Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1531.Evans.91-05-24 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPL O'fEES DE L'ONTA RIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 OUNOAS STR~=ET WEST, St, JITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M.SG 'IZ8 TELEPHO~E/T~-L~-~HONE: (~ ~6) 32'6-1388 ;80, Rr, jE OLINDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO [ONTAR.tOL MSG ;Z8 FACSIft.41LE/TEL~COmE ; I4 ~6) 326-1396 1531/90 IN THE MATTER OF 'AN P~RBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE B]tRGAINING HCT Before TH~ GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSUE (Evans) Grievor - aad - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Employer BEFORE: J. Samuels Vice,Chairperson T. Browes-Bugden Member M. O'Toole Member FOR THE C. Dassios GRIEVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE D. Jarvis EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barrsiters & Solicitors HEARING February 19, 1991 2 The grievor is employed by tire Ministry of Transportation in Sault Ste. Marie. He spends his summers, spraYing brash at the side of the highway and his winters plowing roads. He:is called a Roadside Vegetation Management Technician and he is classified as a Landscape Crewman. He claims that this is not an appropriate classification. Rather, he wants to be classified as a Maintenance Mechanic 2. When the grievance was filed in August 1990, he was classified as a Highway Equipment Operator 3. But about the same time, he was reclassified to Landscape Crewman. 'Pne grievor was not satisfied with this classification and proceeded with his grievance. The class standard for Landscape Crewm~m is found as Appendix 1 to this award. It covers adequately the grievor's summer work, and the Union agrees with this. The grievor's argument is that his winter work is not covered by the Landscape Crewman classification. This argument is correct. But what ought ~:o be done in light of it? Generally a position should be classified according to a class standard which covers at least a substantial part of the duties and functions of the position. The Employer cannot combine two jobs into one position and assign a classification based on only one of the jobs. However, the witnesses at our hearingmthe grievor, an employee who operates a zone striper (a machine which paints the stripes on the highway), and their supervisor..all agreed that the grievor's winter work was less technical and required fewer qualifications than his summer work. Thus, this winter work could not be the basis for a higher classification, nor for greater pay. In fact, inclusion of this winter work as. part of the grievor's "core" functions would only serve to dilute the value of the grievor's job. In our view, it is not necessary to dilute the grievor's "core" functions. The purpose of the grievor's position i:s to do the summer work, and he is employed to do this work because of his skill and qualifications he has much spraying experience and is licensed under the Pesticides Act. It is the summer work which establishes his classification level and his .position's value. The winter work is simply fill-in labor, which can be used to occupy his time during the winter months until he resumes the work which justifies his classification level and rate of pay. This Board has reclassified employees, or ordered the employer to create a suitable classification, when a grievor's job functions went beyond the limits of the classification used. That is, the Board has said that, if a grievor's job is in fact greater in some way---encompassing responsibilities, skills and qualifications which are more in some way than the responsibilities, skills and qualifications involved in the classification used -then the employee ought to be reclassified, either to an existing classification or to a new one created specially for the grievor. For example, in Beach, 816/86, the grievor was classified as an Electronics Technician, but his job involved elements which went beyond the confines of the class standard for Electronics Technician the design and modification of equipment; purchasing; researching products; and external contacts. These additional elements made the grievor's position more ~valuable than a simple Electronics Technician, and therefore the Board ordered a reclassification. If, in Beach, it was proven that the' grievor swept the floors from time to time, and this function was not mentioned in the standard for Electronics Technician, it is highly unlikely that the Board would have ordered a reclassification on the basis that the grievor's job duties were not entirely covered by the standard for Electronics Technician. The essential point is that the additional duties-- that is, the duties not covered by the classification standard used for the grievor's position ..must make the grievor's position more valuable (or "greater" in some way) than is contemplated by this classification standard. In our view, Mr. Evans is properly classified as a Landscape Crewman because this classification covers the job duties which give his job 4 its essential character and value. I1: is these duties which constitute his "core" functionS. Parenthetically, we will comment, briefly on the classification claimed by the grievor, Maintenance Mechanic 2. The class standard is found as Appendix 2 to this award. On its face, this standard appears to cover employees who maintain buildings and machinery, who use power and hand tools in order to repair and maintain buildings and machinery, and who are engaged in this work for at least 60% of their time (note the last. sentence of the first paragraph in the Class Definition). The evidence disclosed that the grievor does very little of this type of maintenance. Counsel for the Union suggested to us that maintaining a highway by spraying the brush at its side, and plowing it---could be covered by this standard. In our view, this would be stretching the sense of the word "maintenance" in the Class Definition far beyond its intended and literal meaning. Finally, the grievor argued that he ought to be reclassified to Maintenance Mechanic 2 because his colleague Ralph Baker, who operates a zone striper (the machine which paints the White. and yellow stripes on the highway), is so classified. It is particularly bothersome to the grievor that he and Baker were both classified for years as Highway Equipment Operator 3, until the Ministry's Maintenance Renewal Project in 1990, when the Ministry took a look at all the maintenance jobs and reclassified many of them. The grievor became a Landscape Crewman and Mr. Baker became a Maintenance Mechanic 2. In essence, it is argued that the grievor has essentially the same duties as Mr. Baker, and therefore ought to have the same classification. 5 In the winter, they both plow snow. BUt their summer work, which is their most important work (and is the work which gives their jobs their · essential character and value--which constitutes their r'core" functions), is quite different from each other. In particular, Mr. Baker spends several weeks at the beginning of each summer doing maintenance and repair on the striping machine. He cleans the guns, changes the oil, cleans out the lines, cleans the filters, and does much of the work which is not directly done on the pumps and motors which drive .the striper. Mr. Baker does not work on the pumps and motors. But he is qualified to repair and maintain the rest of the machinery which is necessary to move the paint from the tank to 'the road surface. Out on the road, Mr. Baker keeps the striper humming. In order to do his job, it takes about a year's training. Mr. Evans' job, on the other hand, can be learned in about two weeks, or a month for slower learners. And the amount of true maintenance work he does is very little compared to what Mr. Baker does. Mr. Evans will change oil, bulbs and blades, and do minor repairs. We didn't hear anything about any concentrated periods of time during which Mr. Evans does nothing but repair and overhaul his spray equipment.. 6 In short, the two jobs are quite different and Mr. Baker's classification does not say anything about what classification is appropriate for Mr. Evans. Clearly the Ministry was correct when, pursuant to the Maintenance Renewal Project, it reclassified both lVlr. Baker and Mr. Evans. They were wrongly classified as Highway Equipment! Operator 3, and both of them were moved to higher paying classifications. There was no need for the Ministry to move them both to the same classification. An effort was made to move each employee to an appropriate classification, bearing in mind the duties each one had which went beyond :the positions covered by the Highway Equipment Operator classification. It just so happened that Mr. Baker was moved to a higher paying classification than Mr. Evans. In sum, for these reasons, we dismiss the grievance. Done at Ion:onto, Ontario, this 2t~l;h day of Hay , I99i. Samuels, Vice-Chairperson "I Dissent" (Dissent attached) T. Browes-Bugden, Member Toole,, Member Appendix 1 ' LANDSCAPE CREWMAN C LA~S _D EFIHIT ION: These employees perform semi-ski~lecl manual task~ relating to landscape work and tree culture on Provincial Highway rights-of-way. Under the supervision of a Highway General Foreman, and in accordance wit.,h horticultural practic'es, they are involved in the pruning, spraying, plahthag and removal operations carried out .by ~he Department to beautify and improve public lands. They are required to observe certain safety precautions in climbing and felling trees, running equipment and using horticultural chemicals. These employe~s op'erate power-driven equip- ment associated with t/~e work, and, as' required, Supervise a small group of unskilled 'labourers and operaiors of light mechanical equipment. CI-IARACTERkSTIC DUTIE,5: Prune, treat, remove e.nd plant trees; fell trees a.nd hea~- limbs using hand and power saws. Spray trees, plan~s, shrubs and Weeds wi~h a variety of horticultural chemicals. Sow gras~ seed, spread straw mulch, control mixture of water, 'seed and fertilizer and the mixing of straw and asphalt; operate hydraulic seeder and s:r~w mulching equipment. As required, supervise a small number _~f u_ns. killed !shouters of light mechanical equipment. Perform related duties a~ as signed. 9u^n tC. i. Grade $ education; must pass ;es:s se: by ~.he Department's Chief Arbor iculturist. 2' At least one year of experience in the :ype of hortlcul~ural work carried our by ~e Department. Work~i ~ledie of ~e DeparUnent's horticultural me:hods practices, ~d ~e tools ~d equipment u~ed; ability to work from simple pi~s ~d to .~struc: o~ers; ~ood physical condition. 4. Must be ~ble to perform duties at heights up to 75 feet. May 1963 Appendix 2, Pacje 1 93004 MAINTENANCE IVlECHA. NIC 2 C LASS DEFINITION: This class covers positions where the employees are engaged in semi-skilled work in tasks ~sually associated ~Yith one or more of the skilled trades, or in semi-skilled handyr~an duties, in the maintenance of a Government building; institution, field station or other establishm~ent and its associated equipment and services, or in th,_= field. ]Employees in positions in this class are sufficiently skille~ to perform a variety of tasks under general supervision, where the quality of the completed work or the complexity of the tasks does not warrant the services of a quali£ied skillet[ tradesman. These employees use power and hand tools as required and their work is reviewed for an evaluation of the skill attained and quality of the completed work. Assignznents become more (iifficult and the degree of supervision lessens.as the employee acquires increasing skill. These employees must be. engaged in maintenance work for at least 60~0 of their work time. 'Ihese employees may assist skilled tradesmen in the performance of their work by substituting for them in completing, tJ~e routine tasks associated ~,ith the trad~ or they may assist maintenance mechanics and skilled tradesmen in a variety of mechanical maintenance tasks. Under general supervision, these employees perform tasks such as: repair walls, windows, fran%es; repair electrical appliances and equipment; lay floors; erect partitions, fences, (:to.: fabricate relatively uncomplicated shuc. t ~ctaf parts; r~%ak~. ~%~nur r~:pairs to vehicles; repair heating and watc_~_~_p_r.cs_.~_u_.r..~.~+RS[~.p.~n~..n.t; re, pair garage doors; repair bridges, culverts; assist .svith th.(:_r.~pair, of eLectronic~._e__q_ui~p._~e?t% ope r;~t(: ~ewage and water .-.- ~upply plant for a smal! institution {less than 500 patients, residents .fj. or ~nma~es)' repai~' and re-finish boats, canoes, etc.; build backs for gravel or stake trucks; repack valves; install water or steam radiators; repair leaks in steam or w..a_k~_r~line_~2 replace boiler tubes; repair stokers; b$-~d, thread and install conduit; replace wiring, BX e~c.; repair and install switches, junction boxes, etc.: lay carpets; install drapery track; strip £urn{ture and re-tie springs; make and repair blackboards; repair wheel chairs, beds, kitchen, playground and ~yn'tna~iu~n equipment; braze, ~eld an(i solder tra~ctahlc rnateri~,[s; prepare surfaces and apply p_~int; service ~n~ernat co~%bustion en.g~_e.s and carry out running_re.pai.r_s_j shape metal parts to acceptable tolerances; apply plaster; service air-condi~ioning or ~efrigeration equipment; and they perform such other :asks as are required within th~; limits of their skills and cormpe~ency. They may be_requi~r.~.d to [rain and supervise le. ss..skilled emplgM3.e~s and s~/ch patient, resident, trainee 0~r ~nrftatc helpers as .a_Lre__&.~_si. gned.~to therl3.~,, Appendix 2, Page 2 - 2 ,~aintenance Mechanic QiJALiF!CAT!ON$: 1. Elementary sdhoot education, preferably ~vith some training .ia ~he use of comrnon hand tools and power equipment. g. At least two years' experience as a ~aintenance Iv[echanic 1 or a combination of forma~ training and experience acceptable to the Civil Service Commission as the equivalent. 3. Ability Co understand simple plans, diagrams and blueprints, and to carry out written or oral instructions; mechanical aptitude: : demonstrated ability to perform a variety of semi-skilled r~echanical ~:"' tasks; good phys{cal condition, f~"' ~ R_evised, January 1967 GSB ~1531/90 OPSEU IEVANS) AND THE CROWN RIGHT OF iONTARIO (MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION) PARTIAL DISSENT With respect, I find that I must partially dissent from the majority in this award. I will specifically deal with the grievor's claim that he should have a classification that adequately describes his duties. In this case, what is absent in the classification of Landscape Crewman is the grievor's winter duties. The Board heard evidence of what those duties were and I concur they may be of a less technical nature than those of the grievors more specialized summer duties. Yet, these duties are perfo~med by the grievor and are absent from the classification. These winter duties in fact add up to some forty percent of the grievors total duties performed in a year. At page two of this award, the majority states that: "In fact, inclusion of this winter· work as part of the grievor's "core" functions would only serve to dilute the value of the grievor's job." It would be an unfortunate situation if the above statement was ever realized. However, is it correct in stating that this grievor is correctly classified when his class standard describes a little more than half his duties. It is not only appropriate but also fair that classifications adequately describe duties performed. In conclusion, for the above reasons I would have allowed the grievance and directed the Ministry to find or create an appropriate classification for the grievor that adequately describes his duties. T. Br owes-Bugd;~ Union Nominee