Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMurray, Taurozzi 88-08-04 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION between GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE (hereinafter referred to as the College) and OPSEU (hereinafter referred, to as the Union) Classification Grievances James Murray and Nick Taurozzi ~ ~oard of Arbitration~ G.J. Bra~dt (Chair) Appearances: For the College Ann Lillepold, Mgr, Employment James Graham, Mgr, Plant Operations For the Union Russ Ellerton, OPSEU Rep. James Murray, Grievor Nick Taurozzi, Grievor Sam Reid, Chief Steward Douglas Johnson, Observer Ed Jordan, Past President Hearing: Toronto, Ontario July 25, 1988 2 AWARD INTRODUCTION The grievors are each Electricians classified as Tradesman B, Pay Band 10. They claim that they have been improperly classified and should be assigned to Pay Band 11 retroactive to June 1, 1986. The factors in dispute are: Guidance Received: Nature of Review Knowledge: Training and Experience Knowledge: Skill The following table sets out the evaluations of the College and Union respectively for these factors. College Union Guidance Received E4 (177 points) E5 (200 points) Natu~ of Review Knowledge: E5 (117 points) E6 (131 points) Training and Experience Knowledge: Skill 4 (47 points) 5 (61 points) FACTS The Position Description Forms for each of the grievors were agreed upon by the parties. In the areas in dispute they provide as follows: Summary ~f Responsibility: To perform duties for the installation maintenance, repair and general upkeep of buildings, equipment, systems and facilities of the campus or group of campuses to which the incumbent may from time to time be assigned. Duties and Responsibilities: Major Duties The incumbent is primarily involved in the operation, systematic maintenance, repair and installation of the electrical power, electrical lighting and alarm systems of the building to which he/she is assigned The incumbent is also involved in the provision, maintenance resting and repair of the power supplies to heating, cooling, ventilation, refrigeration and water conditioning systems. Note: Certain activities in these fields may be restricted by law to holders of the appropriate province license eg. electrical construction and maintenance. D. Guidance Received 1. The maintenance Group Leader (Technologist C - Lead Hand) allocates work assignments 'and offers functional guidance. The Manager, Physical Facilities intervenes only on disciplinary matters. 2. Equipment manuals H.E.P. Code of Practice Plant operation manuals and as-built drawings 3. Completion of project 4. Requirements for material and equipment Recommendation for system upgrades F. Training/Experience/ Skill 1. Five years of post-qualifying experience in industrial and commercial electrical maintenance and construction 2. Grade 12 High School.Graduation Certificate of Qualification as an Electrician Evidence of satisfactory completion of a formal Electrical Apprenticeship 3. Good interpersonal skills, co-operative attitude Journeyman level skill performance Must be able to plan and execute work Must be able to specify and order material for own work. Evidence was heard from Mr. Taurozzi (as supplemented by Mr. Murray) and from Mr. Graham concerning the position in question. 4 The grievors' duties involve them in maintaining various electrical equipment (air handling units, pump motors, electrical switchgear, fire alarm systems etc.) ~ ~. ~ Generally their work comes to them in two ways: first, it may be way of a handwritten work order, prepared by a group leader, Mr. Watson, directing them to carry out a specific described task. Mr. Graham, Manager of Plant Operations, estimated that each of the grievors might process some three'~o four of these work orders in a day. Once the.task is done the incumbent writes on the back of the work order what was done, the time involved, and returns the order to the group leader. Secondly, work may be assigned by a computer generated work order which specifies a number of specific tasks to be done in . relation to a particular pieca of equipment. The work orde~ also sets out the prior history of the work done on this equipment. The incumbent does the assigned task and fills in a portion of the work order detailing what-was done. That information then becomes a part of the history of maintenance for this piece of equipment and would be a part of the next computer generated work order for that equipment. Mr. Graham stated that approximately 20 such work orders per month would be generated for each of the two grievors. Where work of an emergency nature is performed the assignments are usually given orally by either the group leader or the supervisor, Mr. Dave Copsey. The paper work is completed after the job is done. 5 Once a work order is issued to the incumbent ~t becomes his responsibility to complete the job without any on going review or supervision o~ his work by either the group le~der or the supervisor. As a licensed journeyman electrician he is expected to have the knowledge and the skill to be able to do the job. The group leader is available to provide "functional guidance"- to act as a resource person on technical aspects of the job. However, it can be the case (although not currently the case) that the group leader will be from a different trade than the incumbent and therefore unable to advise on technical problems that may arise. The "review" of their work that does occur is essentially on completion of the project. In other words, there is no review or supervision of ho~ the joD is done..~The only check is that is done and when the group leader is informed, by return of the work order noting that the job has been completed, that is the end of the review. On emergency work there is some closer supervision of the work by the group leader and the supervisor. Mr. Graham characterized this as "detail review". However, the kind of emergency of which he was speaking was the sort which occurred only rarely, e.g. the blowing of a transformer, which last occurred in 1982. Also the grievors stated that in emergencies the supervisors and group leaders are not always present and it is necessary for them to take the initiative. In order to be licensed as- a jour~]eyman electrician it is necessary under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmans Qualifications Act, to complete an apprenticeship of 1800 hours/yea~ for a period of 5 years. (i.e..a total of 9,000 hours). This consists of a theory component of three 10 week periods (one each year) in which students take 10 hours/week of electrical theory, 6-8 hours /week of shop, 3 hours/week of blue print reading and other academic subjects. The practical component of on the job training makes up the bulk of the remaining 9,000 hours in the program, although it may be noted that, for those who have completed Grade 12 there is an exemption of 100 hours per year or 500 hours for the full period thus requiring a total of 8,500 hours. On the basis of a standard wor~ year of 2000 ~ours this reduces to four and one quarter years. As one of the items in dispute is whether or not this apprenticeship is equivalent to a 2 or 3 Year community college course there was evidence from Mr. Graham with respect to the content of a. Community College program. A 2 year Community College program consists of 72 weeks of theoretical training, at 25 hours/week, or 1800 hours of theory over two years. Any practical training that is given would be in the context of the lab work which would be included in those 1800 hours. It is apparent from thls that the College programs concentrate heavily on the why (devoting 1800 to theory as 7 compared to 300 hours of theory in the apprenticeship program) while the apprenticeship program concentrates heavily on the how (devoting a far larger portion of the time to on the J~b training rather than formal classroom training). It should be noted, however, that some theoretical training would inevitably be associated with the on the job training. In carrying out the tasks assigned to them the grievors are required to be familiar with the Ontario and Canada Safety Codes. these Codes set out in considerable detail the guidelines which must be followed with respect to the particular tasks in question. The incumbents must be able to apply the guidelines in ensuring that the work which they are assigned to do complies with the requirements of the safety codes. DECISION 1. Guidance Received: Nature of Review The Union claims that the grievors should be classified at level 5 for this factor. The matrix for level 5 provides that "work assignments ar reviewed only for achievements of broad objectives, effectiveness of results and to ensure integration with the work of others." The Union argued that the lead hands or supervisors only distribute the work and conduct no review of how the work is done. The only check is on whether the work is done. As for the fact that the lead hands provide functional guidance it was submitted that, where the lead hand is not a member of the same trade such guidance is not available as a practical matter, it is further .argued that there is integration 8 with the work of others in that the work done by the grievors on a particular job becomes a part of the history of work done on the particular piece of equipment. The College submits-that the proper classification is level 4, viz, "work assignments are subject to a general form of review for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines." It was submitted that the tasks assigned to the grievors were very specific and frequently associated with some previous work history on the piece of equipment and that the review for "adherence to established deadlines" was satisfied by the review conduction on the completion of the project. It was further suggested that the lead hand's role remains an important one in terms of allocating work, establishing priorities and checking for the accuracy o~ the work being done. While it may be that these grievors, by virtue of their skills and qualifications, do not need to consult a lead hand, it was submitted that the proper classification is of the position and not the incumbent. It is my conclusion that the grievors are properly classified at level 4 for Guidance Received: Nature of Review. It is clear from an examination of the work orders tendered in evidence that the tasks which they are given are very specific in nature. Moreover the "review" which is conducted by completion of the project fits within the meaning of the phrase '"review for achievement of specific objectives", which does not suggest any close review of how the work is done. While I have some 9 difficulty in accepting the claim that review on "completion of the project" is review for "adherence to established deadlines" I am not persuaded that, on balance, level 4 is an inappropriate classification. 2. Knowledge:Training The Union seeks level 5, viz, "required skills normally acquired through attainment of a three year Community College diploma or equivalent." The College has classified the grievors at level 4, viz, "two year Community College diploma or equivalent." The Union argues that the 5 year apprenticeship period required in order to become a licensed journeyman electrician under the Apprentice and Tradesmans Qualification Act indicates that the incumbent in this position requires at least the equivalent training of a three year Community College course. The College advised that, following the decision in the Johnson grievance (Brandt), it had upgraded the grievors from level D to level E for the Experience element in the Knowledge matrix, thereby recognizing, as that award had done, the relevance and significance of the period of apprenticeship served as a period to be counted for the purpose of determining the amount of practical training received by journeymen tradesman. It submitted that, if this period of apprenticeship were also taken into account for the purpose of determining'the appropriate level for the Training element, there would, in effect, be double counting of that period. 10 I agree with the submissions of the College. It is clear f~om an examination of the matrices that the training element is concerned primarily with theoretical training, as evidenced by the progressive scale from elementary school education to Dartial and full completion of secondary school education to completion of further courses beyond secondary school to completion of Community College courses and ultimately completion of university education. The- Experience element has a similar progression based on the number of years of "practical" experience. The evidence indicates clearly that the great bulk of the apprenticeship period consists of practical on the job training. Of the 9,000 hours only 30 weeks is devoted to classroom theor'etical training. That is contrasted with the heavy concentration in the Cold,unity College courses on theoretical training. Moreover, when the matrix speaks of a community college course "or equivalent" that should be taken as meaning a course that is "equivalent" in terms of its content, i.e. theoretical training rather than practical training. 3. Knowledge: Skill The UKion claims that this ~actOr Should be classified at level 5, i.e. "work requires the ability to organize complex statistical information and to understand and apply elementary principles of a science or professional discipline." The College has classified the position at level 4, i.e. "work requires the ability to organize statistical information and to understand elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline." 11 The Union argues that the requirement that the grievors apply the provisions of the safety codes in the completion of their assignments meets the requirement that they "apply elementary principles of a science of professional discipline" I am unable to agree with that claim. First', it may be noted that there is nothing particularly significant in the requirement that the grievors be able to "apply" their knowledge to the task. Reference to an ability to "apply" is also found in levels 2 and 3 of this element. Moreover, it is common sense that anyone, particularly a skilled journeyman tradesman, will be "applying" his or her knowledge and skill in the execution of assigned duties. Nothing which I heard persuades me that the grievors are involved at all in the organizing of "complex statistical information" or in operation of "very complex electronic instruments" as the matrix contemplates. What is left then is the argument that the mere application alone of the knowledge and skill which the grievors have is sufficient to raise them to this level. For the reasons outlined I do n6t find that argument to be persuasive. SUMMARY' AND CONCLUSION Consequently, for the reasons given, I find that the classification of the College on all three of the items in dispute is the proper one and that the grievances must be dismissed. ~' ~L~ 12 Dated at LONDON, Ontario this day of ~'~-- , 1988. G. J. Brandt, Arbitrator APPEARANCES: ' MANAG~ UNION DECISION: Degree Points Job Difficulty Guidance Received ~-- Communications C__ Training Knowledge & Exper. Skill Manua I Effort Working Conditions Visual Environ. ~) A~"' ~/.z I Total Points _ Pay Band Number / COMMENTS: ..------3 S I GNATURE