak. Mr. Poreo testified that the College's dental program has a sanitizer that is used to sanitize equipment. He said that he and Mr. Matallo replaced a back flow preventer on the sanitizer designed to prevent hazardous material from getting into potable water. He said that previously the plumber had dealt with the back flow preventer. He noted that a baekflow preventer could be put on backwards which would result in eontamlnation. In response to questions from employer counsel Mr. Porto acknowledged that a back flow preventer is a fitting and one would use a wrench to unscrew it from the pipe and to screw on a replacement fitting. Mr. Poreo referred to a situation where an outside housekeeping firm had hooked up a soap dispenser by a slop sink in an area that did not have backflow preventers. When responding to a call about hot water in a drinking fountain Mr. Poreo concluded that soap could flow to the drinking fountain. Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo raised the matter with their manager who then brought in a contractor to address the situation. THE WORK ORDERS As noted above, copies of a number of work orders were filed into evidence. Ten of the work orders were produced by Mr. Porco. Nine were dated between October 8 and December 4, 2003. The tenth one, which related to the natural gas leak, was dated November 8, 2004, after the filing of the grievances. Mr. Porco indicated that in the normal course he would not retain a copy of a work order. He said that the ones he produced at the hearing were the only ones he had. The employer produced copies of work orders relating to the Casa Loma campus for the month of March 2004, which was the month during Which the grievances were filed. A total of 49 work orders were produced, most of which are discussed above. One of the others, dated March 8, 2004, referred to a contact person in the Registrar's 16 office but did not indicate what the problem was. A handwritten note indicated that Mr. Porco and Mr. Matallo spent about an hour on March 9, 2004 addressing the problem but did not indicate what they had done. The remaining work orders were ones that involved Mr. Matallo performing work without any assistance from Mr. Porco. Employer counsel asked Mr. Porto if the March 2004 work orders reflected the work that he had performed that month. Mr. Porco replied that there could have been other work he performed for which he did not receive a work order. Employer counsel then asked Mr. Porco if the March 2004 work orders had been a typical reflection of the type of work he performed in a month. Mr. Porco replied, "I guess". He then added that it had been one month out of a calendar year. Employer counsel asked Mr. Porco if March 2004 had been a typical month. Mr. Porco replied that he did not know what was typical. Mr. Porco subsequently agreed with employer Counsel that the March work orders reflected tasks he had been called on to perform each month. As indicated above, at times emergency work was verbally assigned to Mr. Porto or Mr. Matallo and a work order was prepared after they had completed the task. Mr. Porco testified that at times no work order would be issued for work that had been verbally assigned. He said that for one-half or one-third of all emergency jobs there would not be a work order. Mr. Porco also said that the lead hand would at times write out the details of a work order on what he described as a template work order. He said that sometimes he would get such a template work order and not later receive a computer generated work order. No work orders with handwritten work directions were introduced into evidence. MR. PORCO'S POSITION COMPARED TO THAT OF A PLUMBER Over the objections of employer counsel a majority of the arbitration board (Ms. Burke dissenting) permitted union counsel to ask Mr. Porco how his duties and responsibilities compared with those listed in a PDF related to the former plumber position rated at payband 11. At the time the evidence appeared to be at least arguably relevant. Having now had the oppommity to hear Mr. Porco's evidence and the final submissions of counsel we are satisfied that the evidence was not in fact relevant. The fact that Mr. Porco took on duties formerly performed by a plumber is relevant. His current position, however, must be rated in accordance with the job evaluation manual and not in comparison with a former position rated at a higher level than what the union is seeking in these proceedings. Employer counsel put it to Mr. Porco that a plumber would do things that he does not do. Mr. Porco replied that he does not do new installations. Employer counsel later put it to Mr. Porco that new installations require advanced plumbing skills. Mr. Porco replied that this was possibly the case although he knew plumbers who had performed residential work for 30 years who could not repair a flushometer. Mr. Porto subsequently agreed with employer counsel that he does not address the full range of plumbing issues like new installations. Still later, in response to a question from union counsel, Mr. Porco said that he did not recall the employer's plumbers doing any new installations; rather the practice was to call people in. He also noted that his department .is called the maintenance department and it is not an installation depamnent. The employer filed into evidence regulations under the Trades'Qualification and Apprenticeship Act consolidated as of January 1, 2004 respecting the certified trades of electrician, plumber and refrigeration and air-conditioning mechanic. The regulation respecting the trade of plumber requires an apprenticeship program comprised of five periods of full-time, education and work experience eaehtotaling 1800 hours, for a total of 9,000 hours. The regulation calls for a plumber apprentice's wages to start at 40% of a joumeyperson's rate during the first training period and then to rise during each of the four remaining periods until it reaches 80%. The regulation contains lists of the instructions to be provided to an apprentice during the in-school and work experience training periods. The topics involved are much more extensive than what was covered in the training that Mr. Porto received at Humber College. The regulation defines a plumber in the following terms: "plumber" means a person who, a) lays out, assembles, installs, maintains or repairs in any structure, building or site, piping, fixtures and appurtenances for the supply of water for any domestic or industrial purpose or the disposal of water that has been used for any domestic or industrial purpose, b) connects to piping any appliance that uses water supplied to it or disposes of waste, e) installs the piping for any process, including the conveyance of gas, or any tubing for a pneumatic or air-handling system, d) makes joints in piping, or e) reads and understands design drawings, manufacturers' literature and installation diagrams for piping and appliances connected thereto, but does not include a person engaged in, f) the manufacture of equipment or the assembly of a unit prior to delivery to a building, structure or site, g) the laying of metallic or non-metallic pipe into trenches to form sanitary or storm sewers, drains or water mains, 18 h) the repair and maintenance of the installations in an operating industrial plant, or i) the installation, removal, maintenance and testing of water meters, up to an including water meters with a 25 millimetre inlet and outlet. It is apparent that although Mr. Porco performs some plumbing work he does not perform the full range of duties that could be expected of a plumber. THE APPROPRIATE JOB FAMILY The employer classifies Mr. Porco's position as being part of the General Maintenance Worker job family. Mr. Porco's grievance was written so as to initially claim the classification of Atypical Skilled Trades Worker. This was later amended to read "Atypical Trades Worker".. The job evaluation manual indicates that an' employee's position might come within the General Maintenance Worker job family, the Skilled Trades Worker job family or an "Atypical" job family if it cannot be assigned to any existing job family. The manual does not contemplate an Atypical Trades Worker job family. The job evaluation manual contains the following job family definitions respecting the General Maintenance Worker and Skilled Trades Worker job families and the typical duties of each: General Maintenance Worker Job Family Definition This family covers positions that perform semi-skilled work in rusks usually associated with one or more of the skilled trades in the installation, maintenance, repair and general upkeep of buildings, grounds, equipment and facilities. Typical Duties Operates grass mowing machines and snow removal equipment. Performs daily minor repairs of a semi-skilled nature to buildings and grounds. Performs general maintenance tasks such as building cupboards, installing locks, notice boards, painting, etc. Undertakes fertilizing program, pruning of trees and shrubs etc. 19 Maintains fencing and sign posts. Undertakes minor repairs to equipment. Assists in moving supplies and furniture. Skilled Trades Worker Job Family Definition This family covers positions that perform skilled work in the installation, maintenance,, repair and general upkeep of buildings, equipment, systems and facilities which require the application of skills and knowledge of one or more of the skilled trades to qualify for a Certificate of Qualification or Certificate of Apprenticeship. Typical Duties Typical duties performed require the application of skills and sufficient knowledge and experience to qualify for a Certificate of Qualification or Certificate of Apprenticeship in skilled trades such as: General Carpenter, Commercial and Residential Painter, Brick and Stone Mason, Welder, Locksmith, Nurseryman-Landscaper. Typical duties performed require the application of skills and sufficient knowledge and expertise to qualify for a Certificate of Qualification or Certificate of Apprenticeship in compulsory certified trades such as: Motor Vehicle Mechanic, Electrician, Plumber, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Mechanic. The definition for the General Maintenance Worker job family refers to the performance of semi-skilled work in tasks usually associated with one or more of the skilled trades. The definition for the Skilled Trades Worker job family and the list of associated typical duties refer to the application of skills and knowledge that would qualify for a Certificate of Qualification or Certificate of Apprenticeship. Mr. Porco is primarily engaged in performing semi-skilled tasks. Some of the duties he performs are tasks that would generally be performed by a plumber. It is clearly not the case, however, that he has the skills and experience to qualify for a Certificate of Qualification as a plumber. He did complete a Facilities Maintenance Mechanics apprenticeship program. That program, however, was wide ranging and did not qualify him in any of the traditional trades or provide him with the same' in-depth knowledge and skill as someone holding a Certificate of Qualification in the one of the trades. 20 Given the nature of Mr. Porco's duties we conclude that his position fits within the General Maintenance Worker job family. THE JOB FACTOR OF COMPLEXITY The job evaluation manual states that this factor measures the mount and nature of analysis, problem solving and reasoning required to perform job-related duties. It measures the conceptual demands of a job as characterized by the analysis and interpretation required for problem and solution definition, as well as creativity, mental challenge, degree of job structure, planning activities and the variety and difficulty of tasks. The.employer rated the grievor's position at level 3, which is worth 41 points under the job evaluation system. The union argued for a level 4 rating worth 58 points. The criteria for levels 3 and 4, as well as the associated illustrative classifications read as follows: 3. Job duties require the performance .of various routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods. Clerk General C; General Maintenance Worker; Secretary A 4. Job duties require the performance of varied, non-routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods. Clerk General D; Library Technician B; Programmer A, B Counsel for the union contended that Mr. Porco had inherited part of the responsibilities of a plumber and this raised his duties from being routine to non-routine. He argued that the union did not need to demonstrate that Mr. P°rco performed at the level 5 rating that had been given to the now vacant plumber position. Union counsel noted that the previous arbitration decision had upheld a level 3 rating for this factor and contained the following paragraph: Most of the grievors' duties appear to have been relatively routine in the sense that the grievors generally dealt with the same situations on an ongoing basis. Certain tasks, such as snaking drains, were added to the range of tasks they performed, but these too apparently became routine. If the grievors came across something out of the ordinary they were not eXPected to try to determine a solution to the problem. Rather the matter was referred to a skilled trades worker. Union counsel contended that in the past when a matter went beyond snaking drains it was referred to a plumber but such is no longer the case. He submitted that previously non-routine matters were referred to a plumber but after the plumbers left problems still arose with respect to leaks and backflows and there, was still a need to replace and rebuild valves. He argued that Mr. Porco had picked up enough new plumbing tasks that his job now involves the performance of varied non-routine complex tasks. In his general arguments, not limited only to the factor of complexity, employer counsel noted that although the grievances that led to the prior proceedings were filed in 1994 and 1995 evidence was given at the arbitration hearing in 1996 and 1997. He submitted that this evidence reflected what the grievors were doing following the layoff of the plumbers. In the alternative, he argued that if the evidence reflected what the grievors were doing prior to when the plumbers were laid off it had involved the same work they performed subsequent to the layoffs, including changing ballasts and .light bulbs, snaking and replacing parts on flushometers. He argued that in either event, the evidence reviewed in the 1998 arbitration award respecting the grievors' duties was the same as the evidence led before this arbitration board and accordingly the matter is res judicata. Employer counsel contended that the fact General Maintenance Workers work in the skilled trades does not make them Skilled Tradespersons. He argued that skilled tradespersons are persons who are educated and qualified and potentially could be called on to perform the full panoply of a skilled trade. He submitted that this is not the situation with the grievors. Employer counsel noted that in 1996 the employer had rated a plumber at level 5 for the factor of complexity. He submitted that the union is now contending that because the gfievors inherited part of the plumber's duties level 4 is the appropriate rating. He asked what duties would place the grievors at level 4. He contended that it could not be that they now work on flushometers or do snaking because they had previously performed these tasks. He contended that nothing is to be gained by looking at the PDF for the plumber position because the grievors are not performing all of the work described in the PDF. Employer counsel submitted that the grievors have become proficient in performing basic workl He described them as valued employees doing important work but who perform the basic duties of the trades, which is what a General Maintenance Worker does. He submitted that they are called to deal with matters such as flushing toilets and plugged drains, the same as had previously been the case. Employer counsel contended that there was no evidence of Mr. Porco addressing system problems, which is what tradespersons are for. He submitted that the grievors have supervisors and a lead hand with qualifications who they can refer matters to. He argued that when a problem starts to bump up against a hard skill the grievors report the matter to a supervisor and a plumber or an electrician is then called in. Employer counsel contended that the PDF for the grievors' position accurately reflects the level of complexity for the position. The relevant portion of the PDF reads as follows: Knowledge of the various building components, systems and equipment at the College. Provides assistance to the maintenance trades-persons. Plans, has good judgement and general knowledge of the various construction trades. The ability to detect, locate problems and react to minimize damage. Basic knowledge of replacement parts for equipment repairs. Employer counsel submitted that the difference between the criteria for a level 3 and a level 4 rating comes down to the difference between variOus routine tasks and varied non-routine tasks. He submitted that a level 3 rating applies when tasks repeat themselves with the same or similar variables and there are not many options or alternatives. He contended that with a level 3 rating there is a diversity of tasks but these tend to repeat and one implements the same solutions again and again, which describes what Mr. Porco does. He submitted that Mr. Porto does not troubleshoot the HVAC system or the electrical distribution system but rather troubleshoots a flooding toilet or a series of toilets. One of the illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating is General Maintenance Worker. Mr. Porco's duties go beyond those listed on the guide chart for General Maintenance Worker, which talks about minor repairs. The guide chart for Skilled Trades Worker indicates that an employee performing the typical duties of this classification, including a plumber, would appropriately be rated at level 4. Although Mr. Porco performs functions that would generally be performed by a plumber it cannot reasonably be said that his duties fit the typical duties set out in the guide chart for a Skilled Trades Worker. This guide chart refers to duties that "require the application of skills and sufficient knowledge and experience to qualify for the Certificate of 23 Qualification or Certificate of Apprenticeship in compulsory certified trades such as ... Plumber". The illustrative classifications and guide charts can at times be helpful in understanding how the drat'ters of the classification system intended certain functions to be rated. In this case, however, the guide charts suggest that Mr. Porco's duties are somewhat more complex than those associated with a typical General Maintenance Worker at payband 3 and generally less complex than those of a typical Skilled Trades WOrker at payband 4. To determine the "best fit" one must refer to the wording of the level definitions. The main difference between the criteria for a level 3 and a level 4 rating is that at level 3 tasks are of a routine nature whereas at level 4 they are varied and non-routine. The evidence discussed above, including the various work orders, indicates that moSt of Mr. Poreo's duties remain routine in nature. Subsequent to the lay-off of the plumber at the Casa Loma campus, however, he began to take on a wider range of work. We do not accept the suggestion of employer counsel that the lay-off of the plumber at the Casa Loma campus did not impact on Mr. Porto's job duties. It was Mr. Porco's uncontradicted evidence that previously he had only worked on flushometers without a plumber when the plumber was not available. He also said that previously a plumber had tightened clamps to correct leaks in traps in Jewelry Arts, replaced haps, checked, replaced and regulated mixing valves, replaced a back flow preventer on a .sanitizer in the dental area and serviced the check valve respecting the construction interceptor. Given the increased range of Mr. Porco's duties, we are satisfied that he has at times been called on to perform varied and non-routine tasks. The evidence relating to the March 2004 work orders suggeSt that Mr. Porco likely worked on a flushometer on March 4th and 18th, adjusted a mixing valve on March 5th and cleaned out plaster haps on March 1 l th. At times he replaced piping and Mr. Porco's evidence indicated that this might have been what he did on March 23, 2004. The evidence respecting the nine work orders between October 8 and December 4, 2003 indicated that he likely worked on flushometers on October 10 and/or 14, October 20, November 27, and December 3rd, 2003. A later work order indicated that he and Mr. Matallo located and repaired a gas leak on November 9, 2004. It was the uncontradicted evidence of Mr. Porco that one-half or one-third of all emergency jobs were not covered by a work order, even one issued after-the-fact, and that some handwritten work orders on a "template" form had not been followed up with a computer generated work order. Given these considerations we'conclude that while Mr.' Porco generally did not perform unusual tasks it was also not a rare occurrence. In our view, it happened often enough to warrant taking the tasks into account when rating his position. Having regard to these considerations we conclude that at times Mr. Porco's plumbing duties involve the performance of varied nOn-routine comPlex tasks. Accordingly his position should be rated at level 4 for the factor of complexity.. The job evaluation manual states that this factor measures the independent judgement and problem-solving required on the job. It assesses the difficulty in identifying various alternate choices of action and in exercising judgement to select the most appropriate action. It also considers mental processes such as analysis, reasoning or evaluation. The employer rated the grievor's position at level 3, which is worth 48 points. The union contends that level 4, which produces 66 points, is a more appropriate rating. The definitions and illustrative classifications set out in the job evaluation manual are as follows: 3. Job duties require some moderate degree of judgement. Problem- sOlving involves the identification and breakdown of the facts and components of the problem situation. Clerk General C; Secretary A, B; Security Guard 4. Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem- solving involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with established analytical techniques. ECE Worker, Nurse, Secretary C Union counsel stated that the payband 11 Atypical Plumber had been rated at level 6 for this factor whereas in these proceedings the union is claiming two levels lower. In his submisSions union counsel referred to a portion of the April 2, 1998 award which rejected Mr. Reid's assertion that the grievors had exercised the same or a greater degree of judgement than skilled trades workers employed at the College. The award noted that "apart fxom the non-routine situations referred to earlier, when faced with something out of the usual they (the grievors) were not expected to resolve the problem but' rather it was referred to a skilled trades worker for resolution". Union counsel submitted that the referral of matters to a Skilled Trades Worker had served to block a 25 move to level 4, but now there was no such block for plumbing work since Mr. Porco does not have the opportunity to refer to a plumber. Employer counsel contended that the following entry in the PDF respecting the factor of judgement accurately reflects the degree of independent judgement and problem-solving required for Mr. Porco's position: Common understanding of priorities set by management. Incumbent is expected to investigate nature and cause of maintenance 'problems. Evaluation of various repair alternatives based on criteria such as cost, time, age of equipment, availability, etc. Liaison with occupants for suitable access to repair. Should common remedies not prove adequate, the incumbent consults with the Lead-hand, skilled trade worker or the Campus Manager for alternative solutions. Employer counsel contended that if common remedies are not adequate then a skilled tradesperson will be brought in. He referred to a portion of the April 2, 1998 award respecting the factor of judgement which noted that the plumber's PDF said that a plumber must be able to identify and resolve problems which may be integral to systems. Employer counsel argued that. in these proceedings there had not been any evidence of the grievors having addressed systems problems. He argued that tradespersons would address an overall system. He noted that when the grievors identified a backflow problem that might contaminate drinking water a plumbing contractor had been called in to deal with the situation. Employer counsel noted that the regulation under the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act requires that a plumber spend five years learning the trade, including how to lay out and install piping and fixtures. He argued that unlike the description of a plumber's work in the regulation the grievors do not maintain and repair piping and fixtures for the supply of water, have not been trained to connect appliances and do not make joints in piping. He also noted that the regulation specifies that a plumber is not a person engaged in the repair and maintenance of the installations in an operating industrial plant. He suggested that this was a description of a General Maintenance Worker. Employer counsel contended that a level 3 rating applies to job duties which require the breakdown of facts and components of a problem, such as?I've got a flooding toilet". He contended that a level 4 rating does not describe a flooding toilet or lights that are not working. He submitted that level 4 is appropriate when there is a complex interaction of systems and an employee must analyze the interaction to figure out a solution. 26 The guide charts indicate that someone performing the typical duties of a General Maintenance Worker would typically receive a level 3 rating for the factor of judgement whereas someone performing the duties of a Skilled Trades Worker would typically receive a level 4 rating. As already noted Mr. Porco is' not a Skilled Trades Worker althOugh certain of his duties go beyond the typical duties of a General Maintenance Worker. The criteria for a level 3 ruling clearly encompass the great majority of Mr. Porco's work. For example, changing light bulbs basically requires breaking down the steps to be taken in terms of accessing the light, taking out the old bulb and putting in a new one. Little or no additional analysis is required. Some of the plumbing tasks that Mr. Porco performs, howeVer, go beyond this and require some degree of analysis. For example, taking apart a valve to see what parts need to be replaced, accessing and rebuilding a concealed flushometer and repairing a leak by cutting out and replacing a length of piPe. The evidence suggests that the analytical techniques used to address these problems are fairly straightforward. This, however, fits within the phrase "established analytical techniques". Some plumbing problems have been referred to an outside contractor but the lack of an onsite plumber has resulted in Mr. Porco becoming involved in handling an additional number of conventional problems using established analytical techniques. It is not a level of judgement that he is expected to exercise on a regular basis but he' is expected to do so as and when required. In these circumstances we fred a level 4 rating worth 66 points to be appropriate. STRAIN FROM WORK PRESSURES/DEMANDS/DEADLINES This factor measures the strain associated with, or caused by, fi'equency and predictability of deadlines, interruptions, distractions and/or workloads, multiple and/or conflicting demands and/or dealing with people in difficult situations. The employer rated this factor at level 3 worth 28 points. The union argues.in favour of a level 4 rating worth 39 points. The level definitions and illustrative classifications are as follows: 3. Job duties involve moderate work pressures or. demands. Interruptions, changing deadlines, multiple demands occur regularly but are usually predictable. Occasionally, critical deadlines may occur. Clerk General C, D; Secretary A, B; SSO A, B 27 4. Job duties involve conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in workflow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and occasional critical deadlines. Secretary C; SSO C, D; Tech Support Specialist The illustrative classifications do not refer to employees' who perform maintenance or skilled trades work. The relevant guide charts, however, indicate that a person performing the typical duties of a General Trades Worker and a person performing the typical duties of a Skilled Trades Worker would both be rated at level 3 for this factor. Counsel for the employer relied on this fact in his submissions. He further contended that although the grievors face interruptions and multiple demands these are usually predictable, such as being called to a flooding situation. Counsel for the union contended that Mr. Porco's position rates a level 4 rating because unlike the plumber who dealt only with plumbing Mr. Porco's duties overlap with electrical, carpentry and other areas. He argued that Mr. Porco has a greater range of responsibilities than would a plumber and must deal with those responsibilities in the context of a diminished.complement of maintenance personnel and an increasing student population. He argued that with the evolution of the job it was only reasonable that the associated strain has increased. He' further argued that workflows are now unpredictable. Mr. Porco is continually faced with interruptions and multiple demands. The evidence, however, does not suggest that his work situations are unpredictable. Further, although some situations have a greater urgency than others, there is no suggestion that his priorities actually shift. Water leaking through a ceiling as a result of an overflowing toilet will always take priority over a routine function such as replacing burnt out light bulbs. In all the circumstances we conclude that level 3 is the appropriate rating for this factor. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS AND ACTIONS This factor measures the impact on internal and public relations, the responsibility for information management, equipment, assets and records, and the consequences of decisions and/or actions. The employer rated this factor at level 3 worth 44 points. The union contends that a level 4 rating worth 62 points is more appropriate. The criteria and illustrative classifications for these ratings are as follows: 28 3. Decisions and/or actions have moderate impact on the organization. Errors are usually detected by verification and review and may result in disruption of the workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited waste or resources. Clerk General C, D; General Maintenance Worker; Reproduction Equipment Operator B, C; Secretary B, C 4. Decisions and/or actions have considerable impact on the organization. Errors are detected after the fact and may result in considerable interruption and delay in work output and waste of resources. ECE Worker; Stationary Engineer C; SSO B, C; Technologist B, C As noted above, a General Maintenance Worker is an illustrative classification for a level 3 rating. The applicable guide chart indicates that a skilled trades worker would typically be rated at level 4 for this factor. Counsel for the union contended that Mr. Porco now has the opporttmity to make mistakes on tasks previously performed by a plumber, such as soldering, fixing urinals, tracking down and repairing leaks and detecting improperly installed backup preventers. He submitted that along with the opportunity to make bigger errors has come greater responsibility. Counsel for the employer contended that level 4 applies to system applications and a system not being installed properly. He argued that if Mr. Porco should make an error there would not be a considerable interruption or delay in work output or waste of resources, rather the work would have to be done over again. The evidence suggests that any errors in most of the work performed by Mr. Porco would be detected on completion of the task, such as when he determined whether a door lock was now working properly. Even in cases where errors would be detected after the fact it does not appear that the errors would result in a considerable interruption or delay in work output and waste of resOurces. This is tree even with respect to the additional plumbing duties taken on by Mr. Porco. Union counsel referred to the possibility that a backflow preventer might be wrongly installed. There was evidence of Mr; Porto replacing a backflow preventer in the dental area. Had .it been wrongly installed and not detected by him on completing the task there conceivably could have been serious negative implications. This was, however, the only example provided of 29 such a possible situation. It is noteworthy that when the lack of backflow preventers in another area was identified as a problem an outside contractor was brought in to address the matter. Having regard to these considerations we conclude that the criteria for a level 3 rating appropriately describes Mr. Porco's situation. CONCLUSION The ratings assigned to the various job factors by the employer resulted in Mr. Porto's position receiving a total of 547 points. As noted above, the majority of Mr. Porto's duties meet the criteria for level 3 ratings for bOth complexity and judgement. At times, however, he is called upon to address non-routine complex tasks and to handle a variety of conventional problems with established analytical techniques. This justifies a level 4 rating for both the factors of complexity and judgement. The resulting additional points bring the total for Mr. Porto's position to 582 points. This is within the 571 to 630 range for payband 9. Having regard to the above considerations we conclude that Mr. Porco's position is that of an Atypical General Maintenance .Worker at payband 9. Given the agreement of the'parties to treat Mr. Porco as a representative grievor this finding also applies to the positions occupied by Mr. Matallo and Mr. Severino. This arbitration board retains jurisdiction to address any issues that might directly arise out of this award. Dated this 5th day of December, 2005. "Sherril Murray". Union Nominee 01 Dec ~00~ b:~Mn M~ ~n~, DISSENT Having now had an opportunity to review the decision of the majority, i have concluded that ! m.ust regretfully dissent. This conclusion is based on both the frequency and nature of the tasks considered in respect of the factors complexity- and judgment and upon an analysis of the "relative value" or "relative worth" of the positien in issue, as compared to other positions ratecl atthe levels proposed by the majority. Based on the evidence before us, I agree that the majority of Mr. Porco's tasks are routine in natUre. Where ! disagree with the majority is as to the impa~ of the additional duties performed by Mr. Porco following the elimination of plumbers. Mr. Proc'o's evidence was that while there were still plumbers employed at the College, he was engaged, either alone or as a helper to the plumber, in many of the tasks relied upon before us-to support an increase in the evaluation of the factors ot= complexity and judgment. The tasks involved 'do not come close to reflecting the work which a qualified plumber can be expected to perform and, to the extent that these tasks are performed at all, it would appear that they are performed infrequently. Similarly, Mr. Porco's evidence indicates that the tasks in question are repetitive requiring little or no "analysis" as the required responses are quile limited and routine. The mere fact that plumbers were once engaged in performing such tasks does not in Itself elevate either the complexity or judgment required lo perform those tasks. In effect, Mr. Porto learned from his previous work experience and assistanc~e to licensed plumbers how to respond to a very few isolated problems, which arise from time to time. To the extent that he is ever called upon to perform varied, non-routine tasks, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that these qualify as "complex tasks involving different and unrelated pzocesses and/or methods" or thal~ problems are resolved by the exercise of 'analytical techniques" as these terms apply to the positions discussed below. Since the ratings for these factors as argued by the College clearly reflect the majority of Mr. Porco's duties, I believe that it is inappropriate to interfere with those ratings, based on the evidence before us. The Core Point Rating Plan also directs us to analyze the 'relative worth" of positions by comparing them to other positions rated as suggested by the Union. At p. 3 of Section VII, we are to consider the illustrative classifications "to ensure consistency in the application of the Plan." The illustrative classifications which exemplify the level assigned for each factor are also to be carefully reviewed. Section VII p. 4. Such an analysis indicates that, in relation to the factors of complexity and judgment, the Union's proposed ratings would suggest that Mr. Porco's duties compare favourably with the following positions: Child/adult Development Counsellor Clerk General D Computer operator B Early Chilcihood Education Worker Nurse (not practical nurse which receives a rating of level 3 - 48 points with respect to judgment) Programmer A Reproduction Operator C Secretary C Skilled Trades Worker Stationary Engineers B and C Support Services Officer A Technician C Technologist A review of the typical duties of the above noted positions indicates that in each case the responsibilities are not in any way comparable, in relation to complexity and judgment, to those described by Mr. Porco in his evidence'. In this sense, I cannot agree that the "besl~ fit" with respect to these.two factors can be found to be level 4. December 1, 2005 ~ ~ Ann E. Burke