HomeMy WebLinkAboutMacDonald 06-11-20
.-'~'
0:;:1 I:Ilt
~: ~~~~.
t~>;c.,Q-7~
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
BETWEEN:
GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE
("the employer")
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
("the union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF MICHAEL
MacDONALD (#255740)
BOARD OF ARBITRATION:
Ian Springate, Chair
Ron Hubert, Employer Nominee
Sherril Murray, Union Nominee
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer:
Catherine Peters, Counsel
For the Union:
Tim Hannigan, Counsel
HEARINGS: In Toronto on March 23; September 20, 22; October 5,6; November 28;
December 5,2005; January 17; February 27; April 18; May 9,16; July 13,2006.
..
'"
2
DECISION
PART I - INTRODUCTION
The Union's Claim
The grievor is employed in the Issue Control Centre ("ICC") at the College's
School of Hospitality and Tourism. He occupies a position described in a position
description form ("PDF") prepared by the employer as "Food Shipper/ Receiver". For
purposes of the applicable job evaluation plan the employer classifies the grievor's
position as that of an Atypical Supply Clerk at payband 7. The employer's ratings for
the twelve job factors under the job evaluation plan result in the position being assigned
a total of 470 points. This is within the 451 to 510 point range for payband 7.
On October 7, 2002 the grievor submitted a grievance which claimed that he was
improperly classified. He asked that his job be reclassified to that of a Technologist B at
payband 10.
In February 2003 the union prepared an Arbitration Data Sheet which indicated that
it was now claiming that the grievor should be classified as a Technician C at payband 9.
This was based, in part, on the union having rated the factor of work environment at
level 2. The union subsequently raised its rating for this factor to level 3. This brought
the union's total for all twelve job factors to 634 points. This was within the 631 to 690
point range for payband 10, the payband initially claimed in the grievance.
On the third day of the hearing counsel for the union said that the union was
seeking to have the grievor classified as a Technician C at payband 9. He did not,
however, amend any of the union's claims respecting the various factor ratings.
The Relevant Time Frame
As noted above, the grievance was filed in October 2002. Since then there have
been a number of changes in the ICC, including staffing changes and the adoption of a
"team work" model. There have also been changes to the grievor's duties. As detailed
below, considerable evidence was led respecting the situation in the ICC subsequent to
the filing of the grievance. The grievor referred in his evidence to a journal that he had
started to keep some eleven months after the filing of the grievance.
In her final submissions counsel for the employer contended that this arbitration
board should rate the grievor's position as it currently exists rather than as it was in
October 2002. She said that the employer's preference is not to get a rating on ajob that
no longer exists. Union counsel did not expressly address this proposal. He neither
3
argued for nor against it. Given that the union did not oppose the employer's request,
the passage of time since the filing of the grievance and the amount of evidence led with
respect to events subsequent to the filing of the grievance, we propose to rate the
grievor's position as it existed at the time of the hearing.
The PDFs Respecting the Grievor'sPosition
The employer finalized its PDF for the grievor's position in January 2001. Mr.
Nank Chatterpaul is the ICC Logistics Manager and the grievor's supervisor. In his
evidence he indicated that he disagreed with the amount of time which the employer's
PDF allocated to certain of the grievor's functions. In addition he indicated that some of
the grievor's duties had changed since the drafting of the PDF.
In February 2003 the union produced its own proposed PDF. Some of the entries
in this document are referred to below. During the hearing employer counsel criticized
the accuracy of the document. She particularly singled out references in the document
to the grievor being involved with equipment. She contended that these involved an
attempt by the union to link the grievor's role with those of the ICC technicians. She
referred to the grievor's evidence in which he acknowledged that he plays a limited role
with respect to equipment.
PART II - THE ICC AND THE GRIEVOR
The ICC
The College operates one of the country's leading chef schools. Among its
programs is a two year culinary management program designed to provide the
fundamental skills necessary to work in fme culinary establishments. The college also
offers a number of intermediate and advanced level programs as well as a wide range of
evening and weekend continuing education courses.
An Operations - Logistics Handbook respecting the ICC was prepared in March
2005 by Technologists Melissa Douglas and Katherin Florio. It starts with the
statement: "Although sometimes still referred to as the storeroom, the Issue Control
Centre is the heart of the GBC School of Hospitality and Tourism". The handbook goes
on to note that ICC staff prepare teaching supplies for 120 classes a week, three
semesters a year.
Attached to the ICC is a receiving dock where perishable and non-perishable food
items, beverages and supplies are delivered. These are stored in the ICC, including
where appropriate in fridges and freezers.
4
Food is distributed from the ICC to a number of different locations. These include
demonstration classrooms where faculty demonstrate the preparation of different dishes
and culinary labs where students prepare meals. Product is also transported to baking
labs where students prepare baked goods. Some of the meat received in the ICe is
transported to a butchery lab known as the B-40 lab because of the room where it is
situated. Food is also provided to two kitchens. One is an a la carte kitchen where
students make dishes listed on a menu that are then served to customers in a dining
room. The other facility is a main kitchen where students learn how to produce food in
large volumes.
The ICC Staff
The grievor testified that prior to 2002 he and another supply clerk who has since
retired as well as Technician Jeff Santos constituted the staff in the ICC. He said that
two other technicians worked in the basement looking after labs. The grievor agreed
with employer counsel that there are now about eight staff members in the ICC.
Ms. Douglas and Ms. Florio are the only technologists based in the ICC. They
joined the staff in 2002. The grievor testified that their positions are rated at payband
10. Two other technologists work in the dining room. The grievor testified that recently
another two technologists started working in the a la carte kitchen where they assist
students with cooking and also test recipes.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that both Ms. Douglas and Ms. Florio are graduates of a
culinary arts program. He said that Ms. Douglas had managed a group of small pubs
while Ms. Florio had acquired management skills while with Red Lobster. He said he
believes that Ms. Douglas holds a Red Seal as a chef, which requires a culinary diploma,
years of cooking experience and having had staff report to her. He also said that he
believes Ms. Florio is in the process of obtaining a Red Seal.
There are several technicians employed in the ICe. The grievor testified that Mr.
Santos is at payband 8 and that Mr. Michael Augustus, a technician who left the ICC
part-way through the hearing, was also at payband 8. Another technician is Mr. Michael
Greenwood. Mr. Chatterpaul described Ms. Marney Levett as a part-time Technician B
who works weekends and Monday nights. Mr. Bill Fitzpatrick testified that he is a
Technician C.
The grievor agreed with employer counsel that all of the technicians and
technologists employed in the ICC have a culinary arts diploma. Mr. Fitzpatrick was the
only staff member to testify other than the grievor and Mr. Chatterpaul. He indicated
that he in fact has no formal culinary arts training although he did take a 20 or 22 week
program at George Brown College in meat cutting. He said that he later obtained his
5
"real training" in meat cutting while employed at Dominion Stores, including a two
week course in sanitation. He said that it was only after he had worked at the job for
two years that he could say he was a qualified meat cutter.
Mr. Fitzpatrick indicated that he had taught full time at the College in 1986 and
starting in 1988 spent seven years as a part-load instructor in the meat cutting program.
He noted that the meat cutting program had produced a significant amount of meat and
to provide an outlet for this product the College supplied meat to two psychiatric
hospitals as well as to some small health care centers. He indicated that when the
College decided to get out of this business he personally took over the supply of meat to
the same customers and continued to do so for 4~ years. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that he
ceased teaching because of declining enrollment in the meat cutting course which was
later discontinued. He said that he became a store room clerk in the ICC for about a
year and then moved into a vacancy in the bake department.
Mr. Chatterpaul described Mr. Jamie Zanna as a Supply Clerk C at payband 6.
(The job evaluation manual indicates that a Supply Clerk C is at payband 5.) Mr. Zanna
works from 3 :00 to 11 :00 p.m. Tuesday to Saturday. He is not normally on duty at the
same time as the grievor who works Monday to Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Mr.
Chatterpaul testified that after Mr. Zanna commenced working as a supply clerk in the
ICC he took a class in basic baking as well as an introductory course in culinary arts and
had recently taken an online course respecting food safety.
The Grievor
The grievor testified that he started working for the employer as a supply clerk at
payband 5 in 1981. He said that in 1993 he was moved to payband 6 and in 1998 to
payband 7. He did not accept a suggestion from employer counsel that this latter move
had actually occurred in 2001.
When the grievor started working for the employer he held a secondary school
diploma but did not have any college education. In 1978 or 79 he had worked as a
porter transporting hot food but he had no experience working in the kitchen of a
restaurant or hotel. In or about 2000 the grievor took a Microsoft Office course and in
2001 a Microsoft Windows course from the Toronto District School Board. In 2003 he
took courses in Microsoft Excel through the College and at some point he also took a
course in Outlook Express at the College. In June 2003 he completed a course in food
safety and passed a related on-line examination.
As discussed in more detail below, the grievor spends much of his time working
with meat and seafood, which are collectively referred to as proteins. The grievor
testified that he had learnt a lot about proteins from Mr. Fitzpatrick and from Chef Theo
6
Lennartz who runs the B-40 butchery lab. He said that whenever he is not sure of
something he checks with one of them. Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that when the employer
was providing meat to outside institutions there had been a three week faculty strike.
(The grievor placed the strike as having occurred in 1987.) Mr. Fitzpatrick indicated
that with no faculty or students he had needed help and the grievor and an employee
from outside the ICC came to assist him. He said that after the other two had received
some brief training the three of them chopped and ground meat. Mr. Fitzpatrick said
that in the first year after the grievor took over the protein role in the ICC the grievor
relied heavily on him for assistance and on occasion he still asks him questions.
In response to questions from employer counsel the grievor acknowledged that Mr.
Chatterpaul had on a number of occasions suggested to him that he take culinary arts
courses. Mr. Chatterpaul testified that he had proposed that through the College's
continuing education program the grievor take a basic and an advanced culinary arts
course as well as a basic baking course. He said that a cooking class would allow the
grievor to see different types of cooking skills and learn how to handle food from the
perspective of a textbook, then a recipe and then making something. He also said that
courses would give the grievor a theoretical and practical background as well as food
terminology and would be beneficial should he apply for another position. According to
Mr. Chatterpaul the grievor told him that because he finished work at 2:30 p.m. it would
be a problem for him to stay for a class and then report for work early the next morning.
Mr. Chatterpaul said that he suggested the grievor take culinary courses closer to his
home, either at another college or at a private school, but the grievor declined to do so.
The grievor testified that because night courses finish at 10:00 p.m. he would not
reach his home in the west end of the city until 11 :00 or 11 :30 p.m., which would create
problems for him reporting to work early in the morning. In response to questions from
employer counsel respecting his not having taken any culinary courses the grievor said
that for most ICC staff the culinary aspect of their jobs is very minimal. He referred to
Mr. Augustus and noted that although he holds a Red Seal he had been looking after
labs. Later in his evidence the grievor said "that he was leery about taking a basic
cooking course because he was surrounded by people with culinary skills who were
filling requisitions and doing receiving. Employer counsel put it to the grievor that Mr.
Chatterpaul had proposed to him that he take a basic baking course. The grievor replied
that he did not see such a course as having any relevance to his job unless his job was to
go in a new direction. The grievor did note that he is willing to take a meat lab course
from Chef Lennartz although this would conflict with his schedule.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that subsequent to the grievor filing his grievance there
had been three technician and four technologist vacancies which the grievor did not
apply for, the most recent being in December 2005. These numbers appear to have
included certain vacancies in the School of Hospitality and Tourism outside the ICe.
7
Mr. Chatterpaul said that he talked to the grievor about him applying for a position but
the grievor declined saying that he would not get the positions and he was not qualified.
The grievor testified that he did not recall Mr. Chatterpaul saying that he should apply
for a vacancy although it was possible that he had done so. In response to questions
from employer counsel the grievor said that he did not apply for any of the vacancies
because he was under the belief that his grievance had to be resolved first and also if he
won the grievance he would be put in "that" position anyway.
Employer counsel contended that by way of these proceedings the grievor is trying
to get a technician's position through the back door that he was not prepared to try to
obtain through the front door. Union counsel argued that the evidence about the grievor
not applying for a position was irrelevant. We agree. The fact the grievor chose not to
apply for vacant positions and his reasons for not doing so are not relevant to an
assessment of the position he currently holds. It is also not relevant to the issue of the
appropriate job family.
The evidence establishes that the grievor is a conscientious and hard-working
employee. Mr. Fitzpatrick described him as well liked and respected in the workplace.
He also said that the grievor does an outstanding job and when the grievor has been
absent he has seen two or three others scramble to do what the grievor does by himself.
PART - III THE GRIEVOR'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Grievor's Journal
The grievor referred in his evidence to a journal that he kept between September 2,
2003 and May 28, 2004. He testified that after a day's work he would set out what he
had done that day. In response to a question from union counsel the grievor said that the
information continued in his journal was accurate. Counsel for the employer asked the
grievor why he had picked a 2003 - 2004 time frame for his journal. He replied that it
was to log the similarities between jobs and that "we" work together to get the work
done. Employer counsel subsequently asked the grievor why he had waited almost a
year after filing his grievance before starting his journal. The grievor replied that he
wanted to upgrade a bit and improve his computer skills. Employer counsel
subsequently asked the grievor if there had been any other reason. He replied that it was
so he could learn more about proteins and document things based on his grievance. The
grievor agreed with employer counsel that he had his grievance in mind when he
prepared his journal.
In response to questions from employer counsel the grievor initially indicated that
he had tried to document all of his activities in the ICC. In response to further
8
questioning, however, the grievor acknowledged that while his journal contained many
references to staff filling requisitions and to him dialoguing with chefs there were few
references to him doing any receiving work. He initially sought to explain this by
saying that his priority was proteins and all staff did receiving. He subsequently said
that receiving work should have been included in the journal.
At a number of points in his journal the grievor wrote that "we all" did requisitions.
As discussed below, different staff play differing roles with respect to the filling of
requisitions and spend differing amounts of time in performing this task. The grievor
spends considerable time doing receiving work but as noted above this is not apparent
from the wording of his journal. The journal clearly cannot be viewed as a totally
accurate representation of the grievor's duties and responsibilities. While we have no
reason to doubt the veracity of individual events recorded in the journal the document
was written to highlight those situations the grievor felt would support his grievance.
Receiving Work
The PDF prepared by the employer indicates that the grievor spends 25% of his
time doing receiving-related work. The union's proposed PDF suggests that it takes up
20% of his time. The grievor testified that in October 2002 there were between 8 and 15
deliveries per day during his working hours and now there could be 20. The grievor's
initial evidence was that whoever is in the storeroom generally takes care of deliveries.
Later he said that all of the staff in the ICC do receiving, although his priority is the
proteins.
Counsel for the employer asked the grievor if his colleagues spend 20% of their
time on receiving. He replied yes, off and on. Employer counsel then reviewed with the
grievor the amount of time other staff spend performing this work. The grievor said that
Mr. Greenwood might spend half an hour per day on the task and Mr. Santos could
spend a half hour to an hour. He said that Ms. Florio could spend a half hour and Ms.
Douglas could spend an hour although not every day. He said that Mr. Augustus would
assist with receiving when he had the time. The grievor testified that Mr. Fitzpatrick
looks after bake supplies and some days he could spend two hours on receiving. When
giving his evidence Mr. Fitzpatrick said that he goes to the ICC to gather product and fill
requisitions and if he is standing by the receiving door when the bell rings he will
receive and check the product, whether it be meat or sundry items. Employer counsel
asked Mr. Fitzpatrick how often he does receiving in a day. In his reply Mr. Fitzpatrick
reviewed the work involved with receiving, from bringing in the product to putting it
away, and then said that it could take him an hour to a few minutes depending on the
volume.
,
9
The grievor agreed with employer counsel that he, Ms. Douglas, Ms. Florio and
Mr. Santos are the ones most likely to be in the storeroom when a delivery arrives. He
also agreed that if he is available he will take a delivery. The grievor noted, however,
that should a chef need a lamb shank he would ask someone else to finish the delivery.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that eight to twelve deliveries per day arrive when the
grie;yor is on shift. He said that the grievor is the receiver and he is expected to do the
receiving. He said that should the grievor be away from the receiving area or if there are
four deliveries at the door then other staff will assist him, usually by moving product
away from the loading dock and putting it in assigned areas. He indicated that after the
grievor has left for the day Mr. Zanna, who is also classified as a supply clerk, does the
. .
receIvmg.
The grievor is not the only employee to receive deliveries. It is apparent, however,
that he has a special responsibility for receiving and spends at least 20% of his time on
tasks related to this function.
When receiving product the grievor checks to see whether the quantity and type of
product matches what was on the employer's purchase order. In response to a question
from employer counsel the grievor said that he rarely weighs a product to ensure that it
is the requested weight.
If on checking a delivery the grievor discovers that a wrong item was delivered,
such as meat that was not de-boned or ripe bananas rather than underripe ones that were
ordered, he returns the product. If the delivery driver has not yet left he will send the
product back with the driver. The grievor generally does not need to consult with
anyone prior to rejecting a delivery.
An entry in the grievor's journal for March 19, 2004 indicates that he ascertained
that a delivery of sea bass had matched the amount ordered but this amount was greater
than what was actually required to fill a requisition. After discussing the matter with
Mr. Santos the grievor sent the extra product back with the driver. The entry in the
grievor's journal read as follows:
While checking a delivery I noted the invoice said 16kg of sea bass
(Chilean) at $647.49. I checked my requisition and it only called for 8
kg. I brought this to Jeffs attention. Upon checking he mistakenly
entered the requisition as a double class. As I had kept the deliveryedriver in the storeroom I was able to send the unneeded product back for
a credit of$323.74.
10
The grievor checks to see if the amount charged for a product on the supplier's
invoice or packing order matches the amount on the purchase order. When giving his
evidence the grievor said that he would note any discrepancies on the purchase order and
also tell Ms. Douglas about them. In response to a question from employer counsel the
grievor agreed that Mr. Chatterpaul had asked him to match purchase orders against
invoices using the employer's Food-Trak computer software system. He indicated that
he was not in fact doing so but instead leaving this task for Ms. Douglas. Initially he
said that this was because he did not have the time required. Subsequently he indicated
that he did not feel that he had received sufficient training to perform the task. On a
subsequent hearing day Mr. Chatterpaul indicated that in December 2005 the grievor
had begun to enter invoice information into the Food- Trak system. He said that the
grievor would raise any discrepancies between invoices and purchase orders either with
him or with Ms. Douglas.
The grievor indicated that if product required for that same day has not been
delivered he will notify Mr. Chatterpaul. He said that in some cases he could utilize
protein intended for a night class and advise the person doing the purchasing that he
needs it replaced. He indicated that he might also advise a chef of an available
alternative product that the chef could decide to utilize.
The PDF proposed by the union states that: "in the absence of the Purchaser (the
grievor) will be required to place orders with various suppliers". The grievor testified
that should there be a need for an emergency order he would normally talk to Mr.
Chatterpaul or Mr. Santos about it and not place the order himself, although he had.once
phoned Diana's Sea Foods in order to add cod fillets to a morning delivery. The grievor
referred to several other occasions when he had placed orders. He said that there was a
week in 1996 after the previous purchaser had left and before Mr. Chatterpaul started
working when he did the purchasing. He noted that "last summer" when Mr.
Chatterpaul was on vacation Chef Higgins had a function and on three occasions had
asked the grievor to order goods for it. The grievor also testified that "last week" some
pork loin had not come in for a morning a la carte class and he had contacted Grace
Meats about adding the product to their first shipment of the day and later when Mr.
Chatterpaul arrived at work he told him what he had done. Given the grievor's limited
role in ordering and the extended time period referred to in the evidence it cannot
reasonably be said that his regular duties involve placing orders with suppliers.
At one time the grievor regularly shopped for specialty items. Mr. Chatterpaul,
however, testified that the grievor had only done so once or twice in the past year. At
another point in his evidence Mr. Chatterpaul said that over the past three years the
grievor had perhaps been shopping once for a specialty item.
11
The grievor, or whoever else is receiving an order, inspects delivered product for its
quality. The grievor and Mr. Chatterpaul both discussed this aspect of the grievor's
duties at some length in their evidence. The requirements when inspecting received
goods are also addressed as follows in the Operations and Logistics Handbook:
Frozen Foods
Freezer items should arrive frozen with no indication of thawing on the
packaging or freezer burn.
Refrigerated Goods
Chiller items (dairy, produce, chocolate, etc.) should be delivered with an
internal temperature between 3-50 C.
Special Needs Items
- Fresh Fish should arrive in plastic bags packed in ice in Styrofoam
boxes, the internal temp should be 3-50C.
- Mussels should be in a mesh bag (not a plastic bag) in a Styrofoam
container with no ice, but can be covered in damp newspaper.
Packaging in General
- Vacuum packed items should have their seal intact.
- Strapping should be intact on products that are usually strapped
(liquor, orange roughy, shrimp etc).
- Boxes and cases should be in good condition with no damage.
Fish
Fresh fish should have firm flesh, clear eyes, red gills and smell of the
ocean not of fish.
Bones
Bones should smell fresh and have no discolouration.
Poultry
Fresh poultry should have a fresh smell, firm flesh, and no
bruising!discolouration or pin feathers.
Beef
Sides of beef should have a fresh smell, firm flesh, no
bruising! disco I ouration.
12
Shellfish
Shellfish should be closed, not be open (mussels should close when you
tap them lightly).
Produce
- Produce should come in proper packaging (although split cases are an
exception).
- Check colour, freshness and smell, all these qualities should be at
their optimum.
- Mushrooms should never come in plastic bags.
The Operations & Logistics Handbook states that "other than thermometers and
Purchase Orders the greatest tools for ensuring the best quality products are the noses
and eyes of the Receivers". Mr. Chatterpaul agreed with union counsel that the grievor
visually inspects product and depending on the product he might also rely on his sense
of touch and smell.
The grievor's evidence was that ifhe finds a problem with a product he returns it to
the shipper and advises Mr. Chatterpaul of what he has done so that Mr. Chatterpaul can
arrange for a replacement. The grievor testified that should product be required in the
next few hours he will discuss the matter with Mr. Chatterpaul prior to sending it back
since Mr. Chatterpaul would have to arrange for a replacement. The grievor agreed with
employer counsel that at times he has asked a delivery driver to wait while he checked
with Mr. Chatterpaul. The grievor testified that he deals with delivery drivers but
otherwise Mr. Chatterpaul deals with suppliers respecting quality issues. .
After items are received and checked they are put away in freezers, fridges and
shelves. The grievor's evidence was that he and others in the ICC perform this task. A
September 25, 2003 entry in his journal contains the statement: "We all filled the
requisitions and since there are no demos Friday, the technician put away all the
deliveries". Mr. Chatterpaul testified that the grievor is responsible to put away product
that he receives.
The grievor testified that food for some catered events, including sandwiches, is
provided by an outside catering firm and delivered to the receiving dock. He said that
"we" then deliver the food. Mr. Chatterpaul testified that the grievor advises him when
cleaning supplies have been delivered and he then contacts the cleaners. Both Mr.
Chatterpaul and the grievor indicated that the grievor contacts cleaners about a spill on
the floor. Employer counsel asked Mr. Chatterpaul about a reference in the employer's
PDF to the grievor communicating with the Transportation Department. Mr.
Chatterpaul replied that the grievor will let him know when mail has come in.
13
The Grievor's Responsibility For Proteins
As noted above, Mr. Fitzpatrick spent about a year in the ICC in what he described
as a store room clerk position. Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that he was a natural for working
with proteins. He said that he ensured that all of the meat and fish required for both day
and night classes was in house and ready to be delivered to faculty. He also said that in
order for a person to perform this job they must be aware of how to visually identify
product, the nomenclature, weights and measures and whether product has been received
in a proper state. He said that in his view it is one of the most important jobs in the ICC.
He testified that even though he had been a professional meat manager he found the job
daunting.
Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that when he started to work in the bake shop Mr. Santos
took over the protein work. He said that at the time Mr. Santos took a demotion in order
to go to the storeroom as the protein person. According to the grievor in recent years
Mr. Santos had been doing mostly computer work but now he fills requisitions for
demos and also prepares for demos, including opening canned goods and peeling
potatoes. The grievor testified that he was put on proteins because there had been
problems with Mr. Santos' work. Counsel for the employer put it to the grievor that he
had asked Mr. Chatterpaul if he could do the proteins. He replied that he did not recall
doing so, but if he did ask for the task "I must have been missing some marbles". Mr.
Chatterpaul testified that in or about 2000 the grievor approached him about doing the
protein aspects of requisitions
At one point in his evidence the grievor said that he had taken ownership of the
proteins. He added that there can be problems if a number of persons are doing proteins
due to safety and defrosting issues.
Accumulation Sheets
Based on recipe information fed into the computer system an accumulation sheet is
prepared which shows all of the food requirements for a week. Until fairly recently the
accumulation sheets were produced by Mr. Santos. Now they are generally produced by
Ms. Douglas. Mr. Chatterpaul testified that "we" determine which of the required
products are on hand, and thus need not be ordered, by way of a physical check of the
storeroom and by Ms. Douglas talking to the grievor about protein inventories, with Mr.
Fitzpatrick about baking items and with Mr. Greenwood about what stocks and
ingredients are in house. He said that Ms. Douglas then generates computerized
purchase orders covering the required products which she emails to vendors. One Food-
Trak report listing the meat required for a seven day period from March 7 to 13, 2005
14
estimated the cost at $15,752. Mr. Chatterpaul testified that some weeks this number is
higher and some weeks it is lower.
The grievor testified about the process when he had reviewed accumulation sheets
with Mr. Santos. He said that he would make entries on a sheet to indicate what proteins
were already in house and what needed to be ordered. He said that he would at times
question Mr. Santos about some of the quantifies listed on an accumulation sheet, such
as 800 lamb loins when in fact only 40 were required.
The grievor testified that he uses accumulation sheets to keep track of whether
product has arrived. He referred to several situations when Mr. Santos was ordering
products when product did not arrive when expected because Mr. Santos had failed to
order it or had ordered the wrong quantity.
Filling Requisitions
Every Thursday requisitions are printed off showing the requirements for each class
the following week. These requisitions were formerly printed off by Mr. Santos but this
is now being done by Ms. Douglas. Mr. Chatterpaul testified that the requisitions are
produced by Food- Trak based on recipe information entered into the system by Ms.
Douglas. A requisition will normally break down the items required in terms of
categories such as meat, fish, vegetables, fruit, herbs and dairy. Staff in the ICC place
required items on a wagon. Requisitions are generally started to be filled two days in
advance. Perishables, including proteins, may be left in fridges or freezers with an
identifying tag. The grievor noted that meat might be brought in one day before it is
required and fresh fish and other seafood is often brought in on the day of the
requisition.
Non protein items listed on requisitions are generally filled by the technicians and
technologists, one of whom will initial the requisition form after it has been filled. Mr.
Chatterpaul testified that there can be 20 to 50 non protein items per requisition. The
grievor fills the protein aspects of requisitions. To avoid cross-contamination he either
places the proteins at the bottom of a wagon or, depending on the amount, in a separate
wagon. The grievor testified that he, the technologists and the technicians constantly
work side-by-side in close proximity filling requisitions.
The grievor testified that he works on 22 to 25 requisitions per day. He
subsequently said that he spends 80% of his day on requisitions although this rises to
100% on Thursdays when he looks after Friday to Sunday requests. Counsel for the
employer pointed out to the grievor that the PDF proposed by the union indicates that he
spends 400/0 of his time filling requisitions. The grievor replied that the College has
15
gotten bigger with more classes, some days and weeks are slower, and percentages are
hard to predict in the culinary field. Under further questioning the grievor said that in
one week he might spend 40% of his time filling requisitions but there had been days
when other employees were absent when he had spent full days doing requisitions. Mr.
Chatterpaul disagreed with an entry in the employer's PDF which suggests that the
grievor fills requisitions for 45% of his time. He said that the grievor spends 30% of his
time in filling the protein and non protein aspects of requisitions. Taken as a whole, the
evidence suggests that the grievor generally spends no more than 40% of his time on
requisitions.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that at times requisitions contain errors. He indicated that
these result from F ood- Trak errors as well as from recipes that had not been tested. He
noted that the grievor brings such errors to his attention. A journal entry for Wednesday
February 18, 2004 records how on checking requisitions for the following Friday the
grievor ascertained that there were requisitions for three test labs when in fact there
should only have been two, an instructor was noted as teaching night classes on Friday
and Sunday when in fact he was only teaching the Friday class and there was a meat
product on a vegetarian night class requisition.
A journal entry dated December 2, 2003 sets out as follows how the grievor
addressed the problem of a requisition that did not reflect the actual amount of required
product:
Chef Wright then came into the storeroom and asked how many chicken
breasts were on his afternoon lab, I told him six pieces. He said there must be
a mistake because he requested 12 pcs. In order to resolve this issue I told my
supervisor I had breasts on a night class requisition that I could give to Chef
Wright. I juggled a few other classes to make up the balance of breasts
needed for that night's class.
In a number of journal entries the grievor recorded discrepancies that he had
identified between the price of items listed on a requisition and those listed on an
invoice. He then entered the correct price on the requisition. One such entry dated May
4,2004 referred to a several such errors as follows:
On the Cantonese night class the requisition read 12 ducks $120.00 and the
invoice read $139.44. On the culinary arts requisition 120-8 oz Swiss steaks
were $111.00 and the invoice read $375.07. I entered the correct prices on
the requisitions.
16
The grievor also referred in his evidence to a situation on October 8, 2003 when he
was filling a continuing education requisition. He indicated that he had noticed that the
cost of ground chicken was recorded as being $105 whereas the supplier's invoice listed
the actual cost as $79.12. He testified that if these types of price differentials are not
caught the additional amount would be charged to the course involved and thereby result
in a false number. He submitted that such extra costs might impact on whether a course
would be offered again. No evidence was led of a course being cancelled as the result of
such a situation.
It appears that filling the protein aspects of requisitions generally involves counting
out a certain number of pieces of meat or packaged goods and placing them in a
container. The grievor noted, however, that crab meat comes in frozen blocks and he is
required to cut off the requested amount. As discussed below, at times the grievor is
also required to cut off a piece of meat from a larger piece for use in a demonstration.
The PDP proposed by the union states that the grievor "checks requisitions and
event schedules to ensure that ingredients and equipment are assembled for all events,
controls the distribution of equipment and raw materials". The grievor's evidence
indicated that on occasion a chef might ask him to obtain a Cuisinart or a blender but
otherwise he is not involved in the distribution or assembly of equipment.
The grievor's evidence indicated that for the past five or six years the requisition
process has been somewhat different for the a la carte kitchen since he will discuss a
requisition with a chef prior to actually filling it. He said that he has taken it on himself
to check daily with the morning and afternoon a la carte chefs due to the amount of
excess food that he would otherwise have to throw out. He gave the example of 40
chicken breasts being required but 18 already being in the fridge. He said that in such a
situation he would speak to Mr. Santos or Mr. Chatterpaul about the 18 on hand so that
they could call and adjust the order. The grievor's journal addressed this type of
situation in the following entries dated October 15 and 16, 2003 respectively:
Because the ala-carte chefs are running the same menu I speak to them
individually each day to determine the amount of product they will be
requiring. If they have enough product I then have to tell the purchaser
to cancel certain products as I have them in house for the following ala-
carte. This afternoon I went over to see Chef Gibson we checked his
fridges and then needed only his lobster and smoked salmon.
After conversing with the ala carte chef we determined what products he
would require. I arranged the products and delivered them. After we all
finished the requisitions I again spoke to the chef in ala-carte regarding
17
tomorrows needs, the information I acquired assisted the purchaser in
ordering requirements that result in monies saved or lack of product
needed first thing in the morning.
Mr. Chatterpaul indicated that he was aware that the grievor had been going
through the fridge with the chef in the a la carte kitchen, although not to the extent
referred to in the grievor's evidence. He contended that it was not necessary for the
grievor to visit the kitchen other than to deliver product.
In her final submissions counsel for the employer noted that Mr. Chatterpaul had
not asked the grievor to consult with the a la carte kitchen chefs. She submitted that the
job evaluation system is designed to address only duties assigned to an employee. She
argued that an employee could not increase the value of his position by voluntarily
taking on tasks. As a general proposition it is not in fact open to an employee to seek to
raise the rating of his or her position by performing additional duties. Where, however,
an employee openly engages in a particular function over an extended period of time and
management stands by and lets this occur it becomes reasonable for the employee, and
an arbitration board, to conclude that the employer has condoned their actions. In the
circumstances we are satisfied that the grievor's daily involvement with the a la carte
chefs is appropriately regarded as part of his duties and responsibilities.
Requests From Chefs
The grievor testified that chefs at times ask him for product that is not listed on a
requisition. He referred to a situation on October 7, 2003 when Chef Lennartz gave him
a list of ingredients that he required immediately for making sausages. The grievor also
referred to a situation on October 3, 2003 when Chef Higgins asked him what products
were available for use in creating a menu on short notice. The grievor testified that
some of the demand for additional product arises because students bum or drop things or
take too much of a product. Mr. Chatterpaul testified that in the span of a week the same
classes are rerun. He indicated that because of this it is generally easy to replace items.
The grievor testified that when walking in a hallway a chef might ask him for
canned tomatoes, a chefs hat, a blender, or a bottle of wine. He said that he would
immediately look after such a request rather than tell the chef to ask his technician. The
following October 16, 2003 entry in the grievor's journal indicates that his prompt
action in response to such requests is recognized by the chefs:
A little later Chef Langley asked if I could get a couple of portions of
veal scaloppini as the students had already floured the quantity he had for
18
service but there was a patron allergic to flour. I went straight to the meat lab
and spoke with Chef Lennartz who supplied me with the veal which I brought
right away to the ala-carte, problem solved. It seems only the chefs recognize
my abilities to provide them with the best customer service I can.
The grievor testified that a chef asking him for items is something that occurs on a
regular basis. Mr. Chatterpaul testified that as long as there is enough of an item ICC
staff can meet hallway requests. He said that all such requests should be brought to his
attention. He acknowledged, however, that he is in fact rarely told about these types of
requests.
Counsel for the employer put it to the grievor that as a supply clerk it is his job to
gather goods and deliver them to chefs. The grievor reply indicated that the general
practice is for a technician to transport items to labs. Employer counsel then asked the
grievor if every time a chef asked him to bring them something from the storeroom he
saw it as technician's work. The grievor agreed.
The Grievor's Involvement With the Meat Lab
As noted above, Chef Lennartz oversees a meat lab where students learn about
butchering. The grievor testified that Chef Lennartz and his students prepare meat for
use in both the main kitchen and the a la carte kitchen. He gave the example of Chef
Allen asking for boneless pork loin and Chef Lennartz incorporating the deboning
process into his course. The grievor testified that a chef who needs 200 veal cutlets
might ask him to ask Chef Lennartz if he has this quantity in house or if he could
prepare it for him.
On a weekly basis Chef Lennartz prepares a list of meats that he requires for the
following week. A copy of such a list addressed to Mr. Chatterpaul, Mr. Santos and the
grievor dated September 21, 2004 was filed in evidence. The grievor testified that he
would check to see what he had in house and advise Mr. Chatterpaul and Mr. Santos to
order the remainder. The grievor testified that either he or Mr. Santos would deliver the
requested meat to the butcher shop. Later, however, he agreed with employer counsel
that he takes all raw meat down to Chef Lennartz.
The grievor testified that because he looks after the a la carte kitchen proteins and
Chef Lennartz does a lot of work for the kitchen he liaises with Chef Lennartz on a daily
basis to ensure that products are available for the kitchen. He said that on a few
occasions he had asked Chef Lennartz to have 20 steaks prepared for a la carte service
for lunch which Chef Lennartz subsequently forgot about but nevertheless Chef
19
Lennartz had assured him that they would be ready for lunch service. The grievor said
that this double check process ensures that products requested by the a la carte kitchen
are delivered on time. The grievor agreed with an entry in the union's proposed PDF
which indicates that he spends 5% of his time liaising with Chef Lennartz.
Defrosting Proteins
The grievor is responsible for defrosting frozen proteins so that they are ready for
use in a demo or lab. Mr. Chatterpaul noted in his evidence that if meat goes to students
semi-thawed there is a risk that they could cut themselves. Mr. Chatterpaul agreed with
union counsel that different products require different thawing times and different
environments. He said that monitoring the thawing process might be required at the
halfway point in order to ensure that an item is properly defrosting. He agreed with
union counsel that thaw times and environments are part of the curriculum in a culinary
arts program.
The grievor testified that he learnt about defrosting by asking Mr. Fitzpatrick "a
million questions" over the years. He agreed with union counsel that he had learnt
defrost times on the job. The grievor noted that he does not defrost items in the meat lab
fridge because it is too cold for defrosting. He described defrosting meat as something
that takes a lot of focus since he checks items by hand and rotates them. He said that
there might be 300 Cornish hens or 150 lamb shoulders that he would check by hand to
see if they were defrosted.
The Preparation of Product
The PDF proposed by the union states that the grievor prepares product for use in
classroom demonstrations. The evidence is that Mr. Santos regularly prepares product
for demonstrations by activities such as peeling carrots, peeling and then steaming or
boiling potatoes and chopping parsley. As noted below, the grievor referred in his
evidence to two situations when he had engaged in similar activities.
The grievor testified that on December 17, 2003 Chef Higgins left him with
directions to finely chop rosemary, dill and green onions, to halve cherry tomatoes and
to soak them in oil. The grievor agreed with employer counsel that on the day in
question there had only been one requisition involving proteins. In a journal entry dated
January 7, 2004 the grievor wrote, "1 then prepared and filled the Italian demo as the
technician was issuing lockers". At the hearing the grievor said that on this occasion he
had peeled carrots and onions and cored green peppers and that he could have also diced
some dill, rosemary or chives. He subsequently agreed with employer counsel that this
20
situation had occurred early in the term when the number of requisitions involving
proteins was low and in that context he was asked to assist with a demo.
The evidence indicates that in a three week period in December 2003 - January
2004 the grievor was twice asked to prepare product for use in a classroom
demonstration. It is clearly not part of the grievor's regular duties to prepare product for
classroom demonstrations other than to thaw frozen proteins.
Returns
Not all food product sent to labs gets utilized. The labs themselves are cleared by
technicians but it appears that for labs which end while the grievor is at work any extra
proteins are either returned to him or he is advised of their return. The grievor testified
that Mr. Augustus would leave excess proteins from labs in room B-40 for him to deal
with. Generally the grievor makes a decision about whether or not returned product can
be reused or if it should be discarded. The grievor said that he disposes of any product
that has an odor or is discolored or if from its temperature he knows that it was left
unrefridgerated. Both the grievor and Mr. Chatterpaul testified that before disposing of
large quantities of a product or of an expensive product the grievor will discuss the
matter with Mr. Chatterpaul. The grievor did, however, note that if only a small amount
of an expensive item has clearly gone bad he will dispose of it without discussing the
matter with Mr. Chatterpaul.
The grievor testified that he will advise a chef in one of the kitchens of returns,
including continuing education returns, and ask if they can be utilized. He said that at
times Chef Allen has asked him if there were any proteins that he could use up and also
asked the same question of Ms. Florio with respect to vegetables that could complement
the protein product.
The grievor indicated that when proteins returned from labs cannot be used right
away he will vacuum pack them prior to putting them in a refrigerator or freezer. He
indicated that operating the vacuum pack machine involves placing meat in a special
plastic bag, placing the bag properly in the machine and closing a lid. The machine
draws out air from the bag and forms an air tight seal. In response to a question from
employer counsel the grievor agreed that Mr. Zanna also uses the vacuum pack machine.
Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that at times he has used the machine. He agreed with employer
counsel that it is not a difficult machine to operate.
In response to questions from employer counsel the grievor said that all staff deal
with non-protein returns. He said that some returns like canned goods can be put back
in a shelf while things such as lettuce, tomatoes and some cooked products might be sent
21
to Second Harvest. The grievor agreed with employer counsel that the main
consideration in deciding whether or not to send a return to Second Harvest is its
appearance since if food is contaminated he will dispose of it. The grievor also agreed
that he had learnt through experience what should or should not be thrown out. He
acknowledged that factors bearing on the reuse of products are set out in the Operations
& Logistics Handbook.
Catering and Special Functions
At times staff in the ICC are involved in catered events as well as special events at
and away from the College. In response to questions from employer counsel the grievor
indicated that he had observed the technologists prepare sandwiches and cheese trays for
catered events but said that this type of activity had dropped almost to nil. Employer
counsel later said to the grievor that Mr. Chatterpaul's evidence would be that the
technologists had been involved with at least 15 catered events over the past two years.
The grievor replied that he could not be sure. He also said that Mr. Chatterpaul had told
staff that "we" were trying to get away from catering. Mr. Chatterpaul subsequently
testified that over the past year technologists had been involved in about 12 events.
The grievor testified that Chef Higgins had often approached him about banquets
held for special occasions and had asked him to check his inventory. He said that after
doing so he would tell Chef Higgins what product he had on hand. The grievor agreed
with employer counsel that on occasion he had filled requisitions for catered events by
collecting products and putting them on a trolley.
The grievor testified that at Ms. Florio's request he had often gone with her to carry
food to rooms at the College that had been rented by industry partners and after the
event he went with her to clear the room. He also referred to a September 2005
barbeque attended by 400 people. He said that because some volunteers had not turned
up he and Ms. Florio had brought hamburgers up to be barbequed and then they took
hamburgers and hotdogs to an oven so that they would remain warm.
The grievor referred to a situation where Ms. Florio had organized a function
attended by 290 people. He said that she had asked Ms. Douglas to get the soft drinks
together and asked him to make two pots of tea and two pots of coffee. The grievor also
referred to a catered event when Technologist Kimberly Lugsdin came into the ICC
looking for pastries and muffins. According to the grievor he obtained some pastries
from a Chartwells cafeteria and two dozen frozen muffins from a freezer and asked the a
la carte chef to heat them, which he did. In a December 3, 2003 journal entry the
grievor recorded that one of the technologists had asked him to get some mini muffins
22
from the freezer. Another entry dated March 2, 2004 records that he was asked to
organize pop, juices and water required for a luncheon.
The Union's Claim that the Grievor Provides Guidance to Other Staff
The PDF proposed by the union states that the grievor: "provides guidance to other
team members and coop students regarding food products, equipment, food sanitation
guidelines, and health and safety standards for the facilities in ICS". The employer
disputes that the grievor engages in this type of activity.
The grievor testified that he advises other staff where product is located either
verbally or by leaving them a note. He said that he had demonstrated the use of the
vacuum pack machine to the technologists and technicians, although they rarely use it.
He also said that he had often left messages in the log book asking staff who work
weekends to vacuum pack certain products. He testified that at times he has left
instructions for the weekend staff to start defrosting products. He added that he is
dependent on them to follow his instructions since he knows defrost times. The grievor
noted that should he come in on a Monday and the required product still be semi-frozen
he would know that the product had not been pulled as he had requested.
The grievor identified the email message set out below that he had left for Mr.
Zanna and Ms. Levett, the part-time technician who works weekends. Employer
counsel put it to the grievor that Ms. Levett was hired in 2004. The grievor replied that
he did not recall.
Friday, October 15,2004
Hi Marci and Jamie:
Please make sure Marci is made aware of the procedure regarding frozen
meats, shellfish, poultry and fish. Depending on the product, de-frost
times will vary since we're dealing with Sunday classes. Some products
left to de-frost from Friday til Sunday are at greater risk of spoiling in
that time frame. All the best and have a great weekend.
At the hearing the grievor said that this note referred to frozen product that was to
be put in a defrosting fridge and labeled. He said that he left the note because he had
noticed that some product was not entirely defrosted and this was a reflection on him to
the chef who he gave the product to. The grievor said that he tries to enter the times that
product is to be pulled for Saturday, Sunday and Monday classes in a log.
23
Counsel for the employer asked the grievor what guidance he had provided to team
members. He replied that he had instructed Mr. Augustus when to refrigerate meat that
was defrosting. He indicated that he had also answered questions from other team
members about where to locate product. The grievor agreed with employer counsel that
the other team members have the same training that he has with respect to food
sanitation and health and safety. The grievor did, however, note that he is the only one
with a fITSt aid certificate.
Union counsel asked the grievor if he had provided guidance with respect to
proteins. The grievor replied that he had. He said that for each class his concern is that
the proteins get there in a usable state. He added that if he issued chicken for labs he
would tell the relevant technician to get them to a fridge as soon as possible as they
could not be left out in an ambient temperature. The grievor said that he thought this
was important guidance. He indicated that he had provided similar guidance with
respect to mussels and oysters which also have the potential for food poisoning. He
agreed with union counsel that he considered these health and safety and sanitation
Issues.
Employer counsel asked the grievor if he believed that the technicians and
technologists do not have enough understanding of food sanitation to handle food
properly. He replied that he did not know. Employer counsel then suggested to the
grievor that other staff had taken food sanitation as part of a culinary course. The
grievor replied that on paper they are qualified but actually doing it is another matter.
He subsequently said that there had been many cases when he was away when meat was
left exposed and had become dried out.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that he was unaware of the grievor having provided
instruction to team members. He contended that the technologists and technicians are
aware of sanitation issues.
It is apparent that the grievor passes on information to other staff, particularly with
respect to the location of product. The evidence, however, falls far short of establishing
that as part of his regular duties he provides guidance to technicians and technologists
with respect to food product or health and safety issues. All of them have had formal
training in food handling. The October 15, 2004 email appears to be a request to Mr.
Zanna that he advise Ms. Levett of defrosting practices. Whether Mr. Zanna did so and
the existing state of Ms. Levett's knowledge with respect to defrosting techniques was
not put in evidence.
.
24
Students in the ICC
Some College programs involve the placement of students with employers so that
they can gain practical experience. As part of this approach students are at times placed
in the ICC. The grievor described the intent as being to allow students to learn about
"the back of the house". He said that there can be two to four students per semester.
The grievor agreed with employer counsel that when filling requisitions Ms. Douglas
and Ms. Florio often have students working with them and they participate in evaluating
students. He also agreed that although students interact with him and ask him questions
they work most closely with the two technologists. The grievor indicated that students
do not work with proteins.
The grievor testified that students will ask him questions about what is in stock and
about products they are not familiar with. He agreed with employer counsel that the
reference in the union's PDF to him providing guidance to students relates to him
answering questions about food products, including identifying what is a spy apple or a
granny smith apple. The grievor testified that he had initiated conversations with
students about food sanitation when they were packing a cart although no student had
asked him about the issue. He said that students would very rarely ask him about health
and safety issues.
On January 16, 2004 the grievor wrote the following entry in his journal:
We have new extemship students in the storeroom. I spent a great deal of
time answering his or her questions due to the fact their knowledge of the
English language was somewhat lacking. I took this as a challenge and an
opportunity to express the dedication and compassion it takes to succeed in
the world of Hospitality.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that he had developed a curriculum for students in the ICC
to allow them to learn about storeroom operations. He said that he and the two
technologists give direction to students. He also said that the technologists coach and
mentor the students. He said that Ms. Florio primarily works with them through the
requisition process and shows them how to pack wagons, including separating protein
items. He said that Ms. Douglas talks to students about the purchasing process,
including explaining what purchase orders and invoices are, about receiving, stock
rotation and the care and handling of perishables and non perishables. In response to
questions from union counsel Mr. Chatterpaul agreed that students observe the grievor
when he fills protein requisitions. He acknowledged that a student question relating to
the receiving process might go to the grievor. He also agreed with union counsel that
;.
25
receiving and dealing with. proteins are important parts of the training that students
receIve.
As noted above, the PDF proposed by the union states that the grievor provides
guidance to students with respect to a number of matters. It is clear that the grievor
interacts with students and in response to their questions explains where products are
stored and identifies different products to them. His involvement with students as part
of his regular job duties does not, however, extend beyond this.
Checking Fridge and Freezer Temperatures
The PDF prepared by the union states that the grievor identifies and reports
equipment malfunctions. The only equipment the grievor does this for are fridges and
freezers. The grievor testified that he is in and out of the fridges and freezers and will
report any discrepancies in temperature to Mr. Chatterpaul. He said that he can tell if a
temperature is not right and, in addition, he looks at the thermostats. The grievor noted
that all staff are responsible for checking the temperature of fridges and freezers. Mr.
Chatterpaul testified that he also checks the temperature of fridges. He said that the
thermostats have danger zones noted on them.
PART IV - A POSSffiLE COMPARISON OF THE GREIVOR'S WORK WITH THAT
OF OTIIER STAFF
The Grievor's View
In his journal and at the hearing the grievor stressed the fact that he performs duties
similar to those performed by technologists and technicians. It was clear from his
evidence that where their duties differ he views his role as being equivalent to theirs.
As noted above, the union is now seeking to have the grievor classified as a
Technician C. In his grievance, however, he asked to be classified as a Technologist B.
In the following October 6, 2003 entry in his journal the grievor commented as follows
on the role of the technologists in the ICC:
The technologist, technicians and I filled all the requisitions. I'm well
aware the technologists have other duties as well but the majority of time
is spent filling requisitions and looking after labs and demos. I have a
great deal of respect for my co-workers. The technologists there are a
welcomed addition to the staff at George Brown College.
26
A January 16, 2004 entry in the grievor's journal reflects his view that his role is
not properly appreciated by the employer. This entry comes immediately after the entry
set out above about him answering questions from students and taking the opportunity to
express to them the dedication and compassion required to succeed in the world of
hospitality. Following this he wrote:
Due to my years of service at the college, assistance at all levels is
required at one time or another, yet a blind eye seems to be the resolution
of choice. For someone that gives so much, in the eyes of the people I
work with each and everyday I ask for very little. This is no longer a
case of paybands or dollars per hour, it's about a caring dedicated
employee looking for the respect from his peers he has worked so hard to
achieve.
A Teamwork Approach
The grievor's view that his role is not fully appreciated has likely been
reinforced by a "teamwork" or "seamless delivery" approach introduced by Mr.
Chatterpaul. At one point in his evidence the grievor commented that "we", meaning
him, the technicians and the technologists, all perform as a unit, watch each other's
backs and correct any problems. He referred to a September 17, 2003 entry in his
journal which recorded that a technologist who was catering an event had asked him
to get twenty assorted juices. In his journal the grievor noted: "I quickly went to the
dining room to grab a table cloth for an insert for the beverage bin and loaded up the
juices for her. This is called being there for a fellow support worker in need of a little
assistance". In his evidence the grievor indicated that he had taken on additional
duties when other staff were away, including filling the non-protein aspects of
requisitions. At one point he noted that during the proceeding week one of the
technicians had been late and accordingly he had set up two labs while Mr. Santos set
up two others.
Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that prior to a change three or four years ago each distinct
job classification had clearly defined duties and staff would contend that certain tasks
were not part of their job duties. He said that there had also been issues between the
continuing education division and day time programs respecting resources and
accusations that rooms were being left unclean. In response to subsequent questions
from employer counsel Mr. Fitzpatrick said that different staff in the ICC still have
clearly defined roles but now there is a team approach with more cooperation.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that in the past there had been divisions between the day
and night programs and seamlessness involves taking down those barriers. He also
27
noted that students do not see a manager, a technician or a supply clerk but just a George
Brown College employee and accordingly he had broken down barriers and introduced
teamwork. He added that this did not exclude staff from doing their own work. He said
that if someone is in a bind they can ask for help and if someone has the time they can
help someone else.
The Duties of Other Staff
Considerable evidence was led respecting the functions of other staff in the ICC.
The grievor testified that prior to May 2005 Ms. Douglas had been involved in filling
requisitions in a manner similar to Ms. Florio. He said that now she has been dealing
with Food- Trak for a couple of years and the majority of her time is spent dealing with
Food- Trak. He also said that in Mayor June 2005 Ms. Douglas was sent to Arizona for
training in Food- Trak. He testified that she has been instructed to teach other ICC staff
about entering invoices into the computer system and comparing them with purchase
orders and also how to enter shortages into the Food- Trak shopping list.
The grievor testified that Ms. Douglas initiated the Second Harvest pick up of
perishable extra food. He said that she trays or bags products and then loads them into
the truck with the driver. As noted above, Ms. Douglas has certain duties with respect to
students placed in the ICC.
The grievor referred several times in his evidence to working with Ms. Florio in
filling requisitions. He testified that she fills the non protein aspects of requisitions for
labs and time permitting for continuing education classes. The grievor said that Ms.
Florio enters shortages into Food- Trakso that they can be ordered for next day, just as
he does for proteins. He said that if he completes the proteins in time he assists Ms.
Florio in filling the non protein aspects of requisitions and this situation happens two or
three times per week.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that Ms. Florio spends a majority of her time filling
requisitions. He said that in intercession every seven weeks she works for a week in the
office doing scheduling. He said that his goal is to have Ms. Douglas and Ms. Florio
interchangeable with respect to Food-Trak in 18 months time. Mr. Fitzpatrick's
evidence indicated that Ms. Florio had at one time been heavily involved in catering
activities at the College but her activities in this regard are now much less frequent.
Other evidence respecting to Ms. Florio's involvement with catering as well as her
involvement with students placed in the ICC is set out above.
As noted above, Mr. Fitzpatrick is a Technician C, the same classification the union
now seeks for the grievor. Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that 90% of his current job is in the
28
bake department. He said that he looks after up to 80 bake classes per week and is
primarily responsible for filling requisitions for those classes. He said that only 40 to
50% of daytime bake classes have requisitions which accurately reflect what is required.
By way of example he said that a requisition for apple pie might refer to apples and
lemons but not to flour or pans. He said that he fairly frequently refers to a bake
manual, which is a listing of recipes, in order to see what is required.
Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that he replenishes stock in a bake storeroom that contains
some 2,000 items, including flour, nuts, coconut and jams. He said that he does not use
accumulation sheets since people have open access to the room. He noted that many
cooking classes only require par stock which is kept in the storeroom. He said that he
either advises Mr. Chatterpaul of requirements for the storeroom or enters them into the
Food- Trak shopping list.
Mr. Fitzpatrick said that he and Mr. Greenwood clear four labs in the morning and
four in the afternoon. He said that he does simple repairs to equipment but otherwise
reports any problems with equipment, including problems with a fridge or an oven.
Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that he gathers baked product made by students from the
day labs, checks them for quality, ensures that they have been properly boxed by the
students and takes them to a College retail store. He said that the manager of Chartwells
handles the cash but he directly deals with customers, including answering questions
about ingredients, including the ingredients in dishes that come down from the kitchen.
He said that he spends an average of 20 minutes per day in the store. He also said that
he takes product form the afternoon bake labs and refrigerates them for cafeteria staff to
sell in the evening. He indicated that if there is a lot of stock he and the cafeteria
manager together might decide to reduce prices, although on occasion they have first
contacted Chef Higgins about doing so.
Mr. Santos has worked at the College for some 16 years. As discussed above, over
time he has performed a variety of different functions, including doing the proteins,
being the bake technician and printing off accumulation sheets and requisitions. The
grievor testified that Mr. Santos now prepares demos to be taught by faculty. He agreed
with employer counsel that this involves preparing some of the ingredients, such as
peeling carrots, soaking potatoes in water and chopping parsley, rosemary or sage. Mr.
Chatterpaul testified that this function requires that Mr. Santos be able to read and
interpret recipes. He said that if potato pancakes are to be demonstrated Mr. Santos
must pre-steam or pre-boil the potatoes so that they are at a specific softness and
consistency. According to Mr. Chatterpaul prior to a demo, during a break and also
following the demo Mr. Santos will talk to the faculty member involved to see if there
are any issues. He said that following a demo Mr. Santos will collect any food products.
29
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that Mr. Santos sets up the equipment used in
demonstrations. He said that each demo room has small appliances, such as food
processors, while larger equipment such as a slicing machine is brought in and set up.
According to Mr. Chatterpaul, Mr. Santos also checks the demo rooms for maintenance
issues, including gas, electrical and plumbing, and should there be a problem he will
generate a work order to have it repaired.
The grievor testified that Mr. Greenwood started with the employer in November
2004. He indicated that Mr. Greenwood fills the non-protein parts of requisitions for the
a la carte and main kitchens. Mr. Chatterpaul testified that Mr. Greenwood ensures that
equipment in the kitchens is functioning and during intercession arranges for their
routine maintenance. According to Mr. Chatterpaul on occasion Mr. Greenwood has
worked with students to show them the proper operating procedures on equipment such
as steam kettles.
The grievor testified that one of Mr. Greenwood's main duties is to make stock for
all labs, demos and night classes. He agreed with employer counsel that Mr. Greenwood
uses large kettles, stoves and a convection oven to make chicken, vegetable, beef, lamb,
and fish stock. Mr. Chatterpaul testified that Mr. Greenwood follows recipes when
making stock. He said that a vast quantity of bones are required for stock, some of
which need to be roasted. He also said that Mr. Greenwood does a large amount of
vegetable preparation by peeling and dicing. He testified that Mr. Greenwood
determines his requirements for bones and vegetables and then gives him a list of what
he requires. According to Mr. Chatterpaul, Mr. Greenwood also does some recipe
testing. He said that recently Mr. Greenwood had tested some Indian recipes.
Prior to the conclusion of the hearing Mr. Augustus ceased working in the ICC.
The grievor testified that Mr. Augustus had looked after four labs, which is where
students engage in cooking. He indicated that at one time Mr. Augustus and another
technician had together looked after the labs, including filling requisitions, but then Mr.
Augustus started to look after the labs by himself and ceased filling requisitions.
According to the grievor Mr. Augustus would unlock equipment cages and ensure that
required equipment was present. He said that Mr. Augustus took wagons with
completed requisitions down to the labs for classes. The grievor noted that at times he
would tell Mr. Augustus that he had put proteins for him in the B-40 fridge which is
located close to the labs. The grievor said that he often saw Mr. Augustus obtain
requests for chefs. Mr. Chatterpaul said that part of Mr. Augustus' duties was to ask
faculty in the labs if they had any additional requests for food or equipment.
The grievor testified that each lab has an equipment cage that Mr. Augustus would
unlock and at the end of a lab he would ensure that all of the equipment was present.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that Mr. Augustus maintained lab equipment, including taking
30
them apart, putting grinder plates in special oil and sharpening slicer blades. He
indicated that prior to a lab starting up Mr. Augustus would check the gas, electricity
and plumbing and if there was a problem he would issue a work order to have it
repaired.
At the conclusion of the morning labs Mr. Augustus would remove any surplus
food product. According to Mr. Chatterpaul, Mr. Augustus could decide to reuse the
food, discard it or send it to Second Harvest. He said depending on the cost or quantity
Mr. Augustus might consult with him. He also said that Mr. Augustus would discuss
any protein items with the grievor.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that Mr. Augustus had worked on catered events,
including making items from prescribed recipes. Mr. Fitzpatrick testified that Mr.
Augustus had done a majority of the catering.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that on weekends and Monday nights Ms. Levett fills
requisitions and responds to classroom needs respecting equipment. He also said that
she has worked on some catered events.
As noted above, Mr. Zanna, the other employee classified as .a supply clerk, works
in the ICC from Tuesday to Saturday starting at 3 :00 p.m. The grievor agreed with
employer counsel that Mr. Zanna does some receiving and stores in-coming product and
that he also receives product back in the store room after night classes. The grievor
testified that Mr. Zanna has been instructed to record in a log when proteins are
returned, where they are located and if they are frozen. He said that this is a help to him
since he can use the product. The grievor then noted that he was the one who had asked
Mr. Zanna to enter a record of returned proteins in the log.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that Mr. Zanna receives and stores product, maintains par
stocks in the storeroom, matches invoices and purchase orders on the computer, issues
culinary carts, fills requisitions, takes apart returns brought in by instructors, including
proteins, and decides what is usable, what to discard and what to package for Second
Harvest. According to Mr. Chatterpaul Mr. Zanna is at times required to check with the
Continuing Education Manager about the reusability of product and should a large
volume be involved he will leave a note about it for Mr. Chatterpaul.
The Union's Submissions
The grievor's contention that he performs tasks that are also performed by more
highly rated employees and where their duties differ his duties are equivalent to theirs
was also advanced by union counsel in his final submissions. Union counsel contended
31
that the grievor fills the very important, very sensitive and arguably the key component
of requisitions, namely the proteins. He submitted that the technologists, the technicians
and the grievor all perform the same function, namely preparing items necessary for the
cooking school to operate. At another point in his submissions union counsel contended
that the grievor performs the same role as the technologists and technicians in the ICC,
namely applying expertise with respect to the professional discipline of cooking. He
asked whether the preparation of stock involves much more than storing protein or
examining the suitability of protein for use at the school. Union counsel noted that Ms.
Florio spends most of her day filling requisitions. He argued that it is necessary to
consider the grievor's position in light of the technicians and technologists in the ICC,
"the practical rather than the abstract".
During his submissions union counsel referred to Exhibit 26, which includes a
December 2000 PDF with respect to Mr. Fitzpatrick's position, as well as Exhibit 27, a
more recent but unsigned and undated purported PDF that also relates to Mr.
Fitzpatrick's position. This latter document is discussed in some detail below in the
context of the factor of communications/contacts. Mr. Fitzpatrick's evidence, which we
accept, was that he had not seen Exhibit 27 prior to the hearing. He did, however,
indicate that it more closely reflected his current duties than did the PDF that was
completed in December 2000. Union counsel relied on both documents in his
submissions. He compared some of the entries in the two documents to what the grievor
does when performing his duties.
Determination Respecting a Possible Comparison of the Grievor's Work With That of
Other Staff
The applicable job evaluation manual indicates that the goal in rating positions is to
achieve an equitable result in terms of other support staff positions in the college system.
It seeks to do so by first assessing job duties against job family guide charts. Should this
prove not to be an appropriate approach a core point rating process is utilized which
involves comparing twelve job factors against different factor level definitions. While
illustrative classifications are provided to assist in rating individual factors the process is
clearly not designed to involve a weighing of different job duties against each other.
Rather equity is sought to be achieved by way of a uniform application of the job
evaluation process.
The logic behind such an approach is demonstrated by the facts of this case. Some
of the grievor's functions are also performed by the technologists and technicians.
These individuals, however, also perform other duties. Accordingly, any attempt tosdetermine the appropriate rating for the grievor's position by comparing job duties
would inevitably involve trying to weigh differing duties against each other. This would
32
include comparing functions such as the grievor filling the protein part of a requisition
with Mr. Fitzpatrick filling baking requisitions that do not list all required ingredients or
Ms. Florio filling the non protein aspects of a requisition while explaining the process to
students. Presumably another comparison would be evaluating the grievor's role in
transporting food and beverages to catered events with the activities of others who help
organize such events and prepare some of the food. It would also involve comparing
tasks even less similar, such as union counsel's suggestion that the preparation of stock
is equivalent to storing proteins or examining the suitability of proteins for use at the
school. There is nothing in the job evaluation scheme to suggest that someone rating
different factors is intended to engage in this type of comparison.
Further, and most importantly, the applicable collective agreement indicates that a
classification arbitration board is not to engage in a comparison and weighing of job
duties. It states in Article 18.4.5.1that an arbitration board "is restricted to determining
whether the grievor's PDF accurately reflects hislher assigned job content (where
disagreement exists) and to determining whether the grievor's job is properly evaluated
pursuant to the CAA T Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual".
Having regard to all of these considerations we conclude that the appropriate
approach is not to compare the grievor's duties and responsibilities with those of other
staff but rather to rate the various job factors in accordance with the job evaluation
manual.
PART V - THE APPROPRIATE JOB F AMIL Y
The job evaluation manual contains the following entry concemmg how the
appropriate job family is to be determined:
First Step - Determining the Job Family
Determining the job family of a position is the first step in the
evaluation process. To establish the job family, the following steps must
be followed:
a) Review and understand the PDF, in particular:
- Section A - Position Summary, and
- Section B - Duties and Responsibilities.
b) Compare this information to the Job Family Definitions contained in
Section V of the evaluation manual.
33
c) Determine and assign the job family that most accurately describes the
position being evaluated.
d) In some cases, the duties and responsibilities of the position will not
clearly fall within one job family definition. If this occurs, you must
identifY the predominant or central job duties and assign the most
appropriate job family.
e ) You may fmd that a few positions cannot be assigned a job family. If
an existing job family cannot be used, then "Atypical" must be
assigned as the job family. Positions that are categorized as
"Atypical" will have to be evaluated using the core point rating plan.
The job evaluation manual contains the following job family definitions:
CLERK SUPPLY
This family covers positions that perform various tasks associated with
the receiving, recording, storage, handling and distribution of equipment
and supplies.
TECHNICIAN
This family covers positions that are primarily responsible for the care,
maintenance, set up, operation, demonstration, distribution and security of
instructional and allied equipment and materials and the preparation of
materials for use in instructional programs and administrative services.
This family also covers positions in plant maintenance departments
involving the planning, lay-out and specifications for alterations and
additions to existing facilities.
Counsel for the union contended that the grievor's position comes within the
Technician job family since he prepares proteins which are materials used in
instructional programs. He said that the grievor is responsible for the care, set up and
distribution of proteins. He submitted that the grievor provides product to classes to
allow the cooking school to run, which is the same function that is performed by
technicians and technologists.
Counsel for the employer contended that the grievor's position comes within the
Clerk Supply job family. She submitted that supplies include food. She argued that the
grievor performs all of the functions listed in the Clerk Supply definition, including
34
receiving, making records of what he receives and storing product. She submitted that
even the filling of requisitions involves the handling and distribution of supplies.
Employer counsel noted that the Technician job family definition refers to
instructional and allied equipment. She contended that the grievor is not involved with
such equipment. She compared this with the situation of Mr. Fitzpatrick who she said
works with a wide variety of equipment in the bakeshop. Employer counsel argued that
while food might be considered materials for the purpose of the Technician job family
definition the functions listed in the definition are not a good fit with what the grievor
does.
The grievor's receIvmg duties clearly fit within the Clerk Supply job family
definition. As noted by employer counsel the grievor receives, records, stores and
handles supplies. The grievor, however, also performs functions that do not fit
comfortably within the Clerk Supply job family definition. Filling a requisition by
insuring that the proteins to be used in instructing students are available in the form
required by chefs and placing them on wagons to be taken to demonstration rooms, labs
and teaching kitchens goes beyond simply distributing supplies. It can more
appropriately be described as the distribution of materials for use in instructional
programs, a function expressly referred to in the Technician job family defmition. The
grievor is not involved in the preparation of food products to the same extent as other
employees but his role in defrosting proteins and cutting off a piece of meat from a
larger piece for use in a demonstration are forms of preparing materials for use in
instructional programs. The grievor's role in assessing the re-usability of food returned
from labs goes beyond simply the handling and distribution of materials such as would
be done by a supply clerk. In this context it can better be described as the care of
instructional materials.
The job evaluation manual indicates that when the duties and responsibilities of a
position fall within more than one job family definition the predominant or central job
duties are to be identified and the most appropriate job family assigned. The grievor's
predominant duties appear to be those of a technician. Accordingly, we find that the
most appropriate job family is the Technician job family.
Although for most of the time the grievor performs duties that involve instructional
materials his duties are not the typical duties of a Technician A, B or C as listed in the
relevant job evaluation job charts. These charts describe a technician's duties primarily
in terms of operating and maintaining equipment. The typical duties of a Technician B
do include demonstrating correct techniques for the use of materials. The grievor,
however, does not perform this function. Accordingly, the grievor's position cannot be
assigned to a particular technician classification or a particular payband based on the
35
duties he performs. They can only be determined by core point rating the various job
factors.
p ART VI - RATING THE V ARIOUS JOB FACTORS
. The parties agree on the ratings for three of the twelve job factors, namely physical
demand, strain from work pressures/demands/deadlines and work environment. The
other nine factors are each discussed separately below.
Training/Technical Skills
The job evaluation manual states that his factor is designed to measure the
minimum amount of independent study, formal education, training programs,
professional or technical courses or apprenticeship programs necessary to fulfill the
requirements of a position. It notes that the application of this factor should not be
confused with the educational qualifications of a particular incumbent.
The employer rated the grievor's position at level 4 which is worth 71 points. The
union contends that it should have been rated at level 5 worth 91 points. The relevant
level definitions and related illustrative classifications contained in the job evaluation
manual read as follows:
4. Required skills normally acquired through attainment of secondary
school graduation and completion of additional job related training
courses, or one year Community College certificate, or equivalent.
Job duties require the ability to apply specialized skills.
Clerk General D; Secretary B, C; Stationary Engineer A; Microcomputer
Operator A, B.
5. Required skills normally acquired through attainment of a two year
Community College diploma, or equivalent. Job duties require the
ability to organize simple statistical information and to understand
the elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline.
ECE Worker; Library Technician A, B; Programmer A, B; SSO A, B;
Technician B, C
The grievor noted that he has been with the employer for 25 years. He indicated
that based on this experience, including his interactions with chefs, he believes that he
36
has the equivalent of a two year college diploma. Counsel for the employer asked the
grievor if it was his evidence that his work has given him the same knowledge base as
someone who has taken all the courses in the College's two year culinary management
program. The grievor replied no, but that for "them" to do what he does would be a
challenge.
A course outline for the College's two year culinary management program was
filed into evidence. No evidence was led about any other two year college program.
The culinary management program commences with a Culinary Skills I course. Mr.
Chatterpaul testified that this course is required for all of the College's certificate and
diploma programs. He explained that it lasts 14 weeks with week 1 focusing on
equipment, week 2 on knife skills and week 3 on fish, beef and chicken stocks. He said
that each succeeding week builds on what has gone before. He testified that students
learn various types of cooking including baking, broiling, frying, poaching and
fricasseeing.
The first semester of the culinary management program also includes a range of
other courses, including ones entitled Theory of Food I, Nutrition and Lifestyle, Banquet
and Production Kitchen and Fundamentals of Butchery as well as Sanitation, Safety and
Equipment. The second semester includes Culinary Skills II, Theory of Food II,
Culinary Desserts, Principles of Food and Beverage Cost Control and a practicum on
Restaurant Cooking. The third and fourth semesters include courses relating to food
preparation, including a further practicum on Restaurant Cooking and courses on
Contemporary Cold and Hot Appetizers, Contemporary Cuisine and Patisserie
Production Management. They also include courses on the business side of the
hospitality industry, including Business Entrepreneurship and Menu Management.
There is also an externship placement, which could involve the ICC.
The employer's PDF states that the grievor's position requires "a certified basic
night cooking class". As noted above, Mr. Chatterpaul testified that he proposed to the
grievor that through the College's continuing education program he take a basic and an
advanced culinary arts course as well as a basic baking course. The PDF proposed by
the union describes the required training for the grievor's position as: "2 year College
diploma in Culinary Arts or Food and Beverage Management or an equivalent
combination of education and experience; National Sanitation Certificate, and First
Aid" .
After referring to the union's proposed PDF employer counsel asked Mr.
Chatterpaul whether in his view a two-year diploma is required for the grievor's job.
Mr. Chatterpaul replied that it is. Asked why, Mr. Chatterpaul said that it is to have
familiarity with the duties involved. He noted that food is to be handled in a specific
way when stored, counted and distributed. In response to further questions from
37
employer counsel Mr. Chatterpaul acknowledged that the grievor does not possess a two
year diploma in culinary arts but is able to handle the technical aspects of his job.
Employer counsel then asked Mr. Chatterpaul if a two year diploma is a necessity or a
preference. He replied that it is a preference. Later in his evidence Mr. Chatterpaul said
that the minimum requirement for the grievor's position is a one year culinary program.
. Employer counsel asked Mr. Chatterpaul if the fact grievor does not have a cooking
course had created a difficulty. Mr. Chatterpaul replied that the grievor can carry out his
duties but his colleagues, including himself, had assisted him along the way. Employer
counsel then asked Mr. Chatterpaul if a night course was a preference or a necessity for
the grievor's job. He replied that he saw it as a necessity. When asked why Mr.
Chatterpaul gave the evidence referred to above about allowing the grievor to see
different types of cooking skills and how to handle food.
In response to questions from union counsel Mr. Chatterpaul agreed that he felt the
grievor should have completed a two year culinary arts program and if he were hiring
for the position he would be looking for someone with a two year diploma. Mr.
Chatterpaul also agreed that the grievor's position involves some elementary principles
of cooking. He referred in this regard to his handling of food and knowledge of thaw
times. Mr. Chatterpaul acknowledged that students placed at the ICC learn about
receiving, issuing, storing and developing specs as part of their program. He agreed
with union counsel that students are also in the ICC to learn about proteins.
Later in the hearing, in response to questions from employer counsel, Mr.
Chatterpaul said that a culinary arts program would allow the grievor to be more
efficient in his duties relating to the inspection of product such as fish. Employer
counsel subsequently asked Mr. Chatterpaul if on hiring to replace the grievor a two
year culinary diploma be preferred or essential. Mr. Chatterpaul replied that it would be
preferred.
In his final submissions union counsel contended that the grievor has skills
equivalent to those normally acquired through a two year college diploma. He argued
that Mr. Chatterpaul's evidence highlighted the need for the grievor's job to be rated at
level 5. He submitted that in spite of the grievor having had 25 years on the job,
including six years working with proteins, Mr. Chatterpaul said that he needed
additional education. He noted that at one point Mr. Chatterpaul had said that the
grievor's job required a two-year diploma and had explained why this was required.
Counsel for the employer contended that the grievor's position requires a high
school education as well as additional courses and while a two year college diploma is a
preference it is not a necessity. She argued that the grievor's know-how was easily
acquired on the job and would not require two years study at a college. She submitted
38
that the illustrative classifications for a level 5 rating require a great deal more education
than what the grievor has.
Although not structured as formal training courses, the assistance that Mr.
Fitzpatrick and Chef Lennartz provided to the grievor as well as additional knowledge
that he gained while working on-the-job can be viewed as the equivalent of job related
training courses. The evidence does not, however, suggest that the grievor acquired the
full range of skills associated with a two-year culinary arts program, particularly with
respect to skills involving actual cooking and food preparation, or that his job duties
require the exercise of those skills. Mr. Chatterpaul would prefer that the grievor or
someone new in the position have a two year culinary arts diploma. In light of the
evidence, however, this does not establish that skills normally acquired through a two
year diploma are required for the job.
Mr. Chatterpaul's evidence relating to the possibility of the grievor taking
continuing education courses indicates that he views the grievor's education as deficient
for the work that he does. This suggests that the proper performance of the job requires
skills normally acquired by the courses recommended by Mr. Chatterpaul. These were
an introductory and an advanced culinary course, which presumably would be similar to
the Culinary Skills I and II courses offered in the first year of the College's culinary
management program, as well as a basic baking course. The assistance provided to the
grievor by Chef Lennartz and Mr. Fitzpatrick respecting proteins might be viewed as
equivalent to the Fundamentals of Butchery and the Sanitation portions of first year
courses referred to above. In the circumstances of this case it might reasonably be said
that the on-the-job training that the grievor received together with the courses identified
as being those he needs to more properly perform his duties result in a situation where
his position requires skills equivalent to what one could obtain through a year of
community college study. A one year community college certificate or equivalent,
however, is expressly referred to in the criteria for a level 4 rating.
The criteria for a level 5 rating provide that job duties must require the ability to
understand the elementary principles of a science or professional discipline. Union
counsel contended that the grievor applies the elementary principles of a professional
discipline, namely cooking, when he handles product and when he thaws frozen food.
He also argued that the grievor, as well as technologists and technicians, apply the
elementary principles of cooking when they fill requisitions. Employer counsel argued
that the grievor's tasks do not require an understanding of the elementary principles of a
science or professional discipline. She noted that the grievor's duties do not actually
involve any cooking.
The need for job duties to require the ability to understand the elementary principles
of a science or professional discipline reasonably relate to a basic understanding of the
39
central aspects of the science or professional discipline, as opposed to understanding a
relatively small sub-set of the principles involved. We accept that cooking can be
viewed as a science or professional discipline. Understanding the elementary principles
of cooking, however, logically encompasses an understanding of food preparation and
cooking beyond an ability to assess whether raw proteins are fit for use, knowing the
techniques for thawing frozen proteins and knowing how to place listed products on a
fooQ cart. A somewhat complicating factor is that had the grievor taken the continuing
education courses that Mr. Chatterpaul regards as being necessary for his position he
might in fact be said to have an understanding of the elementary principles of cooking.
For a level 5 rating to apply an employee's job duties must require the ability to
organize simple statistical information. Counsel for the union contended that the grievor
organizes information when he looks at numerous factors and then makes a decision
based on those factors, such as when he decides whether a product is suitable based on
its feel, smell and colour. These actions are not, however, the same as organizing simple
statistical information. The reality is that the grievor's duties do not require that he
organize any statistical information.
Having regard to the above, we find that the specialized skills required for the
grievor's position meet the criteria for a level 4 rating but not those for a level 5 rating.
Experience
The job evaluation manual states that the factor of experience is designed to
measure the amount of practical experience in any related work that is necessary to
fulfill the requirements of a position.
The employer rated this factor at level 3, which is worth 32 points. The union
claims that the correct rating is level 4, which is worth 45 points. The relevant factor
level definitions as well as the illustrative classifications read as follows:
3. More than one year and up to three years of practical experience.
Caretaker B; Clerk General C; Library Technician B; Support Services Officer
A,B
4. More than three years and up to five years of practical experience.
Clerk General D; Secretary B, C; Technician C; Technologist B
.
#
40
When giving his evidence the grievor adopted an entry in the union's proposed
PDF which states that at least three years experience in a large food and beverage
management environment dealing with a variety of food products and equipment is
required for his position. When referred to this entry by employer counsel Mr.
Chatterpaul disagreed saying that it is a role of the technicians to have equipment
knowledge.
Mr. Chatterpaul evidence as to the mmImum amount of required experience
unrelated to dealing with any equipment varied. He initially adopted a statement in the
employer's PDF that two years post graduate experience is required. When asked about
this he said that it was the equivalent of a culinary arts program, which the grievor did
not have. Employer counsel then pointed out that the issue was one of experience (as
opposed to training) and asked Mr. Chatterpaul if 2 or 3 years was more accurate. Mr.
Chatterpaul replied that the more experience the better and so three years was fine.
Employer counsel then asked Mr. Chatterpaul for the required minimum. He replied
two years.
Counsel for the union asked Mr. Chatterpaul what he would look for in an applicant
if he were hiring to replace the grievor. Mr. Chatterpaul replied that it would be a food
background in a hotel, restaurant or institution of three to five years. Later, during re-
examination, employer counsel asked Mr. Chatterpaul if three to five years experience is
preferred or essential. He replied that it is preferred. Still later, however, Mr.
Chatterpaul referred to three years as being the required minimum.
Counsel for the union contended that given the grievor's responsibilities and the
implications of what he does more than three years experience is required. He referred
to Mr. Chatterpaul's evidence that he would look for someone with three to five years
experience when hiring and his later statement that three years is the required minimum.
Counsel for the employer referred to Mr. Chatterpaul's statements indicating that two
years experience is required. She also argued that the employer has the right to the
minimum amount of experience required unless it is out of step with practical reality.
The more relevant experience an individual has logically the better they are able to
perform the functions of their position at a high level of performance. The relevant
issue, however, is not the experience required to reach a peak level of performance but
rather the minimum amount of prior experience necessary to fulfill the requirements of a
position at an acceptable level.
As noted by union counsel, Mr. Chatterpaul did state that three years is the
minimum requirement for the grievor's position and if hiring he would look for three to
five years experience. At other points, however, he described two years as the minimum
and three to five years as a preference.
41
One relevant consideration is the nature of the work performed by the grievor.
Although the details change his duties are fairly repetitive. In addition, the evidence
does not suggest that many years of experience are required to obtain a depth of
knowledge required to enable him to address new or difficult problems or situations as
they arise. The evidence indicates that problem situations are referred to others.
Without in any way detracting from the grievor's long experience, and recognizing
that 'this has allowed him to attain a high level of proficiency in his duties, we are not
satisfied that more than three years experience is required to meet the minimum
requirements of his position. Two years working with food products in a restaurant,
hotel or institutional setting would appear to be sufficient for someone starting out in the
grievor's position. Accordingly, we affirm the level 3 rating given by the employer.
Complexity
The job evaluation manual states that this factor measures the amount and nature of
analysis, problem solving and reasoning that is required to perform job-related duties. It
measures the conceptual demands of a job as characterized by the analysis and
interpretation required for problem and solution definition, as well as creativity, mental
challenge, degree of job structure, planning activities and the variety and difficulty of
tasks.
The employer rated the grievor's position at level 3, which is worth 41 points. The
union argued for a level 4 rating worth 58 points. The criteria for levels 3 and 4 as well
as the associated illustrative classifications are as follows:
3. Job duties require the performance of various routine, complex
tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods.
Clerk General C; General Maintenance Worker; Secretary A
4. Job duties require the performance of varied, non-routine, complex
tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods.
Clerk General D; Library Technician B; Programmer A, B
The PDF proposed by the union listed the following examples respecting the factor
of complexity:
42
- Identifies required food and equipment needed for classroom,
catering, dining room, and demo functions. In any given day
incumbent may be dealing with ?????? (sic).
- Must be able to field last minute requests sometimes for unusual items
or items not in stock. Must be able to communicate with the
requisitioner and be able to recommend a substitution or alternative
approach to desired outcome.
- Must deal with received orders that do not meet original requests to
suppliers. Must deal with suppliers or with faculty members as
appropriate.
- Instructs other team members or coop students in the handling,
preparation, and identification of various products. Provides guidance
in the preparation of foods according to the particular faculty
member's preferences and! or requirements.
- Must ensure the product is stored safely. Assists in maintaining a
clean and sanitary environment.
As discussed above, apart from obtaining a specific piece of equipment at the
request of a chef the grievor is not involved with equipment in the manner suggested by
the union's proposed PDF. The grievor identifies products for students. He does not,
however, instruct other team members or coop students in the handling of products or
provide guidance with respect to the preparation of foods.
When discussing the factor of complexity the grievor noted that a requisition might
not reflect what a chef had asked for, such as a chef requesting twelve chicken breasts
and a requisition calling for six. He indicated that if he noticed such a situation he
would raise it with Mr. Chatterpaul. The grievor also noted that chefs ask him to see
Chef Lennartz about having the chef and his students cut meat to required specifications.
Counsel for the union described the grievor as the gatekeeper of the ICC and of the
cooking school. He noted that the grievor is responsible for ensuring the quality of
products and the method he uses for doing so depends on the product. He said that the
grievor uses different inspection techniques for chicken, salmon and mollusks and
depending on whether the product is frozen, semi-frozen or fresh. He noted that the
grievor also determines the suitability of groceries, lettuce and spices. He said the
defrosting methods used by the grievor vary depending on the product and what is
required by the chef. He contended that the grievor is involved in performing varied,
43
non-routine, complex tasks and the methods and processes he uses vary depending on
the product involved.
Counsel for the employer noted that the criteria for both a level 3 and a level 4
rating refer to complex tasks and both take into account the use of different and
unrelated processes and methods. She submitted that the difference is whether tasks are
routine or non routine. She argued that a majority of the grievor's tasks are routine. She
described the illustrative classifications for a level 4 rating as being very different from
the grievor's position.
The tasks associated with the grievor's position are complex. Because they
encompass a range of different duties they require different and unrelated processes and
methods. As noted by employer counsel, however, this type of situation is covered by
the criteria for both a level 3 and a level 4 rating, with the key difference being whether
tasks are routine or non-routine. At times unanticipated events do occur, such as an
error in a requisition. The grievor's duties, however, do not require him to engage in a
non-routine task in order to address the situation, instead he reports the matter to Mr.
Chatterpaul. At times chefs want the meat lab to make changes to cuts of meat. The
grievor's role is routine in the sense that he passes on such requests to Chef Lennartz.
Over the years the grievor has been called upon to perform non-routine tasks, such
as making tea and coffee at the request of Ms. Florio and chopping spices for Chef
Higgins. Such situations, however, have been extremely rare and cannot reasonably be
said to be an integral aspect of the grievor's position such as to be the basis of a factor
rating.
Having regard to the above, we confirm the level 3 rating awarded by the employer.
Judgement
The job evaluation manual states that this factor measures the independent
judgement and problem-solving required on the job. It assesses the difficulty in
identifying various alternate choices of action and in exercising judgement to select the
most appropriate action. It also considers mental processes such as analysis, reasoning
or evaluation.
The employer rated the grievor's position at level 3, which is worth 48 points. The
union contends that level 4, which produces 66 points, is the more appropriate rating.
The definitions and illustrative classifications set out in the job evaluation manual are as
follows:
44
3. Job duties require some moderate degree of judgement. Problem
solving involves the identification and breakdown of the facts and
components of the problem situation.
Clerk General C; Secretary A, B; Security Guard
4. Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem-solving
involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or
solutions with established analytical techniques.
ECE Worker; Nurse; Secretary C
The union in its proposed PDF advanced several examples of the type of judgement
which it claims the grievor exercises. One was providing guidance to other team
members and students, a claim not made out in the evidence other than the grievor
telling others where product is located and identifYing products for students. The union
also claimed that the grievor must have the ability to prepare product to industry and
faculty standards for use in demonstrations. This is only accurate insofar as it relates to
the proper thawing of frozen proteins and cutting off a small portion of meat from a
larger piece for use in a demonstration.
One entry in the PDF prepared by the employer reads as follows:
The incumbent may receive back from a class some thawed salmon fillets.
Then decide if they are still reusable, and if so, for how much longer they
will keep. They (sic) must decide whether or not to reissue immediately to
get product used up, or it may be saved for 2-3 more days depending on if
it was originally fresh or frozen.
Union counsel contended that the grievor's duties require that he exercise a
considerable degree of judgement and use established analytical techniques. He
submitted that when products arrive at the ICC the grievor looks at factors such as smell,
appearance and firmness and applies analytical techniques to make a judgement about
whether those products are acceptable. He noted that the grievor is required to ascertain
whether the right amount of the right product is received and whether it was shipped in
an appropriate manner. He argued that every piece of this process requires a
considerable degree of judgement. He further submitted that the grievor must examine
factors such as the possibility of cross-contamination when storing product and decide
how to have product ready, including thawing products, in order to allow the chefs to do
45
their job. He contended that the grievor uses considerable judgement when filling
requisitions, in ensuring that product is still of an appropriate quality to use, checking for
possible pricing problems and addressing possible shortages. Union counsel also
contended that the grievor uses considerable judgment and analytical techniques when
deciding on the reusability of returned product and how long it will keep and whether it
should go to Second Harvest, be used in the main kitchen or be thrown away.
Counsel for the employer contended that the grievor only makes independent
judgments in routine matters and that for non-routine matters he refers the issue to Mr.
Chatterpaul. She submitted that the grievor has authority to return a product to a vendor
but it is Mr. Chatterpaul who will deal with the vendor on a going forward basis. She
said that should a chef need a product that is not on a requisition the grievor can say
what is in stock and whether there is time to order product but the chef will do an
analysis and make a decision. She argued that when thawing product the grievor needs
to know when the product is needed, the condition it should be in and the thawing time
required to achieve such a condition. She contended that these are all facts. She
submitted that if a product cannot be available in the required condition at the right time
it is up to someone other than the grievor to solve the problem.
Employer counsel noted that a Clerk Supply C, the highest typical supply clerk
position, is typically rated at level 2 for this factor while a typical Technician B is rated
at level 3. She argued that there was no basis for placing the grievor at the same level as
the illustrative classifications for a level 4 rating, which include a Nurse and a Secretary
C, which she described as an executive assistant's role.
Most of the grievor's duties fit comfortably within the level 3 definition in that he
breaks down the facts and components of a problem situation. Once the relevant facts
have been identified these essentially determine the action he will take, which in many
instances involves reporting the matter to someone else to address the situation.
The area where the grievor exercises the greatest degree of judgement is with
respect to the quality of product delivered to the ICC as well as with proteins returned
from labs. As noted in the employer's PDF the grievor may receive back some thawed
salmon fillets and must decide if they are still reusable and, if so, for how long they will
keep. There is clearly some degree of analysis involved. The extent of the analysis,
however, appears to be limited to deciding whether a product is clearly safe to use, since
otherwise it will normally be discarded. Once financial considerations also come into
play, such as when a large volume of product is involved or an expensive item, the
matter is referred to Ms. Chatterpaul for a decision.
On balance we are not satisfied that the grievor's job duties involve a considerable
degree of judgement or that problem-solving involves the use of analytical techniques.
46
Problem solving is better described as identifYing and breaking down the facts and
components of a problem situation.
In the result we affirm the level 3 rating assigned by the employer.
Motor Skills
This factor measures the fine motor movements necessary to fulfill the
requirements of a position. It considers dexterity, complexity, co-ordination and speed.
The employer rated this factor at level C-3, which is worth 25 points. The union
rated it at level C-4 worth 28 points. A C rating reflects the nature of the motor skills set
out below. A level 3 rating reflects a prevalence of this type of fine motor movement 31
to 60% of the time. A level 4 rating applies when the prevalence is more than 60% of
the time.
C Complex fine motor movement involving considerable dexterity, co-
ordination and precision is required. Speed is a secondary consideration.
C-3 Clerk General C; Programmer A, B; SSO A
C-4 Switchboard Operator, Programmer C
In its PDF the employer indicated that the grievor spends 54% of his time engaged
in fme motor movements when cutting product down to size from larger original
weights, packing delicate food items including fresh quail eggs, stacking products in
appropriate storage areas and helping with related paperwork. Mr. Chatterpaul indicated
that in his view the employer's PDF considerably overstates the amount of time
involved.
The union's proposed PDF suggests that the grievor spends 10% of his time
engaged in fine motor movements when keyboarding and another 40% when using
knives and other food preparation equipment. In response to questions from employer
counsel the grievor agreed that he does not actually spend 10% of his time on
keyboarding. He also indicated that the reference in the union's PDF to food
preparation equipment was to equipment he had used in 1987 when working with Mr.
Fitzpatrick during the faculty strike. The grievor did, however, say that he uses fine
motor movements when using a knife or meat saw to cut product into portions for
demonstrations. At other points in his evidence he referred to cutting crab meat combo
from a larger block and cutting a small amount of strip loin off a larger piece. The
grievor also listed walking on an icy floor in a freezer and lifting products as being
47
related to motor skills. He initially indicated that some days he could be involved with
fine motor skills for 40% of a shift. Subsequently, however, he agreed with employer
counsel that it was fair to say that little work in the ICC requires fine motor movements.
Counsel for the union argued that a C-4 rating is appropriate given the grievor's
involvement with knives and meat saws, his keyboarding duties and his role in filling
requisitions with specific weights, amounts and products and thawing frozen product. It
is, however, apparent that the 54% figure used in the employer's PDF represents the
maximum amount of time that the grievor might use fine motor movements. This is
below the 60% prevalence level required for a level 4 rating. Accordingly we confirm
C- 3 as the proper rating.
Sensory Demand
This factor measures demand on mental energy while performing tasks.
Consideration is given to the level or degree of concentration and the frequency of the
requirement for careful attention to detail and accuracy. The employer rated this factor
at level 2, which is worth 16 points. The union argues for a level 3 rating worth 28
points. The definitions for these levels as well as the associated illustrative
classifications are as follows:
2. Job duties require moderate visual, auditory, or sensory demand on
mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy.
OR
Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on
mental energy and periodic careful attention to detail and accuracy.
Clerk General A, B; food Service Worker A, B, C; Stationary Engineer A, B, C
3. Job duties require moderate visual, auditory, or sensory demand on
mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy.
OR
Job duties require considerable visual, auditory or sensory demand on
mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and
accuracy.
OR
Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on
mental energy and periodic careful attention to detail and accuracy.
accuracy.
48
Clerk General C; Early Childhood Education Worker; Nurse; Secretary A, B, C;
Skilled Trades Worker; Support Services Officer A, B, C, D; Technologist A, B, C.
The employer's PDF states that the grievor encounters visual strain while straining
to read handwritten requests and that he "must constantly be aware of being precise
when issuing out products, so as not to over or under issue products". The PDF goes on
to state that for 20% of the time the grievor experiences concentration and visual strain
when reading orders. It records that for 20% of the time he employs mental energy in
filling orders, although beside this someone has written "80%" and the total time
involved for these two tasks is shown as being 100%. The PDF proposed by the union
states that the grievor requires concentration to ensure quality and accurate amounts;
concentration and attention to detail "with respect to sensory evaluation to ensure high
quality of service to customers" as well as concentration and focus when interpreting
computer print-outs and requisitions. The document goes on to state that the grievor
spends 30% of his time concentrating on visual and verbal requests.
When giving his evidence Mr. Chatterpaul contended that the grievor does not need
to interpret requisitions, just to follow them. He noted that most requisitions are now
computerized and few are handwritten. Mr. Chatterpaul initially adopted the 30% figure
contained in the union's proposed PDF respecting when the grievor needs to
concentrate. When subsequently shown the employer's PDF by counsel for the
employer, however, he adopted the 20% figure as representing the amount of time
involved in concentration and visual strain reading orders. Employer counsel
subsequently asked Mr. Chatterpaul which estimate he preferred, the 20% or 30%
figure. He replied that he preferred 200/0 since requisitions are fairly standard and
cyclical and become repetitive and routine. He indicated that because of this in his view
the grievor does not need to concentrate on requisitions.
In response to a series of questions from union counsel Mr. Chatterpaul agreed that
the grievor visually inspects products and depending on the product he might smell or
touch it for firmness. He also agreed that the grievor checks to ensure that the flesh of
fish is firm, the eyes are clear and the gills are red and the fish do not smell bad. Mr.
Chatterpaul agreed with union counsel that the grievor smells bones to ensure they are
fresh and checks their coloration. Mr. Chatterpaul acknowledged that the grievor also
checks poultry, beef, shellfish, bananas and lettuce.
Counsel for the union contended that the grievor's functions require a lot of sensory
demand right across the chain of his duties. Counsel for the employer argued that the
most accurate description is that the grievor's duties require moderate demand on mental
energy and occasional careful attention to detail. She referred to Mr. Chatterpaul's
evidence which she contended indicated that the grievor's duties require concentration
49
and attention to detail for 20% of the time. She argued that if the union's estimate about
the grievor spending 30% of his time concentrating is correct then this would involve
occasional as opposed to frequent concentration.
A chart set out in the job evaluation manual emphasizes that there are two aspects
of measuring this factor, namely the level of concentration (moderate, considerable or
extensive) and the frequency of the need for careful attention to detail and accuracy
(periodic, occasional or frequent) and that these need to be assessed separately in order
to reach a fmal rating.
The grievor must concentrate when examining produce, reading requisitions and
portioning food, such as cutting off a piece of meat for use in a demonstration. When
performing these tasks he must also pay close attention to detail and accuracy. In our
view these functions require something more than a moderate visual or sensory demand
on mental energy but it would be overstating the matter to say they require extensive
concentration. Accordingly, we conclude that some job duties require considerable
visual or sensory demand on mental energy.
In terms of frequency it appears that the grievor is required to pay careful attention
to detail and accuracy for some 20 to 30% of the time. We view this as falling short of a
level that can reasonably be described as frequent. The term "periodic" is open to a
number of interpretations. It is apparent, however, that for the purposes of the job
evaluation manual the term refers to something that happens every now and then and
less frequently than what the manual describes as "occasional". In this context we
conclude that the grievor's job duties require considerable visual or sensory demand on
mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy, a combination that
warrants the level 3 rating argued for by the union.
Independent Action
This factor measures the independence of action and decisions required by a job.
The job evaluation manual notes that controls can be in the form of supervision, policies,
procedures or established practices. The employer contends that a level 2 rating worth
19 points is appropriate for this factor. The union seeks a level 4 rating worth 46 points.
The relevant level definitions and illustrative classifications for these as well as the
intervening level 3 rating worth 33 points are as follows:
2. Job duties are performed in accordance with established practices
under regular supervision, with the Supervisor monitoring
progress. There is limited freedom to act independently.
50
Clerk General B; Security Guard; Technician A
3. Job duties are performed in accordance with general procedures
and past practices under periodic supervision, with occasional
periods of Supervisor input or verification. There is moderate
freedom to act independently.
Clerk General C, D; General Maintenance Worker; Microcomputer Operator B;
Secretary A, B
4. Job duties are performed in accordance with procedures and past
practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular
situations and/or problems. There is considerable freedom to act
independently with Supervisor input or verification when
requested.
Library Technician B; Secretary C; SSO A, B; Technician C; Technologist B
That part of the union's proposed PDF which addresses this factor lists certain
documents that it contends the grievor refers to, including academic regulations and
culinary manuals, but which the grievor's evidence indicates he does not actually use.
The grievor said that he refers regularly to a Sanitation Code that was issued in 1993 by
the Canadian Restaurant and F oodservices Association, a copy of which was provided to
him by Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Chatterpaul said that he had not previously seen this
document but if the grievor uses it that is a good thing. The employer's PDF indicates
that the grievor refers to a National Sanitation Code of Canada on a daily basis. Mr.
Chatterpaul indicated that such a Code is not in fact used in the ICC.
A document referred to several times during the hearing was the Operations and
Logistics Handbook. Mr. Chatterpaul testified that in September 2005 each staff
member in the ICC was provided with a copy of the handbook. The handbook covers
some of the functions performed by the grievor as well as the safe handling of food.
Because of his knowledge the grievor does not actually need to refer to the document
when performing his duties. The grievor noted that he was asked questions by Ms.
Florio and Ms. Douglas when they were preparing the handbook. He indicated that he
had felt upset that he was not more involved in its preparation.
Extensive evidence was led touching on the grievor's involvement with Mr.
Chatterpaul and others in the ICC. Much of that evidence is touched on above. It
indicates that the grievor refers issues such as price discrepancies and a low fridge
51
temperature to someone else. The grievor, can, however, reject faulty product on his
own initiative although after doing so he will advise Mr. Chatterpaul of what he has
done. Except for large quantities or expensive items the grievor on his own decides
whether or not to discard product returned from labs. He puts items on food carts
without any direct supervision.
,Mr. Chatterpaul testified that he has an office that is attached to the ICC. He said
that over the course of a day he has many conversations with the grievor about what is
happening, just as he does with other staff. He also said that he checks the grievor's
work regularly and not by exception. In this regard he indicated that he checks that
proteins have been placed on the wagons and that the grievor's work area is tidy and
organized.
Counsel for the union contended that the grievor's duties fall squarely at level 4.
He submitted that the grievor ensures that the right product, the right quantity in the
right state is delivered and then stores it deciding where and how it is placed. He noted
that the grievor can decide to return product and also decide how to defrost an item.
Union counsel submitted that the grievor independently fills requisitions and decides on
the re-usability of product. He acknowledged that the grievor refers issues related to
expensive or high volume items to Mr. Chatterpaul and also discusses certain other
matters with him but contended that these situations fit the level 4 reference to
supervisor input or verification when requested.
Counsel for the employer contended that the grievor makes decisions with respect
to matters that are part of his routine but when he encounters anything that is not routine
he raises it with Mr. Chatterpaul for direction. She submitted that Mr. Chatterpaul
checks the grievor's work regularly and not by exception. She argued that Mr.
Chatterpaul checks the quantity and quality of what the grievor has received (a
contention not supported by the evidence) and also checks on whether protein
requisitions have been completed appropriately.
Level 4 clearly does not describe the grievor's situation. He is not free to adapt and
modifY procedures and past practices. Instead he raises matters that are out of the
ordinary with Mr. Chatterpaul. The level 4 criteria indicate that there will be supervisor
input or verification on request. The grievor, however, is expected to routinely raise a
host of issues with Mr. Chatterpaul.
In our view a level 2 rating is also not appropriate. Although some of the grievor's
duties fit within the criteria for a level 2 rating he is on a regular basis expected to make
some decisions on his own. While he advises Mr. Chatterpaul about returned deliveries,
including those returned because of poor quality, he is not required to seek Mr.
Chatterpaul's approval. The grievor is required to seek Mr. Chatterpaul' s input before
52
deciding not to utilize high volume or expensive returns from labs but otherwise he
makes decisions about proteins returned from labs on his own. Mr. Chatterpaul testified
that he checks to ensure that proteins have been placed on wagons. The evidence does
not, however, suggest that Mr. Chatterpaul actually checks the detailed products and
amounts on the wagons against the requisitions or that he checks to ensure that the
grievor has properly thawed frozen items.
Given these considerations, we conclude that the grievor has moderate freedom to
act independently and that a level 3 rating is appropriate.
Communications/Contacts
This factor measures the requirement for effective communication for the purpose
of providing advice, explanation, influencing others, and/or reaching agreement.
The employer rated this factor at level 2 worth 52 points. The union contends that
the appropriate rating is level 3 worth 88 points. The definitions for these levels and the
related illustrative classifications are as follows:
2. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing
detailed explanations, clarification, and interpretation of data or
information. There may be need to empathize with and understand
the needs of others in order to handle problems or complaints.
Occasional involvement with confidential information which has
minor disclosure implications
Clerk General B, C; Programmer A, B; Secretary A, B; Skilled Trades Worker
3. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing
guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, or for
the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures,
policy or theory. There may be a need to promote participation and
understanding and to secure co-operation in order to respond to
problems or situations of a sensitive nature. Regular involvement
with confidential information which has moderate disclosure
implications.
Clerk General 0; Library Technician A; Secretary C; SSO A, B; Technician B, C
53
Counsel for the union argued that the grievor provides communication for the
purpose of providing guidance and advice to others in the ICC with respect to proteins.
This is an argument that we have already rejected. Union counsel noted that the grievor
provides suggestions to chefs with respect to substitutions and submitted that he
regularly deals with chefs with respect to shortages and other problems. He argued that
the grievor handles confidential information with respect to companies that make
deliveries to the ICC and the prices that they charge. As noted by employer counsel,
however, no evidence was led to establish that this information is actually confidential.
The evidence establishes that the grievor regularly provides information to others.
We are satisfied, however, that he does not provide guidance or technical advice to
others or explain matters to others by interpreting procedures, policy or theory. A level
2 rating is appropriate.
Our colleague Ms. Murray has informed us that she views the nature of the
grievor's contacts as the same as those for other technicians in the ICC and accordingly
they should all be rated the same, namely at level 3. This is the rating associated with a
typical Technician B or Technician C position, both being illustrative classifications for
a level 3 rating. Ms. Murray basis her view, in part, on the almost identical wording of
the entries respecting to the factor of communications/contacts in the PDF for the
grievor's position and in the purported PDF advanced by the employer with respect to
Mr. Fitzpatrick's position (Exhibit 27).
When giving his evidence Mr. Fitzpatrick referred to the PDF for his position. This
document forms part of Exhibit 26. He said that he received this PDF late in 2000 when
he was advised that he was now a continuing education technician reporting to Ms.
Susan Horne. He said that he remained in this role until Hospitality resumed control
over continuing education courses. The PDF in question expressly refers to Mr.
Fitzpatrick by name and describes his position as that of a Technician C at payband 9. It
is signed by both Mr. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Horne. Attached to the PDF and also forming
part of Exhibit 26 is a form that can be used to list ratings for the twelve job factors. No
ratings, however, are recorded. Instead the term "Guidecharted" is written across the
form. There is also a notation that the position had been evaluated by a "SS Classific.
Committee". These entries indicate that instead of core point rating the twelve job
factors the classification committee determined that the position was that of a
Technician C on the basis of the guide chart for that classification.
Part II of the job evaluation manual indicates that once the appropriate job family
has been determined for a position an attempt should be made to classifY the position
using the guide charts for that family. After noting that a rater should locate the relevant
guide charts and review the applicable PDF the manual goes on to provide as follows
54
that the position should be classified, if possible, on the basis of the summary of
responsibility and typical duties set out in a guide chart:
c) Compare the information in the PDF to the "Summary of Responsibility"
and "Typical Duties" criteria outlined on the guide charts for each
classification. This process must be followed for each of the classifications
contained in the job family that has been assigned to the position.
d) Select the classification whose "Summary of Responsibility" and "Typical
Duties" best describes the duties and responsibilities of the position being
evaluated. In some cases, the duties and responsibilities of the position will
not clearly match the information listed in the guide chart( s). If this occurs,
use the "principle of core theory" (i.e. the predominant or central duties)
and determine the classification's "Summary of Responsibility" and
"Typical Duties" that best describes the position.
e) If there still is no match to any of the classification levels, then the position
must be evaluated using the core point rating plan.
f) Compare the remaining "Evaluation criteria" found in the guide chart with
the information in the PDF for each factor.
g) If you determine that the guidechart "is a close approximate" to the PDF
then the position is assigned that classification.
Exhibit 27, the purported new PDF for Mr. Fitzpatrick's position, does not refer to
Mr. Fitzpatrick by name. It also describes the position referred to in the document in an
unusual manner, namely "Position title: Technician B Classification: Tec C". It states
that the payband for the position is payband 9, which is the payband associated with a
Technician C. A Technician B is at payband 8. There was no indication on the
document whether the position was guide chartered or core point rated in order to assign
payband 9. The document is not dated. It is also not signed by Mr. Fitzpatrick or by
anyone on behalf of management.
Mr. Chatterpaul testified that he did not prepare Exhibit 27. He said, however, that
it is more accurate than the PDF dated December 2000 and he had used it "last year"
when doing a review of Mr. Fitzpatrick's performance. He also said that he would have
provided Mr. Fitzpatrick with a copy of the document. Later in his evidence Mr.
Chatterpaul said that he was certain he had provided a copy to Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr.
Fitzpatrick, however, testified that he had not received a copy of the document. He said
55
that the fIrst time he saw it was at the hearing and if he had seen it before he would have
signed it.
In light of Mr. Fitzpatrick's evidence and the lack of any signatures on Exhibit 27
we conclude that the only formal PDF for Mr. Fitzpatrick's position is the one dated
December 2000. Exhibit 27 appears not to have any formal status.
The communications/contacts entry in Exhibit 27 differs substantially from the
entry in Mr. Fitzpatrick's December 2000 PDF. As noted above, however, Exhibit 27 is
almost identically worded to the communications/contacts entry in the PDF for the
grievor's position. Below a direction on the form to "describe the nature of contact and
purpose involved in communicating information (i.e. to provide advise, explanation,
negotiate or influence others to reach agreement, etc.) and the confidentiality of the
information involved" both documents set out the following chart:
Nature of Contact
Written and verbal communication
with Technicians
Written and verbal communication
with Faculty
Written and verbal communication
with Receivers / ICC (The grievor's
PDF omits the reference to the ICC.)
Written and verbal communication
with Students
Written and verbal communication
with Caterers
Written and verbal communication
with Cleaners
Written and verbal communication
with Transportation Department
Written and verbal communication
with Suppliers
Purpose
product location,
additions, identification
Frequency
D
additions, returns
D
delivery , pick-up
D
product, staff, location
D
delivery information
D
delivery information
D
pick-ups and delivery
D
answering phone and
helping to place orders
D
56
Written and verbal communication
with Drivers
checking product delivery
D
Written and verbal communication
with Outside Suppliers
shopping for special items
W
The oral evidence respecting the grievor's involvement with the individuals listed
in the chart is discussed above. It is apparent from the evidence that the entries in the
chart do not in fact encompass all of Mr. Fitzpatrick's communication responsibilities.
No evidence was led with respect to a PDF (or PDFs) that relate to the Technician
B positions in the ICC. This included no evidence respecting any entries for the factor
of communications/contacts and no evidence about whether the Technician B
classifications were determined based on the guide chart for the Technician B
classification or by core point rating the positions.
Having reviewed the various considerations referred to above, we do not view the
similar wording in the grievor's PDF and in Exhibit 27 as impacting on the issue of the
appropriate core point rating for the factor of communications/contacts for the grievor's
position. We do not know what ratings would actually result from core point rating the
Technician B and C positions. Further, whatever the ratings, they would not be
determinative of the appropriate rating for the grievor's position. His position is an
unusual one that can only meaningfully be evaluated by using the core point rating
method. When employing this method his communications responsibilities meet the
criteria for a level 2 but not a level 3 rating.
Responsibility for Decisions and Actions
This factor measures the impact on internal and public relations, the responsibility
for information management, equipment, assets and records, and the consequences of
decisions and/or actions.
The employer rated this factor at level 3 worth 44 points. The union contends that a
level 4 rating worth 62 points is more appropriate. The criteria and illustrative
classifications for these ratings are as follows:
3 Decisions and/or actions have moderate impact on the organization.
Errors are usually detected by verification and review and may result
in disruption of the workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited
waste or resources.
57
Clerk General C, D; General Maintenance Worker; Reproduction Equipment
Operator B, C; Secretary B, C
4. Decisions and/or actions have considerable impact on the
organization. Errors are detected after the fact and may result in
considerable interruption and delay in work output and waste of
resources.
ECE Worker; Stationary Engineer C; SSO B, C; Technologist B, C
The union in its proposed PDF and the grievor in his evidence suggested that
serious financial ramifications could result from errors made by the grievor. An error on
the part of the grievor could result in food wastage. If he failed to notice a price
discrepancy that was also missed by others it could result in a higher than necessary
expense. It seems unlikely, however, that any financial fallout from an error on the part
of the grievor would result in a considerable waste of resources.
In response to a question from union counsel, Mr. Chatterpaul agreed that if
because of an error a group of students did not receive the right product this could
impact on their satisfaction. Mr. Chatterpaul also noted that the chef involved would
become irate. Union counsel contended that should the grievor accept a wrong product
or an unsuitable product it would cause a considerable interruption. An error of this type
could presumably result in the disruption of a class, perhaps even the need to reschedule
the class, together with a waste of some resources. It would not, however, likely result
in either a considerable interruption and delay in work output or a considerable waste of
resources.
Mr. Chatterpaul agreed with union counsel that should the grievor issue a partially
thawed product it could create a problem should a student try to cut it. In response to
questions from union counsel Mr. Chatterpaul acknowledged that if chicken breasts
were delivered at the wrong temperature and the grievor put them in a fridge rather than
returning them they might end up being dispensed. He also agreed that if a food cart
was not built properly cross-contamination could result. In addition, Mr. Chatterpaul
agreed that if the grievor made an error in deciding that returned product could be reused
someone might subsequently consume it. Mr. Chatterpaul further acknowledged that
should a student or a patron of the College's dining room or retail store became ill from
eating a contaminated product this would impact on the College's reputation and
potentially give rise to a liability issue.
In his final submissions union counsel relied heavily on the possibility of
contaminated food being consumed as a result of an error on the part of the grievor. He
58
argued that this would impact on the reputation of the school and raise liability issues.
Employer counsel submitted that such a risk was remote. She also argued that if the
grievor failed to detect that product returned from a lab had spoiled and reissued it this
might involve a performance issue. She submitted that one must keep separate the
consequences of an employee's performance and their responsibility level. She said that
the fact a caretaker might fail to put out a wet floor sign after mopping a floor and
someone slipped and was hurt does not serve to raise a caretaker to payband 10. She
also contended that one example of food poisoning would not have more than a
moderate impact on the employer and its reputation.
The factor of responsibility is designed to measure the impact of decisions and
actions on the part of an employee. It expressly includes the impact of any errors.
Accordingly, a potential error cannot simply be viewed as a performance issue. The
logical approach to this factor, however, is to assess the impact of a potential error and
not to assume that an employee will make repeated errors. The possibility that
contaminated proteins might be dispensed due to an error on the part of the grievor is a
real one. Any food poisoning as a result of someone consuming food prepared at the
College would have a negative impact, including from a public relations perspective. It
seems unlikely, however, that a single error on the part of the grievor would have a
considerable impact on the organization. It is not obvious that it would result in a
considerable interruption and delay in work output or a considerable waste of resources.
In the result we confirm the level 3 rating given by the employer.
PART VII - CONCLUSION
The employer's rating of the grievor's position resulted in a total of 470 points.
The additional 12 points that result from our finding that level 3 is appropriate for the
factor of sensory demand and the additional 14 points associated with our conclusion
that a level 3 rating is appropriate for the factor of independent action raise the total to
496 points. This is still within the range covered by payband 7.
We find that the grievor's position is appropriately rated as that of an Atypical
Technician at payband 7.
) .
Dated this 20th day of November 2006.
59
"Ron Hubert"
Employer Nominee
!
, 4
Dissent (Mike McDonald)
With all due respect, this member must dissent from the JIUYority.
While I appreciate the fact that counsel and the Union took an approach that
attempted to cover all eventualities~ it is the function of this panel to apply
the classification system to the evidence. I have a fundamental difficulty
with the approach taken by the majority. Resorting to core point rating
without first establishing a comparison of assigned duties to those similarly
situated in established ''job family'~ is a misinterpretation of classification
procedure. The others in the deparbnent are predominantly 'lechnicians~~.
Ignoring the value and core duties assigned by the employer to the duties of
the technicians in favour of a core point rating defeats the overall objective
of ensuring that the pay band relationships are established. To quote the
guidelines, "Quite simply, the predominant central duties of the position
should determine the Job Family~~. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr.
McDonald performs the same core duties as the other technicians. The real
problem here is the application of the definition of ''technicians'~ versus the
work these people do. It is a difficult task to equate the language of the job
family of technician with the work in the ICC. However, this is the "family~~
the employer uses when compensating the work and thus this panel is
compelled to apply the application in a fair and consistent mmmer. Preparing
food items, filling and stocking the labs, classes and kitchens thru
requisitions and experience, form the central core duties, common to all.
Almost all the technicians and technologists share in the receiving work with
the grievor. There may be some "duties" that differ between he and the
others, but there is no doubt he posses and must use the same
.
- ,
,
communication skills and faces the same levels of complexity as the other
technicians.
Mr. McDonald has been authorized to oversee one of the areas that carry the
most risk to the organization as his food preparation duties include the
maintenance and preparation of highly sensitive proteins. An overripe
banana makes good bread. An overripe shrimp, if eaten can kill you. The
points awarded in this case do not accurately reflect the risk. In the
alternative:- if this position is accurately rated "atypical:>:>:> this "risk:>' element
should have given the grievor an "on par" rating with the technician "B~'
llllder the factor "complexity".
Likewise, "communication'" should have attracted the same points as
awarded technician "B". Despite the flaws in exhibit 27 and the
contradictory evidence of the witnesses with regards to this exhibi~ the
reality is that Mr. McDonald communicates at precisely the same levels with
exactly the same contacts and frequency, depth and breadth as the other
technicians. This element of communication is crucial to the delivery of
'"
service in a team environment. Despite the evidence of the Supervisor, and
his attempts to downplay the requirements of the grievor, it was quite clear
that the grievor has the same and in some respects more interaction with
some of the faculty, other technicians and technologists and everyone else
the technicians communicate with.
While the employer as an educational provider prefers that the grievor
posses the level of education required, the on-the -job training has equaled if
not surpassed the requirement. This employer would be hard pressed to
.
-.J \ ...
replace this grievor with someone who did not have the experience this
grievor brings to the job. While this award credits the grievor with the
"experience~~ it falls short of acknowledging the education and training this
grievor has gleaned on "O-J- T~.
This is a classic and positive example of an organizational structure that has
shifted to a ~~seamless, team approach" to enhance the service 10 the
customer. This is also a prime example of the employer refusing to pay for
that direction by minimizing the impact on the workers who are charged
with implementing that shift.
In summary:> the evidence confirms that the grievor"s duties and
responsibilities should be monetarily compensated at the level of a
technician "B~n and this member would so find.
All of which is respectfully submitted, Sherril Murray
~
.,
""
College: (~0C
ARBITRATION DATA SHEET. SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION
~pervisor:
Present Ciassification:
Job !=amily and Payband ReQu sted by Grievor:
1 .
position Description Form Attached
2.
o The parries agree on the contents of the attached Position Description Form
, OR
o The Union disagrees with the contents of the attached Position Description Form. The specific details of this'
disagreement are as follows;
luse reverse side it necessary)
AWARD
FACTORS
UNION
Level Poinn
4. Jud ement
5. Motor Skills
6. Physical Demand
7. Sensor Demand
8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
9. Inde endent Action
" O. Communications/Contacts
1 1. Responsibilit for Decisions/Actions .
12. Work. Environment
PAYBAND/TOTAL POINTS
JOB CLASSIFICATION
ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
The Union
o The College
,
. FOR MANAGEMENT
I
ID"'I~
, \~)
~. ,\ 'I
( " 'Y7"
~. ,'.
ty)lI t/
/' !'f \"\
\J"
iliatel ,College RepresentaTivel
l.QleJ" )r".C.:?',
fOate) , '- ....-"
FOR ARBITRATOR'S USE:
---- ~ ~~~
I/"roll..i'~s.g :ure) I
13 P;&l '/5 8,L=-rw'/-pV
IJ'l.t1I<< ~ .)3 '0 )" of" J:. ). \./ (J.'o J. 110 v. ;J tJ ;<00 t!
IDale 0' He"nng) I IDale 0: Awardl /
!;J:Pt'I'{f' /1 /k/9@
0::: /!i(/3IT/!;f7IC//V
93-12.09 b:d.cunecl,1c;c:
I
,I
I
I
.J