Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0355.Franciosi.90-03-14 ONTARIO EMPLOY~.$ DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 - SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/T~I.~'PHONE 180. RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG 17_8 - BUREAU 2100 (4'i6) 698-0688 3S5/89 IN T~E ~IATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EHPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGATNING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD B ET'WEEN: OPSEU (Franciosi) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Empl oye r BEFORE: N.V. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson M. Vorster Member D. Montrose Member' FOR THE N. Roland GRI EVOR: Couns e 1 Cornish Roland Barristers and Solicitors FOR THE N. Eber EMPLOYER: Couns e 1 Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie Barristers & Solicitors HEARING: February 9, 1990 2 DECISION This is a classification grievance dated March 20, 1989. At the time, the grievor Mr. Eugene Franciosi was classified as Designer I. Subsequent to his filing of the grievance the Employer reclassified him as Specification Officer 1 (SO-i) retroactive to March 1, 1989. The grievor stands by his original claim in the grievance that he should properly be classified as Specification officer 2 (SO-2). The dispute between the parties therefore is whether the proper classification is SO-1 or SO-2. The class standards for the Specification Officer series are attached to this award marked as Appendix A. Also filed in evidence was the grievor's position specification dated November 21, 1989, which the grievor agreed, was accurate. That is attached marked as Appendix B. The grievor joined the. Property Management Division, (Lakeshore District) of the Ministry of Government Services on June 2, 1972 as a student, and subsequently held positions classified as Draftsman I, Draftsman II and Designer I before the latest reclassification as SO-1. Since 1980 his title has been Architectural Designer/Drafter. At the time of the hearing, the grievor was serving in an acting capacity in the position of his immediate superior, the Technical Services Supervisor. 3 The Lakeshore District Property Management Division is headed by a District Manager. Reporting directly to him are three areas, each headed by a manager, one of these areas is headed by the Projects Manager, Mr. Norman Penford. He is responsible for two branches, the Construction Branch and the Technical Services Branch. The Technical Services Branch is supervised by a Technical Services Supervisor (at the relevant times a Mr. Rogers) who is a member of the bargaining unit. The grievor and two employees classified as Drafter II reported directly to the Technical Services Supervisor. The Property Management Division is responsible for the operation and maintenance of all government owned and leased properties within the Lakeshore District. The Technical Services Section supports all construction projects and some operation and maintenance projects, by producing contract documents for the various programs undertaken bythe division. The construction projects could be (a) Repair (b) Alteration (c) Capital or new construction. The grievor's function is to produce what is referred to as "a specification" - a document setting out a detailed description of (a) the work required and (b) the material to be used. Any project costing more than $ 2,000.00 requires a contract document. Work requests are made to the Property 4 Management Division by Property Managers or individual government ministries. The Project Manager maintains a 5 year plan and priorizes the required work, and forwards the requests to the Construction Supervisor, who in turn assigns each request to an inspector. The inspector prepares a scope of work document as well as a work order, which are then forwarded to the Technical Services Supervisor. The Technical Services Supervisor establishes a target date for each project. It is at this point that the grievor becomes involved. A meeting takes place between the Technical Services Supervisor and the grievor to decide on "who will do what" with regard to each project. Following consultations with the grievor the supervisor assigns each project to a draftsman to prepare the drawing. A decision is also made jointly by the supervisor and the grievor whether the specification will be prepared by the grievor himself or whether a draftsman should be assigned. The evidence is that the grievor did most of the specifications, but that on occasion simple specifications may be assigned to the draftsmen, to be produced under the direction of the grievor. If the grievor is absent or is too busy, the supervisor may also prepare specifications. The evidence indicates that sometimes the grievor himself assigns specifications to the draftsmen, but having done so he always informed the supervisor. The grievor 5 checked all of the work performed by the draftsmen, including their drawings. The evidence indicates that not all of the grievor's work is checked by the supervisor. Sometimes he does, but not at other times. When the grievor receives a scope of work and work order from an inspector, he meets with the supervisor and reviews it. If he has any difficulty or questions he may talk to the inspector. There are master specifications on file for various types of projects. In most cases, the grievor uses these as a basis and incorporates modifications required to suit the particular project. Sometimes, when the grievor has substantially completed a specification, it may be reviewed bY the inspector. After a specification is completed by the grievor it is reviewed by both the inspector and the supervisor, before the grievor sends it off to the Purchasing Branch to be posted for tenders. The grievor testified that in the year 1988/89 he produced a total of approximately 200 specifications. According to him, of these, 60 percent involved repairs under $ 50,000/=, 20 percent operation and maintenance projects and the balance 20 percent consisted of repairs over $ 50,000/= and cost recoverable projects. He testified that in that year he prepared all of the specifications except for two over $ 50,000/= and two under $ 50,000/= repair projects which were 6 prepared by outsideconsultants. Out of the 200, 20 projects involved repair' projects over $ 50,000/=. However, the evidence indicates that only 11 over $ 50,000/= projects actually were processed by the section. The grievor testified that in a number of instances large projects were divided into "phases" and categorized as separate under $ 50,000/= projects. This most likely explains the discrepancy in the number of over $ 50,000/= projects. The Employer witness agreed that the grievor could produce specifications no matter what the dollar value of a project might be. There was evidence that the grievor prepared specifications for a project involving', the installation of a security system costing, over $ 500,000/= and a roofing project costing over S 350,000/=. When an outside consultant is engaged the grievor is sometimes assigned as the liaison between the ministry and the consultant. In that capacity he ensures that the drawings and specifications meet the requirements of government tender documents. The Project Manager Mr. Norman Penford testified that 80 percent of the work performed by the Technical Services Section involved repair projects and that 90 percent of that were repairs under $ 50,000/=. However, Mr. Penford was not in a position to testify about the personal involvement of the grievor in any of these projects. Indeed, the Employer adduced no evidence to contradict the grievor's evidence as to the breakdown of his own involvement in the various types of projects. The Specification Officer Class series has 3 levels. SO-1 is described as "an entry or junior working level" and produced specifications for "moderately complex, small to medium sized projects". An SO-1 also assists more senior Specification Officers in a number of duties.. SO-2 is described as "the full working level" and perform similar duties as an SO-1 except that "the Drojects involved are predominantly large and complex". An SO-2 receives technical direction and guidance from supervising officers' and may provide advice and guidance to junior officers. The role of a SO-3 is that of providing technical supervision to less senior specification Officers. They "may produce specifications for the largest and most complex projects". On the basis of the evidence the Board has no difficulty concluding that the grievor's appropriate classification should be as SO-2. He is the specification writer in the Technical Services Section, There is no person in the section who has more expertise than the grievor, as a specification writer. He has responsibility and is answerable for the specifications going out from the section. He does not assist "more senior specification officers" as contemplated by the 8 SO-2 class standard simply because there are no specification officers more senior to him. The Supervisor occasionally writes a specification only if the grievor is absent or is too busy. The draftsmen are sometimes assigned that work but only simple specifications. When this is done, the grievor provides technical supervision to the draftsmen as contemplated in S0-2. The evidence is unHontradicted that the grievor will undertake projects ranging from the most simple to the most complex. There is no limit to the dollar value of .projects he is authorized to undertake. He is involved with the supervisor in the planning and assigning of the projects. He has a thorough knowledge of the various fields of construction eg: architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical; and of the. various construction materials and building code requirements. He receives guidance and direction from his supervisor as contemplated in S0-2.. As a matter of incidental interest, we also note that the fact that the grievor was the one appointed to act as the Technical Services Supervisor is also indicative of the position he had held as a responsible and senior Specification officer. In light of the foregoing the grievor's position cannot be described as "an entry or junior working level". On the contrary it properly fits the description of "the full working level". The thrust of the submission by Employer counsel was that the grievor's work did not involve "predominantly large 9 and complex" projects as envisaged in SO-2. This assertion was based on the evidence that the majority of his work involved repairs'under $ 50,000/=. As far as "complexity" is concerned, Mr. Penford agreed with the grievor that the dollar. value is not an indication of complexity. There is no evidence to suggest that the grievor is limited to only moderately complex projects. While work is sometimes contracted out to outside professionals, this' appears to be an infrequent occurrence. The grievor's evidence remains uncontradicted that in one year (1988-89) only four projects were contracted out. Furthermore, the evidence is that at least in some cases the projects are contracted out not because they are regarded as too complex for the grievor but because the law required a professional's stamp for certain types of projects. We are satisfied that the grievor dealt with the bulk of the complex projects, except perhaps the most complex.. Since an SO-2 is not expected to do the most complex projects (this is the function of a SO-3) that is not inconsistent with the grievor's position being a SO-2. The word "large" by definition has a relative meaning. A ten pound rock is large in comparison to a pebble, but not so in relation to a boulder. While the majority of the grievor's work involved repairs under $ 50,000/= that was because of the nature of the work that was available in the section. There can be no doubt that he predominantly dealt with the larger (though not' necessarily the largest) projects that were received in his Section. For the-foregoing reasons we find that the grievor is inappropriately~ classified as Specification Officer 1.. His position simply is not an entry or junior level. On the other hand, the position meets all of the material requirements of the Specification Officer 2 class. We hereb~ direct that the. grievor be reclassified as Specification Officer 2, retroactive to 20 days prior to the date of the filing of this grievance. He shall be entitled to retroactive compensation, including interest calculated on the basis of the formula set out by the Ontario Labour-Relations Board in Hallowel House Limited, (1980) OLRB Rep.~ Jan.. 35. The Board remains· seized in the event the parties encounter difficulty in implementing this decision. Dated this ]4t~ day of' March,'· 1990, at Hamilton, Ontario,. Nimal V. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson M. Vor~ter Member D. Montrose Member 601 O0 /. CT,~$$ SPECIFICATION OFFICER This is an entry or junior working level, covering positions where the employees prepare architectural and engineering specifications for tendering purposes. Employees in positions in =his class produce specifications for moderately complex, small to medium sized projects and assist in the production of large and complex projects under more direct guidance by senior officers. They also assist more senior Specification Officers in monitoring ~he work of associate architects and engineers; in providing information systems ~o facilitate =he production of specifications by others ~nd in rese=rch studies. They perform related duties as required. SKILLS AND KNOWT.~GEz A gOOd knowledge of architecture, engineering, material, costs and general estimating. Good knowledge of construction law and. a sound knowledge of ~endering and specifications, Ability to analyze contract systems and documcnt~, prepare and co-ordinate specifications; communicate and co-operate with professional~and technical staff. October 1. 1974 60102 CLASS STanDARD: SPECIFICATION OFFICER 2 'This is the full working level, covering, positions of employees= who perform' all the functions of the Specification Officer 1 level, except that the projects involved are predominantly large and complex.· They receive technical direction and guidance from supervising officers and may provide advice and ~idance to junior officers. SKI LL$ AND KNOWLEDGE: A' good knowledge of' archi:ec~ure, engineering,' material costs and general estimating. Good. knowledge of construction law and a Sound knowledge of tendering and specification. Ability to aaalyze con~rac~ systems and documents, prepare and' co-ordinate specifications; communicate and co-operate, with .. professional and technical staff. . October 1, 1974 60104 CLASS STANOARD: SP~IFfCATION OFFICER 3 Characteristics of positigns in this class is the provision of' %~c~h~ic_~.~_sgp~ision to less senior SpecifiCation Officers, in the writing of specif£c~f~ions, mon~3_o_~_~he wgr. k...of architects and engineers and in research pro~ects which may .be.policy oriented, material~ and systems or statistical ~n nature. They also provide instrUCtion and t%aining for lower level officers and check their work. In addition~ these employees may produce sp~3£~i3.~ for the. largest and mos= complex projects, including the hiring and supervision of professional consultants in specialized areas. The ~er¥ nature of positions qualifying for this class limits thenu~ber of positions/incumbents. These employees work with considerable independence. ¥ SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE: A go~d' knowledge of architectur(~, e~gineerinq, material costs and genera] estimating. Good know_____led~e~¢~f c0~uc~io~, law and a sound knowledge of t99~ering and s_~.~g~fi.cations. Ability to ana13~e con=tact ~ystems and~documents, prepare and co-ordinate specifications; direct support staff'; communicate and co-opera=e with professional and ~ecbnical staff. C, mt~ber I , /q74 [ ~" _~--~* .. Position Specification & Class AIIocation-CSC 6150 " " (Refer to back of form for completion ins:ruclions) ~ -~:lO ~ For CSC ~ Date receiv~ Previous serial number -- ~ew ;erie ~umber u~e only Pos, don ~itle ~~ ~ P~si~L~ C~e ~ Class ~icie and code ~-,e~e,~ .~~~~ .1 ......... [~66~1 ~i~ 1 =240 qnCh and Sec'rc~ Lc~ation ;~eog. L~. Coae s.w. ~ion - ~~ D~i~ 171 ~ ~. ~~, ~t. , 69501 ~. o' ~taces ' Provides ~p lea~erth~o tot [mm~i~te Supe~o~'s th~ ' Supe~i~r*t pom~on c3ce ~ - - ~i~ s~i~ ~r. 18-4660-60 Purpose G{ Do~{t{on {why ~o~ %hit pm;tion existS) d~~ for ~~ ~. Duties and related tasks ~hat i$'ernoioyee requirecl to do, how and why? Indicate I~ercenlage of time spent on each duzy] 1. Prepares, produces and oo-ordinates designs and specifications, contract ~ts -. review~ corr~enoe, ~ of. work description, .rough sketches and' estimates provi~. _. by Cc~cra~ Inspectors and/or client ministries; - identifyir~ the need for, initiating an~ carry out research specific to a project, pruduct or syst_e~_., so that co~ technical require~ts are -. inves'cigate site corzlitions as nec~y to clarify obscure or omitt_~9 details - writin~ general, archi~, ~, mechanical, electrical and ~nitary 507. specifications and also reviewing dcxnIments prepared by engineers for c~.~liance - de~zming~ the Freci~ tTpa an~ qu~i~ oft he materials a~ equim~nt to be specified t/=uugh consultatic~ with the engineers, or by reference to manufacturer's re~=eser~tive or to trade catalogues; - pre~ detailed specifications _8__._~scribing the type and quality of all materials and equt~, the methods of installation and ~ of workmanship, to ensure a clear und~ by the contractor of the proj~. - ~lir~ ar~ cc~pletir~ other ~ forms for inclusion in Contract Documer~cs; - submit~ cc~oleted T-u~der Doo,~nts and Drawings to Tender Office for - advisir~ =resultants for hazeware~ - provid/ng advice on s~ecificatioDs of materials, details, ~Tstmm~ etc., to Archit__~cts, Engineers, Consul~ and other members of the project tee_-., including private sector consultants; - inspecting projects on site for future quality control function ~n dra%f_ngs and sq~ecifi~ations; '2. Edits specifications prepared by Engineers, Consultants and Junior S~ff by: - r~viewir~ draft ar~ completed specifications for clarity ~ completeness and 15Z suggest~ revisions or additions where required; - asse~blin~ ar~ completing the staxxtard contract fozms for inclusions with 3. Review~ and revise~ the work of the ~ineers; Consultants ~ Junicr Staff by: - provid/r~ them with sample, guidelines and briefing; 5% - ex~m/nin~ and onmmnting and making corrections on their ..~gecifications for c~ality and adherence to the m/nistry policy and fora~t. '4. Provides information on contract requirements: 15%. .-~ evaluating and approving alternatives or substitutes for .specified itams, includ/r~ tho~e proposed by bidders and contractor~; - pr~vid/r~ intentions of the contract requirements; - writing and issuin~ change orders to contractors cn request of ~ supervisor; - writing =u ~ /5.. Performs a variety of administration servioe~: - check/r~ against ~ specifications to ensure that policy is follow, d; ~10% materials samples fo~ reference, purposes; · .- keeping abreast of new mterials - preparing and collating Contract Docur~nt together for ter~lering; - up-dating specification cor~mpcr,~ through the use of the computer (wor~proc~); - preparing, c~tainir~ approvals and perm/ts for construction work frc~ v~rious regulatory authorities; - performir~ duties as assigned as. well as performir~ most. of supe=visor's functions when supervisor absent; incl~g signing of documents; 6. Maintains building products systems and basic building infor~tion: 5% - gathering data, test report~ aha manufacturerm' trade literature; - attendir~ indt~try ar~ ~ttfacturers' s~r~inars ar~ product/s%-~ce~ de~onstratiorm ~~1, ~i~ d~i~, ~fi~tio~ ~ ~~ law, ~ly nature immediate Sul~rvis(~r Date Minlttr¥ Oflicial O~e [uDervlsor's name ~V~ Otficill't name 8nd title O.D. Roqe~s ss allo~tion Cl~ title ~Class code Occu~tien~l group number Effective daze ' Day Month Year ~pecifica~ion Officer I { 60100 ci~st4fied lhi~ ~o{4E4on i~ ~Cordance wi{h {he CSv$l $e~4ca ~o~md~d~ C{a{sificatio~ $l{mdards lot the {o{low4ng rea{O~: ~OSiCiO~ ia respo~s[ble for production/for tende~[n~ purposes, of architectural ~ome en$ineerin~ contras: specifica~ions for moderately complex, small to medium sized ~rojec~s, all under supervision of Technical Semites supervisor. ~ssists in moni:orin~ work of associate a~ch{tects and engineers, such as external consultants. involved in the provision of information in:'respect of contract specifications and :ould have some involvement in "research studies" rela~ed I:o the viability, of neW. ~aterial, equipment and ap~.l, ication sys:ems etc. ,~r~ av.~oc;zed evaluator~ Oeta Type eva~uator's name - . 2/ I/t ~ ?~ Consultant