HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-0078.Farmer et al.77-06-1678176
CROWN EMPLOYEES 416/964 6426
GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT
EOARD
Suite 405
77 BZoor Skeet ?est
~~O.FO~~TO, &ta~io
?.I.% 1 K?
IN THE,MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under The
CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AC7
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearinq:
Mr. K. Farmer et al
And
Ministry of Transportation and Connnunications
D. M. Beatty Chairman
Andre Fortiler Member
Dan Anderson Member
N. Luczay - Classification Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
N. H. Pettifor
Staff Relations Supervisor
Personnel Branch
Transportation and Communications
May 16, 1977
Suite 405, 77 Bloor St. W.
Toronto, Ontario
In the grievances they filed with this Board Messrs.
K. Farmer, D. Underwood, J. Dougherty, 2. Kysenych, R. alack and
G. NcCutcheon, all presently employed in the Ministry of Transportation
and Comnunications' Central Region as Highway Construction Inspectors 3,
complained that, as such, they are improperly classified. After
listening to the evidence adduced to support their claim and the
arguments flowing therefrom this Board was of the opinion, for the 9
reasons which were discussed in more detail at the conclusion of the
hearing, that their grievance could not prevail. Succinctly, because
of the paucity of evidence which was put before us, this Board could
not, with any confidence, accept the proposition that the changes
that have admittedly taken place in the job duties of these employees
amounted to such a substantial qualitative change in their job
function as to affect the character and essence of their job. See
~Wlerally'Canadian Labour Arbitration Topic l/5:2410. Put somewhat
differently in the absence of any specific evidence describing, inter
alia, the skills and qualifications that are necessary to perform
their new and additional duties,:or the working conditions under which
they were rendered, there was simply no basis on which this Board
could question the employer's claim that these alterations in the
job function simply amounted to a re-allocation of existing duties
all of which fall within the present class standard.
However and for a variety of reasons this Board also
recommended that in the circumstances of this particular case and
in the interests of sound employee-employer relations,the parties
should undertake a fresh review, on the merits, of the changes that
3.
have occurred in this job function in order to determine whether a
reclassification is warranted. Specifically, because this Board was
not, for the reasons given, able to pass on the qualitative nature
of the changes that have evolved in the duties of a Highway Construction
Inspector, because at one time it would appear that the Civil Service
Comnissions did recomnend that a reclassification was in order and
because there was some evidence before us that the employer may have
rejected that recommendation, in part because the circumstances of
these employees were not materially different from other liighway
Construction Inspectors in other regions of the Province, this Board urged
parties that it might well be in their mutual best interests to thoroughly
review this matter de novo.
In light of that recommendation and for the reasons given
at the hearing, this grievance must be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 16th day of June 1977.
D. M. Beatty
Chairman
I concur
.Andre Fortier
Member
I concur
D. Anderson
Member