The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-0596.Carlson & Mayes.91-06-10 ,,- .... i ~, ONTARIO EIvIPLOYÉS Of LA COURONNE I CROWN EMPLOYéES DE L'ONTARIO I ... GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE I 1111 SETTLEMENT RÈGLEMENT I I BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG IZ8 TELEPHONE ITÚÉPHONE: (4161 326- 1 J88 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, ElLJAEAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). MSG 12'8 -FAC$iMJLEITÉLÉCOPIE: (4 lIS) 326-1396 I I j 596/90, 601/90 I I I i IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYBES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before TBB GRIBVANCB SBTTLEMENT BOARD ¡3ETWBEN OPSEU(Carlson/Mayes) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of ontario (Ministry of Correctional services) Employer ! BEFORE : B.. ,'Kirkwood Vice-Chairperson D. Wintermute Member M. O'Toole Member FOR THB D. wright GRIEVOR Counsel Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman Barristers & Solictors FOR THB J. Benedict EMP~YE' Manager Staff Relations and Compensation Ministry of Correctional servies HBARXNG November 30, 1990 ~ i: -;;, Page 2 ; DECISION The grievors are employed at the Metro West Detention Cent re and each holds the position of Senior Maintenance Mechanic 3. The grievors accept that they are , properly classified in'accordance with the class standard of I Maintenance Mechanics, level 3; however, the grievors claim that they were not properly assigned to the correct ¡ occupational group. They claim that they are improperly classified in the Semi-skilled (02B) Category of the Trades and Crafts Occupational Group and claim that they ought to be classified in the Skilled ( 02A) Occupation Group of the Trades and Crafts Category. The U~ion's counsel submitted that in order for an r emp loyee . to be properly classified all four criteria established by the Ministry and set out in the Ontario Manual I I of Administration must be met. Therefore, the Ministry must 1 (1 ) properly assign the position of the nine broad ~ to one ¡ , . categories in the public service; (2) assign the position to í the occupational group within a category; (3 ) assign a class series; and (4) assign a specific level within the series. ,I ~. The Union acknowledged that steps 1, 3 and 4 were appropriately applied and dispùted the application of step 2. The Ministry's counsel argued that the ¡ , classification system is the classification of positions to a class standard only, and does not include any further categorization. The Ministry's counsel argued that the Board's jurisdiction 1;ias limited to comparing the duties performed by the grievors to the appropriate class standard. , Once the grievors acknowledged that they were appropriately Maintenance MeChanics, level 3, the Ministry submitted that the grievance ought to be dismissed as the Board lacked ~ . " -:; Page 3 jurisdiction to review the process which the Ministry followed in establishing the classification of an employee's position. He argued that although the Ontario Manual of Administration sets out the process of classification of job , pÓsitions, the Ministry the exclusive jurisdiction , has to administer and organize the classification system. The board could not review the reasonableness of the employers position nor the process. As stated in Haladay and The Ministry of Industry and Tourism G.S.B. 94/78 (K. P . Swan) , this Board is a creature ' of statute and has no greater jurisdiction than that conveyed by statute or granted by the collective agreement between the parties. Section 18(1) of the Crown Employees' Collecti ve Bargaining Act (CECBA) provides the Board with jurisdiction to determine whether an employee is properly classified. However, under section 18(1) of CECBA, the employer is provided the exclusive authority to determine the classification system. Therefore as in OPSEU(Cripps) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) Divisional Court (Southey J.) Nov, 29, 1988 and G.S.B 660/86 (R.L. Verity) we must accept the classification system as we find it and may not -assess whether the classification system is reasonable. The scope of the Board's jurisdiction is best articulated in Rounding and Southwestern Regional Centre, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Cedar Springs, Ontario G.S.B. t18/75 (o.M. Beatty) at p. 3 when Professor Bea;.ty states ! . "In reaching this latter conclusion however, it is important for this Board to set out precisely what it conceives to be the scope of its jurisdiction in assessing the merits of a claim that an employee ~ . -. Page 4 , has been improperly classified. In the first place it is readily apparent that the methods and principles by which the positions are to be classified is, as a result of the most recent set of amendments to th.e CrQwnRmployees' Collective RflrQ'ñininq Act, a bargainable issue between the various employee representatives and the employer. However, by virtue of Section 17(1) (a) [now Section 18(1)(a)] of that same Act, it is manifest that having settled on a particular classification and job evaluation system, the actual classification of positions is within the exclusive prerogative of the employer. In the result and for purposes of entertaining grievances under S.17(2)(a) [now Section 18 (2) (a) 1 of the Act, in which an employee alleges that he or she has been improperly classified, it necessarily follows that this Board must take as a given and cannot interfere either with the classification system agreed to and adopted by the parties or the application of that system to the various positions within the public service. Rather this Board's sole function in the resolution of grievances alleging an improper classification, is to determine whether the employer is conforming 'to ,the classification system as it has been established'and/or agreed to. That is and more particularly, when faced with a claim that a position is improperly classified, and assuming those classifications conform to the general law of this jurisdiction, this Board is limited by the express provisions of legislation to determine whether or not on the system emplòyed and the classificat~on struck, the employee in question is actually performing the duties assigned to that position or even assuming that to be the case, , whether. that employee is nevertheless being ,required to perform virtually the identical duties which, the class standard notwithstanding, are being performed by employees whose position has been included . some other more senior ~n classification. In short, it wou 1 d, under the present statutory scheme, only be in those or analgous instances that an employee's grievance under Section 17(2)(a) would be entitled to succeed. In the result it is simply of no relevance to a - determination that is being made under Section 17 (2) (a) that this Board is, or indeed the grievors are, firmly convinced that there are not sufficient differences between two classifications to warrant their separate identities or that the difference in wages that are appended to each do not fairly or ~ I " , ,. Page 5 accurately reflect the differences in skill and Job h duties that are required in each. Therefore the issue before us is to determine whether the grievors have been properly placed within the classification system established by the Ministry. However, the Rounding decision ( supra) is not conclusive of the issue before this board, as it conisders one aspect of the classification process, that of comparing the employees duties to the class standard, but it does not consider the scope of the classification system, which is in issue before t I us. ! The Ministry's Ontario Manual of Administration I I sets out the process that the Mi~istry uses in classifying positions and it determines the classification system which is in place. The Ministry evaluates the position by creating a grade description, a category selection, an occupa~ional group selection, a class series selection and a class level I selection. , I ! The Ministry's Ontario Manual of Administration states: The method in evaluating a position by grade i description is as follows: ~ (a) ç~teqory ~election: I 1. Determine t,he most appropriate category by comparing the nature of the positions. job functions and its duties and responsibilities to the definitions of the categories; I (b) OccuP~tion~l GrouP Selection: I I i ¡ - Determine the most appropriate occupational group by comparing the position's skill base with , the common skill base or community of interest for i each occupational group; ( c) C]~ss Series Selection: ;-.. , ~ . -. Page 6 . Determine the most appropriate class series within the occupation group selected, by comparing the position's functions with the particular function of each class series; (d) Cl t=l ~s T,eve 1 Selection: Determine the most appropriate level within the class series selected by comparing the position with the class standard starting at the lowest level; If it does not correspond repeat the process at the next higher level and, if necessary, successively higher levels until a match is obtained; Verify the position/class level match by comparing the position with the next highest level in the class series to insure that it does not fit. The Manual includes the following definitions: "Position": A grouping of duties and responsibilities: · established by management; and · performed by an individual or group of individuals within a specific organizational unit; and · established in IPPEBS "Skill Base": \ , The specific knowledge and related sk1lls necessary to perform. the' duties and responsibilities of a position including formal education. "Class or Grade": A distinct level and type of work with: · the complexity, skill and responsibility exemplified as a class ,standard; and · a specific pay range. "Occupational Group": - A set of jobs: · having a common or related skill base; requiring the performance of similar kinds of work; and ~ . ; Page 7 . where' poss ible, relating to a distinct outside market. ¡ "Category": A number of bargaining unit occupational groups with similar skill base characteristics, which have been combined for administrative purposes to represent a broad functional area. "Position Evaluation": A comparison and assessment of the position against appropriate standards. "Classification": The process of allocating a position to a class. "Grade Description": Grade Description is a type of position evaluation that compares each position as a whole to a predetermined standard or guide. Although the Ontario Manual of Administration sets out the policy and process that is applicable to the classification of job positions it also describes the various components that are in place in the classification system. We cannot accept that the classification system consists only of the last component. The proper classification of a position involves i~s correct placement in each component. The evidence before us showed that each position is placed within one of nine broad categories, of which the Maintenance Services Category is one. The Maintenance Services Category is then divided into various occupational categories which includes the Trades and Crafts Group. However, the Occupational Group is not limited to the broad category of Trades and Crafts as the Ministry has divided the Trades and Crafts group into three sectors, the skilled, the semi-skilled and the unskilled divisions These sectors were part of the occupational group as evidenced by the Ministry's inclusion within the designation of the positions in Trades '" I '!' , Page 8 and Crafts, the designations of either 02A, 02B, or 02C, depending whether skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled categories were to be applicable. Therefore under the Maintenance Services Category, the Ministry established the occuptional groups of Trades and Crafts, Skilled Employees, 02A; Trades and Crafts, Semi-skilled Employees, 02B; and Trades and Crafts, Unskilled Employees, 02C. We must then consider this matter in terms of the positions of the particular grievors that brought this .I grievance. Each grievor is a Senior Maintenance Mechanic. The Job Specification of the Senior Maintenance Mechanic, states that the purpose of the position is to "provide journeyman services in a skilled trade pertaining to the maintenance of the institution for 65% of the time. II It states that "Qualifications for this job is an apprenticeship and certification in one of the skilled trades." It was' agreed that each grievor was licenced and certified in a trade. The Ministry did not challenge the accuracy of the Job Specification as it applied to each of the grievors. ,\ The Maintenance Sheet Metal Worker also is required to spend at least 60% of the time doing work at the journeyman level but in the specific trade of metal workers' or ti·nsmiths trade. These employees must have an apprenticeship and certification in the particular trade or if relying on the equivalence, must be able to successfully com~lete a Civil Services Trades Test. Similarly, the Maintenance Plumber, Foreman, Forewoman has to spend at least 60% of the time devoted to plumbing or supervision of plumbers and must have ~ ~ t ;, ' Page 9 apprenticeship and certification in plumbing or if relying on the equivalence must be able to successfully complete a Civil Services Trades Test. The Maintenance Steamfitter and Maintenance Electrician have similar requirements within each one's particular trade. The nskill base" as defined by the Ministry looks to the qualifications of the employee to perform the job. A common denominator tamong the Maintenance Sheet Metal Worker, the Maintenance Plumber, Foreman, Forewomen, the Maintenance Steamfitter and the Maintenance Electrician positions is that in each case the employee is required to not only use a skilled trade in performing his jOb in excess of 60% of his time, but in each case the position requires certification in a skilled trade or the employee has to be able to sucessfully complete a Civil Services Trades Test. I An Occupational Group as defined by the' Ministry requires a set of jobs to have a common skill' base. The other criteria set out by the Ministry were not in issue here. ,I Therefore given the qualifications of each position, the Union was able to establish that the grievor1s t position shares a common skill base with these other positions. Therefore the effect of having the common skill base is that the grievor's position must be classified in the same occupational group as the Maintenance Sheet Metal Worker, the Maintenance Plumber, Foreman, Forewomen, the Maintenance Steamfitter and the Maintenance Electrician. Although the parties agreed that the grievors were properly classified in the Class standard of Maintenance Mechanic at level 3,the class standard distinguishes ~ Ii ~ (', ;' Page 10 employees within the class by the degree of skill that the employee has to have and by the degree to which the employee is required to use the skills acquired Therefore as the Ministry has established that the occupational group includes categories of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled employees, in order to be properly classified the employee must be placed into the appropriate category in all respects. Therefore although we must accept the classification of the job of the Maintenance Mechanic 3 in the semi-skilled category of the Trades and Crafts group, due to the various skill levels required within the positions within that category, the grievors, who are required to be skilled and are skilled, are improperly classified in the semi-skilled category as established by the Ministry. , .' - " , . t ~_: 'II, . Page 11 I J: I t , I Therefore we find that the grievors are improperly ! classified and are to be reclassified into the occupational ( Group of the Trades and Crafts, Skilled Employees. r . , Dated at Toronto, this lOth day of June 1991 .., U , , " - ~ B.A. Kirkwood, Vice-Chairperson ¡ ~ ~ J,~j~, I IJ .1 t l D. Wintermute, I Member I ._- f! Î1l,:¡' éJ}7~___ 1 M. O'Toolet, Member í . '\ ; .i ¡ ] f j ! ~ .¡ jl ¡~ ~ f ~ ) ¡ f \ ! , <, ~ - I " I , ~