Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGrimstead 89-08-23 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION between CANADORE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY (hereinafter referred to as the College) and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (hereinafter referred to as the Union) Classification Grievance of Paul Grimstead Sole Arbitrator: G. ,I. I~andt Appearances: For the Union: George A. Richards Senior Grievance Officer Paul Grimstead, Grievor For the College: Bruce Sutherland, Personnel Officer John Hards, Supervisor Paul Argue, Director Hearing: North Bay, Ont. July 10, 1989. 2 AWARD 1. Introduction This is a classification grievance of Paul Grimstead who is employed as an Aviation Technologist in the Aviation and Technology Program and classified as a Technologist B. He seeks a reclassification to Technologist C. Pay Band 12. The factors in dispute are: Job Difficulty: Complexity and Judgment Guidance received: Guidelines Available Communications: Purpose of Contacts Working Environment: Manual Effort (Degree and Prevalence) Visual Strain (Prevalence) Environment: (Degree and Prevalence) The following table sets out the respective evaluations of the job factors in dispute by the College and Union. College Union Job Difficulty: D5 194 E6 246 Guidance Received D4 150 E4 177 Communications C3 84 E3 135 Working Conditions Manual Effort B3 7 C5 21 Visual B2 5 B4 10 Environment C3 15 D4 28 Total Points 634 796 Pay Band Number 10 12 4 to certify major repair work. Where the problem is of a sort which requires major repairs or overhauls they are either done by Mr. Hards, assisted by the grievor, or by the grievor under the supervision of Mr. Hards. If the aircraft requires only minor repairs they are done by the grievor without the authorization and/or supervision of Mr. Hards. Although major repairs and overhauls are done generally by Mr Hards it is necessary that the work be "signed off" by 2 people. Consequently, the grievor may be called in to assist and to check Mr. Hard's work to see that it is done according to legal requirements. The time involve in this work would be approximately 8 hours out of the 40 hours normally required to do an overhaul. Once a Job is completed it is signed out in the log books (i.e. journey log, maintenance log and engine log) i.e. the aircraft is certified as ready for flight. Before completing the Job it may be necessary to do some flight testing of the aircraft. The second major group of duties (35%) concern the routine inspection and servicing of aircraft. These inspections are done at regular intervals according to the number of hours of flying time of the aircraft, eg. 50 hrs, 100 hrs, 200 hrs. etc. The extent of the inspection and the tasks required to be done vary with the inspection, i.e. a 200 hour inspection requires that more be done than a 50 hour inspection. 5 During the course of these inspections some of the "snags" referred to above will be identified and dealt with. Again the distribution of the workload as between the grievor and Mr. Hards follows the same distinction between major and minor repairs. Once these inspections are done the work is signed out as having been completed and the aircraft is certified as airworthy. Some flight testing may be necessary before the work is "signed off". Considerable evidence was led with respect to the matter of certification of the aircraft as airworthy. Both Mr. Hards and the gr.ievor have the right and the responsibility to "ground" an aircraft if they are of the opinion_ that.it is notair_worthy~ - The grievor stated that this involves him frequently in "debates" both with the pilot instructors and with Mr. Hards over the necessity to ground an aircraft. Pilots frequently want to use the aircraft in order to be able to complete the instructional program within the time available. In some instances that time may become depressed as a result of bad weather. However, it is the grievor's responsibility to ensure that the aircraft is safe for flying. Consequently it may be necessary to "persuade" the pilots of the need to keep the aircraft on the ground until the necessary repairs are completed. Mr. Hards agreed that there are "honest differences of opinion" concerning the airworthiness of an aircraft and that efforts may be necessary to reach a consensus with the pilots as to whether 6 or not an aircraft should be permitted to fly. He further conceded that either the grievor or he had the authority to ground an aircraft over the objection of the other and that the grievor had some discretion to permit an aircraft which required only minor repairs to continue flying, eg. for a short period of time if it was due for a major inspection in the near future. Within the broad framework of repair and servicing duties outline above there are a number of different tasks performed by the grievor (which are argued by the Union to bear on the overall complexity of the job). 1. Aligning and balancing rotor blades to cut down on vibration in flight. This requires the grievor to disassemble the rotor blades, lift them out of the aircraft, place them on a balancing stand and ensure that the blades are in a straight line and are weighted in a proper fashion. Rotor blades are changed an average of 4 times a year and the job takes approximately 2 days on average to complete. 2. Assisting a technologist C with installation and trouble shooting in avionics, an activity in which the grievor is responsible for running wires, fabricating some sheet metal for building brackets and in cutting holes in instrument panels. 3. Changing and adjusting hydraulic servos which assist in controlling the pitch of rotor blades, done by simulating the flight characteristics of rotor blades while performing the work. 7 Such problems arise on a weekly basis and could occupy the grievor for periods of time between 1 hour and 2 weeks. 4. Trouble shooting vibration sensitive turbine engines by the use of e.g. electrical metal chip detectors to detect metal flowing in oil. 5. Repairs of holes or cracks in the skin of the aircraft through sheet metal or fibreglass work. 6. Structural repairs such as replacing or adding new stringers, monitoring loose rivets and changing them if necessary. There was no need to do this job in the last year. 7. Minor repairs and replacement of honeycomb materials (half a dozen times a year) through the use of epoxy material. In the performance of his duties the grievor has access to a number of different manuals. These include the manuals of the engine manufacturer, the manufacturer of the aircraft, and bulletins of the Department of Transport all of which are periodically revised and updated. It was Mr. Hard's opinion that minor repairs are straightforward except where the problem is an unusual one (estimated by Mr. Hards to be approximately 10% of the time) in which case the grievor could consult the manuals for a solution. The grievor stated that the manuals were "very general" (a point disputed by Mr. Hards who described them as setting out a step by step procedure to follow and as providing a diagram of the job to be done), that he "sometimes"'consulted them but that 8 in some cases, eg. vibrations that were hard to solve it was necessary to experiment with various solutions and talk to pilots before arriving at a solution. He further stated that Mr. Hards was frequently not available for consultation and that he received little verbal or written instruction for Mr. Hards. Most of the duties performed by the grievor are performed in the hangar, a heated building, although in some instances they are performed outdoors, eg. where adjustments are made while the aircraft is running outside the hangar. In addition it may be necessary for the grievor to attend to problems at the bush camp which is generally held in January or February. [In the winter preceding the grievance the grievor was required to spend a full month at the bush camp.] The tools used to perform the duties include a number of small tools (cutters, pliers, screw drivers) and torque wrenches the largest of which weighs 12 pounds and was described the grievor as "cumbersome". The torque wrench is used on a number of jobs (approximately once every 2 weeks according to the grievor) and in particular on changing the main rotor blades ( approximately 4 times a year). The grievor is also required to do some lifting and carrying. Main rotor blades which weigh 200 pounds are stored in a storage area above the hangar floor and must be carried down 15 step by 2 people where they are placed on a balancing stand and are aligned and balanced before being lifted by crane on to the aircraft. Similarly, blades taken from the aircraft must be 9 carried up to the storage area. The balance stand, which weighs 50-75 pounds, must also be carried down from the storage area. Finally the grievor may be required to move oil cans around and may need to move the aircraft, loaded on a trailer on wheels, into and out of the hangar. Assistance with these tasks is available from students in the program and from technicians and technologists at the School of Aircraft Maintenance which is located at the same facility. The grievor is required (in his estimation on a daily basis) to climb on the aircraft for purposes of inspection or, for example, to disconnect the main rotor blades. The height to which he must climb varies between 2 and 10 feet and may involve either using a ladder or climbing on parts of the frame of the aircraft which may be greasy. In the course of performing his duties the grievor is exposed to various risks. These include those associated with the crashing of an aircraft during testing (rare) or with having to perform certain functions while the rotor blades are moving. In addition the grievor is exposed to various kinds of fumes from paint, aviation fuel, and cleaning materials. At the time of the grievance there was no fan which exhausted these fumes from the hangar building. The grievor is provided with a protective mask, with safety glasses for certain grinding work, and with safety gloves when he is required to handle toxic cleaning materials. 10 He is also exposed to some visual strain in that he is required to conduct a close inspection of the aircraft when checking for cracks. Where a crack is suspected the diagnosis is confirmed by subjecting the area to a process involving the use of a "black light" which will confirm whether or not what is observed is a crack or merely a scratch. Other "close" work includes the inspection of cotter pinned flight controls (1/4") and the'general daily inspection of the aircraft for defects and leaks of various kinds. 3. Argument and Conclusions 1. Job Difficulty a) Complexity It is submitted by the Union that the position should be rated at level E, viz, "performance of non-routine and relatively unusual tasks that may require the application of specialized processes or methods." In support of that claim it is argued that one measurement of complexity is the variety of different jobs that need to be done each of which may require different skills. In that regard reference was made to balancing rotor blades, assisting with installation of avionics, adjusting hydraulic servos, trouble shooting vibration problems, sheet metal repairs, and repairs to stringers and to honeycomb materials as illustrative of the variety of different jobs that the grievor may from time to time be called upon to do. 11 The College does not dispute that the grievor performs complex tasks. However, it disputes that the tasks are "relatively unusual" (except for a small proportion (10%) of the time). It argues that the majority of the duties involve routine part replacements or repairs, as part of regularly scheduled air time flight inspections. It is further argued that as all of the aircraft owned by the College are Bell aircraft with which the grievor is familiar, there is little in the way of "unusual" tasks that he is required to perform. The College also claims that there is no basis for saying that the performance of the duties contemplate the application of specialized processes or methods in that the procedures are all set out in the manuals. Thus there is, in the College's submission, no sense in which it can be said that the grievor creates a "special" process or method to resolve a particular problem. I agree with the argument of the Union that variety is one measurement of. complexity. The Core point rating matrix makes that clear when it awards higher levels for complexity as the job involves the incumbent in tasks which are increasingly varied and non-routine. However, I have difficulty with the claim that the duties are "relatively unusual". It would appear that 35% of the duties, viz, those associated with the regular "routine" inspection of aircraft according to schedule are clearly not "relatively unusual". The required inspections detail precisely what tasks are to be performed at each stage. 12 Similarly, the repair of "snags" that may arise consists largely of minor repairs (as limited by the grievor's license). As and when the grievor may be involved in major repairs or overhauls he is under the close direction of Mr. Hards and is not expected or required to possess the skills that may be necessary for such jobs were he to be performing them on his own. [This is not to say that the grievor does not in fact, as a result of his experience, possess these skills. The question for me is whether or not the job he does requires those skills. It ought also to be noted that the fact that the grievor, because of his years of experience, would not confront anything which for him would be "unusual" is not relevant for the purposes of the classification of the position. It is the position and not the incumbent which is being classified and the determination of what is unusual cannot be made to depend on factors, such as experience and familiarity with the job, which are personal to any particular incumbent.] Moreover nothing in the evidence persuades me that the grievor is required to apply any "specialized process" in the performance of his duties. Obviously, in many cases a problem will manifest itself in different ways and the solution to that problem will require some ,.special" application of skills and knowledge. That, however is not sufficient to make the "process" 'by which the problem is resolved a "specialized" one. It is 13 essentially the same process that is involved. The only variation is in the precise manner by which that process is used in the particular instance. Were it otherwise almost all jobs, except for those which involve the rote repetition of exactly the same task over and over, would involve the application of a "specialized process". Consequently, I conclude that for the complexity factor the position is appropriately rated at level D. b) Judgment At the outset it is appropriate to deal with the submission of the Union that "consequence of error" is a useful measure of the degree of judgment required of an incumbent in a position. It is not uncommon in job evaluation schemes to build in some weighting for "consequence of error", usually with reference to the degree of "responsibility" in the posit~on. However, the scheme negotiated by these parties does not appear to measure this factor, at least not directly. In particular, it does not measure it under the Job Difficulty factor. .Conseguently, I do not propose to consider it when assessing the level of judgment required. .The Union submits that the level of judgment required is "high" (level 6) in that, when the grievor is required to determine whether or not an aircraft is airworthy, or whether it should be permitted to fly a few more hours (even though it may have a minor problem) he is exercising a judgment which requires 14 him to balance of number of considerations. These include safety concerns, the need to ensure that sufficient aircraft are available to service the program and the need to avoid costly unnecessary repairs. I agree with this submission. First, it should be noted that the manuals provide no assistance in the matter of how to balance the competing concerns. Put simply, the grievor must make a judgment call based on his assessment of the situation. Secondly, it may be noted that in this respect the grie¥or cannot seek shelter behind Mr. Hards. He is personally responsible for his decision and where there is a disagreement between himself and Mr. Hards he is authorized to act on his own. Thirdly, the conflicting factors to be balanced are not of a sort which can be easily reconciled. It is not difficult to envisage situations in which they may be (as Mr. Hards admitted) "honest differences of opinion" over whether or not to certify an aircraft as airworthy. While I have great difficulty in articulating (indeed understanding) the difference between judgment which is "significant" and that which is "high", I have little doubt that in the instant case it undervalues that judgment to describe it as "significant" as the College maintains. Consequently, I would rate this factor at D6 2. Guidance Received. a) Guidelines Available The Union claims that this factor should be rated at level E, viz, "work is performed in accordance with general instructions and policies involving changing conditions and problems. Supervisor may be involved in problems of major importance". In support the Union argues that the grievor works with minimal direction from Mr. Hards (who is frequently required to be absent) except when dealing with something which requires a "B" license which the grievor does not have. It is further submitted that, while much of the grievor's work is planned (eg. routine periodic inspections) that planning can become cOmplicated by unpredictable factors (eg. mechanical breakdown, weather conditions) which might require a change in the schedule. It is argued that the grievor is given no direction as to how he should adapt to such changes and must set his own priorities and timetable to follow in order to ensure that sufficient aircraft are available to service the program. Thus, it is argued that these circumstances constitute "changing conditions and problems" within the meaning of the manual. The College rates this factor at level D, viz, "work is performed in accordance with procedures and past practice". It argued that the technical manuals, which are frequently Updated 16 and revised, prescribe in considerable detail the procedures to be followed when repairing or inspecting an aircraft. I conclude that the factor is properly rated at level D. Although it may admittedly be the case that the time when, and the order in which, various repairs or inspection jobs can be done may have to be altered in response to various changing circumstances, I do not regard that as justifying an increase in the rating for this factor. In my opinion the more relevant question is whether or not the performance of the job itself, eg. changing rotor blades, is subject to changing conditions. Are their circumstances in which the processes or methods followed to complete a particular task may change from one day to the next? If so, and if there are no general instructions or policies to assist an employee in deciding how to do the work required, that employee is operating very much on his/her own without assistance and deserves a higher rating. I do not believe that, in general, that can be said of this position. The "how" of the job is prescribed in detail. Although the time when that job is performed may vary in the manner suggested I regard that, for evaluative purposes, as a less significant change than any changes which might arise in the actual performance of the job. Consequently ! rate this factor at D4 17 3. Communications a) Purpose of Contacts The Union rates this factor at level E, viz, "for the purpose of securing understanding, co-operation or agreement on sensitive or technical matters of significant importance where more than average tact, diplomacy or persuasion is required. The College rates this factor at level C, viz, "for the purpose of providing guidance, instruction or technical advice." The Union relies on those aspects of the Job, discussed above, in which the grievor has contact with pilots concerning the question as to whether or not an aircraft is airworthy or should be grounded. A decision to ground an aircraft may have a significant impact on the scheduling of students in the program and both the grievor and Mr. Hards testified as to the "debates" which are held around this issue. It is argued that decisions of this type concern matters which are of "significant" importance and require the use of more than average tact and persuasion in order to secure the understanding, cooperation or agreement of the pilots. The College submits that, considering that the grievor, by virtue of his license, has the unchallenged authority to ground an aircraft (even over the objections of Mr. Hards), the job does not require him to persuade or to secure the understanding of the pilots. He can simply order the aircraft grounded and ignore any objections that might be raised. 18 Although not put as such this is an argument which goes to the question of evaluating the position and not the incumbent. My task is to evaluate the position and if the incumbent takes on additional duties beyond those which are required by the employer they should be ignored for the purposes of evaluation. The difficulty which I have with the position of the College is that there appears to be nothing in the evidence which would indicate that the College had ever instructed the grievor pot. to attempt to gain the understanding etc. of the pilots. Indeed Mr. Hards himself appears to have participated in the "debates". It is probably also the case that the College, or at least the Division in which the grievor works, enjoyed some benefit from his attempts at persuading pilots to accept a decision to ground an aircraft. Were the grievor to behave in the somewhat dictatorial fashion suggested in the argument of the College one might anticipate considerable internal conflict between different units within the College. I believe that in the circumstances it is reasonable to conclude that the College came to expect the grievor, as a part of his general Job duties, to deal with the pilots in such a way as to attempt to persuade them to accept willingly a decision that an aircraft should be grounded. Consequently, the job must be evaluated on that basis. In other words this is not a situation where the grievor has, through his own action, converted the job into one which goes beyond what the College expects of him. 19 When one approaches the evaluation of this factor in this light it is clear that the College evaluation is too low. What the grievor does goes far beyond the mere provision of "guidance, or instruction or technical advice". Can it be said that the claim of the Union is excessive? am satisfied that it is not. The issue of airworthiness of an aircraft is clearly a matter of "significant" importance. Moreover it would appear that level E more closely captures the purpose of contacts than does level D. Level E speaks of contacts for the purpose of securing understanding and co- operation which appears to be precisely what the grievor is involved in when he is dealing with pilots. The description in level D viz, "problem identification and solution", does not appear to constitute an adequate account of the kind of contact which the grievor has with pilots. Consequently, I would rate this factor at E3. 4. Working Conditions a) Manual Effort Both elements of this factor are in dispute. At the outset it may be helpful to comment on an argument which, though not formally advanced by the College, was nevertheless suggested in the College's evidence. Mr. Hards stated that the grievor could seek the assistance of students and technicians and technologists in the School of Aircraft 20 Maintenance with respect to various lifting or moving tasks that may have to be done. I do not believe that this should be a relevant consideration particularly insofar as students are concerned. However willing they may be they are not employees of the College and the proper weighting to be assigned to the position held by the grievor should not be diminished by reason of the fact that there are others available that could be asked for assistance. The better approach is to assess the position on the assumption that the grievor carries out all of the tasks assigned to him without assistance from anyone else unless of course the provision of such assistance is a part of the job responsibilities of employees of the College. I do not believe it can be contended, as the College does, that the manual effort required is "light". If all that was at stake was the use of the 12 lb. torque wrench that might be the case. But the grie¥or is also required to assist in lifting 200 lb. rotor blades and to carry them up and down a flight of 15 stairs. He also carries a balancing stand (50-75 lbs) up and down those stairs~ He also pushes the aircraft in and out of the hangar. None of these can be regarded as involving only the expenditure of "light" manual effort. Moreover, one of the indicia of "moderate" manual effort is "climbing or working from ladders", an activity in which the grievor is engaged in when he is working on the aircraft. However, I am equally of the view that the Union overstates the case when it argues that "moderate" manual effort duties are 2i performed on a "continuous" basis. The heaviest part of the duties (eg. lifting and carrying the rotor blades) occur only 4 times per year. I would also assume that the balancing stand is carried no more frequently than that. There is some dispute about the extent to which the torque wrench is used. In that regard I would prefer the evidence of the grievor over that of Mr. Hards (who does not observe the grievor at work on a constant basis). While this evidence would suggest that the grievor performs work involving moderate manual effort on only an occasional basis, I believe that the fact that the grievor is occupied a good deal of his time in either climbing on the aircraft and working while standing on a portion of the frame or in working from ladders beside the aircraft justifies the conclusion that moderate manual effort is required on a "frequent" basis. Consequently I rate this factor at C4 b) Visual strain On this factor ! can be brief. I simply cannot understand the claim of the Union that the grievor is exposed to what is agreed to be "moderate" strain on a "frequent" basis, viz 31-60% of the time. I accept the College rating of this factor as rare, i.e. level 2. The Union argues that there is strain involved in the visual inspection of the aircraft, for cracks etc, with the naked eye. I appreciate that some parts of the aircraft may be 22 small but have considerable difficulty in accepting the Union's claim in this regard. Consequently I confirm the rating of this factor at B2 c) working environment. Both elements are in dispute. I am unable to agree with the Union's submission that the work environment is "very disagreeable" as required by level D. The grievor is required on occasion to work outside, in winter, both at the hangar and in the bush camp. However, exposure to a "variety of weather elements" is measured under level C (disagreeable conditions.). While there are risks of injury associated with the work performed by the grievor I cannot conclude that there is a "distinct" possibility of such injury. The grievor "acknowledged that injury during the testing of a helicopter would be rare. The other risks of injury are in falling from the aircraft while working or climbing on it. However, the aircraft are equipped with foot holds or with adhesive paint which help prevent slipping. I would not assess the risk as a meeting the standard of a "distinct" possibility of injury. Two further matters deserve mention. Level D makes reference to the use of protective equipment. There are many positions in which the. incumbent wears various kinds of protective equipment. Yet there are no jobs which are listed as illustrative of level D in this factor. ! can only conclude from 23 this that it was never intended that the use of protective equipment alone was sufficient to warrant classifying a position at this level. Similar comments can be made with respect to the exposure to fumes. Many positions expose their incumbents to fumes of various sorts. Yet no jobs are listed as illustrative. The conclusion which I reach is that each of these two elements, exposure to fumes and the use of protective equipment, must be examined in context. They cannot, in and of themselves, be considered to be conclusive. When I approach this job. in that light I must conclude that, to the extent that the grievor is exposed to some fumes for which some protective equipment is worn, that exposure is not sufficient, in my judgment, to convert what I regardf to be a "disagreeable" environment into a "very disagreeable" environment. As to the prevalence of this exposure I do not agree with the Union's claim that it is "frequent". The risk of injury from falling from the aircraft is really only significant when the aircraft is outdoors and the footholds are slippery from ice or snow. Similarly, exposure to a cold weather, such as occurs when adjustments may be necessary or during bush camp is, in my assessment, only occasional. Consequently I would rate this factor at C3 In summary I would evaluate the position as follows: Job Difficulty D6 217 Guidance Received D4 150 Communications E3 135 Knowledge: Training and Experience D6 118 Skill 5 61 Working Conditions: Manual Effort C4 18 Visual B2 5 Environment C3 15 Total Points 719 Pay Band Number 11 Insofar as the grievor falls within Pay Band 11 he should be reclassified to the position of Technologist C effective as of the date of the grievance. It is further ordered that the College pay to him such compensation as is owing as a result of this finding. I remain seised of jurisdiction in the case in the event that the parties are unable to agree on the compensation that is payable. Dated at LONDON, Ont. this ~ day of ~ , 1989 G. J. Brandt, Arbitrator