Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0332.Catherwood.90-12-10 i '~. ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE · CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARiO GRIEYANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS ST'FIEF WEST, SUJTE 2300, TORONTO, ONTARrO. MSG 1ZB TELEPHONE/T£L~PHONE: (4 ~6) .326- 1385 180, RUE OUNDA$ OUEST, BUREAU 2~'00, TORONTO {ONTARIO). M5G 1Z8 FA¢SIMt!..E/TELr~.COPlE : (4~6) 926-1396 33~./89 ZN THE ~TTER OF AN3tI~ZTI~TZON Unae~ THE CRO~N EHPLOYEEB COLLECTIVE B~%RG~ZNZNG ACT BeEore THE ~RZEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOI~D '- BETWEEN OPSBU (¢atherwood) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services)' Employer BEFORE: N. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson S. Urbain Member D. Montrose Member FOR THE M. Ruby GRIEVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors -~ FOR THE M. Failes EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HEARING: September 19, 1989 March 19, 1990 April 24, 1990 2 DECISION The grievor, Mr. Lorne Catherwood was employed as Senior Property Administrator in the Land Management Branch in the Ministry's Central and Eastern field office. At the time of the grievance he was classified as a Real Estate Officer 2 (REO 2). He grieves that he is improperly classified. The class standards for the REO series initially comprised of six levels from REO 1 to REO 6. However, that was at a time before the Union had bargaining rights for REOs. Sometime early in the 1980's the REO 4, 5 and 6 levels were taken out of the class standard series and included in the Management Compensation Plan as management categories. Thus, for the relevant period, REO levels 4, 5 and 6 did not exist in this series. The Union claims that the grievor does not fit into any of the existing levels in the REO series and seeks a Berry order that the Employer properly classify the grievor. Alternatively, it submits that if the grievor fits within the REO series at all, of the existing classifications the best fit is into the REO 3 classification. 3 The REO class standards in the REO series (Levels 1 to 3) are attached to this decision as Appendix "A". the grievor's position specification appears as Appendix Over the objection of the Union, the Board allowed the Employer to lead evidence on the history of the classifications dealing with government owned real estate. Specifically we heard evidence about the conversion of employees from the Property Agent series of classes to the REO series and "the broadbending" that took place in the 1980's, resulting in the'deletion of the REO 4, 5 and 6 levels by order-in-council and the .transfer of those positions to management categories. Having heard that evidence, we have concluded that it is not of assistance or relevance in determfning this grievance, since we have no evidence at all as to what duties, responsibilities or skills were historically exercised by the incumbents in the various positions and classifications referred to in the evidence. We cannot assume, in the absence of some evidence to that effect, that the duties and responsibilities and the level of complexity and sophistication in the job functions, remained constant over the years. On the contrary it is more likely that these factors are continuously evolving and changing as the needs of the Employer change. 4 Therefore we see our function as one of examining the grievor's job as it stood at the time of the grievance in light of the class standards, to see if he is properly classified. Under the preamble to the REO series there are two broad areas which are used as criteria. The first area may be referred to as functions. There are 3 functions listed. There is no dispute that the grievor fits into at least two of the three functions. What is more critical is that the ranking within the REO series is based on the degree of application of the five factors listed in the preamble. (a) Resmonsibility for commitment of funds and the amount committed The grievor has ability to commit funds to a maximum of $ 1,O00.00. For any amounts in excess of that he had to make a recommendation to his immediate supervisor Mr. Hogan (Assistant Manager, Central and Eastern Field Office). Mr. Hogan had a higher maximum in his ability to commit funds. If the amount exceeded Mr. Hogan's maximum, the grievor had to seek approval from Mr. Wilson (Manager of Property Administration) or even a higher 5 ranking management. However, the evidence indicates that the grievor recommends commitment of funds amounting to $ 30,000 - 40,000, and that on most occasions these are approved. Since 'the grievor deals with the largest commercial projects in the region he has occasion to recommend commitment of large amounts of money. (b) Responsibility for developing, modifying. imDlementin~ and evaluating Dolic¥ and Procedures The grievor has input into policy and procedure. He has been asked to draft policy and procedure, but ultimate responsibility and approval is in the hands of management~ (c) ResDonsibilitv for evaluatin~ other employees' work The grievor has trained an underfill employee and reviewed her work. He has no formal responsibility for evaluating the work of any fultsfledged REO. However, he is often consulted by o~her REO's for advice specially in the area of his special expertise, namely, commercial projects. He provides technical advice to other employees on occasion. 6 (d) Total administrative responsibility, and the size of the unit administered "Administrative responsibility" is not defined. As the position specification indicates the grievor works very independently. He deals with various professionals, financial institutions and senior management. He has practically no day-to-day supervision. His unit consists of five Property Administrators. In the province of ontario there are in all 20 Property Administrators. In dollar value his unit has 46% of the total value of government owned rental properties in the province. That makes his unit, if not the largest, one of the largest units in the province. (e) Whether the responsibilities of a particular ~osition encommass one or more of the functions tabled above. As already noted, the grievors responsibilities encompass at least two of the three functions listed in the preamble. The evidence is that the REO 2 classification was at the time, the working level of the REO series. Based on the application of the five rar~king factors as 7 reviewed above, it is clear that his duties fall beyond the working level of the'series. Therefore we find that he is not property classified as REO 2. The issue then is, does the grievor fit into the REO 3 class or are his duties and responsibilities such that he is evenbeyond that. In the latter event, since there is no higher class in this series than the REO 3 class, there will not be any existing classification that is a proper fit for the grievor. On the basis of the evidence we cannot find that the grievor fits well into the REO 3 class standard. If this Board were to analyze the evidence there is a remarkable similarity between our findings and the findings made by the Board in Re Reuters, 2319/87 (Fisher) at p.4. We find the. grievor to be in the same position as the grievor in that case. As that Board did, we find that this grievor does not fit well into the REO 3 classification. If the REO 4, 5 and 6 classifications'existed, we may have been able to fit him into one of those classifications. In that we do not have that option, we must find that no classification that is a proper fit for the grievor exists. Counsel'for the Employer submitted that the panel in Re Reuters reached a wrong decision'because it had no evidence relating to the historical background to the broadbending and the elimination of the REO 4, 5 and 6 classifications. We did receive that evidence. However, as already noted, we do not see any significance in that evidence. The issue before the Board is whether the grievor's duties and responsibilities at the time of the grievance fit into his RE0 2 classification or to any other existing classification. For the reasons stated, we find that they do not. Therefore, the Board directs that the Employer find or create a classification which accurately reflects the grievor's duties and responsibilities. This is to be completed within three months of the issuance of this decision to the parties. The grievor shall also be fully compensated, including interest, retroactive to twenty days prior to the date of the filing of this grievance. The Board retains jurisdiction in the event the parties encounter difficulty in implementing the Board's direction. 9 Dated this 10th day of Dec~ber~. 1990 at Hamilton, Ontario N. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson S~ Urbain Member B. Montro~e Member