Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReid 88-03-17 Concerning an arbitration Between: George Brown College and Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance of S. Reid, temporary assignment, rate of pay, 87Q14 Board of Arbitration J. W. Samuels, Chairman W. A. Correll, College Nominee G. Caplan, Union Nominee For the Parties Union C. M. Dassios, Counsel S. Reid, Grievor College C. C. White, Counsel A. Lillepold, Human Resources Officer, Support J. Graham, Manager, Facility Planning and Development Hearing in Toronto, February 29, 1988 In April 1987, Samuel Reid was a Building and Plant Technologist B at George Brown College. His normal work involved the operation and maintenance of air handling systems. He worked under Mr. J. Wheeler, a Technologist C and lead hand. For seven days in April 1987 (13th-16th, and 18th-20th; not the 17th, because it was Good Friday and the College was closed for the day), Mr. Wheeler was away and Mr. Reid tOok over a number of his functions. Mr. Reid assigned the daily work to the various trades, he ordered materials needed by the trades, and he scheduled some work which took place over the weekend. Mr. Reid received the lead hand premium for these seven days (just as Mr. Wheeler received the lead hand premium), but he did not get the Technologist C rate of pay. He claims that he should have received this rate, instead of his usual Technologist B rate, pursuant to Article 17.3.1 which provides for payment of the higher wage rate during a temporary assignment "when the duties and resPonsibilities of a position within a higher rate range ....... are assigned temporarily by the College to an employee, for a period in excess of five (5) consecutive working days". The issue is whether or not Mr. Reid was assigned "the duties and responsibilities of a position within a higher rate range". For the purpose of this case, the parties agreed that we would determine the duties and responsibilities of the Technologist C on the basis of the actual duties of Mr. Wheeler at the time of Mr. Reid's temporary assignment. We heard the testimony of Mr. Reid, who worked with Mr. Wheeler ~nd observed his activity, and Mr. J. Graham, then the manager of Plant Operations and Mr. Wheeler's supervisor. This evidence disclosed that Mr. Wheeler's responsibilities included the tasks done by Mr. Reid over the seven days, plus monitoring the functioning of the physical systems of the College's buildings and planning for the repair and maintenance necessary to ensure the well-functioning of these systems. Mr. Wheeler had budgetary tasks, and 2 he was involved;in the making of contracts with outside contractors for work which was beyond the capacity or expertise of the College's employees. In particular, one of Mr. Wheeler's tasks, which was not done by Mr. Reid, was the operation of the central computer system which controls the air systems in all the major campus locations across Toronto. The central processing unit was in Mr. Wheeler's office, and he had an operator's terminal in his office. Using the computer, Mr. Wheeler could monitor the control systems; program their operation for the week or weekend, depending on building occupancy; make adjustments as appeared to be required on the basis of the data from the computer (some adjustments could be done at the terminal in Mr. Wheeler's office, and for others he would dispatch a tradesman to the site). The computer data would also be used by Mr. Wheeler as part of the input for his planning for long-term repair and maintenance, while Mr. Wheeler was away for the seven days in April 1987, the operation of the computer was done by one of the other managers, a Mr. D. Copsey. In our view, Mr. Wheeler's job really had two sides---on the onehand, he directed certain work forces, and for this responsibility he received the lead hand premium; on the other hand, he was responsible for planning and executing a program of maintenance and repair of the physical plant, and it was this responsibility which justified his classification as a Technologist C. Mr. Wheeler was both a Technologist C and a lead hand. He received the wage rate of a Technologist C and the lead hand premium. For the seven days in April 1987, Mr. Reid was asked to take over Mr. Wheeler's lead hand functions. But he was not given the responsibilities of Mr. wheeler which formed the core of Mr. Wheeler's work as a Technologist C. As has been said in many cases, in order to get the higher rate of pay, an employee on a temporary assignment must be doing the work that formed the central core of the higher-rated classification { see, for example, Re Richardson Terminals Ltd. (1973), 2 LAC (2d) 371 (Aggarwal), at page 374, citing Re Eaton Springs Canada Ltd. (1968), 19 LAC 329 (Hanrahan)}. The "central core of the higher-rated classification" is that bundle of duties and responsibilities which are the very reason for the classification, without which the employee would be classified in some lower claSsification. Mr. Wheeler's classification as a Technologist C was based on his responsibilities to plan and execute a year-round program of repair and maintenance. Mr. Reid was not assigned these responsibilities, and therefore he did not perform the work which formed the central core of the Technologist C classification. For these reasons, the grievance is dismissed. Done at London, Ontario, this ] of ,1988. · ~ ~ W. ZA. Correll, College Nominee G. Caplan, Union Nominee OPSEU AND GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE REID GRIEVANCE 87Q14 DISSENT BY GERALD CAPLAN The evidence shows that Mr. Reid in fact performed the core functions of a Technologist C insofar as they could be performed by a short-term temporary replacement for Mr. Wheeler. The key phrase was Mr. Graham's, to whom both Wheeler and Reid reported. Reid did not, he said, perform all of Wheeler's functions on a "year-round basis", a phrase he repeated on several occasions. That fact is clear. But what Reid in fact did was those Technologist C functions that were necessary to perform on a WEEK-ROUND basis. Reid testi~=ied that he did the following tasks in Wheeler's place: he assigned the other men daily work; he assigned the trades people theirduties; he ordered materials for some trades; and he.scheduled work at 5~ Macpherson which was being renovated throug'h the Easter week-end. Mr. Graham agreed that Reid performed all of these functions, which were above an'd beyond the responsibility of a lead hand. The test is what Wheeler would have done in that period. Beyond some amorphous long-term planning and a modest amount of time on the computer, he would have done exactly those tasks that Reid did in his absence and in his place. For these reasons, I support the grievance and concur in the settlement desired.