Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0241.Sovereign.91-10-02 ONTARIO EMP£ O YES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2?00, TOF~ONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 TELEPHO,'VE/TELEPHO~JE.. (416) ~26-~8 ~0, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, ~U~EAU 21~, TORONTO (ONTA~OJ. MSG 1Z8 FACSIM~LEIT~L~COP~E · (4 ~6) 325- 241/91 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Sovereign) Grlevor The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Employer BEFORE: W. Low Vice-Chairperson I. Thomson Member F. Collict Member FOR THE M. Doyle GRIEVOR Counsel Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE D. Jarvis EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HE]%RIN~ September 6, 1991 DECISION This is a classification grieVance. The Grievor, David Sovereign, is employed as a Traffic Technician 3 by the Ministry of Transport at his Northwest Region office. His position title is Traffic Technician, and the purpose of the position as set out in the job specification is "to conduct traffic field studies and surveys, process survey data and contribute to programs for the aggregation, analysis and documentation of traffic and accident data". The Grievor today seeks a Berrv order from this Board. It is acknowledged that the classification of Technician 4, beilng the next higher classification within the series, is not appropriate as it is substantially a supervisory classification. The Grievor contends that his duties and functions do not fall within the Class 3 standard which is as follows: "CLASS DEFINITION: This class covers positions of fully trained employees engaged in traffic field surveys. These employees under the general direction of supervisor observe and record traffic characteristics data by utilizing well defined survey techniques and mechanical and electronic equipment to conduct such traffic surveys as: Complicated vehicle movement patterns at high volume locations, "spot speed" and "speed and delay" surveys, driver behaviour and vehicular performance surveys. They prepare comprehensive field notes, scale sketches of physical details, signing and pavement markings. They carry out minor repairs to counting and other equipment. They assist in training junior staff. During the regular course of duties these employees operate and are responsible for a Departmental vehicle. On a temporary basis they may act as party chief in charge of a crew of 6 men engaged in origin-destination surveys for a period of time in order to gain experience in a supervisory capacity. OU~LIFIC~TIONS: 1. Grade 10 education, Grade 12 preferred. 2. Possession of a current Chauffeurs Licence. Successful completion of D.H.O. Safety and Road Tests in traffic. 3. At least 2 years' experience as a Traffic Technician 2 or related experience; and successful completion of the Departmental examination. 4. Good physical condition. Good judgment, ability to deal effectively with people." The Grievor contends that the classification does not fit for the following reasons: 1. He is required not only to conduct traffic surveys but ~ also to co-ordinate how they are to be achieved; 2. In addition to gathering traffic data by means of electronic counters, which in turn feed the information into retrievers, the Grievor is also responsible for downloading the information from the retrievers into a personal computer at the office and to generate the printouts therefrom; 3. The Grievor is responsible not only for doing minor repairs to equipment but also for seeing to it that all the repairs which he is not able to make are 3 arranged for; 4. The wet cut method of installing magnetic loops, a type of counting equipment, entails the use of several pieces of additional equipment which had not been required in the dry cut method of installation which had been used before, and the Grievor contends that the operation of these pieces of equipment is not contemplated in the class standard; 5. The Grievor is required one year in three for a period of approximately four weeks to supervise a crew of six in the installation of the magnetic loops. Att_he outset of the hearing it was agreed on the part of the employer that the Grievor is in fact expected to exercise his judgment as to how to accomplish the !traffic surveys which are assigned to him; to the extent that it is left to the traffic technician to determine how to get the job done and in fact to do the job, it is agreed that the Grievor does in fact plan and co- ordinate the conduct of traffic surveys. It was also agreed that one year out of three the Grievor supervises, for a period covering approximately one month, a crew of six in the installation of magnetic loops in road surfaces for purposes of traffic counts. For this period of time, however, the Grievor is paid at the rate 4 of a Technician 4 by reason of the supervisory nature of his duties for that period. Factually, there is very little in dispute in this grievance. The Grievor testifies that it is he who arranges for repairs to equipment in those circumstances where he does not do the repairs himself, whereas Ms. Nancy Chu-McKercher, the Grievor's supervisor, contradicted this and testified that it is she who is responsible for and who arranges for such repairs. The other factual dispute appears to turn on whether the Grievor processes data, and whether the type of reports being generated by the Grievor are similar to those being produced by traffic analysts. The Grievor testified that he produces the same type of reports as traffic analysts, and this is contradicted by the evidence of Ms. Chu-McKercher, who testified that traffic analysts do most of the processing and information within the office and generate reports and studies of a different nature from those produced by the Grievor. A third area of factual dispute was as to the percentage of time spent by the Grievor performing each of the classes of job functions set out in the position specification. Notwithstanding the allocation of 20% in the job specification to processing of traffic survey data, the Grievor testified that he spent 5% of his time at this job function. It was the evidence of Ms. Chu- McKercher that perhaps 1% or 2% of the Grievor's time was spent in this job function which consists of downloading data into a menu- 5 driven personal computer and generating hard copy printouts of the information. There was no evidence that the Grievor was required to analyse or synthesize the data collected. It appears to be common ground that the Grievor spends 70% to 75% of his time in the field, chiefly conducting traffic movement studies. The only evidence as to the amount of time spent by the Grievor in maintaining equipment was the evidence of Ms. Chu-McKercher, who testified that 10% of the Grievor's time was allocated in this fashion. As for the time spent in the installation of magnetic loops, the Grievor estimates that 10% of his time is so spent whereas it was employer's evidenc.a that approximately 5% of the Grievor's time was allocated to this' function. It was acknowledged that with respect to the installation of magnetic loops, that function required a lower level of qualification and sophistication than did the functions of conducting traffic studies. It was acknowledged by the C;rievor that the dry cut method of loop installation was replaced by the wet cut method which was safer ~or the personnel involved in the installation. It was also acknowledged that a special permit could be obtained from the Ministry to operate the equipment required to perform this wet cut installation. On the issue of whether the Grievor generates the same kind of reports as traffic analysts, we prefer the evidence of Ms. 6 Chu-McKercher, the Traffic Information Supervisor, who is the supervisor not only for the Grievor but also for the Traffic Analysts. Ms. Chu-McKercher is in a position to know the functions of persons reporting to her, whereas the Grievor is not, and for that reason we do not accept the Grievor's evidence that he generates the same reports that are produced by the traffic analysts. As to the balance of the factual disputes, we are prepared to accept, for purposes of deciding the case, that the Grievor does spend 10% of his time in the magnetic loop installation operation, that he arranges for repairs of equipment and that he spends approximately 5% of his time processing collected data in the computer system. Do these functions, in the context of the class standard and in the degree to which they occupy the Grievor's work time cause such a deviation between the totality of the job performed and the types of functions contemplated in the class standard that a reclassification should be ordered? In our ¥iew, they do not. Class standards are not intended nor drafted as compendia of job functions. By their very nature, they are to describe in general terms the role of an employee within the public service and do not nor are intended to contain an exhaustive list of functions or duties to be carried out by persons within the standard; nor are class standards intended to designate tools or methods by which employees are to fulfil their duties. While it may be attractive 7 to suggest that, because a computer is a sophisticated piece of equipment, the operation thereof therefore puts greater demands upon an employee required to operate one and requires a greater degree of qualification, this concept must, however, be put into the context of the purpose to which the computer is being used. The purpose of the position and the role of a person holding the Technician 3 classification is to conduct traffic studies, which to a large degree involves counting, recording and compiling. The advent of the computer has relieved the technician from the tedium of manual counting, recording and compilation, and in the circumstances of this case at least, we cannot accept the proposition that the use of a tool which makes it possible to do the job faster.and more accurately is the equivalent of changing the nature of the job. The job is the same and the function is the same. It is merely done with a better tool. With respect to the additional pieces of equipment required to carry out the wet cut imethod of magnetic loop installation, we are again of the view that there is in fact no change in the job function of installing magnetic loops. There is no suggestion that the installation of magnetic loops is not properly a function which falls within the class standard, and we do not accept the proposition that a method of so doing which results in greater safety to the Grievor constitutes a departure from the roles and functions contemplated by the class standard. 8 In any case, it is to be remembered that the magnetic loop installation takes approximately a four week period, during which time all of the members of the crew of six take turns operating the equipment, which operation it was conceded required less sophistication than the other duties required of the Grievor. As for co-ordinating traffic studies and arranging for equipment repairs, we do not accept the Griewor's contention that these are departures from functions contemplated within the class standard. As far as co-ordinating traffic studies is concerned, it is difficult to imagine that the Grievor could carry out his function at all without doing so unless his functions were reduced to the level of a Technician 1 or Technician 2 standard. The Technician 3 is expected to use skill and judgment in the conduct of the traffic field surveys. Co-ordination is part of the exercise of skill and judgment. As for arranging for repairs to equipment, we are of the view that these duties, whether imposed or self-imposed, fall within the ambit of utilizing mechanical and ele6tronic equipment to conduct traffic surveys. The difference between bringing an equipment malfunction to the supervisor and arranging for its repair directly with a repairer is not of such a magnitude that it can be said the function is beyond that contemplated in the class standard. 9 ~ In summary, we are of the view that duties perfo].~med by the Grievor clearly fall within the class standard, and accordingly we would dismiss the grievance. DATED this 2nd day of October , 1991. FRED COLL~'~