HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0875.Harrison et al.93-06-09 ONTARfO EMPt_OY~:S DE LA COURONNE
CF{OWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTAR,IO
GRIE¥ NCE CPMMISSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
'BOARD DES GRIEFS
~80 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUtTE 2?O0, TORONTO, ONTAR~, ~SG tZ~ TELEPHONE/~PHONE: (4?6) 326-1388
180, BUE DUNDAS OUEST, SUREAU 2rO0, TORONTO (~TABt~ MSG IZ8 FACSIM?LE/~L~CO~E : ~416) 326-1396
875/91, 877/91, 878/91, '1046/91, 2028/91,'2244/91, 2453/91,
2826/91, 2977/91, 272/92, 570/92, 571/92, 610/92, 771/92,
795/92, 1022/92, 1023/92, 3389/92, '3595/92
IN'THE MATTER OF i~N ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
O~SgU (Harrison et
'Grievor
· - and -
The.Cro~n in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Revenue)
Employer
BEFORE: A. Barrett Vice-Chairperson
M. Vorster Member
I. Cowan Member
FOR THE' D'i Wright,· P. Munt-Madiil
GRIEVOR Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman
Barristers '& Solicitors
FOR THE M. Failes
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, 'F'ilion & Wakely
.Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING April 2, 1992
Novembe~ 6, 1992
December 2, 3, 1992
· . DECISION
These are classification grievanCes.of nine people cla'ssified
as Drafter 2 working out of the Lindsay, Ottawa,. Whitby and Windsor
offices of the Ministry.'Alth0ugh their duties vary somewhat from
office to office, at the.end of the 'evidence it was'agreed by both
parties that there are no substantial differences amongst them. The
union advanced two separate usage arguments to justify the
· reclassification upwards of these Drafters. .. '
The first Usage co~parator is a Mr. Davis.who works in the
Etobicoke 'Assessment Office as a Drafter 3. The main distinction
between a Drafter 3 and a Drafter 2 in the class standards is'that
usually the Drafter 3 supervises other'Drafters'and is capable of
performing more complex work. Mr. Davis used to supervise a Drafter
2 in the Etobicoke office, but that person went on long-term Sick
leave four years ago and has:not been'replaced. Mr. Davis has never
been reclassified .downward to reflect the fact that he is not
supervising a Drafter 2. Essentially, says the'union, Mr. Davis is
doing the same job as the Drafter 2's in the other offices: making
assessment maps, a~d therefore his core duties are the. same.
'The employer responds that while Mr."Davis is presently in
somewhat of a unique situation, he still holds a much more
responsible positio~ than the Drafter 2's in the other offices. He
is autonomous with respect to the drafting' in his unit. No one
checks his work for accuracy: his .supervisor has no technical
expertise. Mr. Davis-is responsible for the long-range planning,
scheduling, statistical reporting and accuracy of all maps produced
in his office, unlike the Drafter 2's who have ~either a Drafter '3
as their responsible group leader or a management supervisor with
technical expertise to perform these duties. Since January, 1989,
the staff who have been· under the direction of Mr. Davis are
students or classified clerical staff who have·been on loan to the
mapping unit for short periods of time. The Drafter 2's sometimes
train st6dents working in their offices, but they do so under the
direction of their sUpervisors.
We find that the responsibilities required of Mr. Davis in ·
addition to his map-making duties are sufficient to preserve the
distinction between Drafter 3 and Drafter 2~duties, and that it
therefore cannot be said that the' Drafter 2.'s perform all_of the
core duties of Mr. Davis. Accordingly, this'usage argument must
Given this finding .it is not necessary for us to' decide
whether or not.'the absence on long-term disability of the Drafter
2 'Mr. Davis is supposed to be supervising means that he does not
have supervisory responsibilities over a~Drafter any lo~ger and
should therefore be·reclassified downward or stand as an example
of the Ministry having amended its class standard. That isa murky
issue and we choose not to delve into it.
The more novel usage' argument advanced in this case involves
a comparison between Drafter 2's and Mapping Technicians who are
3
~lassified at the'OAG 11 level. The work of the Mapping Technicians
has nowbeen privatized, but at the time the grievances arose there
were twelve Mapping Technicians employed by the Ministry of
Consumer and Commercial Relations. The thrust of the union's
argument on this branch of the case is that the Drafter 2.'s and
Mapping. Technicians create maps that are essentially the same in
complexity and appearance. Both positions collect and analyze
information from land registration records and a variety of other
private and Government sources, check the accuracy of data and
produce maps reflecting all of the assembled data.' The essential
difference between the two is that the Drafter 2's do.all of their
work manually, and the Mapping Technicians do all of their work on
inter-active graphics computer equipment. The union argues that the
Drafter 2's are doing essentially the same job but with different
tools, and relies upon Grievance Settlement Board jurisprudence to
the effect that using different tools to'perform the same work is
not sufficient to take a person out of his or her class standard.
The. union relies on Brick, GSB #564/80. (Samuels); Wallace and
Jackson, GSB #274/84 (Gorsky); Parker, GSB #1528/88 (Roberts); and
Sovereign, GSB #241/91 (Low) for this prOposition.
First of all it is to .be'noted that all of these cases were
based uPon the argument that the grievors no longer, fit into their
class standards because the standards di~ not contemplate the use
of highly-sophisticated computer equipment to perform the work. To
our knowledge, there is no'similar sort of case based on a usage
argument. To succeed in a usage argument, a grievor must show that
he performs all of the core duties, or all of the essential and
distinctive parts of the comparator position.
It is conceded in this case~that the grievors fit within their
~Drafter 2 class· standard° Therefore the onus is upon ~hem to show
that they perform all of the essential and distinctive parts of a
Mapping~Technician job. In our view, to meet this test the grievors'
must be able to demonstrate that if a·Mapping Technician job' ~ere
to be posted, they could apply for the job'and be considered
qualified for it. They must ·show that they can do the work, and
have the necessary skills, knowiedge and experience required for
~the job.
For the purPose·'of the union argument, we accept that the
product produced by·the two comparator groups is essentially the.
same. One·~.must look to the position specifications,, however, to
determine' what is required of the incumbent in each job, and the
purpose of each job. The purpose of the Drafter 2 position is: "To
establish~ ownership, size, 'location. and legal description of
properties for mapping and assessment roll purposes by Carrying out
searches 'of property at' Registry and/or Land Titles Offices. To
prepare and update assessment maps for the Region." The purpose of
the Mapping Technician position is: "To assemble and analyze
property boundary and title information collected from land
registration records and other sources and enter boundary data into
computer files using inter-active graphics computer equipment to
· 'produce a provincial·digital property, and survey fabric data'base."
"Thus the Ministry of Community and Commercial Relations wants a
provincial computer data base compiled. The Ministry of Revenue
wants assessment maps for the Region. The Mapping Technician,
having assembled his data, works entirely, at .the inter-active
computer. The Drafter, having assembled his data, plots and draws
a map by hand. The Mapping Technician is not a Drafter and could
not draft a map by hand. The Drafter 2'is not a ·computer expert and
could not input data into computer files using inter-active
graphics computer equipment. On the evidence we heard that it takes
about six months of training and experience to become proficient
on the Intergraph software program.
Obviously, these grievors could not be·considered qualified
for a Mapping'Technician position. We acknowledge, however, that
the ·Drafter 2's could produce a hand-draWn map containing all of
the information that a computer-drawn map wo~ld contain."Given this
fact it is not surprising that these grievances arose. The computer
· group is paid'more than the "manual skills" group. But rates'of pay
are not within our purview. These are~ negotiated between, the
parties, who agree on appropriate rates of pay for different
classifications~ It has obviously.been agreed ~between the parties·
that computer drafting is worth more than manuaI drafting.'This .is
borne out too in jurisprudence of this Board. In Eldon, GSB
#1324/88 (Samuels), .the Board found that a Drafter 2 who had moved
from primarily manual drafting to'primarily·computer drafting had
become "...more than a draftsman. He has become a very experienced
and knowledgeable computer operator .... He has become a much more
~aluable employee to the ·Ministry as a result of his increasing
expertise in the new technology." In that case the Board decided
that Mr.. Eldon no longer fit within the Drafter class standard, but
found he was a perfect 'fit in the Data Processin.g Technician class
standard, presumably a higher-paid classification.
For all of the above reasons, 'these grievances must be
dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 9th day of June, 1993.
A..Barrett, Vice-Chairperson
I DISSENT (DISSENT ATTACHED)
M. Vorster, Member
I. Cowan, Member
DIS,SENT BY UNION NOMINEE - MENNO VORSTER
Ontario Public Service Employees Union and MinistrY of Revenue
G rievanoe of Harrison et al
I must respectfully dissent from the decision 'of_the major, ity to uphold the
c~assification distinction between the positions of Drafter 2 and Mapping
Technicians.
The issue directly relates, to the tools used by em,~toyees in each·
classification to create .area maps., Mapping Technicians make maps for the
Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations while the grievors create maps for
the Ministry of Revenue in their position as Drafter 2's.' The parties agree that the
finished product is .materially identical in both Ministries.
The class standard for Drafter 2 was designed to reflect the steps required
to create sophisticated·area maps in the year the class standard was created. In
other words, each step was included because it reflected a necessary procedure
in map making as it was done at the time. The test to fi'nd out if one'was in that
classification was to prove' one did the'majority of Core duties listed in.the class'
standard. However, this 'test was only designed to show that.the sophistication of
the position, relative importance and productivity was at a certain standard. T.he job
was designed to aohieve a particular end and the duties.included in the class
.standard and job specification, were designed to meet that end,
With' the advent of time, technological devetol~ments ·have changed the tasks
required to achieve the end goal or product~ but the I~urpose of the job remain~ the
same. Or~l? the tools have changed.
'During the hearing, the Boarc~ heard ample uncontradicted evicience that
while the specific skill requirec~ in each.sYstem of map making, might be different,
one is not more difficult, sophistJcatec~ or more complicated.than the other. The
length of time required to learn each method is relatively equal. What is different
are the tools required.
· On that basis, I would have allowed the grievance.
Respectf, u II.y .su bm itted,
Menno Vorster