Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThibeault 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 Leonard Thibeault Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt Appearances: For the College: Bruce Sutherland, Personnel Officer Don Haws, Director of Plant and Property For the Union: George Richards, Grievance Officer Leonard Thibault, Grievor Hearing: Canadore College August 19, 1989. 2 AWARQ This is a classification grievance of Leonard Thibeault. The grievor is classified as a Maintenance Handyman and works in the Maintenance Shop in the Department of Plant and Property. The grievor seeks reclassification to Tradesman Journeyman (Atypical) Pay Band 8. The Department of Plant and Property consists of 2 shops, a Maintenance Shop and a Carpentry Shop. There are 3 employees in the Maintenance Shop: Mr. Rusty Cormack, a licensed electrician classified as a Technologist (Atypical) Pay Band 12, Mr. Peter Sutheran, also a licensed electrician but classified as a Tradesman B, and the grievor. The grievor is not a licensed electrician and has not served any of the formal apprenticeship required under the Apprenticeship and Tradesman's Qualifications Act. The Director of the Department is Mr. Don Haws who has supervisory authority over all of the members in the department. However, Mr. Haws does not issue work assignments to the grievor. Such assignments as are formally issued are given by Mr. Cormack. The factors in dispute are Job Difficulty: Complexity; Guidance Received: Nature of Review; and Prevalence in each of Working Conditions: Manual Effort, Visual Strain, and Environment. 3 The following table sets out the respective College and Union evaluations of the position. College Union Job Difficulty C4 144 D4 171 Guidance Received D3 129 D4 150 Communications B2 48 B2 48 Knowledge: Training and Experience C3 64 C3 64 Skill 3 34 3 34 Working Conditions: Manual Effort D3 24 D4 28 Visual Strain B3 7 B4 10 Environment C3 15 C5 21 Total Points 465 526 Pay Band Number 7 8 The Position Description Form summarizes the grievor's position as follows: Carries out assigned and regular building maintenance related to the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems of the College Education Centre. Assists immediate supervisor and other trades people on major projects. It further lists a number of duties and responsibilities with approximately equal amounts of time spent on each of them. These are: performs general maintenance on HVAC units; constructs and maintains filter systems; services and assists with replacement of shafts, bearings, belts; assists with maint. air conditioner components; performs minor maintenance and repairs on small motors and equipment; carries out minor alterations to electrical circuitry; repairs plumbing lines and 4 fixtures, alters duct work; operates snow and ice removal equipment; assists with furniture and equipment moving; carries out minor repairs and alterations to instructional equipment. 1. Job Difficulty: Complexity It is the position of the Union that insofar as their is a substantial similarity between the work performed by the grievor and that performed by his colleagues in the Maintenance Department, (particularly Mr. Sutheran, who is a licensed electrician and who is classified as a Tradesman B), the work performed by the grievor should be evaluated at the same level as the evaluation of the Job Difficulty:Complexity factor for Mr. Sutheran. In support of that argument some evidence was adduced to the effect that, for a period of between 2-6 weeks in the summer, the grievor has been assigned to work on renovation projects which have admittedly involved him in doing the same work that would be done by a licensed electrician. In addition to these renovation projects there are also occasions when the grievor may be called upon to move or install receptacles in offices, again work which is done by a licensed electrician. Other work of an electrical nature done by the grievor includes repair of the motors on the HVAC units and small motor repairs on floor scrubbers and vacuum cleaners. It was the grievor's evidence that these duties, as well as certain other duties which he performed (and which were not of an 5 electrical nature, eg. moving furniture, unplugging toilets, etc) were also performed by both Mr. Cormack and Mr. Sutheran. The grievor suggested that the three men worked as a team and essentially divided up the various responsibilities of the Maintenance Department between the three of them with little distinction drawn in terms of the various skills that might be required to perform the various duties. There was also some evidence to the effect that there were also other duties which Mr. Cormack and Mr. Sutheran did, (e.g. handling high power voltage problems, preparation of schematic drawings for energy conservation projects, responsibility for fire alarm systems, emergency lighting systems, instrumentation systems in the computer centre) which were not performed by the grievor. I do not intend to explore deeply the extent to which the positions of the grievor and that of Mr. Cormack or Mr. Sutheran may be similar or different. While there can be no question that the best way of breathing "life" into the generalized language of fhe manual is to examine, in a comparative context, how the parties themselves have used it in classifying various related jobs, the expedited procedure for deciding classification grievances does not permit that kind of comparison. This is unfortunate for one of principal objectives of the manual is to rank positions against one another. In order to do that it is helpful to have some knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of other positions which are related in various ways to the 6 position in question in order that such a comparison can be conducted. The procedures which I must follow, however, only permit me to examine one witness for each side. Inevitably the evidence will tend to focus around only the position in question and comparisons will not be possible. The problem became evident in this case. The grievor stated that there were "no jobs that Rusty (Mr. Cormack) and Peter (Mr. Sutheran) do that I do not also do". Mr. Haws flatly contradicted that statement. Mr. Richards, counsel on behalf of the grievor, requested me to have either Mr. Cormack or Mr. Sutheran brought to the hearing for the purposes of resolving the issue. I declined to do so citing the procedures referred to above. Thus, I have some evidence concerning the grievor's responsibilities but incomplete and conflicting evidence concerning the duties and responsibilities of those other employees whose jobs I am asked to compare for the purposes of evaluation. There may be many other reasons, beyond the performance of electrical functions, which have led Mr. Sutheran to be evaluated at level D for Job Difficulty: (Complexity). Without detailed knowledge of that job, which the procedures virtually prohibit me from having, I cannot undertake any intelligent comparison of the two positions. It may be the case that the only way that a classification grievance can be argued 7 in this manner is before a full board with full powers to hear such evidence as the parties desire to put before it. Consequently, I must approach this case from the.standpoint of assessing the evidence against the various guidelines set out in the core point rating matrices. In order for the Union to succeed in its claim that the job be evaluated at level D for cOmplexity it must establish that the work involves the performance of "varied, non-routine complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated processes or methods". It may be noted that the essential difference between level C, at which the College has rated the position, and level D is that to qualify for level D none of the work must be "routine". Clearly there are aspects to the grievor's duties which can be characterized as "routine". Chief among these is the maintenance and servicing of the HVAC units, a job which is done on a regular, periodic basis. I would put in a similar category the small motor repair of floor scrubbers and vacuum cleaners. Although this latter work is not done according to any established schedule (as is the HVAC unit servicing) it is done with sufficient frequency (once or twice a week on average) that it can be regarded as a routine part of the weekly duties. In addition mention may be made of the duties in relation to hauling computer cable (which the grievor estimated to occupy him form 75% of his time in the later years). This would appear to be 8 occurring with such frequency and regularity as to qualify it as being a routine duty. Other aspects of the grievor's duties are not routine. These include the trouble shooting of electrical or gas valve problems in the HVAC units and the electrical work done during summer renovations. However, as level C contemplates the performance of both routine and non-routine complex tasks, the inclusion of some non-routine duties does not render improper the classification of this factor at level C. Consequently, I confirm the classification of the Job Difficulty factor at C4. 2. Guidance Received: Nature of Review The College has evaluated the position at level 3, viz, "assignments intermittently and/or periodically checked for quality". The Union claims level 4, viz, "assignments subject to a general form of review for achievement of specified objectives and adherence to established guidelines". It was the grievor's evidence that Mr. Haws gives assignments to Mr. Cormack who in turn distributes them among the three people who work in the Maintenance Department. He stated. that he works on his own, that Mr. Haws does not check his work, that he simply reports to Mr. Cormack when his work is done. He stated that to the best of his knowledge Mr. Cormack did not check his work but admitted that this might have been done Without his knowledge. 9 Mr. Haws was unable to state precisely the extent to which the grievor's work was checked by Mr. Cormack. He offered the opinion that, since Mr. Cormack would be accountable to the Ontario Hydro inspector for any electrical work done (for which inspection was required), it would be expected that Mr. Cormack would have checked the work. That however, was only Mr. Haws' opinion and it is not supported by any evidence. Moreover, even if it is sound it applies only to a relatively small amount of the grievor's work. I am satisfied on the evidence that the rating claimed by the Union, viz, level 4, is appropriate. Consequently, I evaluate this factor at level D4. 3. Working Conditions: a) Manual Effort The parties are agreed that the Manual Effort required is "heavy". They dispute Prevalence. The College claims that heavy manual effort is required only "occasionally" (10-30%) while the Union claims that it is required "frequently" (31-60%). It may be noted that each of these claims is less than the normal for maintenance handyman which is listed among the illustrative classification for D5 (Heavy manual effort on a continuous basis). I have little doubt that the Union claim should be allowed for this factor. Everyone appeared to agree that a substantial part of the grievor's time (75%) involved him in pulling computer 10 cable through the crawl space above the ceiling of rooms. In some cases where the ceilings were not flat this could be done by climbing on a ladder, pushing out the ceiling panel, and working the cable (wound on a reel) across the room. Where the ceiling was "flat" and the panels could not be pushed up this had to be done by crawling in the crawl space and pulling the cable along. Whichever way this work was done it met the definitional criteria for "heavy manual effort" which include "extensive climbing, ...pulling and lifting". On the evidence that work was clearly done at the very least on a "frequent" basis. Consequently on the basis of that duty alone I conclude that the Manual Effort factor should be rated at D4. b) Visual Again the parties are agreed that the strain is "moderate" but dispute the prevalence. The College claims that such strain is experienced "occasionally" (10m30%) while the Union claims that it is "frequently" (31-60%). Much of the grievor's claim in this regard is based on the electrical work that he is required to do in connection with summer renovations i.e. working on junction boxes in a dark area requiring the use of a flashlight, and on the work involved in the repair of small motors. Having regard to the fact that the renovation work occurs only over a 2-6 week period and to the grievor's own evidence that the longest time he would spend working on a junction box would be 15 minutes at a time it is 11 difficult to conclude that visual strain occurs on a frequent basis. Similarly, small motor repair for a floor scrubber or vacuum cleaner is done only once or twice a week. On balance I would confirm the evaluation of B3 for this factor. c) Environment. The parties are agreed that the working environment is Disagreeable (level C) but dispute the prevalence with which the ~rievor must work in a disagreeable environment. It is my conclusion that this factor should be evaluated at C5 which, it may be noted, is the normal evaluation of the Maintenance Handyman position for this factor. In support of that conclusion I refer to three of the duties performed by the grievor. First, he stated that he is required, on a daily basis, to be outside on the roof attending to the HVAC units, either as part of the regular maintenance or for the purposes of trouble shooting some problem. Level C includes "exposure to a variety of weather elements" among the indicia of "disagreeable" working conditions. Secondly I refer to the pulling of computer cable some of which had to be done by calling through the ceiling crawl space which is acknowledged to be dusty. Finally, I refer to the electrical work done on the summer renovation projects. All of this work was done "live" since the power could not be shut down to adjoining areas for fear that 12 data stored in computer banks would be lost. That exposed the grievor, in my opinion, to "some possibility of injury" by electrical shock. I am satisfied that the combination of these three factors clearly results in the grievor being exposed to one or other of the indicia of disagreeable working conditions for more than 60% of the time, i.e. "continuously". Consequently, I would rate this factor at C5. In summary the following represents my evaluation of the position. Job Difficulty C4 144 Guidance Received D4 150 Communications B2 48 Knowledge: Training/Experience C3 64 Skill 3 34 Working Conditions: Manual Effort D4 28 Visual B3 7 Environment C5 21 Total points 496 In the result the grievor remains in Pay Band 7 and his classification as a Maintenance Handyman is confirmed. The grievance is dismissed. Dated at LONDON, Ont. this ~ day of , 1989 G. J. Brandt, Arbitrator.