HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1659.Thaleshvar.91-11-14'~ ~. ONTARIO EMPL OYES DE LA COURONNE
"~ . . , CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO
~' r~ GRIEVANCE- C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 OIJNDA$ STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 12'8 TELEPHONE/T~L~PHOIVE: (476I 326- ~388
I~0, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, EJUREAU P_IO0, TORONTO (ONTARIO]. M5G IZ8 FAC$1MtLE/TF~!..~COPIE : (416) 326-1396
1659/90
Unde~
THE CRO~ E~PLOYEE8 COLLECTZVE
Before ,,
THE GRZEV~CE ~ETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
,OPSEU (Thaleshvar)
Grievor
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of. Transportation)
Employer
~EFORE: P. Knopf Vice-Chairperson
I. Thomson Member
F. Collict Member
.FOR THE C. Dassios
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE D. Jarvis
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING January 21, 1991
September 20, 1991
DE C I S I ON
This is a classification case in which the grievor,
Mahendra Thaleshvar, who is classified as a Purchasing
Officer 2 seeks reclassification by way of a "Berry order" on
the basis that the present classification does not adoquately
recognize his duties and re'sponsibi:lities.
There is no dispute between the parties over the
nature of the grievor's duties. The scle issue between the
parties is the ext~nt and implications of the grievor's
supervisory functions.
The Class Standards for a P.O. 2 indicate that they
"may supervise a small group of subordinates performing the
more routine aspects of departmental purchasing operations."
The Class Standards for a P.O. 3 indicate that the employees
"supervise subordinate Purchasing Officers and clerical
workers caKrying out a variety of dutie.s related to
purchasing." This same panel of the Board 'has recently
issued a decision for the same parties on the issue of
Purchasing Officers entitled Behrsin and Ministry of
Transportation, GSB File 1363/90, July 22, 1991. In that
decision the Board dealt with the distinction betweeen a
P.O. 2 and a P.O. 3. We concluded:
P.O. 2's are expected to supervise "subordinates"
whereas P.O. 3~s are expected to supervise
"subordinate Purchasing Officers a~]d clerical
workers."
Given this difference in language and the
contextual comparison of the P.O. 2 and P.O. 3
supervisor expectations, it must be concluded that
P.O. 2's are not called upon to supervise fellow
Purchasing Officers.
It is the contention of the Union in this case that the
grievor's "super.visory" expectations over the P.O. l's are
Such that he cannot be properly classified as a P.O. 2.
Given the narrow issue in dispute, the parties wisely agreed
to confine the evidence to the supervisory functions and.
expectations of the grievor.
As a~Purchasing Officer, the grievor is responsible
for the procurement of material and services within the
district for the Ministry. This includes replenishing stock
material, receiving~requests to procure material and
services, soliciting telephone tenders and procuring
materials and services. The'full nature of his duties are
set out in the Job Specification appended to this decision as
Appendix "A".
At the'time of the grievance, the grievor was working
in the Ottawa District Office. He was the only Purchasing
Officer 2. Working along with him were two Purchasing
Officer l's [P.O. 1] and one driver, The grievor claims to
have supervised the P.O. l's. He provided many examples of
what the Union considered to be supervisory duties. For
example, the P.O. l's only had signing authority up to'
$1,000.00. Hence, any purchase orders for goods over
$1,000.00 had tO be signed by the grievor who had a higher
signing authority. He explained that every other day he
would have to deal with one of these orders which would
involve him checking the order to see it complied with
Ministry policy before he signed. Another example of what
the.Union considered to be super¥~sion.was w~th regard to the
co-ordination or assignment of work. The grievor explained
that each of the P.O. l's had assigned areas of
responsibility. However, their responsibilities were
switched in August of 1990. The grievor claimed it was his
decision to make the switch. However, the grievor's
supervisor, Cheryl Lacasse, the District's Purchasing and
Supplies Supervisor, claims that she made the decision after
discussion with Mr. Thaleshvar and other personnel. The
conflict over who actually made the suggestion or the
decision need not be resolved. The fact is that th~ parties
agree that Ms. Lacasse directed Mr. Thaleshvar to implement
the change in duties of the P.O. l's and he proceeded to do
so.
The grievor also explained that he was responsible
for initialling the P.O. l's time sheets on a bi-weekly basis
to confirm the correctness of the times that they had filled
in. He also assisted the P.O. l's if they approached him
about any problems with their ~ork. ' There is some dispute
between the parties over how often this may have happened.
Ms. Lacasse believed that the employees did not approach the
grievor very often with problems. However, she did admit
that ~she was unable to ascertain how often they did or did
not approach the grievor. The grievor also claimed that when
he was appointed as a P.O. 2 he was told that he would have
input into the evaluations and appraisals of the P.O. l's.
Ms. Lacasse admitted that she had said to Mr. Thaleshvar
that, in the process of completing evaluations of.the
P.O. l's, she would discuss their work with Mr. Thaleshvar
and would seek his input.
The evidence established that the vacation schedule
was worked out with Ms. Lacasse. H0wew)r, if employees
wanted some time off for something like a dentist's
appointment, they would discuss this with Mr. Thaleshvar who
would in turn d~scuss it with Ms. Lacas:se.
Another area that the Union claimed indicated
supervisory responsibility was with regard to the assignment
of specific orders. The evidence indicated that
approximately 20% of the purchase requests come into the
office by mail. These are received by Ms. Lacasse ~ho in
turn hands them over to Mr. Thaleshvar. He distributes these
to the P.O. l's in accordance with their assigned areas of
responsibility.
Finally, the Board also heard evidence about how the
griever is called upon to look over the work of P.O. l's with
regard to his signing of mobile equipment orders and "price
fair and just requests". Also, the Accounting Department
dealt with the griever exclusively, regarding any
discrepancies on the orders completed by the P.O. l's.
The Argument
The"Union argues that since the griever has some
supervisory responsibilities over P.O. i's, he is not
properly classified as a P.O. 2. The Union lists the
following duties as indicative of supervisory expectations;
signing orders over $1,000, signing mobile equipment orders,
signing "price fair and just requests"; distributing work
that comes in through the mail; initialing time sheets;
giving input into evaluations; dealing with di'screpanci'es and
purchase or'ders for the Accounting Department; assisting
P.O. l's with problems; and allocating work responsibilities.
Thus, on the basis of the Behrsin decision, the Union argued
that the griever's supervisory responsibilities are not
adequately recognized by a P.O. 2 classification. The Union
recognized that the griever's responsibilities were not such
that he wo~ld qualify for a P.O. 3 classification. Thus,
counsel for 'the Union requested that a Berry Order be
awarded.
Counsel for the Ministry stressed that the Ministry's
concern in~ this case was with regard to "the nature of
supervision". He continued by trying to distinguish the fact
situation in this case from that of Behrsin. %t was pointed
out from the Behrsin decision that the grievor'in that case
had been involved in the daily co-ordination of work, the
review of all of the work of the subordinate P.O 1 and the
actual compi~tion of a performance appraisal. Since none of
those factors were present in this case, it was said that the
Behrsin decision ought not to influence this one. Counsel
continued by saying that in any event, a Berry Order is not
appropriate here because there is not a substantial enough
variation in the duties and responsibilities of this grievor
tha't would take him outside of the expectation of a P.O. 2.
The following cases were cited as aUthorities from this Board
for the proposition that reclassification ought not to be
ordered unless there is a "substantial difference" in the
nature of the duties and tasks: Wales and Ministry of
Natural Resources, GSB File 2417/87 (Dissanayake),
November 19, 1990, Booth and Ministry of Transportation, GSB
File 192/90, (W. Low) November 30, 1990, Roy and Ministry of
Natural Resources, Board File 946/89 (Knopf), March 19, 1990,
Evans and Ministry of Transportation, GSB File 1531/90
(Samuels), May 24, 1991 and Dumond and Ministr~ of
Transportation, GSB File 1822/90 (Kapian), July 22, 1991.
Counsel conceded that there may be some aspects of
supervisory duties that the grievorlmay have performed over
the P%O. l's. However, signing authority over $1,000 was
said not to amount to supervisory responsibility as was held
in Lott and Ministry of Transportation, GSB File 852/89
(Kaplan), October 1, 1990. Further, the amount and the
extent of the grievor's "supervisory functions" in this case
were said to be so minimal that they would not meet the
requirement of the Union convincing this Board that it
amounted to a substantial variation in the duties of a P.O. 2
so as to warrant reclassification.
The Decision
This decision must start with the acceptance of the
Union's proposition that the grievor does perform some
supervisory functions over the P.O. l's in this facility.
This conclusion is inescapable. The Job Specification for
th~ position includes the expectation that the P.O. 2 would
involved in "superviSing, allocating work to Purchasing
staff, instructing on new routines, reviewing completed.
assignments to ensure conformance to section, requirements
and/or procurement regulations and policies." Indeed, the
District Purchasing Supervisor, Carol Lacasse, indicated in
the griever's performance appraisal that he "performed
supervisory duties" at the time of the grievance, that he
provided "technical operation guidance" and that he "assisted
in the development Of reports, and reorganization of work".
There is also no question that these "supervisory functions"
that the grieuor performed were in relation to the P.O. l's
at th~ time of the grievance.
As mentioned above, the Same panel of this Board
ruled in the Behrsin case that the'language of the Class
Standards with respect to' Purchasing Officers should be
interpreted contextually and that this leads to ~the
conclusion that P.O. 2's are not expected to supervise
subordinate Purchasing Officers. Further, in the Behrsin
decision, we also indicated:
... the Union can also achieve some success in the
grievance if it can show that any of Mr. Behrsin's
duties and responsibilities can take him outside of.
or beyond the P.O. 2 classification.
In light of those conclusions, it is not surprising that the
Union has brought this grievance on behalf of Mr. Thale~hvar.
However, the Behrsin decision cannot be read outside of the.
context of other GSB jurisprudence. It is rare that a panel
of' the Board gets an opportunity to clarify a previous award
and to better assist the parties in interpreting hOw the
principles ought to be applied to a fact situation. Quite
frankly, our earlier statement that the Union may be able to
achieve success if it can indicate that "any~ of the
griever's, duties and responsibilities take him.outside of a
particular classification must also be read in light of the
Board's jurisprudence that indicates that a reclassification
ought not to be ordered unless those duties amount to "a
substantial difference betweeer, the duties performed and the
duties referred to in the Class Standard." See Dumond, supra
at page 19.
This having been said, we must ].ook at the facts of
this case. In this situation, the Job Specificatio~
indicates that among a number of "other related
responsibilities" comprising 5% of the Purchasing Officer's
duties, one of these is the expectation that he perform
"supervisory work." In the case of this grievor, those
supervisory functions amount to co-signing certain types of
Purchase Orders, distributing less than 20% of the Purchase
Orders, initialling time-sheets, spe.aking to the supervisor
about appraisalS, implementing personnel, decisions and acting
as a resource person for the P.O. l's. All this is valuable
work and the Employer benefits from this. We accept the
evidence of the ~rievor that he performed this work
diligently and under the understanding that it'requires him
to actually check and supervise his subordinates' work.
However, we are not convinced that these supervisory
functions comprise a large or even a significant amount of
his duties and responsibilities. Quite simply, it amounted
to less than 5% of his overall responsibilities. Further,
functions such as co-signing because of signing authority
limits in themselves should not be considered as supervisory
as was indicated in the Lott decision, ~u~. The facts in
this case are readily distinguishable from those in the
Behrsin~case where the evidence indicated that a substantial
amount of that grievor's time w.as spent with regard to
supervisory responsibilities. The evidence is not the same
in the case at hand.
In conclusion, although we are convinced that the
grievor did perform some supervisory responsibilities over
P.O. l's, we are not convinced that the nature and extent
these duties are substantial enough to warrant a
reclassification. For all these reasons, %he ~rievance is
dismissed.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 14.~h day of November,
1991.
Paula Knopf -Vice-Chairperson
Dissent" (4~sse~t a£Cached) I. Thomson - Member
F. ~ct ~ Member
POSITION .S,PECIF ' 7gO:~1 ,AND CL A~5* ALLOCATION ~0RM
~ ~os,~o~ T~ .
-p~CJ~S~G OFF,CdR . · t ] nEws~o
. *. ,.--. ....... . .... .. . ..i, : ..
T t t~-ranspor-a"on and Co~unicatiina .... "' '; ' "~' ':~'" : ':';': ':~L~"'"~ ; ' ~ :'~ ;' ";
.riot ~9 - Ottawa eucoh=e~g ~ ' 530' Tre=bl~y R~a.~' '~ ....... ' ........'
'"'r r ....
;r the general '~upe~iaion of the District [~rch~sing 'g 'Supply Supervisor is responsible
~e. procurement of all ~aterials ~d service~ {i,e. patrol, project, electrical equipment,
~s ~ sign shop) ~thi~ ~e Oistrict, , . ~./ _
~'r°ximately 3000 Purchasb O~ers pea year~ $1,100,000'. per
~:Carries out d~ties to procure all materials and services relative to ~e o'pera}ion of ~e
[District by performing tasks such~as: ,~, ', '.,
- replenishing stock (material stock i.e. pipe, posts, grass seed; equipment stock i.e.
maintenance repair parts for all equipment such as loaders, Bio,ars, sanders,
sign stock i,e, signs, raw materials, wood paint, scotchlite, e:l~ctrical stock], in
replenishing stock incumbent receives detailed information as t:o rcquiremcnt~
description of tte~s, quantity, etc,, from Senior' Warehousing Clerk;
- receiving ~epucsts to procure matcr~ls and se~i. ccs For pat~ls, service crews, garage
sign shops, electrical p~jccts, Drivers and Vchicles~ and all other Regional sections.
These requests vary From procurement of equipment parts ~g a variety off cre~ matcrlals
requlrcd to ~c~ice the District, to procurement oF scrvlces such as the rental of
equipment and picnic site maintenance, conference facilities, weal~, etc; p~lrchases
connected with property ~grccm~nts, i.e. ~el2 d~illln8, ~tcr ~;oF~ne~s, house
renovations a,~aolitions, crc;
- perusing oisLrict ma'terial request to ascertain that they have been propcrly authorlzqdl
that Lhc ite~ ~cscription is co,plate to avoid ordering i~orr~ct material vhich could
cause delnys in the job. In perusing the ~qbeat, the inc~bcnt ensures that the
centre number und chaege numbc~ are included; that the ~q~est is properly autho~izcgl
that there iR enough description tolbuy thc proper i~em ~ucst;cd; thut thc dale nnd
location for delivery are sho~n. The incumbent contacts ~e appropriate person to
di~lcuss substitution if malarial isiunavailable at 21mc ~ucsl:ed and suggests
alternatives; nnd dc'c/des on ~thod o~ procdrcmcnt;
- in o~inary cuscs, inc~bcnt dctc~ines whether to ~ill r~ucs': by telephone bid direct
purchase order or ~riiten tender, as per Ministry
~LS Agio ~NOwLEOGE tiOOlRiO ~O PERFORM THE WOR~ ts~g io~o~, ~*~.Em~mt~c~
~ovd ~orkinR kn~lcdge or Ministry purchasing routincs~ practi~s~ ani policiesl detailed
· ~ledge of goods and qualitics of goods and services pe~tainhg to Lhe ~ork asaignment~
~'xlcdge of source or supply~ market conditions~ price trendsl cxc~lIent ~ritten and oral
,:~u~icatien skills~ good interpersonal skillsl · (continucdl
.~S& .,, LL DCAT~ON
incumbent ro.]lo~s stanaard puechastng met~o~sl e8. dete~in~ion o~ district/regional
purchasing requirements, obtaining price quotations, analyz'~ data from suppliers, platt'nd
orders e etc.
Incumbent carries out ~tanda~ routines prelimi~ar~ to ttnd~g for purchase or supplies
and equipment, ~co~ending invitation or advertised tende~.
and eanufactur~~' ~presentatives, develops new sources or~pply, obtain~ inro~ation
on ne~ ~ateri~ls, qualityl and price .date'
~ i. ~ III III
· "d in situations out Or ~._.~ ordinary, the incumbent disc. .es with'the Oistrict Purchase,R
~nd Supply Supervisor and receives approval on thc basis of urgency of requirement
M ' or value of the order ~hethe~r the request should'be handled by 'telephone bid or written
tender i.e. the purchasing of explosives, as lack. of supply would interfere ~ith progre
' .of the men and machinery on the ~ob;
N - discussing any problems which ma~ be apparent or arise later, with 9istrict Staff
'" i,e. t~pes, sizes and grades of lu~ber so that th~ best so,liable' ~aterials are pu~yhas
at the most economical price; '" :' ..
i._ - recou~ndlng to supervisor whether to proceed with purchase b~ invitation bid or
advertised tender based on own knowledge and .e~?~ience, i.e..hiring of equipment
..... depending,bn whether time Facto~ allows extended adverti§ing o~ immediate hiring.'
N ~otiFiea ~equestor whether hiring can be done direot or by tender based o~.established
guidelines; ' . . . .
- compiling quotation i~For~ation documents (t.endcr form} g~vinl comple{e and accurate
a ........ inFomation on material required i.~. quantity, description, speoifications to be met,
dat~ required;'.deliverypoint, method of delivcr~ p~oviding clerk with list o~ supplier
· .qualified to qu~te on material or service required from the section; incumbent ensures
that all subsidlar~ forms i.e.'conditions form, Canadian content Form are sent out with
N ' ' ' the tenders' for~; · '. ' ' '
.... Committee, While serving on this committee, the incumbent opens the tenders, reads
~llll out bids to be recorded by ~istrict Accountant or Ilead, District Admen. Section, on
· ~ approved Tender :est Sheet; mutually agreeing with other committee members on the
successful biddePl provides expertise when discussing or clarifying any points on
tender itself or cn suitable alternative materials or serviccsl
N - placing orders with suppliers to have the requested goods delivered;
- arranging with manufacturer, his agent, or suppliers to have defective ee[chandi~e,
poor quality goods or material not to specification replaced
-prepares tend¢~ documents for all construction or maintenance contracts of $100,000 ·
or less on a District basis.
~' ·
2, [Bintains list of current sources of supply by' carrying out tusks such as:
- in~crvlcwing salesmen, manufacturers~ representatives, ~eneral suppllcrs or
Ntheir r, gents to develop new sources of supply, to obtain up-to-date information on new
types'of me,oriels, a~ecptabl~ substitute materials, i.e. cleanin~ supplies, automo~ive
accessories lubricants, paint~, ~sphalt sealers,, electrical eomponents~ crc;
- securing ~maplcs from salesmen, i.e. various types of lubrlcpnts, types of paints,
asphalt ~cnlers, lamps, h~drnulic hose and quick attached cou~lers, crc;
- introducing new products to thc appropriate District Staff For trial evalu.ation{
N ear,rial is accepted, ~he inc~mbcnt adds thc name.of the material to thc souruc of
supply. : ''-
3. Expedites delivery of commodities by carrying out t~sks such as:
.
- sends out an exuoditing form hy mall to supplier requciting an expected delivery date
when delivery is not urgent; .
I~ - by t¢luphane inquiry, in u?gent situations, contacts supplier snd iF material is not
aw~lable it~cumb~nt m~y suggest to suppl~er to oheck o~gcr depots,
expedite, incumbent ContaCtS alternative supply source.
I 4. ?crfot~s other related duties such as:.
- ensures adequate supply of procurement Forms are on bani; : ..
I ... - maintains security and control of same and completed to:der documentsl'
- supervising, allocating work to purchasing stuff, instructing on new routines,
10% ~evlc~ing completed assignments to ensure co~£ormance t~ seotion requlrc~cnts and or
i ' procurement regulations and policies;
" - perFo~ing special assignments as directed by supervisor;
SEll.tS AND KNUI'ILEDGE (coptinued) ..... ': .....
quick ~nd accurate mathematical and statistical abilities, problem solving and decision
making skills while under time pressure; knowledge of thc principles and techniques of market
research and bulk buy~ng, ability to negotiate prices and te~s for the purchase of goods
and services, ability to work indepcndcntly, ability to super'oLde.staff, ability to establish
effective and cordial working relationships with colleagues, clients, and suppliers; tact
and dlplimaey and high degree of personal integrity,
The above skills and kno~le6ge would normally bo acquired by e>~osurc to fore, al education '.
in the field of Business Administration plus exposure to a sourd' Purchasic~ProP.~m~ and
related wot'k experience. *
:~ ..... " .....,. d~L'g! ~3.
· ~,,,..
DIBB~NT
1659/90 Thaleshvar vs Ministry of Transportation
I must dissent from the decision of my two colleagues.
While the Board has ruled in other cases that there must
be a substantial difference in duties, outside the Class Standard,
to be re-classified I believe there is a difference here.
This Board has set out in the Award of the supervisory
duties which the grievor performs outside of the Standard.
In my opinion these should be sufficient for the awarding
of a Berry order irrespective of any percentages.
On Page 6 of G.S.B. 1363/90:Behrsin (Vice Chair Knopf) in
the first full paragraph the Board stated:
-that this leader to the conclusion
that P.O. 2s are D9_% e~pected to
supervise subordinate Purchasing
officers.
The evidence in this case shows that the grievor spends
an amount of time supervising P.O. l's and others. In my opinion
this takes him outside a P.O. 2 and a Berry order is justified in
accordance with the Behrsin decision,
'[ L~homson, Member