HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1839.Roud.90-08-23 ~ ONTA RiO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
k CROWN EMPLOYEES DE ~- 'O~f TA RiO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS ,~,TREET WEST, TORONTO. ONTARIO. MSG IZ8- SUtTE 2?o0 TELEPHONE/TEL~;PH'ONE
180, RUE DUNDAS OUESTr TORONTO, 'ONTARIO) MSG TZ8 - ,~UREAU 2100 (.4t6) 598-0688
1839/89
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Roud)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation)
Employer
- and -
B. Keller Vice-Chairperson
E. Seymour Member
G. Milley Member
FOR THE R. Healey
GRIEVOK Counsel
Gowling, Strathy &
Henderson
Barristers .& Solicitors
FOR THE D. Jarvis
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler Fi!ion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING: July 3, 1990
The grievor seeks reclassification from Drafter 2 to Drafter 3.
He is employed in the Structural Section, Engineering and Right
of Way Branch, Eastern Region.
The union has argued' this case on a class standard basis. It is
their position that the duties and responsibilities of the
grievor accurately reflect themselves within the Drafter 3
standard which reads as follows:
Drafter 3
CLASS DEFINITION:
This is normally responsible supervisory drafting
work. These employees are responsible for the
accuracy and completeness of the drafting
performed in their work unit. They supervise a
medium-sized group of draftsmen performing complex
drafting or design drafting, being directly
responsible to a senior engineer, forester, survey
staff official, or to a senior draftsman.
This class also covers positions of employees
engaged in highly technical sub-professional
design drafting under the direction of an
engineer, architect or designer, where supervisory
responsibilities are limited or non-existent.
Also included are positions where the supervisory
responsibilities are secondary to kighly technical
survey drafting performed for senior survey
officials.
CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES:
Under senior engineering staff,~ surveyors or
senior draftsmen, supervise medium-sized groups of
draftsmen engaged in plotting, computing, tracing
and checking complex engineering and survey plans,
drawings and planimetric maps. Interpret and
clarify field notes, search data, design criteria
and engineering specifications; outline or compile
reference material; assign duties and specify
requirements; supply technical guidance; make a
detailed check of completed work; consult with
field and engineering staff on technical matters;
direct the operation of coding and decoding
information for survey calculations made by
electronic computer.
In sub-professional design work, use basic design
principles to calculate the forces acting on
'structural components, moments of inertia, bending
moments and shear. Under direction, design the
simpler parts of complex bridge structure, wing
walls, retaining walls, footings, beams, bearings,
finger plates. Direct a smal~ staff of
draftsmen, in'the preparation of final bridge design
drawings by preparing preliminary sketches and
instructions, assigning duties and making a review
of completed work.
Prepare drawings, detailings and specifications as
.assigned for construction projects; check and
approve shop drawings prepared by others; estimate
quantities and costs of materials required Under
supervision and direction.
Perform special investigational work for senior
· surveying staff on unique mapping problems
relating to land titles.
As supervisors, they are responsible for the
training of drafting staff,.making recommendations
on personnel matters, and acting as instructors on
the ministry drafting courses.
OUALIFICATIONS
1. Grade 12 secondary education, preferably Grade
13 mathematics or an equivalent combination
of education and experience.
2. A~ least seven years' related experience and a
minimum of two years' as a DraftSman 2 or
equivalent duties.
3. Expert knowledge of drafting techniques and
work procedures; where applicable, thorough
knowledge of mathematics, thorough knowledge
of survey practice, pertinent provincial and
federal statutes and ministry specifications;
supervisory ability; initiative; tact; good
judgement. (Emphasis appears in the
original).
The employer contends that the grievor's work falls within the
Drafter 2 class standard.
DRAFTER 2
CLASS DEFINITION:
This class covers complex drafting work, involving
plans with intricate details, difficult
mathematical calculations, extensive survey
interpretation, basic engineering and
architectural principles and a variety of
reference data. In some positions, under a
professional engineer or designer, they
"perform drafting work involving considerable
minor .design. These employees may supervise a
small group af draftsmen performing moderately
complex drafting work. The work under the
general supervis'ion of senior .drafting staff
with considerable latitude for initiative
regarding the drafting techniques used. They
pl .... ' ......... : ~
are expected to eom ete wurk ~-~nm=nu-~ w-~,
a minimum of review.
CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES:
Compile, plot and draft the more difficult and
important survey plans, drawings and
planimetric maps. Correlate and interpret
varied reference plans and material; plot and
check detailed survey ~ians from field notes;
check azimuth calculations; calculate
difficult compound and reverse curves;
formulate information derived, from survey
field notes to be calculated on electronic
computer for the purpose of determining
description ties, metes and bounds, and areas
of land.
When required, check ownership of property by
reference to Land Titles, Registry, Crown
Lands, Patents and Municipal offices.
Interpret survey conflictions, resolving minor
discrepancies and outlining the nature of
major conflictions to superiors. Make a
thorough and independent check of difficult
survey plans in accordance with departmental
specifications and pertinent legislation prior
to registration in Land Titles or Registry
Offices. This checking function is reviewed
solely in terms of results.
May be required to instruct others in the
plotting, computing and checking of s~rvey
plans.
Working under the general supervision of a
professional engineer or more senior
draftsman, prepare final bridge design
drawings from engineering notes, sketches and
instructions. Assist in the design of simpler
parts of complex bridge structures. Prepare
all necessary, detail drawings.; place
reinforcing steel in accordance with
engineering instructions; prepare steel
schedules and quantity estimates; prepare and
interpret in-put data for electronic computer;
may be required to instruct more junior staff
members. -'
Under the general supervision of a designer or
professional enginger, prepare final working
drawings and plans related to electrical,
mechanical, structural, architectural or
sanitary engineering. At this level, the
draftsmen handle a complete drafting project
with a minimum of direction, and are
responsible' for considerable minor design.
Work is reviewed on completion. May be
required to instruct junior drafting staff.
For example, in the electrical engineering
field, prepare complex electrical layout
drawings pertaining to large buildings,
electrical vaults, power houses, and outdoor
sub-stations. Under direction, design or
revise electrical layouts on small projects;
OR in the architectural drafting field,
prepare sectional views, detail, elevati6n and
finished working drawings fbr institutional,
residential, office and industrial types of
buildings. Responsible for indicating
requirements and preparing detail drawing on
minor structural components such as expansion
joints, coping details, fittings, drains,
washroom facilities, mirrors, shelves,
cupboards, cabinets, windows, doors and
stairways.
-- 6 --
In minor supervisory positions, correlate and
compile reference material; assign work and
outline instructions; ~,pp!y technical
guidance; contact engineering and departmental
officials for information and clarification;
make a detailed check of completed drafting
work and calculations prior to a general
review by a senior staff member.
OUALIFICATIONS:
1. Grade 12 Secondary Education, preferably Grade
13 Mathematics, or an equivalent combination
of education and experience.
2. Five years as Draftsman 1, three years and
successful completion of examination approved
by the Civil Service Commission. In Sections
where examinations are used they must be
passed.
3. Thorough knowledge of drafting techniques and
work procedures; where applicable, sound
knowledge of.mathematics, broad understanding
of survey practice, good knowledge of
pertinent provincial and federal statutes and
departmental specifications; some supervisory
ability; initiative.
It was submitted on behalf of-the grievor that ~he Drafter 2
position in three basic respects:
a) the Drafter 2 Class Standard co~templates work
which focuses on 'drafting rather than on
design;
b) the Drafter 2 Class Standard makes no
provision for duties which occupy a very large
part of the Grievor's time, that is, the
preparation of Tender Documents; 'and
c) the Grievor in fact receives the greatest part
of his supervision not from senior drafting
staff, as is contemplated by the Drafter 2
Class Standard, but directly from engineering
staff.
Further, it was submitted that the Drafter 3 Class Standard more
adeqUately describes the Grievor's duties in that:
a) the Class Definition of the Drafter 3 Class
Standard states that: "This class also covers
positions of employees engaged in highly technical
sub-professional design drafting under the
direction of an engineer, architect or designer,
where supervisory responsibilities are limited or
- non-existent." It is submitted that the Grievor's
duties meet this description; and
b) the Characteristic Duties of the Drafter 3 Class
Standard include: "Under direction, design the
simpler parts of complex bridge structure, .wing
walls, retaining walls, footings, beams, bearings,
finger plates" and "Prepare drawings, detailings
and specifications as assigned for construction
proj.ects; ...estimate quantities and cost of
material~ required under supervision and
direction."- It is submitted that these
Characteristic Duties reflect most of the duties
regularly performed by the Grievor.
The employer argued that the grievance must fail as it was clear,
on the basis of the evidence that the duties of the grievor did
not fit Within the Class 3 standard. Specifically the following
arguments were made:
The "Class Definition" for the Drafter 3 Class Standard pr6vides
three bases for entry into this class standard:
(a) "responsible supervisory drafting work; or
(b) "employees engaged in highly technical sub-professional
design drafting under the direction of an engineer,
architect or designer, where supervisory responsibilities
are limited or non-existent" [emphasis in original];-or
(c) "positions where supervisory responsibilities are secondary
to highly technical survey drafting performed for senior
survey officials".
There is no dispute between the Union and the Ministry that the
Grievor does not perform work which could be classified as either
'(a)' or ' (c)', above. In direct examination, the Grievor
testified that he did not provide any supervision to other
workers. In cross-examination, the Grievor testified that he did
not provide any supervision to other workers. In cross-
~xamination, the Grievor testified that he did not perform survey
drafting work. Therefore, the issue is whether the Grievor's
actual duties fall within the second basis (category '(b)' above)
for entry into the Drafter 3 Class Standard.
It was the Ministry's submission that of the five paragraphs
listed under "Characteristic Duties" for the Drafter 3 Class
Standard, only the second paragraph refers to "highly technical
sub-professional design drafting" (category '(b)' in the "Class
Definition").
Ail of the first paragraph refers to supervisory-type functions
(category '(a)' in. the "Class Definition"). This interpretation
was upheld by this Board in OPSEU (Brick) and The Crown in Right
of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) .G.S.B. #564/80 (J...
Samuels.). It is clear that the fifth paragraph also addresses
strictly supervisory-type functions,
The fourth paragraph refers to highly technical survey drafting
(category '(c)' in the "Class Definition"). This interpretation
was upheld by this Board in Brick (564/80).
The third paragraph refers to supervisory-type functions
(category ' (a) ' in the "Class Definition"). There is no
;
reference in this paragraph to degrees of .c. omplexity or
technicality. Read as'a whole (and it should be noted that this
paragraph is a single sentence), the paragraph is intended to
refer to the supervisory function of overseeing persons involved
- 10 -
in a drafting project from start to finish (i.e. from drawings
and detailings to estimating quantities and costs of materials).
The emphasis on supervising persons involved in a drafting
project is made explicit by the words: "check and approve shop
drawings prepared by others".
This interpretation is further mandated bY the first section of
this paragraph. The words, "prepare drawings, detailings and
specifications as assigned for construction projects", could
easily apply to any of the class standards in the Drafter Series,
including 'Drafter, Tracer'. and 'Drafter 1'. Consequently, it is
only if a p~rson were supervising the preparation of 'drawings,
detailings and specifications that it would make any sense to
have these words in the Drafter 3 Class Standard. Indeed, the
first sentence in the "Class Definition." emphasizes that this
class standard is primarily about supervisory functions: "This
is normally responsible supervisory drafting work".
The second paragraph refers to employees engaged in "highly
technical sub-professional design drafting" (catggory '(b)' in
the "Class Definition"). This interpretation, which was upheld
by this Board in Brick (364/80) at page 54, flows from the
reference to "Sub-professional design work" in the opening
sentence. In cross-examination, the Grievor admitted without
hesitation or equivocation that he did not calculate forces
acting on structural components, such as ."moments of inertia,
bending moments and shear". The second sentence in this
paragraph merely gives examples of the structural components for
which such forces would be calculated in order to engage in
"sub-professional design work". Moreover, not only did the
Grievor admit that he did not calculate forces acti.ng on
structural components, he.gave no evidence of any specific
involvement in "wing walls, retaining walls, footings, beams,
bearings, finger plates." There was also no evidence that. the
G~ievor directs "a small s~aff of draftsmen in the preparation of
final bridge design drawings .... "
The production of General Agreement and Detailed Drawings would
clearly fall under the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the
"Characteristic Duties" for the Class Standard.
It was the Ministry's submission that the .production of contract
tender documents is an integral component of "complex drafting
work". Tender documents set out items, quantities and the
Ministry's standard specifications relating to structural
components. These documents play a role in the bidding by
contractors for a particular project. Paragraph 1 in the
"Exclusions from the Drafting Series" section oS the Drafter
Series Preamble makes explicit, reference to the "calculation of
quantities from engineering plans". Implicit in'this statement
of exclusion is the recognition that the calculation of
quantities short of being the "primary emphasis" in a position is
part of the Drafter Series. Tender documents are related to and
developed from qugntity calculations.
As the production, of tender documents is a component of drafting
work, the reference to draftsmen handling "a complete drafting
projec~ with a minimum of direction" and being "responsible for
considerable minor design" (see para. 5 under "Characteristic
Duties" of the Drafter 2 Class Standard must be interpreted as
including the production of tender documents. Further, insofar
as draftsmen do not apply 'structural design theory' as this
concept is understood by professional engineers (although the
Drafter 3 calculation of forces acting on structural components
comes closest), the references to "design" in the Drafter 2 Class
Standard would have little meaning unless they included matters
- 13 -
such as the production of tender documents.
Finally, there is a direct reference to the production of tender
documents in the fourth paragraph of "Characteristic Duties":
".,.prepare...quantity' estimates; prepare and interpret in-put
data for electronic computers". The underlined portion of this
quoted section would cover the use of the TAPS computer program
as a tool for the preparation of tender documents.
The determination of span and pier locations is part of producing
"final working drawings" (para. 5 under "Characteristic Duties").
In direct examination, the Gri.evor testified that the
determination of span and pier locations was a "simple.
calculation" and "just trigonometry functions". Ability to do
"difficult mathematical calculations" is referenced in the
Drafter 2 "Class Definition". Mathematical ability is also the
first listed Class Allocation Factor in the Drafter Series
Preamble.
The Grievor's attendance on field trips in order to assist
engineers in their inspection of structures would fall within the
fourth and fifth paragraphs under "Characteristic Duties". 'Site
- 14 -
inspections are a necessary prerequisite to any rehabilitation
project being carried out by the Structural Section.
Accordingly, the Grievor's attendance on a field trip would
constitute "working under the' general supervision of a
professional ~engineer" (para. 4) in order to produce "final
bridge design drawings" (para. 4) and "final working drawings and
plans related to...structural..iengineering"(para. 5).
The'Grievor testified to using the "Ontario Bridges Design Code"
(the correct title being Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code) for
calculating expansion joints. Familiarity with such legislation
would be expected of persons performing "complex drafting work".
Specialized knowledge of pertinent legislation is set out as a.
Cla~s Allocation Factor in the Drafter Series Preamble (see para.
3).
In direct examination, the Grievor alleged that the only real
supervision he receives is from the engineer responsible.fo~-the
project the Grievor is working on. Assuming, that this is true,
such supervision is clearly contemplated by the Drafter 2 Class
Standard. The last sentence in the "Class Definition" reads:
"they are expected to complete work assignments with'a minimum of
- 15 -
review". The 'fifth paragraph under "Characteristic Duties"
provides: "at this level, the draftsmen handle a complete
drafting project with a minimum of direction, and are responsible
for considerable minor design".
In the instant case, the Board is satisfied that the evidence is
clear and unequivocal. It establishes clearly that the function
of the grievor do not fit, substantially or otherwise, within the
Class 3 standard. In particular we are satisfied that, contrary
to the class definition, the work performed by the grievor is not
"nqrmally responsible supervisory drafting work". A reading of
the standard shows unequivocally supervisory responsibilities to
be one of the core functions at the Class 3 level. The
jurisprudence of this Board is replete with statements to the
effect that to succeed on a class standard determination argument
the grievor must be fulfilling the core functions of the level
sought. There was no evidence to that effect in this case.
With regard to the second paragraph of the class definition, the
evidence is equally deficient. The griev, or is clearly a highly
competent draftsman. He undoubtedly is very skilled at his job.
Personal competence and' skill level, however, is not enough. The
grievo~ must be exercising his competence and skills at the ilevel
demanded in the class definition. He is not.
As the Board is satisfied that the job performed by the grievor
do not fit within the core functions of the Class 3 standard the
Board finds that the arguments advanced on behalf of the grievor
do not succeed. Counsel for the grievor informed the Board that
he was not seeking a "Berry-type" award. That is, he was not
claiming that the standards promulgated by the employer do not,'
at some level, accurately portray the level of the grievor's job.
With that in find, and in view of our determination made earlier,
the grievance is denied.
Nepean 23rd August, 1990 ~I~~ ~,
M. Brian Keller, Chairperson
Ed Seymour, Member
George Milley, Member