Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0094.Worthy et al.90-08-28 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE ~ ~~ SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD - DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STRE~ WE~ TORONTO. ON~Ri~ M5G 1Z8 - SUI~ 21~ TEL~HONE/T£~PHONE 180, RUE DUNDAS OUES~ TO~NT~ (ON~RI~ MSG 1Z8- BUR~U 2t~ ~1~ 5~-0~8 0094/89 IN T~E MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN E~PLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before TH~ GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD ~ETWEEN OPSEU [Worthy et al) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of OntariO (Ministry of Transportation) Employer - and - M, R. Gorsky Vice-Chairperson I. Thomson Member E. Orsini Member FO~ THE R.A. Blair - GRIEVOR Counsel Cav$11uzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE A.E. Burke EMPLOYER Counsel Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie Barristers & Solicitors HEARING: July 27, !989 November 29, 1989 June 4, 1990 July 27, 1990 D F ~ I S ~ O~ -. 'L This is a classification grievance involving eleven separate grievances filed by employees presently classified as Driver / Examiners at the Employer's Scarborough Ontario , Driver Examination Centre located at 775 Warden Avenue. Each of the Grievors claims to be improperly classified and each of them seeks a declaration to that effect and the remedy sought is in the nature of a ~ order requiring the Employer to find an - appropriate classification for each of the Orievors. it was agreed that should we find in favour of the position of the Onievors, we would remain seized of ti~e matter in the event that the parties experience difficulty in implementing our Award, Zt wes also agreed that the only evidence to be heard would be with respect to the grievance of one of. the Grievors, Donald Worthy, whose case would be representative of all of the other cases, and that our Award on the facts relating to Hr. Worthy would be binding on the parties with respect to all of the grievances. In requesting a Berry order, the Union indicated that it could not find an existing class standamd that would take into account the variety of examination dutie.s and responsibilities performed by the Orievor in addition to those found in the position specification. It was the further position of the Union that none of the additional duties performed by the Orievor fell within the Driver Examiner class standard. The position specification fop t~e'Grievor fExhi'bit t2), in its material portions, is as follows: '~2. PURPOSE OF POSITION (WHY DOES THIS POSITION EXIST, STATE GOALS OBJECTIVES ETC.) -J To examine applicants fo~ both original and higher class driver licences; to re-examine applicants for ] both cause and cyclical re-examinations; to perform driver licence issuing functions; to operate driver examination travel points as required." _J "5.. SUMMARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (INDICATE PERCENTAGE OF TIME SBENT ON EACH SIGNIFICANT FUNCTION. INOICATE SCOPE, WORKING CONDITIONS UNUSUAL FEATURES _] ETC.) I. Examines applicants for all classes of driver licences by performing duties such as: - ensuring completeness and accuracy of prescribed applications for description, eligibility and ,_.] requirements; - determining applicants ability to competentiy operate the class of vehicle outlined on applications, throuBh either riding in the vehicle in the Case of or, motorcycle, oOserving from a ~antage point;, - ~ - recording results of applicants performance, on an approved road test scoring form, over an approved standardized test route; - deciding if applicant has demonstrated sufficient competence, driving ability, skill and Judgement to i]] · meet Ministry licensing standards; 90 % - advising applicant of pass or fait test results and recording such information on road test record sheet; ] - explainin9 to applicant areas of driving abilities that require improvement; . ] - evaluating the driving ability of physically disabled applicants and, when necessary, recommending !_ compensating equipment, or Platina necessary conditions on licence; applicants - training new examiners in road testing techniques and -'~ reporting progress to the driver exa.mimer supervisor; - re-examining drivers, who are required to submit to ,--~ cyclical review of their driving ability or as required by Driver Control and preparing written reports outlining recommendations. -'~ 2. Conducts inside examinations for applicants for all classes of driver licences by: - inspecting applications for c~ass, description, age, eligibility and signature; - viewing and recording acceptable date of birth and identification documents; - viewing and approving medical forms as provided by applicant, and referring questionable forms to supervisor; 2% - conducting vision screening tests using approved Ministry equipment, passing those meeting required class standards and referring those who do not meet required standards to a vision specialist; - conducting written and/or oral tests fop app!icant,g with regard to class of ticence desired. 3. Performs general counter functions such as: - greeting appl'icants, to determine their' individual needs; - advising applicants of their individual requirements; . - processing out of province licence t~ansfers as related to applicants previous 'JurisdiCtion; - operating computer terminal to determine status of applicant; 5% - explaining probationary licence regulations to newly licensed applicants; - issuing temporary driver licences to qualified applicants; ~ - collecting coPpect fees per transaction; - completing daily fee and statistic reports as reqoired; - answering via telephone or in person a host of varied licence related enquiries; 4.Assists the driver examiner supervisor by performing duties such as: - taking charge of field travel point on a daily basis; 5% '~ - depositing fees in bank or night deposit; - acting as driver examiner supervisor or senior examiner .~- in their absence; L] - as assigned." "4. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO PERFORM. THE WORK --. ~ (STATE EDU£ATION. TRAINING. EXPERIENCE. ETC.) · Sound knowledge of techniques as related to driver I ,-- testing. Good knowledge of H.T.A. and regulations pertaining to driver licensing. Knowledge of office -- procedures. Ability to communicate and deal tactfully and intelligently with the public and Government '"] attain driver personnel. Must be ,.~bte .,~o .... qualifications of a Class "or "drivers licence by i conclusion of the probationary period. Must have been '..'~J the holder of a valid Ontario drivers' licence for over a 2-yesr period. Attain non probationary st.at,J~, ] maintain a good driving record and a valid drivers' I iicence. Must meet vision standards for a ,class "~" drivers' lidence. Must be physically fit to mass a - Grade 1 medical examination. -7 . The Driver Examiner class .standard (Exhibit 5), is as follows: _1 "CLASS DEFINZTION: These employees determine, the competence of applicants for dr'ivers' licences through application of a variety of accepted examination techniques.' In addition, they are expected to assess the faults of applicants and to suggest how driving habits may be improved. Considerable initiative and ability is required in giving examinations in view of the wide variations in ability, temperament and emotional stability of applicants and also in the traffic conditions. General §upervision is received from 8 more senior dr~ver examiner. However, since these employees are fully qualified examiners, they work with considerable independence at examination centres or scheduled examination field trips to designated travelling points. They may .assist in training probationary examiners. Ability to handle the public diplomatically is a requirement. CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES: Accompany 8pp!icants for drivers' licences over prescribed routes entailing a variety of traffic conditions and regulations; determine competence of applicants and their 5 knowledge of driving regulations under the Highwaz Traffic Act.' Observe applicants' mental and physical fitness to operate motor vehicles; determine what licence restrictions or specialized equipment to compensate for physical impairment are necessary. Conduct vision tests, sign recognition tests and written and oral examinations; ·give special driving examinations to elderly or handicapped persons. Participate in office administration including the collection of fees as required. Advise applicants of examination results and in cases of rejections, indicate errors and necessary improvements; submit detailed reports on each examination, .. On request, give information on the issuing of licences and provisions of the Highway Traffic Act as they affect the licensing of drivers and their conduct on the Highway. Nay operate an office .in a small community where there is no responsibility for any full-time employees or for any "travelling points". Perform other related duties as assigned. OUALZEICATIQNS: A minimum of six months' performance as a Driver Examiner (Probationary)' ~ successful ·completion of examination requirements for positions in this class; must maintain a commendable driving record." The duties which the Grievor claims he carries out, in addition to those set out in the position specification and in the class standard, are as follows: "D~SPUTFD DUTIFS 1. Identification of, investigation of and assistance in the apprehension of suspected fraudulent applicants, as well as documentation Q'f evidence and necessary attendance as potential Crown witnesses in prosecution of fraudulent applicants; 2. Examination of applicants for Ai..r Brake endorsements, also known as qZ" endorsements, on drivers' licenses; ~L~... 3. Development and evaluation of road'test routes; L] 4. Performing duties of Driver Examiner Supervisors during their absence, including but not limited to responsibility for the security, recording, and deposit of collected fees; 5. Performing the duties of Driver Improvement Counsellor ~i] as required; 6 Performance of complete range of clerical functions including complete processing and issuing of temporary -- licenses during absence of clerical staff as required." ] ~n some cases, the differences between the parties do not relate to whether the duties referred to as "disputed duties" are ~] being.,carried out by the Grievor, but concern whether those duties are provided for in 'the class standard, directly, or as ]~ iflc-~dental duties In oti]er casee the differences , , , .... w ...... the -'J-'.'n parties ret ares to whether the duty performed is dealt with elsewhere in the Collective Agreement, and is not to be '] considered asa factor in determinin~ the proper classification of ~ ¢ ~h~ Grievor. ~i] In his evidence, the Grievor did not take issue with the ] correctness of the summary of duties and responsibilities found in the position specification and class allocation form, H~s ~] position was that the additional duties performed b2 him are not covered by the Driver Examiner class standard, and that this is what makes allocation to that classification inappropriate. The  evidence concerning the nature and extent of the six duties which the Grievor stated he performed was given by the Gri.evor; by ---] Emily Graham, who was the Acting District Examiner for the' -.] 7 Toronto District at the time the grievance was filed; and by William Ooherty, the District Manager of the Toronto-York District of the Driver and Vehicle Section of the Employer. After having considered the evidence of the witnesses, Z make the following findings with respect to the disputed duties (The numbering employed is the same as in the statement of disputed duties): 1. All Driver Examiners are responsible for carrying out certain duties with respect to identifying fraudulent applicants. The process of identifying fraudulent ~ppiicants fotlows'a fairly set routine. On enterin~ the vehicle Prior to the commencement of.the road test, the Grievor requests the production ~f proper identification. He checks the identification and signature of the applicant against the signature on the road test sheet. If the Grievor is not satisfied that the applicant is the person he or she purports to be, he asks questions concerning the applicant's birth date and residence ·address to check against the application. If the Grievor is uncertain as to the signature being that of the applicant, he requests that the person purporting to be the applicant furnish another signature. The Grievor also observes whether the person taking the test demonstrates more skill in driving than would be expected' of the applicant and whether there is an apparent discrepancy betwee~ the age of the person taking the test and that of the person _] whoes name appears on the application. The steps taken by the Orievor can result' in his reporting the person taking the test to his 9upepvisor as a possible fraudulent applicant A =,,~k indication of a fraudulent applicant are differences in the apparent age of the pemson taking the test and the age of the ~] person whose name appears on the appt.ication. ' I am satisfied that the Orievor is required to repor.t a i. h,~, he has, suspected fraudulent applicant to his Supervisor and t =~ on occasion, given a written report of the events to his Supervisor. I am also satisfied that he has, infrequently, _.] attended at court where the police have laid charges against a suspected fraudulent applicant. Although the Gnievor may have been asked, on one occasion, i] to keep watch over a fraudulent applicant in order to see that he ' did not attempt to escape the premises, Z am satisfied that he ,--.l~_ had no responsibility to do more than notify his +Supervisor if the suspected' fraudulent appli'cant attempted to leave the room. i_--] The Grievor was not expected (o do anything more in attempting to ---] apprehend fraudulent applicants than as above described, He had -' no role in conducting additional investigations, such T-] investigations being the 6esponsibi!ity of supervision. The Grievor testified that he was present at a meeting in ~ 1988, whi.ch was said to have been arranged by management, at ~1__~ which time employees at the Sc'arborough office were addressed by '~ a police officer. This meeting was said to have as its main 9 purPOSe the instruction of employees, including Driver Examiners, in the procedures to be used for the identification and apprehension of fraudulent applicants. Mr. Ooherty and Ms. Graham testiffed that the only meeting that was arranged for Oriver Examiners involving the participation of the police was a meeting held in !986, in which a police officer was asked to furnish the employees with guidelines for their conduct in case of a hold-up. Mr. Doherty stated that he had arranged for the meeting and that no subsequent meeting ih~olv~ng the pol ice was arranged by him or by any of his staff. Ms. Graham stated that et no time police requested to give a lecture on the d apprehension of fraudulent applicants at the Scarborough She referred to the meeting held in 1986, where inside Examiners, and Driver Examiners who had worked at the front counter were addressed by a police officer on the proper conduct expected of them in case of a hold-up. The information conveyed concerned the ,means of providing a proper description of the robber. Ms. Graham stated that the meeting was not concerned with the detection and apprehension of "ringers", Responses from the Police officer to questions concerning detection and apprehension of fraudulent applicants were directed to him by employees and this area of the discussion was not initiated by the officer. Ns. Graham's evidence was that, in keepin¢ with Ministry policy, employees were· not asked to either apprehemd or detain suspected fraudulent applicants. She stated that, in her lO experience, which dates .from 1975, Driver Examiners have only been requested to report possible fraudulent applicants and that there had been no change in this procedure since she was first empioyed. The responsibility of a Driver Examiner, as above outlined, was agreed to by both Ms. Graham and Mr. Doherty, and Mr. Doherty testified that it had been in place, at least, since t960. Ms. Graham testified that a daily Journal is kept in which entries are made involving cases ~4here suspected fraudulent applicants were brought to the attention of management by either Inside Clerks or by Driver Examiners. She stated that there, had been nQ recent significant increase in the number of fraurJuler;t applicants. In the year preceeding January. l, !989, there had been 50 reports, 25 being made by Inside Examiners and 25 by Driver Examiners. The total number of suspected fraudulent applicants reported to supervision by Outside Examiners in 1988 was 32. I am satisfied that the G'rievor did not have any greater' involvement in such reportin~ than the other Driver Examiners at Scarborou9h and that such reports only took up a minuscule part of a Driver Examiner's total working time. Zn any event, I would find that the responsibility for ferreting out fraudulent applicants falls wi. thin the responsibility as set out in the class standard. Under the class definition, the statement that: "These employees determine the competence of applicants for drivers' licences.through application of a variety of accepted examination techniques," includes the duty of insuring that the tt applicant is who he or she purports to be, In the case before us, we cannot find that there have been any changes, from 1960 to the time of the grievance, in the responsibilities of Driven Examiners relating to the detection of fraudulent .applicants The responsibility of the grievor for the most part, concerned with the identification of fraudulent applicants using the methods above described, The screening process is necessary in order to carry out the principal responsibility and ,-is a "related' duty as assigned" provided for under characteristic duties. It was suggested that co-operating with the police and attendin9 at court as a witness was similar to the situation in the Dunning case, to be referred to above, where the grievor periodically represented the employer as an expert witness in court. Zn situations where an employee is required to represent the employer as an expert witness, such responsibility can be employee's Job. Where the police require an part of the employee to attend at a criminal prosecution, the. employee's attendance cannot be seen as part of his or her Job, it is something required by the police, The fact that the Employer might look unfa.vourably upon an employee w~orefused to testify or to give information to the police cannot convert a civic responsibility into a job duty or responsibility. If I l~ad found the Grievor's responsibility to be more than as described, I might have viewed the matter differently. For 12 r i example, if he had a larger responsibility in 'the area· of investigation or if he were designated as a liaison person to E] represent the Ministry with the police. This was not shown to be i the ~a~e I --' 2. Although the Griever testified that he was responsig!e for. administering examinations to applicants for air-brake I'-- endorsements on driverq' !icences, referred to as "Z" endorsements, the evidence disclosed that this was not the case -- at' the material time. 1-"' Zt was submitted on beheif of the Griever that this responsibility is not covered in the class standard, which refers .__ to determining "the competence of. applicants fo.r drivers' licences through application of a variety of accepted examination I ~'~ !icence but is an endorsement on a licence. Counsel for the Employer argued-that the characteristic duty: "Accompany applicants' for drivers' licences over prescribed routes entailing a variety of traffic conditions and regulations; determine competence of applicants and their knowledge of driving regulations under the Highwa~ Traffic Act," l --~ was sufficiently broad as to encompass the testing procedure for the "Z" endorsement. Z do not have to adjudicate upo~ whether [ ~ the testing for "Z" endorsement falls within the class standard for Driver Examiner· At the time of the filing of the grievance ~ on January tt, 1989, the Griever was not trained to perform the ~ endorsement test and, in fact, did not obtain training for this purpose until approximately one year later, in December of 1989. Zt was argued on behalf of the Griever that he believed, based on the imminence of the "Z" endorsement requirement becoming law, that he had to prepare himself in November of t988, by attendance at a community college, to give any air-brake test that might be introduced, It was also argued on behalf of the Griever that the. usual rule with respect to the facts which can be considered in hearing the grievance (usually being limited to those in existence at the time of the filing of tI~e grievance) ought not to be followed in "thi~ case, where it was commen knowledge that the test was going to be required and where it ~as in fact subsequently made a requirement in May of ]990. There may be times when the usual rule need not be applied end where, facts could be considened which occurred after the filing of the grievance. In this case,, the Job requirement was not in~roduced until approximately a year and five months after the filing of the grievance and this is too long a period to permit a departure from the rule. 3. We ar.e satisfied that while the Griever may have, on e voluntary basis, reported emergenc~ situations existing on road test routes which prevented a test from being carried out at a particular time, we are also satisfied that Driver Examiners were not required to develop on evaluate ro~d test routes which duty was the responsibility of others. The fact that the Griever may ~" have given periodic input concerning existing routes is insufficient to find that he was either required to do so or that his involvement went beyond a voluntary act. We need not comment upon what the situation might be if the Grievor's i~volvement was greater than the evidence disclosed. ~. The evidence of the Grievor concerning disputed duty #4 was that he had performed these duties while assigned to a tpave! point, but never at the Scarborough Centre. Paragraph 3.~.of the Summary of Duties and Responsibilities requires that Driver Examiners assist the Driver Examiner supervisor by performing the duties above l~sted for 5% o~ ~'- time. Z am satisfied from the evidence of the Grievor that his periodic responsibilities in this area did not exceed 5% of the time spent on the job. There was some evidence from the Grievor that he was responsible for the security of the fees and the transport thereof while at a travel point, in ~"¢0¢~m Hi~ evidence was, however, that the safeguarding of the monies was restricted to a time when he drove a Ministry vehicle during lunch hour when he and the clerk assigned to the travel point went 'to lunch. I cannot find that the duties carried out by the Grievor fell outside of the duties and responsibilities provided for in the position specification and class ~llocation form,as they relate to this duty. ] 5. There was some evidence that the Grievor, who had been I 15 trained as a Driver Zmprovement Counsel]or, had, on occasion. while a Driver Examiner, served in the former capacity when a Driver Zmprovement Counsellor had set up an appointment and then discovered that he or she could not attend. These assignments were only infrequently made. Counsel for the Employer submitted that such temporary assignments could not affect the classification of an employee because the parties have contemplated temporary assignments under the provisions of Article 6 of the Collective Agreement. Article 6.1.t provides : .Where an employee is assigned temporarily to perform duties in a classification with higher salary maximum for a period in excess of five (5) ccnsecutive working days, he shall be paid acting pay from the da9 commenced to perform the. duties of the higher classification in accordance with the next higher rate in the higher classification, f provided that where such change results in an increase of less that three percent (3%), he shall receive the next higher salary rate again. While the collective agreement contemplates temporary. assignments, this does not mean that such assignments are irrelevant in determining whether an employee has been improperly classifed, Nevertheless,.. temporary assignments are contemplated and the considerable infrequency of these assignments in the case before us, along with the other factors militating against a finding of improper classification, do not assist the Grievor. 6. The evidence disclosed that approximately four times a year the Grievor would be called upon to perform an Znside Examiners' Job, including the clerical functions--~ted with it. This 16 would take place when the Znsfde Examiners were required to attend a meeting, of approximately two hours duration. In addition, when no road tests were scheduled, the Grievor might spend approximately 20 minutes (the time of a road test) performing Znside Examiners' functions. I find that the class ~] standards envisage such activity under: "Participate in office '_~_' ] administration including the collection of fees as required." Such responsibility would also be covered by the words, "on request, give information on the issuing of ticences and i,_ provisions of the Highway Traffic A~t as they affect the r] licensing of drivers and their conduct on the Highway." i '7 Counsel for the Grievor relied upon [Lo_Z]_~1, 675/85 i ] in SUPPOrt of his submission that the Orievor had been improperly classified' ~n that case, the O~ievors, who were Renewal Processing Clerks in the Ministry of Transportation and Communicat'ions, and who were classified as Clerks S General, 1 ,_1~_~_.~ claimed that the position was improperly classified and requested '"-I that they be r~-classified at the level of Clerk ~, General. The evidence disclosed that the position of Renewal Processing Clerk: J was created in April of 1983 and that at the beginning of May ]]] 198~ a number'of functions were added to the Job. The incumbents, ]--~] starting . i~ early 1985. sought re-classification of their '~_T] Positions. The grievances were filed on various dates between' June 19 and July ~, t985, On August 22, ?985, the grievors received the Step 2 reply which reviewed the history of the -~ ~ dispute and confirmed that some of the duties performed by them were probably at the Clerk 4 level. Rather than rewriting the the Job contained a mix of duties (some Job description where Clerk 3 and some Clerk 4), the' Employer chose to redesign the position, with those duties appearing to be Clerk ~ duties and L. some new ones not performed before being put into a new position calted Senior Renewal Processing Clerk. The rest of the duties were to remain within the existing Renewal Processing Clerk position. Prior to the creation of the Senior Renewal Clerk position, L the Ministry instituted a rotation system under which the Renewal t Processing Clerks, after 'e short period of training 'in each of - the four segments of work associated with the position, were able F to undertake all of the various functions of the Position and F were expected to do so. By the date of the grievance in June 1985, approximately 95% of the staff had'been so trained with such expectation. ' Prior to January of 198~, when the Ministry began to require the Renewal Processing Clerks to undertake training in 'the rotation system, they were engaged exclusively in a single L function. As of June 1985, the Renewal Processing Clerks were all qualified to perform all of the Clerk ~ functions and could be called upon by the Employer to perform all of them. They [. could be called upon to rotate between the functions or they could 'be involved in any assignment related to a specific function. At p. II of the Boyle case, it was found that: " .,. for substantial peciods of time from January 1984 on the Grievers, and the rest of the t- , 18 Renewal Processing Clerks, have been performing functions which are manifestly level ~ functions. They have been so found to be level a functions after the - Job was split and there is nothing to indicate that they were any different in nature than they were before _] the split." The 8oard found (at p, tt) that: ,.~ "The key lies in the fact that, while it may be the case that some of the Orievors might actually only be performing level 5 functions, they could at any time be called upon by _~ their Employer to perform level ~ functions." At p. 12, the Board stated: "... it is sufficient that the Employer can call upon a Clerk to perform level 4 functions and expect the employee to measure up to the standard expected of that higher level of classification." At p. 15 of the ~, case the Board stated: "To adopt what might be an inept analogy: a Fireman remains a Fireman even though he is not called on to put out fires. If he is at the call of his employer to _ put out fires as and when they occur that is sufficient. Here the Employer wanted to have greater flexibility in being able to assign different employees _ to'different tasks as and when that may be necessary, That necessitated a training of the employee in different tasks. Once those employees became trained in all of the functions they became l~able to be called upon by their Employer to perform them properly. The extent to-which they may have actually'been called upon to perform them is, in our opinion, not relevant to the question of the classification of their positions," Counsel for the Grievor also relied on Dunning, !57~/99 (Gorsky). In that case, the grievor was an electronic technician employed by the Ministry of Transportation and claimed re-classification.. The claim was for the creation of a new -'~~ classification for the grievor which would reflect his actual duties 8nd responsibilities, should the 'Board not find an ]existing classification into which the 9rievor fit. As in the · - ~.~ 19 ~_~ case before Us, in Dunning, the Grievor was within a classification that was not within any class series. In the F Punning case, the references at pp. 11, 12 and 15 of the Boyle case were referred to with approval. However, in the Dunning L case, the Board found that there were a ·substantial number.of k duties and responsibilities of the Grievor that were clearly beyond the core duties of the class standard. There were E substantial additional responsibilities, including: supervision, F training, requisitioning, updating maintenance manuals, L maintaining liaison witt~ a number of internal and external L groums, maintaining a running record of repairs ,of equipment, an.d maintaining information to ensure that the cost of repairing an item of equipment would not exceed its replacement costs. The Board in Dunning found that a substantial basis existed L for finding an improper classification related to the nature of F L the supervisory/administrative responsibilities carrfed out by the Grievor which were not covered by the class standard. F Furthermore, .in the Dunning case, the Board found that the duties and responsibilities beyond those found in the class L standard had evolved over the years and had been cl'early identified in a draft position specification and in other documents which were found to be accurate. This· is not such a case as either Boyle or Dunning. In those cases the Grievors were found to have duties which either fell within a higher L classification (Boyle) or which went well beyond the core duties / of the class standard (Dunning). Here, the disputed duties were ['- - . 20 either encompassed in the language of the class standard I]'. (disputed duties 1, 4 and 6) or where not part of the Grievor's duties and responsibilities at the relevant times (disputed duties 2 and 3) or were otherwise not outside of the class standard (disputed duty 5), In assessing the nature and extent of performance of the six J disputed duties, we have concluded that the evidence of the witnesses for the Emp]oyep more accurately describes what the L] Grievor did'at the relevant times, as well as the extent of his - ] responsibilities. ~ Accordiqgly, and for the above reasons, the grievance is _] denied. DATED AT Toronto, Ontario thl s '28thdaY' of August, 1990, .. M, R, 6onsky Vi c'e-£ha~.nperson I. Thomson E. Orsini Member