HomeMy WebLinkAboutStamov et al 93-02-16BETWEEN
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE RE SKILLED TRADES WORKER A
JANE H. DEVLIN SOLE ARBITRATOR
DALE HEWITT, FOR THE COLLEGE
GEORGE RICHARDS & KATHLEEN LAWRENCE, FOR THE UNION
Opseu File Nos.: 88B284-296
~earing Dates: November 18, 1992
January 14, 1993
1
In December of 1987, a group grievance was filed by 13
employees claiming that they were improperly classified as
Skilled Trades Workers A at payband 8. The grievance sought
reclassification to payband 9. The hearing of the grievance was
scheduled before a Board of Arbitration on February 14, 1989 and
was adjourned on consent of both parties. At that time, the
Union indicated that it intended to determine the appropriate job
description for each of the Grievors and to provide core point
ratings. Subsequently, in July of 1992, the Union requested that
the hearing be reconvened with the result that the grievance was
rescheduled for hearing under the expedited arbitration process.
Both in its written submission and at the outset of the
hearing, the College objected to arbitrability of the grievance
and took the position that the grievance had been abandoned. The
College further contended that it would be prejudiced if the
grievance were to be heard on the merits as the dispute initially
concerned the knowledge and education required for the position
and now pertains to the factor of working conditions. Moreover,
the College submitted that there have been organizational changes
as well as changes to the job descriptions since the grievance
was filed and a number of the original Grievors have since
retired. In the alternative and in the event that the matter
were to be heard on the merits, the College proposed that the
hearing be based upon the 1992 PDF and confined to the current
incumbents, 3 of whom signed the original grievance.
The Union disputed that the grievance had been
abandoned and while agreeing to proceed initially with the claim
for reclassification of the current incumbents, the Union
requested that I remain seized to deal with the claims of the
other Grievors. The Union further contended that the PDF in
effect at the date of the grievance, rather than the 1992 PDF,
ought to apply and requested that any relief be retroactive to
the date of the grievance, a claim which was opposed by the
College.
Give the nature of the issues in dispute, it did not
appear at the outset that this matter was suitable for resolution
under the expedited arbitration process. Accordingly, there was
considerable discussion on the first day of hearing with a view
to resolving certain of the outstanding issues in order that a
determination could be made on the claim for reclassification.
While the parties were not ultimately able to resolve these
issues, they agreed to proceed on the claim for reclassification
in respect of the current incumbents, based upon the 1992 PDF.
This agreement was made without prejudice to the position of
either party in respect of the outstanding issues, including the
matter of retroactivity and the arbitrability of the claims of
the Grievors, apart from the current incumbents. The Union did
agree, however, that it would not take the position in any other
3
proceeding that the 1992 PDF did not satisfy the requirements of
Article 7.2.2 of the collective agreement.
Turning then to the merits, while the parties did not
agree upon the content of the 1992 PDF, the disagreement related
primarily to the description of the job duties which appear under
the heading "working conditions" which is the factor in dispute.
In this regard, the Union toOk the position that the incumbents
are involved pulling and lifting~ including loading, off-loading
and erecting materials (up to 55 pounds without assistance) 50%
of the time rather than 10% to 25% of the time as presently
provided in the PDF. The Union further contended that the
requirement to work from ladders or scaffolding and to operate
shop equipment (saws, drill presses, planers etc.) ought to
appear under the heading "working conditions". The College took
the position that the PDF accurately describes the incumbents'
essential job duties.
The ratings in dispute between the parties are as
follows:
Factor College Rating Union Rating
Working Conditions
Manual Effort C5 D4
Environment C5 D4
4
The incumbents perform skilled repair, construction and
maintenance work. There is considerable diversity in the tasks
performed which range from lock repairs to major renovation work
which is generally carried out in the months of May to August.
The evidence indicates that while some of the incumbents perform
particular types of work with greater frequency based upon their
individual expertise, it is the expectation of Bruce Bridgeford,
the Superintendent of Buildings, that each of the incumbents may
be assigned to perform the full range of job duties at any time.
The following is representative of the work performed
by the incumbents as Skilled Trades Workers A:
- erecting and dismantling various partitions, such as
drywall, steel stud and cement block; taping and plastering
drywall and patching concrete;
- erection of different types of ceilings and replacement of
ceiling tiles;
- installation and repair of flooring and various types of
baseboards and minor carpet repairs;
- installation and repair of doors, frames, windows and
associated hardware, replacement of broken glass on windows
and doors; repair of stalls and doors at equine centre;
- construction of a variety of wood cabinetry, shelving,
counter tops and application of appropriate finishes;
- repair and assembly of furniture including desks, chairs and
tables;
- hanging pictures, relocating signage, installation of
chalk, tack and white marker boards, installation of blinds
and curtain rods;
- repair of roof and window leaks, repair of steel aluminum
siding, screens and eavestroughing;
5
- removal and replacement of basketball backboards;
- repair of washroom stalls and installation and removal of
mirrors;
- removal, refinishing and replacement of railings;
- relocation of minor electrical fixtures;
- repairing locks;
- covering and uncovering air conditioning units;
- loading, off-loading and storing various building materials
and disposing of garbage;
Some of the work described, such as building cabinetry,
~counter tops and repairing furniture is generally performed in
the carpenters' shop which is located at north campus. The
balance of the work is performed at various locations throughout
the College and, accordingly, the incumbents spend some portion
of their time travelling between campuses or between the College
and outside suppliers where they obtain materials. In some
cases, materials are delivered to the north campus for storage in
the shop while, in other cases, materials are picked up or
delivered to the job site.
The incumbents perform the majority of their work
indoors although, from time to time, they are required to work
outside, primarily to perform repairs. They are also outside
when emptying garbage and when loading and off-loading materials.
At the north campus, however, materials are generally loaded and
6
off-loaded in an area which is partially covered by an "overhang"
and, accordingly, there is some protection from the elements.
While the incumbents are not generally outdoors for
prolonged periods, one of the incumbents estimated that he spends
a total of 6 to 7 days a month outside. Mr. Bridgeford, however,
disagreed with this estimate and testified that some of the work
performed outdoors, such a covering air conditioning units or
caulking windows, is carried out only once or twice a year. Mr.
Bridgeford also testified that most roof repair work is
contracted out although the incumbents may be required to locate
leaks before an outside contractor is called in. This, however,
generally occurs only after a heavy rainfall, similarly,
although the incumbents replace some exterior glass, Mr.
Bridgeford testified that most of this work is contracted out.
The evidence indicates that the incumbents also perform
some of their work off the ground although, for the most part,
they work on 6 foot step ladders or moving scaffolds which are
approximately 5 feet off the ground. They generally work at
these heights when installing drywall, replacing ceiling tiles or
hanging pictures. Occasionally, they work from extension ladders
or cherry pickers at heights of 25 or 30 feet from the ground.
The incumbents utilize a variety of materials in
performing their work and they transport these materials by
7
vehicle and by carts or dollies which they push to the job site.
On occasion, the job site is not accessible by cart or dolly in
which case, the materials may have to be carried by hand a
distance of 35 to 40 feet. Among the materials transported by
the incumbents are sheets of drywall, each of which weighs
approximately 100 lbs. The incumbents testified that, on
occasion, 8 sheets of drywall may be loaded on a cart at a given
time. Chalk and white marker boards also weigh in the range of
100 lbs. while plywood and particle board sheets weigh 60 to 70
lbs. These items are loaded and off-loaded by two of the
incumbents. In installing these items, one of the incumbent
holds the item in place, while leaning it against the wall, and
the other secures it. On occasion, the incumbents also install
steel doors which weigh in the vicinity of 120 lbs. While the
incumbents also recently moved a piece of machinery weighing
approximately 300 lbs., this was an isolated occurrence.
The incumbents also transport, load and off-load a
variety of other materials, including bags of sand, gravel and
mortar mix which range in weight from 45 to 65 lbs. They also
carry pails or boxes of plaster weighing from 45 to 60 lbs.,
boxes of ceiling tiles weighing approximately 40 lbs. and boxes
of floor tiles which weigh up to 80 lbs. Boxes of nails weigh
approximately 50 lbs. and boxes of roofing shingles weigh up to
75 lbs. Most of these items are loaded and off-loaded by one of
the incumbents. The incumbents also transport different lengths
8
of wood, sheets of glass weighing 25 to 30 lbs. and steel
shelving which generally weighs 12 to 14 lbs. On occasion,
however, this shelving is delivered in bundles which may weigh up
to 50 lbs.
Each of the incumbents also has a tool box which weighs
approximately 60 lbs. Tool boxes are generally transported by
cart or dolly in the same manner as the materials described above
although certain buildings do not have elevators in which case,
the incumbents must carry their tool boxes up and downstairs.
Nevertheless, Mr. Bridgeford testified that the incumbents work
in buildings without elevators only once or twice a month. Mr.
Bridgeford also testified that large quantities of drywall are
generally moved only during major renovation work which is
carried out in the summer months. As well, he testified that the
incumbents work infrequently with materials such as shingles and
that the incumbents generally install only 2 or 3 steel doors a
year. Evidently, wooden doors are more commonly installed and
Mr. Bridgeford acknowledged that considerable effort is required
to hold a door in place during the installation process.
While outside contractors are generally involved in
moving furniture, the incumbents may be required to move
furniture within an office in order to effect repairs. Although
carts and desk lifters are used for this purpose, the incumbents
testified that filing cabinets and desk tops may weigh as much as
10
the items fabricated by the incumbents will not fit into this
room. As a result, the work must be performed in the main area
of the shop and it was acknowledged that in this area, the
exhaust system does not efficiently dissipate fumes. Although
the evidence also indicates that in the past, there was some
exposure to asbestos, evidently this is no longer the case.
With this background, then, it is necessary to consider
both the PDF and the factors in dispute. As indicated
previously, the disagreement with respect to the PDF relates to
description of the incumbents' working conditions and, in this
regard, I find, on the evidence, that the effort involved in
lifting and pulling, including loading, off-loading and erecting
materials (up to 55 lbs. without assistance) is required 25% to
50% of the time rather than 10% to 25% of the time as presently
provided on the PDF. Although the Union also requested that
reference be made to the requirement to work from ladders or
scaffolding and to operate shop equipment, it is of note that
machinery and power tools are referred to on the PDF as an
example'of the potentially hazardous conditions to which the
incumbents are exposed. In my view, there is no requirement to
detail every hazardous condition and, accordingly, I see no need
to repeat the reference to working from ladders or scaffolding
which appears elsewhere on the PDF.
11
1. ~anual Effort
It is the position of the Union that the incumbents are
frequently required to perform work involving heavy manual effort
and physical exertion. In particular, they use heavy machinery
and tools and handle heavy materials requiring straining, pulling
and lifting. Accordingly, the Union submits that the position
ought to be rated at level D4.
While the College acknowledges that the incumbents
perform some work involving heavy manual effort, it is contended
that this is infrequent and that, on a continuous basis (i.e.,
more than 60% of the time), the incumbents perform work requiring
moderate manual effort and physical exertion. In particular,
they work from ladders; they use medium weight tools and
machinery and they handle medium weight materials. Accordingly,
the College submits that the position is properly rated at level
C5. In the alternative and in the event that a rating at level D
is warranted, the College submits that the appropriate rating is
level D3.
The rating for the element of manual effort is not
without difficulty as there are 5 incumbents who perform a
variety of tasks involving skilled repair, maintenance and
construction work. Moreover, as noted above, some of the
incumbents perform particular types of work with greater
12
frequency, based upon their individual expertise. Nevertheless,
the parties agreed to deal with the claims of the incumbents
together and, accordingly, it is necessary to determine the
extent of the manual effort required of the incumbents as a group
rather than focusing on the duties performed by any single
incumbent.
As noted above, the feature which distinguishes level C
from level D is the requirement for heavy, rather than moderate,
manual effort and physical exertion. In this regard, there would
appear to be no dispute that during the months of May to August,
all of the incumbents are involved in renovation work which is
acknowledged to require heavy manual effort and the handling of
heavy materials. As for the balance of the year, there are
undoubtedly periods during which the incumbents perform work
requiring moderate manual effort and, in this regard, Mr.
Bridgeford introduced examples of work orders issued during the
two week period prior to the first day of hearing. He suggested
that these work orders indicate that the bulk of the work
performed involved moderate manual effort consistent with a
rating at level C. One of the incumbents, however, maintained a
log of his work assignments (and, in some cases, he was assisted
in these assignments by other incumbents) during the period
between the first and second days of hearing and he estimated
that approximately 30% of the work involved heavy manual effort
and physical exertion. Although Mr. Bridgeford disagreed with
13
this estimate, nevertheless, it is apparent that there are
fluctuations in the nature of the work performed. In my view,
account must be taken of these fluctuations with a view to
determining, on an annual basis, the overall prevalence of the
manual effort and physical exertion required of the position.
In this regard, the evidence indicates that there is a
considerable range in the weight of materials handled by the
incumbents and while large quantities of drywall are evidently
used only during major renovations, it would appear that smaller
quantities may be used at other times during the year. In
addition, the incumbents load and off-load materials such as
chalk and white marker boards, steel doors, particle board and
plywood sheets. While these items may be handled by two
individuals, the evidence indicates that some of the materials
which are loaded and off-loaded by a single incumbent weigh as
much as 60 to 80 lbs.
In my view, however, it is not simply the weight of any
single item which must be considered. In this regard, I find
that significant effort may be required to push a loaded cart or
dolly up and down ramps when transporting materials and equipment
to the job site. Moreover, some of the materials are awkward to
handle and the work involved when using these materials may be
physically strenuous, requiring heavy manual effort. As well, I
find that certain tools and machinery used by the incumbents may
14
properly be described as heavy and that significant effort may be
required when operating this equipment. Further, although
certain tasks, such as installing steel doors may carried only 2
or 3 times a year, it is not the individual tasks which are
determinative but rather the cumulative impact of the incumbents'
job duties.
In the result, while some of the incumbents' time is
spent working frOm ladders, using medium weight tools and
machinery and handling medium weight materials, taking into
account the extent of the renovation work performed in the summer
months as well other duties performed during the balance of the
year, I am satisfied that there is sufficient work requiring
heavy manual effort and physical exertion to warrant a rating at
the D level. Based upon the PDF and the evidence presented, I
find that, overall, the incumbents engage in such work 31 to 60%
of the time with the result that the position is properly rated
at level D4.
Turning then to the element of work environment, it is
the position of the Union that the incumbents are frequently
exposed to very disagreeable working conditions involving extreme
cold, heat, fumes and height. Moreover, the Union contends that
the conditions are pOtentially hazardous and that there is a
distinct possibility of injury. The position further requires
the use of the protective equipment and, in the circumstances,
15
the Union submits that the position is appropriately rated at
level D4.
It is the position of the College that the incumbents
are rarely exposed to very disagreeable working conditions and
that their position is properly rated at level C5. In this
regard, the College contends that the incumbents are continuously
exposed to disagreeable working conditions involving dirt, noise
and a variety of weather elements. The position also entails
potentially hazardous conditions where there is some possibility
of injury. In this latter regard, the College asked that I take
into account the accident record of the incumbents which
indicates that in the past 5 years, there has been only one
injury, involving a muscle strain due to lifting, which resulted
in lost time. Although there were also two injuries in the fall
of 1992, neither of these involved any lost time. It is the
position of the Union that the accident record is not relevant as
it is a reflection of the degree of care exercised by the
individual incumbents rather than the potential for injury
inherent in the position.
The issue then concerns the nature of the incumbents'
work environment and, in this regard, it is of note that level D
refers to exposure to "extreme cold, heat, fumes and or height"
As to the matter of height, the evidence indicates that the
incumbents only occasionally work from extension ladders and
16
cherry pickers and that, for the most part, they work on step
ladders or scaffolding which is 5 feet off the ground. In these
circumstances, I am not persuaded that a rating at the D level is
warranted.
The evidence further indicates that while the
incumbents perform certain repair work outdoors and are also
outdoors when emptying garbage or loading and off-loading
materials, the bulk of the work is performed indoors. In my
view, therefore, it cannot be said that the incumbents as a group
are exposed to extremes of temperature, for significant periods
although I find that they are exposed to a variety of weather
elements consistent with a rating at level C.
As to the matter of fumes, the evidence indicates that
much of the exposure to fumes occurs in the shop and that while
some of the work can be performed in the clean room where there
is an exhaust system, this is not always possible. Nevertheless,
only two of the incumbents spend a significant portion of their
time in the shop and only some of their work involves exposure to
fumes. As the parties agreed to deal with claims of the
incumbents together, again, I am not persuaded that the exposure
of all of the incumbents is sufficient to warrant a rating at the
higher level.
17
As to the use of power tools, there is no doubt that
the operation of such tools may entail some possibility of
injury. In assessing the nature of the risk, however, account
must be taken of the fact that the incumbents are skilled
tradesman. In these circumstances, I cannot conclude that
operating power tools carries with it a distinct possibility of
injury which is characteristic of a rating at level D.
Finally, although the incumbents also wear protective
equipment, I find that this alone is not determinative of a
rating at the D level. Accordingly, while the incumbents'
position involves some exposure to very disagreeable working
conditions, overall, I find that the position is more accurately
described as one involving disagreeable working conditions more
than 60% of the time. Accordingly, the position is appropriately
rated at level C5.
In summary, then, in respect of elements in dispute, I
find that the position is correctly rated as follows:
Working Conditions
Manual Effort D4
Environment C5
Based upon this rating, the total points for the
position increase from 566 to 573 with the result that the
position falls into pay band 9. I shall remain seized to deal
18
with the issue of compensation and for purposes of implementation
of this award. I shall also remain seized of the outstanding
issues, including the matters of retroactivity and arbitrability
and, in particular, to deal with submissions as to whether these
issues can properly be dealt with under the expedited arbitration
process.
DATED AT TORONTO, this 16th day of February, 1993.
Sole Arbitrator
ARBllRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATIONS
COLLEGE: HUMBER INCUMI3EtiT:
i,,..~.:... , PRESENT CLASSIFICATION: TRADES WORKER A
,~,;.... AND PAYBAND __IL. suPEnVISOn:
Job Family and Paybend Requested By Griever:
Posl[Iorl Descrlotlon Form:
-. ,;:'.'i .:. 1, Position Descrlptlon Form Attached
· '".." '!... 2. ~ Parties agree on contents of attached Posltlon Descflptlon Form
. :. ~ Union disagrees with contents of attached Posltlon Descrlptlon Form
SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THIS DISAGREEMEHT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Parlles have not discussed PDF
1'he College understands the position of the two pad, les on the ratings to be as follows:
"~= '".' ... ~ .'"' ' .~.'.. ' ' "::' RAIING
Job Ollllculty 04 171 04 171 Agreed D4 17].
Guidance D3 129 03 129 Agreed D3 129
Communlcallons C3 84 C3 84 Agreed C3 84
Training & D4 90 D4 90 Agreed
Experience ' D 4 90
Skill 4 47 4 47 Agreed ~ 47
Manual El~ort C5 21 D4 28 Disagreement D4 PR
Visual Effort A5 3 A5 3 Agreed .~ 3
Environment CS 21 D4 28 Dlsagreemenl C~
Total Points 566 580 5 7 3
Payband 8 g 9
Classification Trades Worker A Trades Worker A
Alyplcal
Attached Writlen Submissions:
~[~ Tho Union ~ Tile College
$10natures:
For the Union For the College
(Griever) 7~'" .) '
Date
[]ovember 18, 1992 &
A, bltreto,'sUse: Hj~m~ary ]4, ]993 February 16, 1993
Date Award Date