HomeMy WebLinkAboutGirdwood, Simpson 89-02-20 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
between
LOYALIST COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 421
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Grievances of Brian Girdwood and Bill Simpson
Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: David Butler, Director of Personnel
Barry Deans, Director of Plant
Gerald Christopher, Supervisor of Plant
For the Union: Jim Paul, Grievance Officer
Brian Girdwood, Grievor
Bill Simpson, Grievor
Hearing:
Belleville, Ontario
August 14, 1989.
AWARD
This is a classification grievance of Brian Girdwood and
Bill Simpson each of whom are classified as Caretaker C, Pay Band
3. In their grievance they seek reclassification to Caretaker
(Atypical), Pay Band 7.
The Position Description Form is identical for both grievors
and they have each been evaluated by the College and Union
respectively in an identical fashion. There is no dispute that
for classification purposes their jobs are identical. For the
purposes of expediting the hearing it was decided the Mr.
Girdwood would testify as to the duties and responsibilities of
the position. It is understood, however, that the this award
will determine the proper classification of both of the grievors.
A number of the job factors are in dispute. The following
table sets out the respective College and Union Evaluations of
these factors.
College Union
Job Difficulty B2 75 C3 122
Guidance Received A1 20 D4 150
Communications BI 37 B2 48
Knowledge:
Training/Experience C1 38 C2 52
Skill 2 21 3 34
Working Conditions
Manual Effort D5 33 D5 33
Visual Strain A5 3 C5 21
Environment C5 21 D5 34
Total Points 248 494
Pay Band Number 3 7
The Position Description Form summarizes the position as
follows:
performs grounds keeping duties which includes snow
removal, cleaning of roads and parking lot surfaces,
grass cutting, landscaping of College grounds and
maintenance of grounds keeping machines."
A considerable majority of the grievors' responsibilities
involve them in driving a tractor to which various auxiliary
pieces of equipment are added, i.e. snowblower, various mowers
for cutting grass, front end loader, fertilizer spreader, and
rakes and blades. The particular auxiliary piece of equipment
which is attached varies according to the season and according to
the time within a particular season. Thus, for example,
different mowers are attached for spring grass cutting as
compared to summer or fall grass cutting.
A second aspect of the grievors' duties involves them in the
servicing and maintenance of the tractors. The PDF describes
those duties as changing oil, spark plugs or fuel injectors,
lubricating and repair or replacement of minor parts. The
grievor stated that in addition to these duties he also changed
bearings (a Job which would take him only 6 hours per year on
average) and sharpened the knives on some but not all of the
mowers. Major repairs are done by Gary Morgan, a Technician, or
if necessary new parts will need to be ordered and installed in
the equipment. When that is necessary it is primarily Mr. Morgan
4
who makes that determination and who orders the part.
Installation of the new part is done either by Mr. Morgan or by
the grievors.
A third part of the grievors' responsibilities is in the
area of landscaping. In this regard they work with Marvin
Tucker, a Maintenance Handyman with some special skills and
training in horticulture. Mr. Tucker is also the lead hand
responsible for supervising the grievors generally.
Duties include planting and maintenance of flowers and
shrubs, clearing of brush by the use of hand tools, chainsaws and
other mechanical cutting devices (eg. weed eater).
1. Job Difficulty.
Both the factors of complexity and Judgment are in dispute.
The Union seeks level C for complexity, viz, "various complex
tasks involving both routine and non-routine aspects requiring
different and unrelated processes and methods". While it may be
agreed 'that the grievors perform a variety of different grounds
keeping duties and that they use different equipment to do their
jobs, ! cannot agree that any of the tasks which they perform are
"complex" as required by this level. Essentially, what they are
required to do is to hook up the tractor to a piece of eqUipment
and to operate the tractor. In short, in this aspect of their
duties they are "drivers" who are classified for this factor at
level B. It is my opinion that level B is also the appropriate
classification for the complexity factor for these grievors.
5
However, it is my conclusion that the factor of judgment
should be evaluated at level 3, viz, "moderate" judgment. The
Union, in its brief, made reference to a section of the PDF which
spoke of judgment as being "very important" regarding the
operation of equipment, viz, that care need to be taken to avoid
causing damage to other vehicles or to pedestrians. Insofar as
this is found in the PDF prepared by the College it is a useful
guide to a determination of how this factor should be evaluated.
Moreover, reference may be made to those parts of the duties of
the grievors wherein they are expected to carry out preventive
maintenance on the equipment. This requires an assessment of the
condition of the equipment and a determination of what type of
remedial action, i.e. servicing, repair, replacement, is
necessary. While it is true that the grievors do not make the
final decision as to whether or not a piece of equipment or a
part requires replacement they have responsibility for
recognizing the problem and deciding what, in the fist instance,
needs to be done.
Consequently, ! would evaluate the Job Difficulty factor at
level
2. Guidance Received.
The parties are deeply divided over the proper evaluation of
this factor. The Union seeks D4 while the College evaluates it
at Al.
6
The evidence in connection with this factor indicates that,
except in respect of the landscaping duties, when the grievors
work under the close direction and supervision of Mr. Tucker,
they work generally on their own and without supervision. Mr.
Girdwood stated that, based on their past experience and
practice, they carry out the various jobs that they normally do
in that season. Thus, in the spring of the year, when the grass
is long, they use a particular type of mower to cut it. In the
winter they clear snow with snow blower or they spread sand or
salt on the roads. They are not told, on any particular day,
which Job they are to do. They know which jobs need to be done
and they priorize the work.
Nor does anyone check their work to see whether or how it
has been done. They may meet with their lead hand, Mr. Tucker
over coffee and discuss their work but the nature of those
meetings is more by way of informing him as to what they have
been doing and what they propose to do. The evidence does not
establish that, generally, he, as lead hand, gives them any
Specific instructions with respect to specific tasks that need to
be done.
Such specific instruction is given, on occasion, eg. where
the grievors are told that a tree needs to be removed from a
particular place. When such an instruction is given they carry
out that task before attending to their other regular tasks and,
once finished, they return to their regular work.
7
A similar situation prevails with respect to the maintenance
work done on the equipment. The grievors do that work as and
when necessary and according to a schedule which is set by them.
It is my conclusion that this factor should be evaluated at
level C4.
There is clearly no support in the evidence for the position
· of the College that it should be rated at level Al. Except in
respect of a small proportion of the work, viz, landscaping and
those times when the grievors may be asked to do a relatively
unusual task, (eg. removing a tree) there are no "specific and
detailed instructions" with respect to what they are'to do. Nor
can it be said on the evidence that their work is "checked in
progress and on completion by supervisor for completeness and
accuracy.".
The PDF also does not support the evaluation of the College
for this factor. It describes the work as "generally performed
without close or continuous supervision" and specifies that the
incumbent must have the "ability to work independently with a
minimum of supervision".
While I am unable to accept the College evaluation of this
factor I am also unable to accept fully the claim of the Union.
Specifically ! cannot agree that, for Guidelines Available, the
position should be rated at level D. Although it is true that,
throughout the different seasons, the actual work which the
grievors do changes, I do not regard the fact of that change as
constituting an "adaptation" or "modification" of "procedures and
8
practices" to meet "particular situations and/or problem". In my
view the job, has as part of its."regular" annual work cycle,
certain components which change in different seasons of the year.
But there is essentially no variation as between years. In the
spring, summer, fall, and winter of each year certain things are
routinely done and they do not vary greatly from one year to the
next. Obviously a bad winter will result in greater removal of
snow and a dry spring will result in less grass cutting.
However, ! do not believe the evaluation system is designed for
or intended to accommodate these kinds of changes. Subject to
these kinds of variations there is, generally speaking, a
similarity in the jobs that are done each year.
There is thus, in my opinion, no need to adapt or modify
the procedures from year to year to accommodate different
situations and problems that might arise in any particular year.
In my opinion the need for the grievors to change the way in
which they perform their Jobs from year to year is sufficiently
accommodated by the language of level C, viz, "work is performed
in accordance with general procedures and past practices".
Generally, the grievors do the same thing each year. The
specifics may vary but, broadly speaking, fall within the general
procedures that obtain for all tasks.
Consequently, ! conclude that this factor should be
evaluated at C4.
3. Communications.
The Union claims that the College evaluation of this factor
at level 1 for Level of Contacts does not recognize or reflect
the extent to which the grievor has contact with outside
suppliers and contractors. Mr. Girdw°od stated that he is asked
by truck drivers employed by suppliers of' top soil, salt, sand,
or fuel as to where to deliver material. He is also asked by
contractors where to move gravel or where to dump material. It
is also claimed that the contacts which the grievors have with
students, eg. in helping them with a car that is stuck in the
snow, should be given some recognition under this factor.
! am unable to agree with this claim.
The Notes to Raters for this factor states that "only those
contacts that occupy a significant portion of time and are
regular and'integral part Of the job should be taken into
consideration". Although there is no evidence as to specifically
how much time is spent by the grievors on these contacts it is my
sense that they are "episodic" at best, that as and when a
supplier or contractor or a student needs assistance they seek
that assistance from the grievors if for no other reason than
that they happen to be in the area. I have difficulty in
concluding that this activity constitutes a "regular and
integral" part of their job and that it occupies them for a
"significant" proportion of their time.
10
Consequently, I would upheld the College classification at
level Bi.
4. Knowledge:
a) Training:
There is little evidence with respect this factor. It is
claimed by the Union that, given that the incumbent must trouble
shoot equipment mechanical problems and assess unsafe conditions
when operating or repairing equipment, the appropriate level of
training required is that comprised by level 2, viz, partial
completion of a secondary school diploma or equivalent.
! disagree. While it is doubtless the case that the
incumbent in this position must have had some experience with the
operation and maintenance of equipment I have difficulty in
accepting that there is a need for "formal academic training"
which goes beyond the completion of elementary school education
or its equivalent. As noted the Job involves essentially driving
a tractor and attending to its maintenance and servicing. I fail
to see how the successful completion of duties of that character
require formal training that includes some secondary school
education.
Consequently, I uphold the College evaluation of this factor
at level Cl.
b) Skill
In order for the Union to succeed on its claim that the
skill should be evaluated at level 3 it must be established that
the position requires the ability to "apply specialized technical
or clerical skills based on a sound knowledge of established
procedures."
Thus the question is whether or not the grievors are
required to apply any "specialized technical skills". Nothing in
the evidence persuades me that they do.
Consequently, I would uphold the College evaluation of this
factor at level 2.
5. Working Conditions
a) Visual
The grievor spoke of various respects in which he believed
that he suffered visual strain. These included driving' while
vision was impaired due to blowing snow, blowing dust, or while
the inside of his cab was "fogged up", working in a garage that
was poorly lit during cold weather, and assisting Mr. Tucker with
the planting of small seedlings.
I have little difficulty in accepting that it is more
difficult to see while driving under conditions in which
visibility is reduced or in which lighting is poor. However, it
would appear that the manual simply does not recognize those
kinds of situation as contributing to "visual strain". The
12
manual appears quite specific in relating visual strain to the
length of time that it is necessary to concentrate on small areas
or objects. It does not address the strain that might result
from having to work in poor light generally or under
circumstances in which visibility is .impaired by weather or some
other factor.
Consequently, ! am not entitled to consider as relevant much
of what the grievors rely on as contributing to visual strain.
The one aspect of their duties which is relevant to this factor
is the planting of seedlings. However, insofar as they~are only
required to do that for a short period of time in the spring of
each year I cannot regard it as seriously contributing to visual
strain to an extent that they should be considered entitled to a
higher valuation than that which they were awarded.
Consequently, I uphold the evaluation of the College at
level AS.
b) Environment.
The dispute here is whether or not the working conditions
are "disagreeable~ or "very disagreeable". The grievors rely on
their exposure to both the cold of winter and the heat of summer,
to dust, and to noise as Justifying evaluation at level D. I
agree with the submission of the College that exposure to heat
and cold through weather conditions is specifically addressed at
level C and that the kind of "extreme heat and cold" that is
contemplated by level D is that which is artificially created.
13
In this regard it may also be noted that the grievors work
in a heated cab in the winter and are able to remove the doors
from the cab to provide greater ventilation in the summer.
Reliance is also placed on the fact that the grievors are
exposed to the risk of injuries of various sorts, viz, from
falling from the tractor while climbing on it in winter, from
having clothing get caught in the power train of the tractor,
from being hit by flying stones while cutting grass, and from
falling from a ladder while pruning with a chain saw.
In my opinion the kinds of risks that should considered
under this factor are primarily those which are inherent in the
job and which could not be avoided by the taking of ordinary
care. Consequently, I would disregard the risks from falling and
from clothing being caught in the power train as being relevant.
However, the risks associated with stones flying up are of the
sort which, in my opinion, are inherent in the job. But, the
evidence does not persuade me that there is any "distinct
possibility of injury" for this reason. Mr. Girdwood stated that
while this happens it does not happen frequently. It would
appear that the reference in level C to "some possibility" of
injury adequately deals with this situation.
Reference is also made by the Union to the fact that the
grievors wear considerable protective equipment, viz, safety
shoes, hard hats, safety goggles, mask, ear plugs, nose covering.
It is suggested that the wearing of such equipment serves to
14
differentiate between level C, which makes no mention of such
equipment, and level D, which does.
The difficulty with this position is that a large number of
the support staff wear safety equipment of one sort or another,
particularly, safety shoes and hard hats. If that alone were
enough they would all by entitled to classification at level D
for Work Environment. But they are not. Indeed, the core point
rating matrix indicates that, among the illustrative
classifications, there are NO positions that deserve a rating of
level D.
This would suggest that the circumstances in which the use
of protective equipment will become relevant are those in which
such equipment is necessary in order to avoid a "distinct
possibility" of injury. In other words the reference to the use
of protective equipment is taken in the context in which it is
found. Insofar as I have concluded that the grievors are not
exposed to a "distinct" possibility of injury the fact that they
wear protective equipment is not relevant to a determination of
how they should be classified.
Almost all of the factors relied upon by the grievors aS
creating a "very disagreeable" work environment are adequately
accounted for under level C. viz, "exposure to dirt (i.e. dust),
noise and a variety of weather elements".
The remaining condition which is not accounted for in level
C is that of exposure to fumes. The grievors are exposed to
diesel fumes while driving the tractor, and to gasoline fumes
15
while operating the weed eater or the chain saws, and to some
other types of fumes while engaged in chemical spraying of weed
killers and pesticides.
Again the difficulty which I face is the inference to be
drawn from the fact that, notwithstanding the fact that many of
the support staff are routinely exposed to fumes of one sort or
another, (eg. paint fumes), there are no jobs which are included
in level D as illustrative.
At the same time the parties have specifically mentioned
exposure to fumes as a kind of exposure which warrants
classification at level D. While other disagreeable
environmental elements,(cold, heat, dirt, noise) are specifically
included in level C, exposure to fumes is referred to in level D.
Clearly the parties regard exposure to that kind of element as
warranting more serious attention than exposure to the other
elements mentioned.
Although I have concluded that, in all other respects, the
grievors are properly evaluated at level C for work environment,
! believe that this evaluation ignores their exposure to fumes.
I intend to take that into account. However, the evidence does
not establish that such exposure is on a continuous basis. Mr.
Girdwood stated that he exposure to fumes while driving the
tractor varied according to the direction of the wind. In
addition other exposure occurred on various specific jobs which
were not performed on a daily basis.
16
My assessment~ is that the grievors are exposed to fumes on
an "occasional" basis, i.e. 10-31% of the time.
Accordingly, I would evaluate this factor at D3.
In summary the position should be evaluated as follows:
Job Difficulty: B3 96
Guidance Received C4 124
Communications Bi 37
Knowledge: ?rain/Exp C1 38
Knowledge; Skill 2 21
Working Conditions
Manual Effort D5 33
Visual A5 3
Environment D3 24
Total Points 376
Pay Band 5
Consequently the grievance is allowed and it is directed
that the grievors be placed in Pay Band 5 and compensated
accordingly.
Although the grievance itself does not seek interest the
Union in its brief sought "full retroactive re-imbursement for
both grievors with interest at to-day's bank rates, back to May
2, 1988.z'
As no argument was advanced respecting the question as to
whether or not interest should be awarded I make no determination
17
on that issue. However, I retain Jurisdiction to deal with any
issues, including that concerning the matter of interest, which
may arise between the parties concerning the implementation of
the award.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this lO day of ~'~~ .1989
G. J. Brandt.
COLLEGE Loyalist
GRIEVORs R_ nlra,.,n~a, w
CLASSIFICATION/
POSITION Caretaker "C"
HEARING DATE August 14, 1989
APPEARANCES:
MANAGEMENT UNION
D. Butler J. Paul
DECISION:
Degree Points
Job Difficulty R3 q6
Guidance Received .~c4 I 9.4
C ommunicat ions B1 37
Training
& Exper, C1 38
Knowledge
Skill 2 21
Manual
E ffor t D 5 33
Working
Conditions Visual A5 ~
Environ.
D3 24
Total Points 376
Pay Band Number 5
COMMENTS:
~ S I GNATURE Q ,