Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1349.Mignone.90-01-03 ~ ONTARIO ' EMPLOYL~S DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO GRIEYANCE C,OMMISSlON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIQ MSG 1Z8- SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/T~:L~-PHONE 180, RUE DUNOAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) M6G lZ8. BUREAU 2100 (416) 598-0688 1349/88 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN E~PLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Mignone) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Employer Before: A. Barrett Vice-Chairperson I. Thomson Member W. Lobraico Member For the Grievor: R. Stoykewych Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers & Solicitors For the Employer: D. Costen Counsel Legal Services Branch Management Board of Cabinet Hearings: May 16, 1989 August 2, 1989 November .~, 1989 DECISION This is a classification grievance wherein the _~rievor who is a Purchasing Officer 1 (P.O. 1) says she should more properly be classified as a Purchasing Officer 2 (P.O. 2}. The grievance is dated November 21, 1988. The union advances the grievor's case primarily on the ground that her job duties and responsibilities fit within the class standard for a P.O. 2~ and secondarily upon the ground that she performs substantially identical duties to a P.O. 2 located in Guelph which is in the same southwestern region. The grievor has been employed with the Ministry at its Lakeshore office since 1979 in progressively senior clerical positions. In April 1985 she was made an acting P.O. 1 and worked in that capacity until March 1987, when she was awarded the job on a full time basis. Her job performance evaluations during her acting assignment were uniformly very good. She was noted as showing "exceptional promise" and obtained a 'four' ra%~ng on her sk~lls assessment which ~nd~c~ted ~hat she h~d a strong ability in all areas. Upon and after assuming the job on a permanent basis, the grievor continued to receive very commendatory performance reviews. Ms. Mignone works in a small office staffed by a P.O. 2, Ron Hei, herself, and a clerk-typist. It was stated by Ms. Mi~none and confirmed by Mr. Hei in evidence, that although he is nominally Ms. Mignone's supervisor, in fact because of her superior sk±lls and abilities she requires almost no supervision at all. Essentially, the two purchasing officers share the purchasing end tendering duties between themselves. Ms. Mignone does more of the tendering and Mr. Hei does more of the purchasing, although both do a proportion of each. When work comes into the department, Ms. Mignone usually receives the tenders and deals with them autonomously, although when the tender is complete Mr. Hei checks over all of the documents before forwarding them up the chain of command. With respec~ to purchase orders, Mr. Hei often gives Ms. Mignone her choice of those she wants to work on. Mr. Hei has more knowledge in the area of plumbing, electrical and hardware purchases, and he generally processes those, although Ms. Mignone is competent to do so. Both purchasing officers work under very stringent guidelines and procedures. There is Very little room for discretion and both have the same dollar amount signing authority. Ms. Mignone made a substantial contribution to the office by designing check-lists ~nd form letters to expedite the tendering process. Both purchasing officers supervise the clerk-typist insofar as delegating duties to her and correcting her work. Mr. Hei performs some duties which Ms. Mignone does not. He drafts job performance evaluations for both Ms. Mignone and the clerk-typist, subject to review by his supervisor. He is in charge of vacation scheduling, sick leave monitoring and discipline probIems should the need arise. He would be responsible for supervising Ms. Mignone carefully if there was any need for it. However there is not. Mr. Hei is also responsible for monitoring the trucks and associated credit cards that are used by the purchasing department. Mr. Hei estimated that he spent about 25% of his time performing these extra duties that Ms. Mignone does not perform. For the rest of the time, he performs much the same duties as Ms. Mignone. The class standards for P.O. 1 and P.O, 2 have a substantial overlap of duties. The difference between the two generally, is in the degree of responsibility and supervisory duties. It is necessary for this Board to review the compensable factors which distinguish the P.O. 1 level from the P.O. 2 level to see if Ms. Mignone performs all of the compensable aspects of the differentiation. Employer counsel emphasizes that the main differences in this case are that Mr. Hei has supervisory respons±bility over Ms. Mignone and ultimate responsibility for the department. Just because Ms. Mignone requires very little supervision does not detract from the fact that Mr. Hei is responsible for it. Secondly, even though the two purchasing officers tend to divide up the work between them by mutual agreement, still the method of assignment is at the discretion of Mr. Hei and he could choose to intervene more and directly assign the work. Mr. Nei has the overall responsibility for the department and fs accountable to higher management if things go wrong. That, says management counsel, is the significant difference between the two jobs. Now we examine the class definitions for P.O. 1 and P.O. 2 to attempt to determine the salient characteristics of each which make them different and which essentially defS.~e the class. The class definitions are set out below: PURCHASING OFFICER, 1 "This is elementary procurement work performed under immediate supervision in a departmental.purchasing unit. Emphasis in the Positions is primarily on training for higher level purchasing duties and employees are limited as to the variety and quantitv of materials, supplies and eguiDment with which they are concerned. Assignments are received from hither level purchasing officers and results are checked for adherence to standardized purchasing routines and quality of judgment displayed in making preliminary selection. These employees ~ supervise a small ~roup of c~erks and typists engaged in clerical work directly'related to purchasing operations. They are required to maintain effective working relations with departmental personnel and with a number of suppliers, salesmen, and manufacturers' representatives." PURCHASING OFFICER, 2 "This is responsible technical procurement work requiring considerable knowledge of specific commodities, standard purchasing methods, and material inspection techniques. Responsibilities in these positions pertain either to purchasing a variety of materials, supplies and equipment in a medium-sized department or to large-scale purchasing of specific categories of items in a large department with specialized requirements. In these latter positions which are characterized by less varied responsibilities, employees are charge of procurement in quantity of such commodities as cement, steel, hardware, furniture, clothing material and equipment. All employees in this clas~ receive general supervision from Durchasin~ officers of hi~her level or from administrative officials who confirm decisions involving heavy expenditures or marked departures on kind and quality of material or purchasing methods employed. Employees in this class may supervise a small qropD of subordinates p~rformin~ more routine aspects of departmental purchasinQ operations. They are required to develop effective working relationships with departmental personnel and with suppliers, sale~men and manufacturers' representatives." (Underlining ours) When comparing Ms. Mignone's duties with the class definition for P.O. 1 we are first struck by the specification that "emphasis in the positions is primarily oD. tra]nir~g for higher level purchasing duties" We are persuaded on the evidence that Ms. Mignone has long passed the training per~od, and is fully competent and responsible in her duties, in addition, Ms. Mignone is not limited as to the varietv and quantity of material, supplies and equipment that she deals with any more than Mr. Hei is. Technically, Mr. He/ ass~qDs duties to her but in fact, Ms. Mignone simply assumes work as it comes into the department. We also find that Ms. Mignone works under general rather than immediate supervision in a d~partmental purchasing unit. Given the emphasis in the class definition on the training aspect of this position, we doubt that Ms. Mignone still' fits within the definition. The grievance was launched approximately three and one-half years after Ms. Mignone had been doing the job on a full-time basis, and one and one-half years from the date the position became permanent. Having determined that Ms. Mignone is performing on a regular basis at higher than an elementary level, we must now look to the P.O. 2 class definition to determine whether she can place herself within it in light of the compensab].e factors that separate one class from the other. A person may be working in a highly competent manner in one class and in fact performing duties above and beyond the call of duty for their class but they are not necessarily entitled to move up into the next class unless they are performing.al] of the comp~nseble elements of the job that distinguish one class from the other, and are required or expected to perform those d~lties. Looking at the P.O.. 2 class definition, we find that these employees "receive general supervision from purchasing officers of higher level or'from administrative officials who confirm [their] decisions" We also note that employees in this class "may supervise a small group of subordinates performing the more routine aspects of departmental purchasing officers." It is not a requirement of this class definition that the employee supervise subordinate purchasing officers. with respect to the procurement work, we find that Ms. Mignone's duties better fit the definition."resDonsible" than "elementary" We' also find on the evidence that Ms. M~gnone purchases a variety of materials, supplies and equipment as defined for P.O.- 2's as opposed to a "limited variety of materials, supplies, articles and equipment" as defined for P.O. l's. In revie~.~ing the characteristic duties set out in the P.O. 2 class standard we find that a degree of autonomy in making selections and recommending tenders is the essential difference between the P.O. 2 and P.O. 1 duties. Ms. Mi~none has that degree of autonomy. Mr. Hei's additional duties in supervision and looking after the trucks are not re~]ired by the class standards for ~.O. 2's. It is difficult for a board of arbitration unfamiliar with the work place to assess degrees of responsibility and autonomy as between two people who actually work on the job. However, that is the only real distinction between th~se two class definitions and in attempting to determine, first of all, whether Ms'. Mignone fits into the P.O. 1 class; and secondly, whether she fits within the P.O. 2 class, we must attempt to do just that. We find that Ms. Mignone is req~ired and e×Dected to perform all purchasing and tendering duties in the de~nrtment with minimal supervision. The fact that she st)ends more time on tendering than on purchasing does not denigrate from the fact that she is competent to do both and does both quite independently. We are strengthened in our view that Ms. Mignone fit~ herself within the P.O. 2 category by the "usage" evidence received from Ms. Meurs, a P..O. 2 in Guelph. In the Guelph office there are two P.O. 2's and one clerk-typist7 the same number of employees as in the Lakeshore office. Neither of the P.O. 2's supervises the other and both are responsible to ~he finance administrator who does not work out of the same building. Both are equally responsible for the performance of the office and for supervising the clerk-typist. Neither does job performance evaluations of the other or the clerk-typist, nor do they perform any other supervisory functions, such as vacation scheduling, sick leave monitoring or discipline. Ms. Meurs described her job duties and job description in much the same way as Ms~. Mignone described hers. She is involved in tendering and purchasing of perhaps a lesser variety of goods and services than the Lakeshore office. The Guelph P.O. 2's are allowed to approve purchase orders up to $2,000.00 while at Lakeshore, both the P.O. 1 and P.O. 2 can only approve purchase orders up to $1,000.00. The only real d~.fference between Ms. Mignone's and Ms. Meurs' job duties appear ~o be the presence of a senior purchasing officer in the office in Ms. Mignone's case. Again, the class definition for P.O. 2 does mot make it mandatory that the P. O. 2 supervise subordinate purchasing officers. Nor in fact does that harden in Guelph. In Guelph the two P.O. 2's work side by side and confer with each other on absences, vacations, etc. This is the same thJ. ng in essence, that happens in the Lakeshore office, and we see no reason why two P.O. ~'s cannot co-exist in the Lakeshore off%ce as they do in Guelph. kccordin~ly, we find that Ms. Mignone was improperly classified as a P.O. 1 as of twenty days before the filing of - 10 - her Grievance. She should be reclassified as of that day to a P.O. 2 position and compensated accordingly Jrt salary and benefits. We will remain seized of jurisdiction in this matter in the event there is any difficulty implementing the award. DATED at Toronto, this 3rd day of January, ]990. A. BARRETT, Vi~ e Chair ~r~ n THOMSON Member LOBRAICO, Member