HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1363.Behrsin.91-07-22
:~~ - ..c"_
') - - ~~..
.r.;} ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL 'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE C{.)MMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE: (416) 326-1388
180, RUE DUNOAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G IZ8 FACSIMILE/TÉLECOPf€ .' (476) 326-1396
1363/90
I" THB HAHBR 07 AJf ARBITRATION
Under
TO CROn EXPLODBS COLLBCTIVB BARGAINING ACT
Before I
'1'JIB GRIBVANCB SBTTLBKBHT BOARD
BBTWEEN
OPSEU (Behrsin)
Grievor
- an4 -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation)
Employer
BEFORE: P. Knopf Vice-Chairperson
I. . Thomson Member
F. Collict Member
FOR THB D. Eady
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE D. Jarvis
EMPLOYEA counsel
winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
. - .
HEARING January 21, 1991 -.
June 7, 1991
I
I
...
...
DECISION
--
This is a classification case. The grievor,
Mr. Behrsin, is a Purchasing Officer 2 (P.O. 2) with the
Ministry of Transportation and soeks reclassification to the
level of P.o. 3. Or, in the alternative, he is ~eeking a
"Berry Order" if th~ evidence establi~hes that neither level
is .appropriate. The union asserts that the size of the
office in which the grievor works, his, responsibilities, and
his supervisory duties compel a reclassification. The
Ministry disagrees.
In order to put the case in context, reference should
be made to the Position Specification (Appendix "An) and the
Class Sta"ndards (Appendix "B" l.
The grievor has been wi.th this Ministry since 1969
and in his current position since 1984. He sa~ his
department fundamentally reorganized il1 the mid 1980' s when
the Ministry decided to' decentralize al:tivit!es and place
mor~. signl ficant purchasing respons ibili ties wi thin the
regional and district offices. As the Position Specification
sets out, his major function is to procure parts, materials
and services within his District.
The size and òrganization of this department ·was an
important aspect of the Union's case. The Sault See. Marie
Department is organized as follows.. The region is made up of
two elements, purchasing and warehousing. Supervising both
is Dave Rogers, the District Purchasing and Suppl~
Sl.,lpervisor. The grievor's title is that of "Purchasing
Supervisor" and he reports directly to Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Kerhanowich and the hMotor Vehicle Operator - Purchaser"
or driver then report directly to Mr. Bchrsin. When the
supply functions were re-organized, the Ministry produced ,
typical organizational samples for -regional or large I
.;.~ -
- 2 -
-,'
districts· and ·small districts·. Neither model perfectly
fits the Sault Ste. Marie office. Butcevery witnoss,
including Mr. Rogers for the Employer, testified that the
model for the ·region or large districtR organization best
f~ts Sault Ste. Marie rather than the small district
organizational form. Thore is no model for a mid-size
district. Statistical evidence was also introduce~. This
shows Sault Ste. Mari~ to beneithe~ at the top nor the
bottom scale with regard to size. Fo.r examp Ie, in 198 6 i ts
purchases were third out of 18 departments oxcluding the head.
office. In 1988 it was sixth. By 1989 it was ninth. In
terms of employee. complement, at the time of the grievance
thi~ district had nine emþloyees. . Six offices, including
.
Toronto, had greater numbers ranging up to 19. One other
office had nine employees. Nine offices' had eight employees,
with 'one having only six.
The evidence is clear that virtually all the. basic
purchasing requests initially come across the grievor's desk.
He then determines whether it will be processed by him, his
fellow Purchasing Officer, George Kerhanowich, or the driver,
who doe's some purchasing work. Mr. Kerhahowich is the only
other Purchasing Officer in the District. At'the time of
this grievance he was classified as a P.O. 1 but he filed a
grievance.himself on the same day as Mr. Behrstn seeking
reclassification and his position has subsequently been
reclassified on agreement to the position of P.o. 2
retroactive to 20 days prior to the filing of the grievance.
However, the organization in their department is that the
grievor decides who should process each purchasing request.
Work load, more than anything else dictates to Mr. Behrsin
who will get the work. Thus, ho co-ordinates the
distribution of work. Thereafter, the gricvor reviews every
purchase order made out by Mr. Kerhanowich and the driver for'
tèchnical correctness. The grievor also spot-checks records
of cash purchases. If he finds any problems with
,
.- 3 -
,
Mr. Kerhanowich's or the driver's work:, the grievor discusses
these with them. However, it is clear that as a bargaining
unit member, he exercises no disciplinary power. Mr. Behrsin
does check and sign the employeos' time sheets, initials them
for accuracy and then forwarqs them on: to Mr. Rogers, the
District's Purchasing and Supply Supervisor, who is tho
grievor's immediate supervisor. One of the keys to the
Union's case was the nature and degree to which the grievor
supervises other employees. In addition to the co-ordination
and checking functions mentioned above, the grievor testified
that he often assigns the department's driver to do typing
.and clerical work when needed. He has also trained a couple
of people sent to his department for a "development
,
assignment" to gain purchasing experience.
The other ·supervisory· aspect of the grievor's work
claimed by the Union is that in 1987 Mr. Behrain filled out
Mr. Kerhanowich's appraisal report. Hc:;)weve r , the evidence is
clear that, since 1988, the.grievor no longer does this
although Mr. Rogers does consult Mr.' Bc~hrsin about the
employees who work with him. Mr. Behrain estimates these
type of "supervisory" or "co-ordination" responsibilities
listed above amounting to approximatel~, 25% o'f his
responsibilities and time.
In terms of his responsibilities, the grievor
undertakes most of the written tenders in the office for
items valued at greater'than $5,000.00. Although
Mr. Rerhanowich is now recognized as a P.o. 2 and is trained
to do the same thing, Mr. Behrsin did alII of this at the time
of the grievance. Dave Rogers does wha.t is described as the
"more sophisticated procurement work" done in the district
including the handling of the purchase and hire of winter
equipment, for example, snow ploughs and trucks. Mr. Behrsin
is directly responsib10 for a $1,500.00 cash float used to
purchase small items on a cash basis as needed. He a1s,o
m .-
-.,
- 4 -
, ",
handles "901" of the emergency procurements but does, when
work load dictates, assign these to Mr. Kerhanowich. In
fairness, it is also admitted that since everybody wants
.
their goods or services immediately, everyone considers just
about everything to be "an emergency procurement". But
I again, the determination of whether it is an emergency or not
seems to. rest with Mr. Behrsin~ On the occasions when
Mr. Rogers is absent, Mr. Behrsin fills in for him.
The relationship between Mr. Behrsin and Mr. Rogers
is one of mutual respect. ·Mr. Behrsin describes Mr. Rogers
as giving him "a lot ofropeA. Mr. Rogers once said to
Mr. Behrsin, "You have a department and I expect you to run
it. If you have any problems you can come and see me."
Mr. Rogers describes his role as one of "general supervisor"
over Hr. Behrsin. They discuss large value items together
and Mr. Rogers is there to advise the grievor with regard to
any· questions or any unique. purchases.
The Argument
Counsel for the Union argues that the evidence
establishes that the grievor ought to be reclassified to a
P.o. 3 or, 'in the alternative, ought to be granted a "Berry
Order." It was suggested. that because the Class Standards
were drafted in 1958, they cannot recognize or be appropriate
for the re-organization which occurred in 1984. However, it
was submitted tht the grievor properly can be seen to fit
within P.O. 3 Class Standards, even thgough it was admitted
that there is a fair degree of overlap between the P.O. 2 and
P.O. 3. Spec if ically, it was stressed that the evidence
establishes that the gricvor does perform "highly responsible
procurement work" and that he "essentially runs the
department" and substitutes for Mr. Rogers in his absence.
Further, it was said that the Sault Ste. Marie office ought
to be considered a large department with regard to the
.
- 5 -
.
statistical evidence and with regard t() the Ministry's own
organizational charts. This was said to be consistent with a
P.o. 3 classification. Further, with regard to the nature,
quali ty and type of superv isi()n e.xerc Üsed by the grievor, it
was stressed that ~he evidence establinhes that he supervises
both the other Purchasing Officer as well as the-driver and
other staff. His ti tie is that of "Purchasing Supervisor".
It is uncontradicted that he assigns and allocates work,
revises work and checks it fOl~ efficiency and adherence to
procedures. Further, the fact that he fills out timè sheets
and actually performs supervision over another purchasing
Officer was said to bring him within the ambit of the P.O. 3.
The fact that the grievor is relied upon to ensure economy
and promptness of delivery was again së:tid to be consistent
with the P.O. 3 because there is no mention of such
responsibility within that of a P.O. 2~ Further, the lack of
'''over-the-shou1der'' supervision by Mr.· Rogers of Mr. Behrain,
Mr. Bahrain's responsibilities with regard to tendering and
his work with emergency orders were als¡o said to be
characteristic and consistent with that of a P.o. 3.
Reference was' made to the two applicable cases with regard to
this fact situation. These are Cooper v. Ministry of the
Environment, unreported decision of E.N'. Jolliffe dated
November 10, 1983, and particularly Lot.t v. Ministry of
Transportation, unreported decision of W. Kaplan dated
October l, 1990. with reference to the Lott decision,
counsel for the Union acknowledged the similarity of facts
and the parties and did not take issue with 'the analysis.
However, it was strenuously argued that the fact situation in
Lott is quite different than that in the case at hand.
Predictably, counsc~ for the Employer relied heavily
on the Lott decision and argued that there is °no material
distinction in the facts of this case with that of the Lott
case." Thus, we were asked to follow the analysis in the
decision in that award. Turning directly to the facts of
-.
"~, .. .~
- 6 -
~
Mr. BahrainIs case, counsel for the Employer stressed that
there are two· threshold requirements to justify a
reclassification to that of a P.o. 3 level. First, it was
submitted that the evidence did not establish that Sault Ste.
Marie is Aa large dcpartment with heavy purchasing
requirements" which is necessary for ~he P.o. 3-level.
Counsel for. the Employer relied upon the statistical evidence
and stressed the similarity of the figures available for
Sault Ste. Marie with those of Bancroft which was the
applicable department in the ~ decision wherein the
carlier panel of this Board declared Bancroft not to be a
."large department.· Further, it was stressed that a P.o. 3
works under ··general direction", whereas a P.O. 2 works under
. .
"general s~pervision.A We were asked to accept the evidence
that the grievor here works under the general supervision of
Mr. Rogers and thus would not fall within the P.O. ~
classification. Further, we were reminded of.the evidence
that any "highly responsible· procurement work is done by
Mr. Rogers rather than Mr. Behrsin. In fact I the second
threshold requirement cited by counsel for the Employer was
. .
that a P.O. 3 must supervise subordinate Purchasing Officers.
The fact that the. Class Standards referred to "Purchasing
Officers" rather than Aa Purchasing Officer". was said to be
significant in that the evidence establishes that!! the
grievor supervises any~ne, the only other Purchasing Officer
in the district is Mr. Kerhanowich. Thus, it was argued that
it could not be said that he supervised "Purchasing
Officers. '. It was stressed that in the Lott case, the
supervision of clerks and other subordinate employees was
said to be consistent with the P.O. 2 classification and not
sufficient to bring the position within the P.o. 3
classification. In any event, it was said that the grievorts
work should not be considered 'to be that of supervisor over
Mr. Kerhanowich. The Employer relied heavily upon the
analysis in the Lott case.
·
- 7 -
,..
The Decision
The resolution of this, grievance must take into
consideration the ßoard's previous determinations regarding
Purchasing Officers with this Ministry. In particular, the
tott case is very significant. In manY' ways, the Lott
decision is very instructive. We acc~pt its concepts and we
apply its reasonings. However', before it can be said that
the Lott decision governs, the factual situation in Lott must
- .-
be compared carefully with tnat of Mr. nehrsin. The facts
are quite similar, although they are not identica~.
M~. tott was a Purchasing Officer 2 seeking a P.O. 3
reclassification. Mr. Lot t trained and. claimed to
RsuperviseR subordinate staff including a P.O. 1 who was
reclassified to a P.O. 2 by the time the ~ award was
issued. It was estimated to take up approximately 20% of his
time. However, .Mr. Lott's responsibilities with regard to
the subordinate Purchasing Officer may amount to a sporadic
review of work. But this was not done on a daily basis.
Further, he assigned work "on occasion" to the other
Purchasing Officer. Mr. Lott never participated in any
evaluationso£ that Officer. But the day-to-day procurement
work of.Mr. tote and Mr. Behrsin are virtually the same.
Mr. Lott worked in the Bancroft district and the Board
hearing his case concluded on the evidence that it ought not
to be considered as a "large department." Bancroft is indeed
smaller than Sault Ste. Marie having only eight staff and
smaller yearly purchases. The Lott panel also concluded that
the evidence did not establish that he had a relationship of
"supervision" over another Purchasing Officer. Rather, the
conclusion was that Mr. Lott's position merely reflected his
general seniority and experience compared to his fellow
employees.
, 'c
I ,_ - 8 -
.
Further, as in the Lott decision, ~he evidence does
not show that the Sault Ste. Marie office can be considered a
"large department·. The comparative dollar values with other
localities do not put Sault Ste. Marie among the "large
departments".on a comparative level at the time qf the
grievance~ The staff co~plemeAt of nine a~so ranks it
mid-range. . We do not equate the term "department" in the
Class Standards with -districts· in the organizational chart
of Exhibit 10 as the Union would have us do. Therefore, we
cannot conclude that by the organization alone of the
department it must be considered "a large department".
The panel in Lott gave several reasons for dismissing
the gríevance, but the ones cited above were the most germane
to this case.
In order to achieve any success in this grievance,
the Union must show that the P.O. 2 classification does not
cover Mr. Behrsin's responsibilities and duties. In truth,
an initial reading of the P.O. 2 standard does .seem to very
ably cover Mr. Behrsin's duties. However, the Union can also
achieve some success in the grievance if it can show that any
of Mr. Behrsin's duties and' responsibilities take him outside
of or beyond the P.O. 2 classification.
The evidence does establish that the U~ion can claim
some success in convincing us that some of the grievor's
duties do take him beyond the P.O. 2 levol. P.o. 2's are
expected to supervise "subordinates" whereas P.O: 3's are
expected to supervise "subordinate Purchasing Officers and
clerical workers."
c Given this difference in language in the contexual
comparison of the P.O. 2 and P.o. 3 supervisory expectations,
it must be concluded that P.o. 2's are not called upon to
-~ .
_. 9 -
.
supervise fellow Purchasing Officers. The evidence in this
case clearly establishes that Mr. Behr-sin does perform some
"supervisory" respons~bilities with regard to his fellow
Purchasing Officer, Mr. Kerhanowich, as well as other
subordinate employees such as the Motor Vehicle Operator
Purchaser. The aspects of Mr. Behrsin's responsibilities
that must be recognized as supervisory over another
Purchasing Officer involve the daily co-ordination and
assignment of work and the daily checking of all
Mr. Kerhanowich's purchase orders. It also involves giving
effective consultative advice with regard to the evaluation
of. Mr. Kerhanowich to Mr. Rogers at the time of the
grievance.
This is distinctly different from the evidence of the
supervisory responsibilities and expectations of Mr. Lott
with respect to his fellow employees. Mr. Lott did no daily
~
assignment or checking of another Puchasing Officer and he
had no advisory role whatsoever wi th r'egard to evaluations.
Therefore, it must be recognized that Mr. Behrsin plays a
significant supervisory role with resp1ect to Mr. Kerhanowich
who is a P.o. 2 and with regard to othler subordinate staff.
All this takes Mi. Behrsin beyond the language of a P.o. 2
Class Standard which does not contemplate any supervisory
role with respect to Purchasing Officers.
However, having recognized thi:;, does this bring
Mr. Behrain up to the level of a P.O. 3? We accept
Mr. Jarvis' submission and the rationale in the Lott decision
that to fit within the P.O. 3 classification, the threshold
tests must be met. The Union would have to satisfy us that
the grievor do?s ·h~ghly responsible procurement work", does
this-under the "general direction" of Mr. Rogers and works in
a "large department with heavy purchasing requirements." All
these are relative terms. But, as is clear from our
conclusions above, we are not satisfied that this is a large
t
,
I
~
- 10 -
7
department compared to the. rest of the province. While
Mr. Behrsin's work is very demanding and very important, it
cannot be considered "highly responsible procurement work."
In Sault Ste. Marie, that "highly responsible procurement
work" is done by Hr. Rogers'with regard to the sophisticated
winter works tenders and the larger tenders. Finally, we ask
ourselves whether the grievor works under general direction
as does a P~O. J or under general supervision as does a
-P.O. 2.. This distinction is a fine one and we are reluctant
to simply adopt the Human Resources Manual distinction
offered by management, even though it was referred to in the
Lott decision. Certainly, the evidence shows that for the
routine daily tasks, Mr. Behrsin operates under the general
direction of Mr. Rogers and that Mr. Behrsin is left to run
the department independently. But there is also general
supervision of Mr. Behrsin in that Mr. Rogers is consulted
for unique procurements; he spot checks the grievor's woik
and is available for consultation daily. Thus, there are
elements of both supervision and direction in Mr. Rogers'
role with Mr. Behrsin.
.
So, it cannot be said that the Union has fulfilled
its onus of meeting the threshold test of placing
Mr. Behrsin's .duties and responsibilities within the P.O. J
classification.
Therefore, wd are left to conclude that while
Mr. Behrsin has not satfsfied us that he should be
reclassified as a P.O. 3, his-supervisory duties with respect
to the other Purchasing Officer, Mr. Kerhanowich, bring him
beyond the type of supervision contemplated by the P.O. 2
standard. These duties arc significant responsibilities and
amount to 25% of his time. Thus, we find that neither
classification is appropriate and we conclude that this is a
classic situation where a dBerry Orderd is appropriate. This
is not surprising given that the Standards were drafted in
~
- 11 -
l'S8 when the range of purchasing responsibilities must have
been far narrower than now exist. It may be that
reorganization and decentralization compel a wider range of
levels for Purchasing Officers to be created in the Province
in the future. However, given the stan:dards that we have to I
wo rk with and the ev id ence pre sen tad tOI us, we have cone 1 uded !
that a -Berry Order- is appropriate.
Thus, we order the Ministry to re-evaluate the
positon held by Mr. Behrsin within 90 days of this award and
to assign to it an appropriate classification and
compensation level. The grievor shall be entitled to any
compensation arising from the reclassification effective
20 days prior to the filing of this grievance. The panel
remains seized with this matter with regard to the
implementation of our award.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 22nd day of July
1991. .
þ//
auli Knopf - Chairperson
_-~~L
.'7 . Thomson -. Member
tt I Dissentlf (dissent attached)
F. Collict - ~Iembe r ~ .
~ - ,', APPENDIX "Ail'
t~·, " ro:a;¡II01l1S1'kC H¡;.tol...NAf\I~"~-"''''''''·'''''··'''''''·' ~ S11.'
. . ~ _...:::~_.._~..,.~... ..........0..'.......'_... · ....·/6
'-. . ,. _.... .... c:__ eI .... CI~ ",".OCO ~...- e' -,.. .-
~ G'. .~....""".w.cl ." I . ......, . --¡;.lÞ.")dII'~.:' .-
'Aft'( . -'- ,,,... , œ tI(W
PURcøASINC SuPERVISOR ' .' .' _ __ -l)~~~? .. -
r~"1OUS '__..."'~ . - ./..... ......,.' c.·....OCK ...........";0'"
. . , . I l I
. ~.__' .,. - .- -- . .-- ;m,"illii.
, _'DNq_'"!_..n~"" ',. ~ ;.' 0'&· :;,~J:l. Þ!
I Dt..trl~t purdla.tli¡ ';'ct'stlPÞiy SIIP.nota!'! ' " 1 . . 19t' ..n..c f - --.
I ............ ....~.,... ~.. ·~;~i ,= ;".. \ :: .... .',¡.... ..", .- 4~ ..v~ r
~1imIlPÓTt.~t_ BIll. comiauntcátlON1 Monl'Nes~eftl bdœ. _ ____
._..- . i.'; ..'; ':., ,. . 'qc-r... . .oe.o.'_ 16_....'
18 - Sault·Ste. Harte A41Id.at.U'aUCIIl, 160 llAcDougaU Street. P.o. Boa 500
----- j -- .....-.... "--.eo.,.. -. .....~ S.utt ·s.- U-rie DIItario 1"6.\ 5H5
. ,. _... ,......C"'" _.e",,, ~lItce.... ......"'",
. t. i '.. 2; I IIL . Z ' I NIL ____
t. f'URrQ$E OF I'OSIllON_____ Þa_'--."'tf/""" co.oU."C'WQ UCJ .
UIl.der..dl.l~ral _åpemdoa of the Dlsu'Ìct PUl'ch..tna an4,supply SlIperdsor t. responsible
for the 'JÌ~t ·of aU p.ru~ lIl8urtal.s ..11 service. (l.e. equiplllent repeir parts.
prlvaUI:..·..¡ulp_t repatr s.rvice. patrob. projects. electrical. crew _d stlP' shOP. cl~,)
wtthln> the DlltJ'1ct. (Approxtmatély 2800 pUE'chaae order. and 160D moblle.equiPlIIi'lftt rep;:!! r
orders "r' .,.ar,,) . .
3. SU.....~RY OF DUTIES AND RESPDNSlIIL'TIES __n "ilClInAG' ell '~$I'[-. 0lIl 'toCMCOGWC&OIr ,--'
INDtCAft-..__IIT._CllOIOR__...._.fÇJ
1. Carrt.. aut dutte. to procun all uterh18 &lid ·.amce. rebt1w to the operation of the
~ District " perfonlll.ftl ~..b such. ... .
. replenhh1DC levels to lIaz1øua quaittiUU ill equip\lleftt. _terial. elactdcat and. sJ en
acock '...d OQ detaUed infonuUoo .. CO requireNnt. supplied by t1Ie Warehouse
Supemlor¡ . ".
- ntc:atvfDa nq...U for dh"ct purdl... of 'paru. lIlatadal. and servlas required by
.arap. ..tntenanal, servtce. COIlstructtOll and office persOIInel. n... requests vary
11'0. pncunt1ll81lot of equlp....t parta _cI rapel&' ..rvice. v.dety of CRW Ntedals R-
~u1l'11d to ..nice the District procure_at !)f aervice. (fuel tanks sapply and Instal·
laUClO. _11 drllUnl. picnic atte ..int.nlftce. ate.) to cOD,tructi_ ud office sll lpl lea;
- perusial District lIScerid req.su 1'.c:ehe4 eDsurtal.f1l'Stl1 that nquestor is duly
authoriad to tnltlate ._. S.coadl)'. eD.udal tb. c01llpletAlness of _41lest aa to
.ppnpdat. COSt C8atre. chal'þ n"'l'. raqulred datea .. location far delivery. En·
.UI'181 tb~t descdptloa supplied of required COlllllOdltle. b COIIlplete to avoid ot'd.rlng
Incon.ct ...urta1s which could c.... œl,.,.a III the job an4 'deddes aD _tbocl of
proc"rell8l1ot:
. ~ecdViDI trOll Carase Shop F0Z:-IIIIII or Iquip~t Co-ordin.cor. IIIIlbt1e equ1pa:at repalr
orden lør equlplIIl!Rt repatr service tø be privatized 8n4 purch..ed fn.. the private secto'
70:' Arr_alnl for: rep.ln h'o. approwll repair outlets \laaed CIl type of _rk tø be p..rfo~d
as per: dllltllll of require_nu and work instructions .""plid OD ".£.1.0. FlOMlizin&
".1.&.0. as to repair: firm·. name and authorizing .a~;
- 1IIIIlotalalne a è:ontrol of H.E.I.O.. \l)' receipt and i..ue tø author-hed personnel witbln
the District. lecehlna. checkinc and rocordins all cOØlpleted H.£.I.O.. through control
led¡er to ensuE'll proper 'usage Md .arQC~rd at.lnst loss or theft. Advisin& Shop Forcnan
or Co-ardlø8Cor 00 dlacrep_c1el notad r..qtd rinG their auentlon or contacting supp Ii HS
IUnct h error. ia 1Il111nl. etc.;
" - InitlatiDS H.E.R.0.8 an4 aTrancinl ror the r~rairs of c~on~nt parts from Inhouse rèpdlr
wode (radiators, .prtnlsl!inhe. bose :I11.ctnb1tcs, .tc.) :tn4 lLc~ repaired fo~i~~l~~_~~l.
4, $Kllt.S ANO KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO 'ERfORM Till w.5iKI$'''1' (1IroIC..1.00.. 'R4......... .........·.Cl UCJ
Demonstrated responslllle exp...tenœ fD purcbinlfns. (".oad vorUns knowledge of MInistry pllrch.1!l-
ing routines. pr.c~lce. arid p~UCll!. ¡ "t~11C!'d knovJect;e of goods and quallt1.. of goods ant!
services pertainlnS to the work assitn"ont; &('(ld knowledGe of sourre of supply and market (',,1\-
ditions. price t~ends; e'AcYbnt "'1'lUen ;mll ",:\1 ct'1l\lfl'1I11caUOft s".,~-:- {r..,,' ~.1.
S. SIGNATURES ~ J ' .'
.....CD....._I_ - ....q _"..OO.oC.l(~"" /..1.../ '. ...1 .....
~ ~. ""...,.. -, ~~i:..... ...... - J ClA.."'"' I'"
____....!~._._~...---~-Lr....,Lr..."I}.~. ., /1" ~z-:.~....-./... __._1~...J.(· ~; .
t~.........._·......... ~-:-l "'........~..............,.".......
A. B. Pet.ers, Head, DisLrict. Admin. Sf;cUon W. A. St.c\:art. Dislri.:t. En:\.ne~~__ .
---.----.--- .....-.----.-....... --- -..---- ....--
~LÊŠÃLLOCAT.ON ' ._.~..._._-_...._..._..---_..- ..-.---.--
C;Õ"~in; _~~~;. ~___-=~- __ . ~.- ."'~~~:;.' _ - -. ~_-I;:~;;~~~·~~~·~-.~rô'i"frif,: ·:~4·
4 ...."·r c¡. a\Sl,....,:, 11l11w1 '1-.......1('1'\. ,....:~c:. ...,n.tOII.... Of.... c....,..o It-'.. ... '.... ."r-.l" ....."..'& III .....0... ~,~.."".. ,.11H 1.11 Caw,," .........t. C""···..I::(,'-tOiø
~,.".... "';A...or.ll..~."o"'MC.. ~ ,...,,- t OI..,OW'.....G _.. "'10*11·
Position ot inCumbent who perfor.s responsible technical procurement wort requirinq
~an.id.rabl. knowledge of standard purc'~lS "9 methods, eg. determination of district
.. purchasing ~uirement., Obtaining price quot~tions. analyzing data froM ·suvpliers.
placift9 orders. etc.
Inc\lJllbent. ellrrie. out. stlllndaTd \'Dutine. VTcU....inAry t.o t.endering fOT po.-chase of suppl i .~,;
.. and ~ipllen~. rec(I'-fldinCJ invitation nr .l,h'.H·t lsed tender.
tnc:-w.bent is required to dovolop effect!". Wl,)1'kin9 relations. e9. intervie..,s salespe~,ol <:
c an4 -.nufacturer·s represent.lti"cs, dovol(1p!l new sources of sllpply, obtains Î.n(orln.1ti""
on new ..terl.1., etc.
~ ·;-~.t:·~-;~O·· --lJ....~_. - I. 'k' - _. -:. - - - _. - .. . 4..--...... -.... ......:. ~....;......~~.~ ...... ...
..·......·.41... l' ""'. "0- .....
_.ól! .........- l ./' . J I J . L!ill
......-;-.. . ---~___ _'1.. .ct-_ .~. _Y-.oL...!!cQuc..n __ <___. _
~
o.
.~~ ~~'R' 0' ÐUrllS AID RES,aNSIIILllllS ((:On- t.) ,
~'T!' .C .!r
. , .
. ~::rt._ :/~J:_~ .
uoct belaS pdv.tlue! to the prl.,.te lector;
.. u..ln& vlth the Shop Fore_ an4 EquJplllent Co-ordlnaCor perUnent to pdvaUnd
voñ (vork perfOraMlÞl, .aU.f.ctor, repaln, wnrune" etc.);
_ døctdlal wdn DOnaal concl!clona I.he _lb~d of Ilrocur.lllI!Oc for reqlll:sted COlilJllU..J1t,J&:1o
. b, eleher direct ,urch.Ma, telephoae løqulr, or wde ten tender M per Hll1istry
,roead__' '
,_ dUCU8.181 __ ...1.. .......ta with tbe Db~rllct lurch_Ins anð Supply Supervisor
... to __ 01 ,rocun_c ..4 nc:elvu& approvlll for deVS.UOD f~ norar.al purchasing
proa4u~ for ura_e or hip ·".h. re,ulralll8OClf when dela, 1a .upply coulcl affact .
.,ode 18 ,ro,n.. .11 J.e quite coatl7 to the JUnbuy 10 døvDtl_:
- 41.e.dlll vll1:l District ataff artJ' appuent pr~lle_ 10 purell.dns requested mated ala
In order to ....11&. beae ...Ualtl. product ae the lIlOlt econoatcal prtca.;
- cont.cUnl approprbte per.annel to dt.cusa .~.itltuUOD Ie ..teda1 ceq....stecl is un-
...11.,.1. and aUSIHCfal dlem.cha.;
- cOlllplllns lluotaUCIR lpfo....tl00 enaudnl that "¡Ita pertinent to .U tender require-
-ta I. co...lee. .. to description and s,edflc:atlona and n.ce....'" caadlttonal fOl'l1l8
an incl.4 In the ce"der packaae. tIa.un thae: aU .uppUers .Ira qualified and rc-
atatllJa4 c,o quote GO IIIIIterial or service requtn,d;
- pl.C1n1 orden vith .~plter. to purdl.. the De·cessary ten.red or hquested I114terfals;
- arrllftl.tnl with .-ateceuren, hi. a;e1lt Dr .uppUen Co haw lllerchaadise not accept-
able to the Hlnhu)' eitber return_d lor credJc or ..epl.Ked;
- preparinl Central Stons _d Read Offlce requisl.tton. ûd lntama1 raquest (orms;
- advbe. auppllera Oft ten_I' proœdures;
- func:tlonlnl _ a _mer of the Ten"D '}peninl. Co_lttee tn the absence of the District
Suppl7 Supen180r and ...htin, In tINt oP_tnl elf sealed tenders, mutually atreeing with
other co_ttee ..ldM:n oa succealful bidder andl .pprovln. .allle b, signing with other
__e r. of co_ t tal:
- prepare. tender dOCUIIll!Dts for .n o:onstnu:C1óa or utaten_œ contracts of $100.000.00
(1983 lase) or le.. _ . Dbcdct b..b;
- .naudnl 100. purchased b, sundlnl asre_.ats or te~ eoncr.cu are releasecl as
require"
2. Maintains U.t 01 ClR'reøC .ouree. of sup,l, b7 curylnl out such tasks u:
- intervtevtna .ale. personnel, 1UIIufacturers' representative.. general suppliers or
tbelr a¡eata to de_lop MY SOURU of supplj. to obtain up-to-d.te: lnformationon
new tJllllS of ..edela. .cceptable .~at1tllt. 1IIlIted.... etc. for .ddltLon to ReCht(,r
10% ot Supplle~. (l.e. clenafnl supplle., automotl~. acce..oriea. electrical compon~nt~.
equlplllllllt repair o lit Ie ts . etc.):
- sscurlnl .....Ie. and introduclnl IIlJV products to tbe approprlace Diatrlct staff fur
trIal evaluaclOD. If lIlaterlal acceptable. adding nallle.of same to source of suppln
- cOlllpll:lns and t."plnl curront UsUnl of apPl'oved repair sarvica outlets for equl~fllo·nt
and ~ØQent parts repa!~ for work to b. done '¡'J' the pdvne seeCor (1.e. labour
.' ratea. type of laclllt7. servIces aval1abl., scc.).
3. lxpedltes cS.llver)' of c..-04ttl.. b, carrying out suds tasks as:
- contactlns auppllers In ~d":anc. ot predøtQl'lIIined deI1very dates to en$ure adheren~c ."
deltvery schednle;
- seoklo; otbor sonrC'lts of supp17 for IlIolter1als Ura.Rel)' req'lJred created by sllppll..·,;;
10% Caflure to m.~t their e~lt~nt GO existing ordœra.
4. PedorlllS other related duties 8..:11 as:
- reU.~. che District l'urch.Js1ø¡ ad Suppl, Supervisor dudng absences:
- contact. -s"Pl'l1ers to dlsellS. product and repair servIce warranties;
- tonsures ack!qua~e .ll Irly .and lIIalnUlns seCurity al~d control of procure~nt Conns ....11
10% cOlllp1e~ed tC'ncWr doc...mu ¡
- supcl'Yl.lnl ..l1ot'atln, wo"- to purch~slnt staff. Instruction on new routines, r""Î"",ing
coqtletcd .1Ssltnm..·nts to cnst.lr~ conConaanee to sl!ctlon rcqul rellll:nU and/or procuro.:':·.·lIt
r".guht('ons and poJ Ides.
- rotrC(ll"IIllng s~d:.l aSllt cn~'nls as dlrectl"d by S'~)erY'sor.
- .1. asslcne-d.
.
.
.
I 1
, .-
.
,
~
'~
.
.ULL' AND IíIiØlUDCZ (caa"C.)
100. leterper.aaal 'kill_: ..tbe..tlc.l an. analytlcal abllltle.; prObI.. .alv1n& and
decldOD maklDS .kUla ""11. _del' UN preuure: knOllleds. of the prindpl.. anel
tecbnlq... af _rkat r....n:b.... bulk hurln&: ability to neaatIate prices and tenns rar
. tbe purchase of goode and ·~enr1ce.¡ abUHy to work Independently: AblUty to sup,rvis,'
ataft, to e.t~l1ah df,cu.. vorltlß& I'elatlcmships with cOUe.aues. cllellte anel aup-
pUen; tact. dlplOlUCJ.ad a hip desree of personl tnt_adly 8laO nqulnL.
. .
. . ..
. .
.
.. .... . .~ ..
.
.'
.
¡
.
.
.
" APPENDIX "B"
~
, .
PURCHASINO OFFICER. ;~ o Z 04 Z .
) CLASS DEFINITION:
Thil I, responsible technical procurement work requllring considerable "knowledge
of .pecUlc commodities, etandal'd purchasing rnethodl and material inspec-
tion techniques. Responsibilities ill these positions pertain either to pur-
chaeinl a variety of materials. supplies and equipment fA a medium-sized
department or to larle-Icale purchasing of specific eategol'ies of item. in a
laJ'ge department with specialized 1'equiJ'emenU. In thel~ latteJ' pOlitions
which are chara~ le.s .aried re.ponsibilities. employeel are in
charge of p"aEuremWl iD quantfty..of luch commollltles as cement, eteel. hard-
ware. fumtture. c1otb1n. materia1àad equipment. All employees in this clas.
receivell¡eneral .upemelon lr.,oM PUlt'ChaSing' offlcers of higher level or from
admini.ratÞadn(,~11 Wño confirmdeci.lona involvlDgheavy expenditures or
marked a.epartures on kind and quality of materh~l 01' purchaaÚlg methods em-
ployed. Employe.s In thil cIa.. may lup~~ile;¡ small group oi.ubordinates
performing the more routine aspect; of departft'lental purchasing operations.
Theyare required to develop effectivo wOJ'king relationship. with 4epartmental
per.onnal and with suppliers, salesmen anc;1 m&l~U£acturerl' J'epre.entat1ves.
CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES: .
As a speclaliat in a d..ignated Une or ae a dapartment¡~lpurcbaliB.ø ollic.r. confer.
with branch official. on purchasing requirements, obtains complete descrip-
tions of items required, and eDSU rea purchase reqtlÎ lit ion I are proper 1y author-
bed.
Submits complete and accurate details to luppüerl on Inaterial requiredancl obtain.
price quotations and related'data ou quaUty, dbc,ounts. and probable delivery
dates: upon receipt of iDformation lrom vendors. assalyse. c1aca 011 .. basi. ot
immediate J'equiremente: placel orders or IUbmJ.tS recommeDdattoDI for pur-
chase to luperiors it necenary.
. As directed byluperior.. carries out atandardroutinel' preliminaryta tendering for
'- purchale of suppUel and equIpment. supervise. the preparation of apread
sheetl. analyzes information. and makes recorrlmendationl on placement of
orders.
Personally examines and approves quality ol materials received in accordance with
specialized knowledge ot lines ot merchandiae. expedit"ea delive!y of goods in
,. accordance with terms of contract lor purchase.
;:
:,·~uper"ise.s subordinates aaligned to checking. typing and recording dutlea; instructs
on work method. and reviews completed aslignn,enu to ensure conformance
". to routines.
~ew. aa1esmen'and manufacturers' representatives to develop new sources of
~pply and to obtain information on new types of material. quality and price
: prepares a considerable volume of corresp<)ndence to obtain l'imilar in- 1
ion,
-c
.,
-
~
QUALIF teA TtONS: OZ04Z
-
l. Succe..ful completion 01 Grade 10. a good knowledge of standardpurcha,ing (
methode and practices: con.iderable knowledge of va l"ious kind. and quaU.
tie. of commudltiee pertaining to the work a..¡griment: good knowledge o{
aourc.. of eupply. market condition. and price trend.: {amillarity with
purcha.ins neede of the department aerved.
z. A minimuino! two yearat experiencea. aPurcha_Ù1g Officer. 1. preferably
in the department in which the po.iUon i. located.
3. Ability to prepare written description_ of material. luppUea and eqUipment
to be purchased and to analyze vendorlt ofler.: abUlty to establish and
maintain effective working relationship..
May. 1958.
(
t
.
.
.
~ -
!
. .
U· . .
0
I _ PURCHASING OFFtCER.. 3 02044
)
C LASS DEFINITION:
I This i. ~lT rèiponltble procurement work perlonned under Jeneral direction in
n a lar8e department with heavy pUfcha.ing requirements. /Employeee in the.e
poeition. may. .1 departmentalpurchaelng oHicers. lJ!flervile and penonal1y
participate 1n a va riety of procurement operatlOft'.l ~er po.iUODI in the
class. incumbents lenoe al aui.tants to purcbalin . lflcers of higher level
I or to other admbdstrattve official. with procuf'ement re'poDsibUlties., 1Vp.ile
the.e employees carry out many phase. of their ·..ork with little direction. they
usually confirm with their euperiore orden involving major expenditure..
I )Economies obtaifted anclpromptne.. of dellverie., .erve .. criteria of eUlclent
penormaftce in theJel'O,ltioD''J! 'Èm~lov"'ellJn tbi, cia.. .upemee lubordinate
Purchasing Olflcet'a laad clerical" 1vorlters carrying out a variety of cluties re-
lated to purcha8 inr. EUectlve wor'king\~elatic.nehipe with department per-
. 8~nnel, representative, of other departmentl I~d a variety of suppliers &DÒ
vendors are a requirement of poeitwn. in thi. c:1a... í
i
CHARAC~ .DUTŒ8:
-
~ a departmental purcha.iø, o.fliceY directs proc'lrement .operation. requiriDs i
~~.cale purcha~uch .peclal catesoFie. of item. a. truc:k. and car., . j
engineeriDg, electricalan4 hardware eupplie.. flLI1r& equipment. Iram, fertW- I
,
zer and feed.. furniture, kitchen azullaUftdry e·quipment, medical a:nd dental ,
:1
supplie., food .tuff., and clothing material; ,uplervt,e. .1l&or~e. eftlaled. 'j
in the more routine a.pects of the work: ~i~$Þ:l1&lly ex-mille. and. åpp~"..,e8 ¡I I
i.
quality ef {~~.......~ta1. :¡-ecelvea-;- . II
II
îI
A. aslistantto a ChiefPul'chasmg Officer. or other administrative official, pantel- !j
..... pates in supervision ol the purchasing unit, ,iUns orders and recommenda- ¡
tions; supervlees a .ectiOllof the WOp ~gatecl.h1 a euperlor: a.ligna and :1
review. the work of .ubordmate ~cl1a.lnund q,tertc.J.l"da£( ~
-
Secures specificatioD' onmaterials ancieupplies requi1~ed by departmental branches: 'I i
Y
obtain. quotations ft"om aupplien on price.. qll1allty and delh,ery date sand ' I
. I
analyzes data recelved;placee orders or recomr.l~ende purchases to luperiors: ì
I
e~mine. and approve. quaUty of materia18 reCJl!ived. I
j
!
.Carries out standard routines preliminary to tenderinJl for purchase of supplies and i
,
equipment. comparee price.. received and approve. or recommends on place- i
ment of ordere. I
I
Reviews emergency purchase orden prepared and exe,cuted in branche. as a method I
I
~ .
of maintaining controls on departmental purchaaing.
CarrieB out purchaeing routine. perlalningto a wide vàdety of malerial. and auppliel
required in the operation of institutional induatr:leø.
Interviews Baleamen anel manulacturer.· repreøentaUvOB to obtain information on
commoditteø and prices; prepare. a considerable volume of correspondence
to obtain similar information.
r .
'. .... --"-..... J
,
¡
. I
; J . :
:'j .
,
QUALIFICA TroNS: 02044 ,
,
I
c:l I
~ : '
1. Succe.úulcompletlon 01 Orade 10 SeconelarySchool education: good work.. í i
,
¡
ing kaow1ed.e of .tanclal'd purcha.ing routine. and practice I: detaned know- !
~ ledge of kind. and quaUti.e 01 commoditiee per.talning to the work .ulgn-
i t
:1 ment. .. 01 lourc.. of 'UP'!Y. market coDdltlons anel price trend.~ good !
knowled.e of the purchalÚlg need. of the department lerved.
. I
.
2. Conlleier.ble experiellCe ae a purchasing officer in go.ernment leryice
inclwUa. reepo'll.tb1e expertenee in 1&rle .e.1e parch..ing operationl, Î
!
preferably in the clepartmeDt in which the po.1tion i. located.. i
i
i
3. . AbUlty tOJWepare accurate written de.cripticm. of a variety Öl material8, ./
,
; l
luppUe. and equipment to be purchaled; abWty to analy.. vendora' quota- I
tlODI and to mak. purcha.. decblon. which wut .ecure economies and
satisfactory quaUty; abUity- to e.tabUlh &Bd maintalø eUectlYe working
relationshipl.
",
, .
"
r
May, 1958. (I
4
.
· .
¡ I
. · .
· .
I
.\
,/
-
i
.
,
I
i
I
I
I
!
~
OISENT
Re: BEHRSIN, G.S.B. #1363/90
------------------------~._._.~-._..~-_.-.----
This Member Is In agreement with this award to the effect that grlevor Behrsln does not fall
In the P.O.3 class standard. The dissent Is thClt this Memb,er believes that Mr. Behrsln Is
properly classified within his P.O.2 class standard and that a ·Berry Order" Is not warranted,
This awarcj concludes the following at page 10:
·Therefore, we are left to conclude that while Mr, Behrsln has not satisfied us
that he should be reclassified as a P.O.3, his superviSOry duties with resoect
to the Purchasing Officer, Mr. Kerhanovlch, brIng t)lm beyond the type of
supervision contemplated by the P.O,2 class stanclard. These duties ore
significant responslbtlltles and amount to 25% of hl:s time. Thus. we find that
neither classification Is appropriate and we concl~Jde that this Is a classIc
situation where a ·Berry Order" Is appropriate.·
(underscoring added)
The above conclusion flowed from the following analysIs at pages 8 and 9 of the award,
as follows:
'The evidence does establish that the Union can claim some success In
convincing us that some of the grlevor's dutIes do take him beyond the
P,O.2 level. P,Q,3's are expected to supervise 'subordlnate Purchasing
Officers and clerical workers."
Given this difference In language In the contextuc]I comparison of the P,O.2
and P,O,3 superviSOry expectatfons, It must be concluded that P,O,2's are
not called upon to supervise fellow Purchasing Of'1cers. The evidence In this
¡.,.þ. -
case clearly establishes that Mr. Behrsln does perform some ·supervisory"
responsibilities with regard to hiS fellow Purchasing Officer. Mr. Kerhanovlch.
os well os other subordInate employees such as trle Motor vehicle Operator
Purchaser. The aspects of Mr. BehrsJn's responsibilities that must be
recognized as supervIsory over another Purchasln'J Officer Involve the dally
coordination and assignment of work and the daily checking of 011 of
Mr. Kerhanovlch's purchase orders. It also Involves giving effective
consultatIve advice with regard to the evaluatIon of Mr, Kerhanovlch to
Mr. Rogers at the time of the grievance:
('Jnderscoring added)
..
40\
'II!
2
In the view of this Member, the distinction set out fn the above excerpt from the award. is
not determinative of the matter, It Is true that the P.O.2 closs standard makes reference
to the ·supervlslon" of "subordinates·. while the P,O,3 class standard refers to the
·supervlslon· of "subordinate Purchasing Officers and clerical workers."
However. It must be noted that the P.O.2 standard does not refer simply to the supervision
of "subordinates· only; but, rother, It makes reference to the supervision,
· ...of subordinates performing the more routine aspects of departmental
. purchasing operations."
Routine work IS the type of work that 0 P,O.l performs and this was Mr. Kerhanov!ch's
classification at the tlme the subject grievance of Mr, BehrsJn was flied,
Witness Kerhanovlch testified that at the time of the grievance, he
(Mr. Kerhanovlch) did nothlno without first checking his next move with grlevor Behrsln. In
fact. before the making of any purchase. the purchase order. the telephone and written
price quotes and proposed suppliers had to "go across Mr. BehrsJn's desk·, His testimony
was that ·everythlng· went across Mr, Behrsln's desk. that he did no tendering whatsoever,
and that even the forms were in Mr. Behrsln's office,
Mr, Kerhanovlch stated that he would obtain telephone quotes frOm suppliers, that he
would put them on Mr. Behrsln's desk for approval. and thot only AFTER Mr. Behrsîn hod
checked the quotes would he prepare the purchase orders. Even then, one of the four
caples of the purchase order would go across Mr. Behrsin's desk as a further check,
Emergency requests only went to Mr. Behrsln (unless he was absent), and only he handled
written tenders,
From the evIdence of both Messrs, Kerhanovlch and Behrsln, therefore, It was abundantly
clear that Mr. Kerhanovlch performed purchasing activities whIch Involved.
. ...the more routine aspects of departmental purchasing operations:
(from the P,Q.2 class standard)
.
,.
3
These purchasing actlvitfes of Mr, Kerhanovich ara what grJevor Behrsln supervised: and
this supervisory activity Is precisely that which Is provided for, os set out above. In the P,Q,2
closs standard - the supervision of the more routine aspect's of departmental purChasfnq
operations. AccordIngly, thIs Member would conclude thCJt the grlevor faJls squarely wlthln
his present classlflcatlon of P.O,2.
.
As stated In Evans. G.S.B /1531/90 at page 3.
"ThIs Board has reclassified employees, or ordered 111e employer to create a
suitable classificatIon, when a grlevor's Job functions went beyond the IJmlts
Of the classlflcatlon used. That Is. the Board has sold that. If a grlevor's Job Is
In fact greater In some way - encompc)sslng responsibilities, skills and
quollflcotlons whIch are !!:2Qæ In some way than thf~ responslb1ll11es, skJJIs and
qual1f1catlons Involved In the classification used - then the employee ought
to be reclassified either to an existIng c:lasslflcatlon or to a new one create
specially tor the grlevor.·
However. grlevor Behrsln's responsibilities tall within the class standard for a P,O.2. the
claSSIfication which Is the subject of this grIevance.
One final comment should be made with reference to the~ concept of "supervision· as It
applies to the class standards. It was clear from the evtdEtnCe that the ·supervlslon·
referred to by bottl Messrs. 8ehrsln and Kerhanov[ch was more In the nature of guidance,
collaboration. historical relationship and assIgnment In the sense of a "group leader", as
opposed to supervIsor (manager)/subordlnate relatIonshIp (hire. fire. discipline, appraise.
grant salary Increases, etc.). In fact. In cross-examination Mr. Behrsln stated that hIs work
relationship with Mr. Kerhanovlch was ·work allocation" and "coordination·,
The concept of a bargaining unit ·supervisor' Is quite common across the Opg and
generally these duties are not managerial. but tend to be more group or team-leader
types of positrons which Involve the assIgnment of tasks, some training and guidance, ete,
Hence. In reviewing the closs standards. the term supervisIon must be Interpretated very
broadly within the class standards.
·,
r<
.l
4
This Member would have dismissed the subject grievance, The case of Lott. G,S,B. #852/89
closely parallels this case ond It might hove been followed os per Bloke, G,S,B. 11276/87.
Y, /1 ~
" 1_) 7~ /.'¿.' I
-7. /~",( ., ~/
F,T. Colli ---,
/) .
~¿7 /~r//
..
.
,
,
-