Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0319.Gibson&Patterson.94-07-27 i~ \ tr \ ONTARIO EMPLOyES DE LA COURONNE CRowN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT . REGLEMENT -- BOARD DES GRIEFS ~ 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 2100, TORONTO ONTARfO. M5G IZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE 1416) 326-1388 I~O, RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO) M5G IZ8 FACSIMILE /TEU;COPIE (416) 326-1396 319/93, 320/93 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE, SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Gibson/Patterson) Grievor - and - ~ The Crown in Right of ontario (Ministry of Community & Social Services) Employe~ BEFORE: A Barrett Vice-Chairperson E Seymour Member / D. Clark Member FOR THE P Munt-Madill UNION Counsel Ryder Whitaker Wright Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE L Marvy EMPLOYER Employee Relations Officer Ministry of community & Social Services HEARING January 12, 1994 March 24, 25, 1994 April 5, 1994 " \ ~ ( ( al. I I D E CIS ION We have before us two grievors with two grievances each, relating to a re-alignment of their job duties as Income Maintenance Officers in the Sarnia Family Benefits office in December, 1992 The grievances of each grievor are virtually identical in wording, and it is sufficient to quote from them interchangeably The first set of grievances alleges "That management has illegally and radically altered the percentage of my job description duties " The settlement desired is "Realign my duties in accordance with my job description " The emp~oyer brings a preliminary objection to our jurisdiction to hear these grievances in that it is an exclusive function of management to assign work duties pursuant to sub-section 18(1) of The Crown Em?loyees Collective Barqairtinq Act and this Board has no jurisdiction to enquire into that assignment un Ie s s the union can show that the assignments were made in bad faith for some illegitimate or improper purpose The union alleges bad faith I I - I ( I i' The second set of grievances relates to the s.ame re-alignment of job duties, but alleges that the re-alignment was disciplinary, in the following words "I am being unjustly disciplined in that management has failed to resolve the inequitable distribution of duties in the caseload redistribution done December 16, 1992 " The settlement desired is "Resolve this problem and cease and desist ~ ( ( 2 the discipline action II Having heard the union evidence with respect to both sets of grievances, the employer brought a motion for non-suit claiming that the union has failed. to make a prima facie case that the re- alignment of jOb duties had any disciplinary aspect to it, and that there is no evidence of bad faith either We heard the union evidence, and Mr Marvy argued the non-suit motion without being put to his election whether or not to call ) I evidence, in accordance with the procedure of this Board set out in Faler, GSB #218/89 (Fisher) If we had dismissed the motion for non-suit, we would not have given written reasons It is because we allow the motion for non-suit and uphold the preliminary objection that we now provide written reasons In late 1991, the Ministry decided to re-vamp the method of I delivery of family benefits and to develop ~ew models of service that would assist social assistance recipients with transition to training, education and employment to increase their self- sufficiency Each of the areas in the Province was asked to develop /' new models of service particularly suited for their area The Sarnia family Benefits Office is in the Windsor area, and the area set about its task in early 1992 l \ The elected union representatives in the Sarnia office had immediate concerns about the changed program delivery The gr ievor , J *.; I \ I ( " 3 , i Arlene Patterson, was the union steward at the time, and Peter Dirks was the co-chair of the- Employee Relations Committee in the office Mr Dirks testified that he recognized the need for new programs but feared a redistribution of the tasks and functions of the various employees in the office could lead to job description changes and that job security might become an issue He said that a new way of doing business often means more work with fewer resources He noted that management was approachil1g individual employees to get their input into proposed changes He felt that management should be negotiat~ng directly with the union, and not talking to individual employees Mr Dirks raised these concerns at the local Employee Relations Committee (ERC) meeting in January, 1992 'rhe minutes of that meeting reveal that "The union raised issues concerning the Windsor area meetings regarding employment and the linking of the FBA and VRS programs They stated that there did no~ appear to be a clear understanding of the changes and that there was confusion in the meetings about the process and the affect the initiative would have on job descriptions and thus classifications The union .r raised the further concern that staff were being asked to define job descriptions in the process The union argued that this was in contravention of CECBA and that job specifications could only be negotiated with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, and not directly with the staff. The union also argued that, as this was a provincial initiative, it should have been discussed first at the central ERC This would have ensured that the initiative would have - .I .... ( t 4 been properly vetted and boundaries set for local discussions The union also raised concern that these changes would necessitate different skill levels and thus qualifications These concerns were not addressed in the meet Lng " ~ "Management ackItowledged that the VRS/FBA initiative was a provincial one Management assured the union that there was no intent to violate CECBA Management maintained that meetings were being held with staff as brainstorming/preliminary sessions only and any plans would be vetted through the region and corporate ( before formulating any implementation plans These meetings were intended to develop better program linkages Staff were asked to participate as program delivery experts Any changes in job classification would be done within the process defined by the collective agreement and CECBA " "The union stated that this was not made clear to staff at the beginning of the process The union argued that a framework should I have been established defining areas to be discussed and the union should have been brought into the process at the very beginning The union maintained that implementation was much further along with the target date of April 1, 1992 " "Management disagreed and stated that, should an implementation date be formulated, the union would be asked to participate Discussions, according to management, were at the preliminary stage only " ( I I ~; , I ( 5 "The union asked that any further meetings be delayed until central ERC had discussed it " "Management and union agreed to inform the central ERC members of issues raised that day and to ask for an expedient response " - "Management agreed to relay the union concerns to those managers involved with the initiative locally, including the April 1, 1992, deadline date " Mr Dirks and Ms Patterson left that meeting thinking that all work on the development of the new models of service should and would be suspended pending a formal decision about the process from ( the central ERC (In fact a formal response from the central ERC was not received until June, 1992, and it simply stated that all local workplans should be tabled at the local ERC's ) Howeverj management carried on with its efforts, and the union again raised its concerns at the February, 1992, ERC meeting Management stated that a model concept only has been presented and, once a model is picked, the union would be involved in any implementation plan Management again reiterated that they were not looking at changing job specifications and the intent was that the model would be within present job specifications Management agreed that no further Windsor area meetings would be held on the restructuring until it was dealt with at the central ERC I ~: " ( ( I 6 Next Mr Dirks saw a management memo to Area Managers advising them to en~ure that insofar as possible new models of service are accommodated within the span of responsibility of existing I positions The managers were asked to table their proposals for discussion at the local ERC level as soon as possible i Then in April, 1992, Mr Dirks saw some "start-up notes" indicating that the management co-chair of the local ERC said that , the Sarnia ERC will participate in the meeting on the new models of service Mr Dirks was shocked to discover that his participation in the meeting was assumed without any request for participation ) I In early May, the employer co-chair of the local ERC formally invited the union to participate in an Implementation Committee for the new models The union response was that it insisted on being ( I treated as an equal partner and being equally involved in setting the terms of reference before it would participate on an Implementation Committee From then on the union made the decision to boycott any participation in the implementation stages unless the employer agreed to start afresh and re-set the terms of reference with the union as an equal partner And so the months passed with the union reiterating its job classification and job security concerns at every ERC meeting and refusing to become involved on the Implementation Committee unless \ c ~ I <,it r" ~. ( , 7 the terms of reference were re-drawn Management became frustrated with the union's refusal to co-operate and its insistence on \ raising concerns which management repeatedly assured the union were groundless Event~ally the new models were complete, with caseloads peing re~distributed so that each IMO would have a specialized caseload, different from the mixed caseloads they had traditionally carried The employees were asked to state a preference for a type of caseload, with assurances that management would attempt to accommodate those preferences It was the union position that employees should .not volunteer for particular case loads because that would inhibit their right to grieve once the re-distributed workload assignments were made As the Fa.ll wore on towards implementation date in December, seven of the nine IMO's in the Sarnia office selected new caseloads, and only Ms Patterson and Ms Gibson refused to do so They provided management with a note saying "My response to your memo dated September 21, 1992 has already been given to you by my duly elected Employee Relation's (sic) Committee (. I As the Employee Relation's (sic) Committee stated, work load distribution is a management function, subject to the grievance procedure I respectfully decline to volunteer for a particular caseload " \ ., ( ( 8 .. Ms Gibson~s supervisor later tried to get her to select a caseload before the re-distribution, but she responded that she was "an J all-round good worker and could deal with any caseload well" Finally on December 16th, Ms Gibson was given a new caseload as an "intake" person, and she filed her two grievances the next day Ms Patterson was absent from work between December 10th and January 4th When she returned, she was assigned a "traditional" .. caseload, and filed her grievances on January 15th, effective January 4th ) I It is the contention of both grievors that management punished them by means of their caseload assignments because of their very vocal opposition throughout the process to the design and implementation of the new models of service \ Ms Gibson says that she suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome, and that an intake caseload is particularly onerous for I her because it involves a lot of travel around the area She says that an additional reason the employer would want to punish her is that she missed a lot of work due to her medical condition, thus putting a strain on her co-workers and management She says the employer must have deliberately assigned the intake caseload to her knowing it would exacerbate her chronic condition Subsequent to her grievances, Ms Gibson made an accommodation request of the , employer to restructure her caseload due to her medical condition Her accommodation request was granted and she was re-assigned to ;,. I ( 9 a mixed caseload in ~pril, 1993, which met with her approval It would take a very considerable stretch of the imagination to impute to tHe employer a de.sire to undermine Ms Gibson's health with the caseload assignment it gave her, in particular where she did not identify any health concerns and in fact assured her supervisor that she could handle any caseload well Work assignment is an exclugive function of management and can only be reviewed by this Board where we are satisfied on a balance of ,probabilities that the assignment was made in bad faith to penalize or prejudice an employee, and not for a legitimate business purpose The test is an objective one Would a reasonable person, dispassionately reviewing the evidence, reach the conclusion that ulterior motives must have dominated the work assignment decision? In this case we can see no connection whatsoever between the work assignment and a desire to punish Similarly there was no evidence that Ms I Gibson's workload after the re-distribution was higher than that of other intake workers Accordingly we dismiss Ms Gibson's discipline grievance Ms Patterson's discipline grievance relates to caseload numbers In September, 1992, she discovered that she had a significantly higher number of cases than all of the other Income Maintenance Officers in the office Ms Gibson had the second- highest caseload, and this situation for both had been going on for many months In October, she and Ms Gibson both grieved their inequitably high case loads Management assured them that the ( ;;j / I ( ( 10 \ imminent re-distribution of case loads would solve these problems Ms Patterson was absent from work from December 10th to January 4th and did not receive her new caseload until her return to work Ms Patterson suspected that her new caseload was still \ higher than everyone else's, and grieved on that basis on January 15, 1993, referring to an inequ-itable distribution as of January 4, 1993 Her suspicions were borne out at the end o~ January when a computer printout of caseloads revealed that spe still had the I \ highest case load of all four IMO's now assigned to traditional caseloads She had 392 cases, while the other IMO's had case~oads ranging from 311 to 335 On February 5, 1993, Ms Patterson presented her employer with a doctor's note saying that she had to go on long-term sick leave due to workplace stress She has not returned to the workplace since On February 5th, her supervisor advised her that the inequities in the caseload would be corrected immediately now that the numbers had finally revealed themselves TBe caseloads had been drawn up along geographical lines, and it was not known initially how many people in the specialized groups would inhabit each geographical area A memo had been sent to the income maintenance staff on December 29, 1992, signed by two members of management, describing the transitional confusion that was anticipated The memo reads, in part 1 \ r- "TO INCOME MAINTENANCE STAFF Dee 29/92 RE CASELOAD REDISTRIBUTION ( ~..t i ( \ 11 All the transfers have now been made into the appropriate caseload However, we know that some clients were missed. as we were using a listing of all clients from the middle of November Any case granted from Nov 17/92 to now were not picked up to be transferred to the appropriate case load nor were clients who have transferred in to our office since that date As well, clients who were FBA eligible ln their own right but are participating in VRS or on the VRS waiting list were also not picked up in the transfer When reviewing all your profiles, you will have to check each one to be sure it is supposed to be in your caseload You should check the profiles against your mailing labels This will tell you about cases that may not have been transferred appropriately due to the above r As well, you will have double profiles on some clients as we have also put the profiles from CIS changes on top of your bundle As you come across cases that sqould not be yours, please transfer it to the appropriate worker as well as passing the mailing label To follow is the ~onthly BF' list for your new cases During this period of transition, there is go~hg to be some confusion We appreciate your cooperation in doing your best to resolve any problems/situations that may arise Please let us know of any issues you identify that may assist in making a smooth transition " The January 1, 1993, computer printout did not reveal a higher caseload for Ms Patterson for December, 1992 Once the January caseload figures were known, a redistribution was made amongst the traditionalcaseload IMO's, and the caseloads were made relatively equal Thus there was a period of one month after the redistribution when Ms Patterson had an inequitably high caseload We do not think the union has made a prima facie case that this one-month discrepancy in caseloads could possibly be / considered disciplinary, especially given the fact that the month prior and the months following all show equitable caseloads We ( /1 .--'i. ( , , \ 12 note too that the settlement desired in Ms Patterson's grievance is that management "resolve this problem and cease and desist the discipline action" The problem has been solved, and we are satisfied that the inequity arose during a reasonable transition period-when a variety of imprecise factors influenced caseloads On an objective view of the evidence we cannot find a nexus between Ms Patterson's caseload assignment and a desire to punish The second set of grievances relates to the specialization of job duties within the grievors' job description They say that the I ambit of their duties is restricted and th~y now no longer perform all of the job duties in their position description, only some of them The fear is that this restriction in duties will eventually lead to a reclassification of the position downwards Lower classified clerks now perform some of their job duties All of the ) duties performed under the new models of service are within their job description, but they assert that the lack of diversitr will lead to certain skills and knowledge "rusting" They assert that this narrowing-down of job duties was done with bad faith and, because it is an infringement on their collective agreement right to be properly classified, the management decision is therefore reviewable on that ground by this Board Ms Patterson testified that she too refused to select a caseload when asked and that she intepded to grieve any caseload she was given because of the specialization factor r ,:::;2 ,.) '-..... ( ( 13 with respect to both grievors' contention that th~ narrowing of assigned job duties within their job description somehow affects -' " 'their collective agreement rights to be properly classified, we can find no basis in law or fact for this claim Their right to be properly classified is a right which could give rise to a grievance I that they are improperly classified But this is not a classification grievance either in form or substance Management has a right to alter duties and change work assignments for legitimate business purposes It is not contended here that the re- design of services province-wide was done in bad faith, nor that all the other assignments of specialized caseload~ were done in bad faith, so how could the assignment of specialized case loads to the two grievors be done in bad faith? We have no jurisdiction to proceed further with these grievances, and they are dismissed Dated at Tor<;>nto this 27th day of July, 1994 ~/~$ A Barrett, Vice-Chairperson I Dissent "Dissent Attached" E Seymour, Member t ./1 ^ ~JM. ~LL Ut ::..----- D Clark, Member I '\ -...J.' _ "'i -i, r../ I- r "'d ~7"- ":' ~>i.~ :/' O.P.S.E U (Gibson/Patterson) vs ) The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of COInmunity and Social Services) Edward E. Seymour, Employee Nominee DISSENT I have read the Majority Award, and find that I must dissent in part I am in agreement with the Majority in its assertion that both grievances of Ms Denise Gibson were resolved as a result of an accommodation agreed to, and signed by her on April 6, 1993 This accommodation brought about a change in duties commencing in May ( Having said that, however, I do wish to express my concern "- regarding the delay from the initial request, which was made on December 30, 1992, to the date the accommodation was executed It was unfortunate that Ms Gibson was forced to proceed to a grievance in order to receive the accommodation when the Medical Certificate from her doctor should have been enough to spare her that inconvenience With respect to both Ms Patterson's grievances, I am in disagreement with the Majority decision to allow the employer's I "Motion for non-suit claiminq that the Union has failed to make a prima facie case that the re-aliqnment of tob duties had any disciplinary aspect to it. and that there is no bad faith either." The Union led substantial evidence, through Peter Dirks, Arlene Patterson and Denise Gibson, which, in this Member's opinion, clearly established a prima facie case that management acted in bad faith, and that Arlene Patterson's newly....assigned duties had a disciplinary aspect to them } I! ~ '1' Page 2 ( From the outset, following the announcement of the Ministry's --intent to develop new models of service, local management in Sarnia was most unco-operative in addressing the employees' concerns in that particular office Ms Patterson grieved her case-load numbers following September, 1992, when her suspicions that she carried a consider- ) ably higher case load than other Income Maintenance officers (1 M 0 s) in the office, were confirmed In response to the grievance, Management assured Ms Patterson that redistributing case loads under the New Models of Service would address that problem. I In January-, 1993, when Ms Patterson discovered that her case I load under the New Models of Service remained higher than other I M 0 's, she grieved once again What is significant, I think, is that Management did nothing to alleviate the concerns addressed by Ms Patterson in October, and did not respond at all until Ms Patterson presented a doctor's note on February 5 She testified that she walked into Mr Barry Redman's office and inform~d him that, as a result of work-related stress, she had made a claim to the Workers' Compensation Board for benefits According to Ms Patterson, Mr Redman's response was to say "Arlene, it is okay, we will qet it fixed riqht away. He knew the workload was hiqher, he admitted he knew, but at that point he did not fix the problem, and did not address the problem, I have not been hack to work since." - It is also significant to this Member that Management. made no effort to do anything about Ms Patterson's concerns until faced with a Workers' Compensation Board claim Certainly to that point, I tWQ grievances elicited no meaningful reaction This failure by I J '" ~ Page 3 Management to react lends substance to the Union's allegation of bad faith ( ( It was not unreasonable for Ms Patterson to expect that, because she had filed a grievance on her workload in October, Management would be particularly vigilant to ensure her workload was more equitable when the Ne'tl Models of Service were introduced The December 29, 1992 memo to Income Maintenance Staff regarding case load redistribution, describing the transitional confusion which was anticipated, is not enough to permit Management to escape the allegation of bad faith, nor to escape the allegation that Ms Patterson's new load was disciplinary If you ignore the substantial evidenc~ presented on the concerns Ms Patterson raised regarding her excessive case load, and Management's commitment to address that case load in the New Models of Service - a commitment which came as the result of a grievance - then there might be some justification for regarding the January excessive case load as non~disciplinary Management's awareness of the excessive case load, and its commitment to do something about it means that special emphasis ( should have been exerted to ensure the problem was adequately addressed when the New Models of Service were introduced Management's commitment on February 5 to look into the problem did not resolve Ms Patterson's concerns ~ Unlike Ms Gibson's situation, where an agreement regarding workload was reached, no such agreement was signed by Ms Arlene ~ Patterson - Ms Patterson consistently maintained the highest case load level since she was hired in 1987 In addition, two of her case ~ Page 4 r load types - the blind and disabled, and the single-parent case loads - were extremely demanding Management was aware of Ms Patterson's high case load prior to the implementation of the New Models of Service It was obvious they were aware of that from the computer printout presented September 21, 1992, which was shared with a:J.I staff at a meeting This was the first time Management shared ac;:tual case load numbers with the staff, and for Ms Patterson, the numbers confirmed her suspicion that she was working with a greater number of people, and that her volume of work was greater It confirmed that the stress she was experiencing was justified, and it explained why she was having difficulty main- taining her case load It is understandable why Ms Patterson regarded her excessive case load, after the introduction of the New Models of Service, as disciplinary Management repeatedly assured her that the problem would be resolved when the N~w Models of Service were introduced While it is acceptable that Management would want some time to work out any inequities in workload which might arise as a resul t .of "unforeseen" developments, Ms Patterson's situation could not, in any way, be interpreted as unforeseen There might be a logical explanation to justify why Ms Patterson's case load remained high following the introduction of the New Models of Service, and Management should have been required to present that explanation Counsel for Management attempted to make light of the fact that Ms Patterson could not possibly have known what the actual case load figures were when she filed her grievance in January, since the case load figures for that month were not available until the end of January I accept Ms Patterson's assertion that she knew the workload was higher, and that the publication of the actual figures merely I confirmed her suspicions Ms Patterson ~ ) Page 5 impressed this Member as a competent and valued employee of the Ministry, possessing a clear understanding of the department in which she is employed It does not take a rocket scientist to opserve that you are c~rrying a heavier workload than others in the same office who have the same, or similar responsibilities In my view, Management was clearly aware since October of Ms Patterson's exce~sive case load It committed itself to address the problem It did not, and that it did not choose to act on either grievance, and continued to maintain the high case load until Ms Patterson's health was clearly affected is, in my view, disciplinary It is the opinion of this Member that the Union has presented a prima facie case to show that the assignment of cases in the Sarnia office was made in bad faith The Majority, in its decision, concludes by stating that it was not contended by the Union, "that the re-desiqn of services province-wide was done in bad faith, nor that all the other assiqnments of specialized case loads were done in bad faith, so how could the assiqnment of specialized case loads to the two' qrievances be done in bad faith?" r The allegations of bad faith pertained to the Sarnia office only There was a committee formed to address the New Models of Service, There was a central committee, and there were local committees Proposals for change were to be discussed by the local committees Management was asked by the Sarnia Committee members to give assurances that job specifications would not change Members of this Committee repeatedly asserted that they felt Management was ---- ----~ ------=-- \ Page 6 I ~ not treating the Union as an equal, participating partner in the development of the 'New Models of Service ( In February, 1992, a meeting of the E R C Committee was held with Mary Curtis Burton, Management Co-Chair, and Leah Casselman, Union Co-Chair, present The meeting focused on the New Models of Service, and the relationship between the Union and Management in the Sarnia office There was an agreement that all discussions regarding the New , Models of Service would cease until direction was received from the Central E R C on how to proceed This did not occur - at least, the Union members did not receive any information Management in Sarnia proceeded, often without the knowledge of the Union The .... introduction of the New Models of Service was purported to be a co~ operative venture between the Union and Management This Member agrees that this does not mean that the Union held veto power over any action Management might take regarding the Introduction of the New Models of Service, however, it did mean that the local ,E R C Union members would be kept informed of details, that they would have some dialogue in the process, and would have their concerns addressed From the evidence in these proceedings, that does not appear to have occurred There/was considerable evidence t9 suggest that Management, in the persons of Mr Barry Redman, Ms Edna Sexsmith and Mr David Earle, deliberately circumvented the Union and undermined its position in the workplace In the opinion of t~is Member, that constitutes bad faith Numerous examples of this were given throughout the Hearing, some of which are as follows I - - J I ~ Page 7 . Managerial commitment-not to approach Union members indivi- dually in the workplace regarding the progress of the New Models of Service was not observed in that there were many occasions on which they dealt with staff directly . The release of memos and bulletins, without the Union's knowledge, stating that the Sarnia office, the Union included, would participate . Making a commitment they would receive direction from the Central E R C before proceeding farther, and later ignoring that commitment by proceeding without the local Union Committee members' knowledge . Announcing the names of Management Committee members before informing Union Committee members . Failure to give Union Committee members information on the New Models of Service so they could address members' concerns . Inability of Union members of the Committee to have questions answered at meetings i e June 15, 1992 meeting, Sarnia Employee Relations Committee, when Peter Dirks, Employee Co- Chair, was rebuked by Management Co-Chair, Bob Hunter, for not giving two days' notice of his intention to ask a question . David Earle's reaction in pounding the table in anger and , shouting, "Wronq, wronq, wronq," to enquiries regarding the concerns expressed at an E R C meeting over the possibility that jobs would be changed In fact jobs were changed . In Exhibit 11, the Minutes of the June 15, 1992 E R C meeting indicate the Model was finalized and Union participation was sought at that point Mr Dirks testified that the Union " .1 Page 8 Committee members felt they were there only as window- dressing - . Memo to all Co-Chairs, E R C , dated June 11, 1992, regarding the New Models of Service, was not made availabl~ to Peter Dirks, Union E R C Co-Chair, until the June 15 meeting, when everyone present received it Mr Dirks testified that there was certainly no communication from the Central E R C Union Committee, which recommended Sarnia join the .Implementation Conunittee . The Union 's request for a copy of the Information Package which was to be presented to all Income Maintenance Offices so they could make choices on the type of case load they could manage According to Mr Dirks, this request was made because the Union felt Management was obligated to have a full and open discussion at the local ERe table Management's first reaction to this request was to refuse, and they relented only , when informed by the Union Committee that failure to do so would be perceived as bargaining directly with staff Throughout the entire period, the Union expressed concern over the impact of the New Models of Service on job descriptions, not job losses There were changes in jOb duties, and the Majority, in its Award, addresses the griever's concerns that "the narrowinq of assiqnment iob duties within their iob description 'somehow affects their Collective Aqreement riqhts to be properly classified, we can find no basis in law or fact for this claim." The Majority goes on to say, "Their riqht to be proper Iv classified is a riqht which could qive rise to a qrievance if they are improperly classified." __n_____ ~~ I i, / Page 9 The griever, Ms Patterson, did, in fact, file grievances with respect to her job duties in October, and was told that her case load would be adjusted as a result of the New Models of Service Mr Earle emphatically denied there would be a downgrading of job duties \ r Based on the testimony of the witnesses, this Member believes that there was a downgrading of the duties, and this causes concern that at some future date, the griever could be red-circled, or have her pay rate downgraded Que to a reduction in the complexity of the job responsibilities If that were to happen, Management could conceivably argue that the changes in job responsibilities came as a result of a Joint Union/Management effort to introduce the New Models of Service In other areas of the Province, there may have been Joint Union/Management agreement~ but in so far as Sarnia is concerned, that is not what transpired The concept of Management co-operating with the Union in the Sarnia office is, in this Member's view, a facade The Local Union Committee in Sarnia attempted throughout to have an integral role in the process Time and again it was excluded from the process through local Management continuously undermining the Union's effort to participate in the process \ For these reasons, I would have denied the Employer's motion for non-suit, and addressed the merits of Ms Patterson's grievances ( ~~.- I - Edward E Seymour, Employee Nominee opeiu 343 -- - -