Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1138.Burke et al. 90-11-09~ 3 - IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATIONS BETWEEN: THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION - and - THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET) WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFICE ADMINISTRATION GROUP GRIEVANCES MARTIN TEPLITSK¥, Q.C. Chairman C. PALIARE Union Nominee W. K. WINKLER, Q'C. .'~ - Board Nominee .... APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Union: Howard Law On behalf of the Board: Michael Milich 2 This is the first award of the special panel of the Grievance Settlement Board charged with the responsibility of resolving the "OAG" classification grievances. These are so numerous as to require a "special approach" and the appointment of a "special" panel to adjudicate these grievances. The "special" approach entails considerable pre-hearing attendances to encourage narrowing of issues, agreeing on facts and ensuring full and fair production of relevant documents. In addition, the parties exchanged briefs which were both very specific as. to the particular grievance and more general in outlining issues of a repetitive nature. The Union also filed reply briefs. The Board is grateful to the parties for these briefs which were carefully prepared, comprehensive and very useful. At the hearing, the written briefs were supplemented by oral evidence and oral argument ..... After the most careful consideration, the Board has concluded that it would not .be helpful to provide reasons for the decisions reached in specific Cases. There is a considerable risk that extensive reasons would either supplant the "class standards" as the primary source of determining these issues, or, at least, given the imprecision of all language however carefully drafted, provide a further basis of controversy. On the other hand, we propose briefly to outline our reasons in respect of some recurring questions. "Usage" The union contends that the principle of "usage" as developed in this Board's jurisprudence, applies to the resolution of these grievances. Expressed simply, the doctrine of "usage" allowed a grievor who could prove that another employee who was classified at a higher position performed substantially the same duties as the grievor, to obtain the higher classification. In our opinion, this doctrine which responded to a classification scheme developed and administered by the employer and which was necessary to ensure the integrity of the classification system, cannot apply to classification standards which the parties have bargained. It is these standards which now prevail. The employer's classification decisions must be correct, that is, in accordance with these standards. There is no scope for "discretion" or the paying of deference to employer decision making. Integrity is guaranteed through the union's ability to grieve those employer decisions it believes contravene the standards. On the other hand, proof of other positions, allegedly substantially the same, but differently classified, may aid in the resolution of any latent or patent ambiguities in the standards. Technical Skills The standards provide that: "To qualify for scoring, a "technical" skill must be stated as a requirement in a position specification, and it must be required at an appropriately accomplished level, such as to CSC standards; the skill would also be required to be used on a regular basis". Except in one classification, the employer has not required, at least in writing, an appropriately accomplished level. The employer argues that, in the absence of a specific requirement, no allowance for a technical skill can be permitted. We reject this argument. If, in fact, a skill is required on a regular basis, its use authorized, and unless the employee achieves an appropriately. accomplished level, the duties cannot be performed effectively and/or efficiently, then an allowance for technical skill is appropriate. No precedent is needed to support this proposition. An employer cannot, of course, avoid paying for the skills which it defacto demands and authorizes the use of by simply not requiring it in writing. The following are the results of the specific grievances: 1. Burke et al (Robert Walraven) GSB #1138/89 The grievance is allowed. The appropriate classification is 12. The factor of judgment should be increased to level 4. 5 2. Uprichard et al ~Stan Gerkes) GSB #89-792 The grievance is dismissed. 3. Clarke'et al GSB # 87-999 The grievance prior to July 1, 1989 is dismissed. Effective July 1, 1989, the classification is increased to level 8. The factors of knowledge and skill should be increased. 4. Danvers et al GSB #1947/86 The grievance is allowed. The classification is increased to level 7. The factor of group leadership should be recognized. 5. Arbour et al (Jennifer Reid) GSB # 464/87 The grievance is allowed. The classification is increased to level 7. The factor of technical skills should be recognized. 6. Snowdon GSB #2197/86 This grievance is allowed. The classification is increased to level 9. The factor of technical skill should be recognized and the factor of judgment should be increased. 7. Compton et al GSB #1629/89 The grievance is allowed. The classification is increased to level 5. The factor of accountability should be increased. 8. Cannons et al (Althea Jupiter) GSB #2304J86 The grievance is allowed. The classification is increased to level 9. The factors of judgment and accountability should be increased. 9. Barker et al GSB ~2677/86 -The grievance is dismissed. DATED. the 9th day of November, 1990. ISSUED the 5th day of December, 1990~ Cha~ rman Unarm ~ln~ W. K. W~NKLER, Q.C. Board Nominee