Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-0435.Charbonneau and Skomorowski.82-01-04IN Ttii !MATTER 9F AN AREITRATION Under The CROWI EMPLOYEES COLLECTi;!: 3ARGAI!!ING ACT Sefore 9etvieen: Eeiore: For tiie Griever: -- For the Emioyez: OPSEU (J. L. Charbonnea~~ and I. A. Skmorcaski) ?nd Grievers The Crowr: in Right of Ontario (?+inistry of the Environment) Expio:/et Professor ?I. 2. Gorsky \/ice-Chairnan Mr. 0. 6. Xiddieton rlember ?Is. M. F1. Pe:-rin Nember J. >. Ryder, Ccunsei Cameron, 3rewin and Scott Mr. R. Kennedy, Pzrscnnei Representative Ninistry of the Environment June 3, 7281 Jul:/ 30, 198' Both of the grievors were, at all material times, classified as Environmental Technicians 3 in the Ministry of the Environment and both of them grieve that they are improperly classified and request that they be reclassified as Environmental Technicians 4, effective May 1; 198.0. By agreement both grievances were heard at, the same time. The Environmental Technician series in the Ministry is composed of four levels. Progression from Environmental Technician 1 to 4 is based on "the consideration of four compensable factors:..<~; knowledge, contacts, judgement and accountability". The Class.Standard for the Environmental Technician series is set out in Bxhibit 3. Mr. Ryder acknowledged that under the provisions of the applicable statute: The Crown Cmoloyees Collective Bargaining Act, R.S.O. 1970, cap: 67, s.l7(1) (a) (now.R.S.0. 1980, cap.108 s.18(1) (a),)." . ..[I!t is the exclusive function of the Employer to;..determine, (a)..i..classification of positions,,...and such matters shall not...come within the jurisdicticn of a board." Accordingly, he acknowledged that the initial assignment : of an employee to a classification was the sole prerogative of the Employer. Article 5.1.1. of the collective agreement,which provides: "An emulovee who alleges that his position is improper 1-i~ classified may discuss,his claim with his immediate supervisor at any time, provided that such discussions shall not be taken into account in the application of the time limits set out in Article ii, Grievance Procedure. .An employee, however, s‘nali have t::e rig'nt to file a grievance in accordance with t:ie grievance prccedure, s;ecif-yinq in his ?rieva.nce kat classificaticn Lhe claims, ' 3 2 limits the employee's rights, when objecting to the classification procedure, to challenging his assignment to a particular position and he cannot challenge the system by which the classification of positions was established, nor the classifications created under the system. If the grievance is allowed the jurisdiction of the Board is limited by art. 5.1.2. to: ,1 . . . (a) conforming that the grievor is properly classified in an existing classification, or (b) finding that the grievor would be properly classified in the job classification which he claimed in his grievance." That is, the jurisdiction of the Board is restricted to a finding that the class to which the grievor has been allocated is the one he fits into (confirming the employer's decision) or finding that the griever's assessment of the class, which he should be in, is correct. The jurisdiction is declaratory only, and such declaration does not extend to a finding that neither declaration encompassed in art. 5.1.2. is appropriate, on the evidence adduced. In such a case there is no authority to make a declaration as to the correct classification to which the griever should have been assigned. In the case of the grievor, Charbonneau, he was initally employed by the Ministry (then the 'Department of Energy and xatural Resources) in 1971, and was in the Air~Monitoring Equipment, Physical-Lab 3 classification. In 1975 this classif- ication iias changed to the Environmental Technician series and ;Se sas Flacec? in the Bnvirocmental :.--.lilL--ci. 2 category. mlri-ir:-* :Z e $lrle-;eO . this classific ation and the matter was resolved by his then 'being classif 3 Xr. Charbonneau graduated from high school in 1957 with a junior matriculation diploma (less,French). He then served in the Canadian Air Foxce for five years where he was trained in electronic fire control systems for the interception of axcraft. In 1962 he joined the Canadian GeneraLElectric Company where he was, for a year, involved with the physical and electronic instalation of what became the Pine Tree Line. After travelling for a year in Europe,in 1963,he resumed employment with The Canadian General Electric Co. in its electric heating section where he was involved in setting up laboratory facilities and became a product specialist in the electric heating area. Xe remained with Then Canadian General Electric Co.until 1971, whenhe became an employee of the Gpvernment, as above described. From 1971 to 1975 his work responsibilities required him to perform 24 hour air monitoring functions at one or two air monitoring stations. He performed these functions using basic instruments and performed calibrations using calibration gases, and, as well, collected and validated data. tie described .: .,+. the operations which he carried out as "routine". During this period his activities were confined to what was referred to as the Central Fegion. Xr. Charjonneau testified that xhen the change was effected in 1979, brinqinq into being the Environmental Technician series, his duties, aa he put it,"rolled over". That is, the change in nonencalat-re 3i2 not ixmec:ately alter the ;ob f.:nctions wiich :he xas required to carr:' out. 4 In further describing his responsibilities, Mr. Charb.onneau stated that he did not have any significant contacts with the public, his involvement in that area.beinq restricted to contacts arising in cases where the monitoring stations were iocated on private property. 'At the time the instant grievance was filed his most important contacts tiers with the heads of engineering departments of public utilities. These contacts were relatively infrequent, taking place once or twice a year. He would also have contacts with the press when a new station was being established and he has served as a guide to visitors, including international visitors .with a special interest in the area of his expertise. His earlier (1971-S) duties, as he'described them, were mainly related to the'instalation, maintenance and servicing of stations. Reports, which he was required to prepare, were based upon the data collected by him and included ongoinq verbal recom- mentations for chanqe~s in station sites when they appeared to him to be inappropriately located, as where they were near property upon which construction~was being carried on. Mr. Charbonneau acknowledged that none of his reports have been published in trade or technical journals or in green cover pa?ers published by the !Yinistry, althouqh data gathered by him at the stations would be %cluded in the reports. i 5 In contrasting the kinds of equipment which he was required to use in 1975, with the equipment which he now operates, Mr~. Charbonneau referred to the earlier equipment as "basic", where wet chemical solutions were used in the- monitors, which solutions reacted,with polutants. Among his additional responsib- ilities was the changing of the solutions in the monitoring equipment, a procedure which he described as "very basic". He described his essential function in 1975 as one of audifjng and generally looking after the field stations. He did, however, state that a significant change in the degree of sophistication in the monitoring equipment used by him started labout 1973". He described the introduction of more sophisticated monitoring equipment at that time as a gradual one. Exhibit 6 is the "Position Specification And Class Al-location Form" prepared by the Employer in 1975. It was the evidence of Nr. Charbonneau that the description contained in Exhibit 6 represents a basically accurate representation of the nature of his work between 1973 and 1975. It is the position of the griever, and this is what prompted his decision to file a grievance protesting his present classification, that he was now improperly classified as an %:T. 3 and should be properly classified as an 2.T. 4. The impetus for his descision ;las lhis coiclusion that the nature of his duties, as reflected in Exhibit 6, were, i:: 1950, significantly different and iiere more properly within the E.T. 4 classification. It was !4r. Chazbonneau I 5 evidence t:7at t:ne nature of his dilties and res?onrlbilities, 3s they exist& iz l9ao a:* accurately reflecte2 in E:<hi’~it 4, rgj-lic+, is r;?e =‘;rren: “?*sition 6 Specification And Class Allocation Form" effective from July 1, 1980. c .It was, acknowledged by the parties that Exhibit 4 was intended to apply to both qrievors. The language in box 3 of that Exhibit "Sunmary of Duties and Responsibilities" which applies only to Mr. Skomorowski, is underlined in paragraphs 1 to 3,both inclusive. The porti ons of those paragraphs of box 3 not underlined, apply only to Mr. Charbonneau. Paragraph 4 applies only to Mr. Charbonneau and paragraph 5 applies to both of them. It was Mr. Charbonneau's evidence that Exhibit 4 discloses the changes in h'is job duties and responsibilities as they occurred,principally between 1975 and 1980. Cxhibit 6 describes the job was it existed from 1973 to 1975, and Exhibit 4 describes it as it existed in 1980 and, specifically, at the time the grievance was filed. It was the qrievor's position that the changes incomplexity and sophistication in the equipment and processes for which he~was responsible can be traced back to 1973. Be testified that from 19i3 onward the introduction of new and more sophisticated air monitoring equipment required a different set up in the stations housing this equipment. For this set up,the qrievor was personally responsible. This responsibility continued to expand so that he now looks after the complete establish- ment of a station once a decision to establish it has been made, vith some iz~ut from the qrievor, .by an E.T. 4 and by an Air Quality An21’iStr the latter being a manaqement positlon. As the qrievor 7 grown to 'the point where it took uo approximately 90% of his time when the grievance was filed. Involved in bringing the site I'on air" are: (a) Effecting necessary changes. to existing structures which are not subject to standardized specifications. ,~Z. (bl Communications with owners, if t. he site is privately owned. (c) Evaluating problems relating to heat loss and effecting alterations necessary to reduce them. (d) Insuring the security of the site. (e) ,Dealing with problems of acc~essibility. (f) Arranging for construction on the site, if there are no existinc structures. (g) Some stations dare trailers and the grievor is responsible for passing on the trailers to see that they meet specifications. The griever also has a role to play in the designing of specifications for trailers which must be modified by the manufacturers to accommodate the requirements of the Ministry. 'once he has received the specifications,it is his responsibility to "shop around" for the most suitable trailer and he may or may not check with supervision before making the final decision with respect to a trailer acquisition. (h) In the case where a building is on the>site and requires modification or where a new bui1dir.g .is to be constructed on the site, :his resoonsibilities include the obtaining of estimates from contractors. In such cases he consults supervision riho is aware of 5.2 specifications and -xho could overrli1= :-.is conC1~~sion as to .dk.ak ougkt t3 5e icne, tut ho could not recall any instance.during the last year and a half where his recommendations had not been f'ollowed. The ultimate decision to make a purchase or enter into a building or renovation contract is that of the Purchasing Department which issues ,the purchase order. Once the decision is made to instal a station the grievor is not formally involved in the prccess of supervision, but does engage in some informal super- vision. (i) In the ,case where physical changes are to be made to recording equipment,the grievor's responsibilities include: (i) engaging the contractor. (ii) instructing the contractor as to what work he is to perform. (iii) -Arranging for the instalation, placement and support of instruments in order to avoid distortions in' the results obtained, caused by extraneous forms of interferences. (iv) keeping costs down through,the expedient of avoiding a multiplicity of manufacturers. T3.e grievpr testified that the consequences of error in carrying out his responsibilities were: 9 (b) In the case of's trailer proving unsuitable for the purposes for which it was intended,,, 'he costs to the 'Ministry could be as much as $8,000.00. The purchase price of a trailer, exclusive of instruments,is approximately $25,000.00. The griever has, for the past 3 or 4 years,heen primarily involved with' sites serviced by trailers. (cl In the case of a full station proving '&suitable for the purposes for which it was intended,the cost to the Ninistry could be as high as $125,000.00. The grievor claimed that his accountability was three or four times higher in 1980 than it had been in 1975 because the cost of equipment had risen by that amount over the period. In addition,the complexity of the equipment used at the time the grievance was filed xas so much greater than the equipment which was in use in 1975 that the result of improper operation created a far greater chance of harm. This was, in part, because the newer equipment, in addition to being much more complicated, measured a iarger number of pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide particulates, ozone, hydrocarbons, reactive hydrocarbons, NO and NON. The griever has also~had responsibility for the conduct of special surveys. Particular reference was made to such a .survey conducted in Whitby which related to the collection and recording of c?.ata concerninq hvdrocarbon and carbon moncxide levels. The res,s;lt of the project was presented in report form containing i.ztero-a'; 1-o cocme.ytar.,; _ _,kL_,_ i . The report wz.5 'belie-ied 'by t:he qrievor Another responsib referred to in his evidence, Ministry vehicles, insuring t 10 . . lity of the grievor, which he was forwarding accident reports for hat regular maintenhnce schedules were carried out and making recommendations for replacement of such vehicles. In comparing ,his duties and responsibilities as they existed between 1973 and 1975 and those which he carried out in June of 1980, the grievor submitted that there was clear evidence .".,. : _ _ of a progression from considerable direction in the instalation of stations and monitoring instruments to the reiative autonomy ~which he was given in perfroming those functions as evidenced in Exhibit 4. '"_ As par~t of his duties, the grievor is, from time to time required to supervise the work E.T. l's and two other E.T. 3's, who are Field Instrument Technicians. In comparing the knowledge factors in the xork he was required to perform between 1975 and 1980, the grievor testified that in 1980 he had to be much more aware of building and electrical codes and, as well, wit:? the complexities of new instrumentation than :J~S the case in 1375. In referring to new instruments,the grievor emphasized the ,-reater knowledge he 1 !:a6 to have of the ?roper method of operation of new instruments 11 The grievoralso referred to additional responsibilities arising out of the r'equirement that he: (1) record and furnish information as to wind speed direction, (2) make readings based upon much more complex arocedures than the high volume sample techniques which characterized the earlier period of his functioning in what was the E.T. 3 classification, (3) was required to become familiar with'the new procedures whereby readings were controlled by computers which advanced every hour, (4) was required to perform new and more technologically advanced calibration of equipment. He also referred to the increased responsibility brought about through the introduction of a central computer which was used to monitor the air poliution index, which computer recorded data at-five minute intervals. Mention was also made of the increased respon- sibility -brought about because.~of the growth of stations in the Central Region. The Central Region, to which the grievor is assigned, has three times as many major stations than the other five regions. A year prior to the grievance the griever instaled 10 or 11 major stations with a full complement of instruments. This '<as compared to one or two such instalations where a full range of instruments would not be instaled, in each of the other "egions In referring tc the change in the judgnent.factor involved in the,work he is responsible for and which he -performs, t:he griex;or testified that,whereas,he had been subject to some 5Ixzer::ision in carrying out his -<or!< in 1975, as the job ersgressed, he was, by the time the qrievazce was filed, f~xctioni~g, as :?e reqar,iel it, xitLi.out real supervision. .a.5 :le ;:ilt ibe, t::.e rea;O>Si5i;i:y :Qr SEfti?.,; "F an? vfrrTis:?.inc =+a': 0p.s 7,;a.s "211 _ ----- -.:--" 12 In referring to his work on special surveys, the qrievor contrasted the situation in 1975, which he characterized as one where he was subject to some supervision, to that at the time the grievance was filed,when he claimed to function entirely on his own. The second grievor, I.A. Skomorowski, graduated from high school in 1958 with a junior matriculation diploma. He then served in the Canadian Army for three years, working in the field of radio electronics. Subsequently,he graduated from a two year instrumentation process contra 1 course at Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology in Ottawa. Upon graduation,he secured,employment with the Taylor Instruments Company as an Engineering Technician working with control systems.' In 1968 he secured employment with the Government of Ontario. iiis initial responsibility was to service and maintain air monitoring instruments in the field and to collect routine data from the instruments established for that purpose. se described his responsibilities, as they existed in 1973, in the same way as did ?Ir. Charbonneau. .,~ In 1975, when regions were established by the Ninistry, he stated that his job became that of a specialist repairing complex eguipment. This development was the culmination of a situation w;hich had 'been' evolving between 1963 and 1975 and his Special ability with eguii;ment was being increasingly recognized by his superiors. Although he described his major involvement wit:? eq;uipent between 1953 and 197j as routine, he testified t>.at as the size of 552 monitoring network izcreaseC he com:encel Lo ?er_'orm mere tl~an routine repairs. a.5 he 2~t it, he ij*s f:~n;she< wit:: a free :-,:ar< to ~~?.cZert~i.e re;airs in t:ke s.:cp. 13 As an indication of the growth of the skills component associated with his job, the griever. stated that in the case of the newer,increasingly more sophisticated equipment being used by the Ministry, where repairs were required, only 20% had to be returned to the manufacturer from the Central Region, whereas the percentage return from the other regions was closer to 90%. As a further example, demonstrating the nature of the skills manifested by him in carrying out his job, he referred to the significant involvement which he had with counterparts and others from outside the Central Region, when he functioned as a consultant to advise and assist (a) in the calibration of equipment, (b) in furnishing information about where replacement parts might be obtained,and (c) where certain repair problems might be attended to. He emphasized that it was only on rare occasions that he might seek sbilar assistance from persons employed by the Ministry outside the Central Region. This was because exper.ience had demonstrated to him that if the was ilnable to deal with a problem, it was' highly,unlikely that he could be assisted by anyone else employed by the Ministry. In further describing his duties after 1975, Mr. Skomorowski stated that he became responsible for inventory COntrOl, the training of other employees in the use of instr?ments, whic:h training took place in the snap, the developnent,of instrument ooera'-:on 3rocedu-2s and the familia-4 vati.an of em-1ove2s from .--I _ i LA.. I - other regions, with new instr-nents. I n at?ition, +-her4 :-.is immectiate supervisor Xr. .~.~Cstin, S:~:epJ~sor, .>..ir yoy-,~tcri.lg :2~erat-i02s ani sn f.T. 4, iias abs2nt 07. l;acar_ig.q, t:-+e ,qrri2',.oz a:.? :.p- . C:?.a='5cnr.eas -,;.o:ll~ =c' 13 y,is st2a.i. 14 In Mr. Skomorowski's view, the notable changes in his job th~at occurred after 1975 concerned: (1) The complexity of analyzers which he was called upon to deal with, (2) New and more'complex methods of measuring pollutants, (3) Complexities caused by the introduction of micro-processors and the sheer volume of new and more complicated instruments with which he was required to become knowledgeable. (4) 'His being called upon, on a reqular basis, by persons in other regions, to advise,on the application and operation of equipment, particularly of new equipment. (5) Evaluating new equipment for potentia~l use by the Ministry. He estimated that he devoted between 40 and 503 of his time to this function at the time his grievance was filed. While he did not choose which new equipment was to be evaluated, he has been,since 1978, solely responsible for carrying out the evaluation procedures. Once he is advised that a piece of equipment is to be evaluated, he is responsible for making arrangements to acquire it for this purpose. Acquisition is obtained through purchase, loan or by the manufacturer furnishing a demonstration sample. Where it is necessary to secure the equipment throuqh ourchase, this is achieved by first obtaining the approval of 3. Singh, Manager, Technical Support, following which a purchase reauisition is for-darded to the ourchasing department. Thee price rxnqe for such eqiligment is axroximately S5,COO.OO for the simplest _ _ equipment to a~prc~imately SL2,030.31) ior eack?iece of 5e most complex eq>ui;ment. 15 When a piece of equipment arrives for evaluation, the griever, alone, evaluates the information contained in the advertised specifications. The tests and methods employed by him are, in part, 'predetermined by Air Re,sources. The balance are largely the product of the griever's own experience gained in the field and in the shop. After completing a test of equipment, the griever jrepares a report recommending for or against its purchase. The data set out in the report is the sole responsibility of the griever. After the griever's recommendations have been examined by D. Ogner, Chief, Air @uality Assessment, and Mr. F. Austin, Supervisor, Air Nonitorinq Operations, if Mr. Oqner concludes that the equipment ouqS,t to beg purchased, he will make a recommendation to this effect to his superior E"r. Sinqh, Manager, Technical Support. In this process the qrievor described Mr. Austin's role as "basically a rubber stamp" with Mr. Ogner giving the report a more detailed vetting, with the final decision being that of Mr. Singh. Mr. Skomorowski emphasized that because of the expertise acquired by him, his superiors must rely heavily on his judgementand his recommendations are almostlhever rejected on technical grounds. Mr. Skomorowski also testified that in carryinq out his responsibilities,he infreouentlv consulted with persons within the Xinistry, including supervisory personnel,~ in orSer to obtain assistance in either ser.Jicing or testing equipment. This was ‘because he found that he rarely cbtained information which was kelpful and which he couid not secure on his o51n. That is, accordincj to his evi,2ence, if ke Zi5 not know what to do ji i t b i n t"e 3r-35 of :p;is ex=er+-ise, t:-.er. np .*z=s .dnli‘<*ll- to ob:ain Il*e<>Jl 16 .: ~advice within the Ministry. .In such cases, where his own efforts were insufficient to solve a Rroblem, he found it necessary to seek assistance outside the Ministry from such sources as the manufact- urers ' representatives or engineers. In describing the approximately 50% of his work devoted to servicing field instruments in the shop! the griever stated that he was required to: (a) Repair defective parts. In describing his functioning in repairing equipment the qrievor stated that 70 to 75% of ~~~: his time, in this area, was being taken up with modular repair work, the balance of his repair function being involved with what he referred to as, repairs of a ,. mechanical nature. (b) Realign parts. (cl Calibrate equipment. (6) Cperate equipment in the shop to insure 'that the -problem which led to its being sent to the shop would not recur. The grievor, in addition to his other responsibilities, supervised the activities of several other technicians who were engaged in field work involving calibration of equipment and sampling checks,monitorinq ambient air quality. Whereas ?r jkomorowski did not supervise anyone in 1975, he now fre- quently supervises field personnel. The direct responsibility for suoervisinc 2'1 > --- Znviroxmentai Teclhnoloqists in the Technical Sii?port Section is vested in Xr. Austin. In '-is cr ass-examination, 3. Skomorowski described his su?er-b7ij,zry responsibilities as sizi12r to +cse 0: MT. Ct=rbo>>ezu. :-: e s 1 s 5 test;fieE ??a: he 31 yr. C>,a;'~op,neaT~ r,qoul~ jsmec_iTej fill iy. ;sr :~lr, austi2 i;hen Mr . .?:.csti.7. .,;a5 absep.t from wQr:<. . crsss-2xaminaticc, Se also stitec, :n 17 that his instruction of field technicians amounts to about one hour a week made up of, what he referred to as, the "message of the day" which usually related to the proper respdnse required when faced with a problem. In comparing the work performed by him at the time the grievance was filed, with that performed in 1975, the griever testified that: The knowledge and skills component had greatly increased: (a) as a result of the experience gained through working with increasingly sophisticated equipment, and (b) through the acquisition of formal traininq~obtained at night in a micro-compressor program. Cc) the additional experience gained through the supervision of employees, above referred to, added to the qrievor's knowledge which he applied to his job. Because of the increasing demands brought about by evolving technology and his periodic involvement in supervision, the qrievor, in 1978-9, at the request of Mr:':%istin, took a management training program offered by the University of Western Ontario in order to be better qualified for future promotion oaoortonitieq _ . _, and also took a number of short term technical courses. Because of the constantly increasing comolexitv of new equipment, often based upon what he referred to as electronic "spin-offs" from space technology, . ainc constantly evolvinc and XlOr2 So~~~istic~t~~ ;hySiczl labcratory .methols, he was required ts, and -'it , ,Zchieve a hi,qi*r level Of Skill ir. t;?e repair of rz.exfi eq'd:;mezt 18 In referring to the judgementcomponent of his job, the qrievor stated that he had the freedom, from 1978 onward, to decide what he should do in the shop in relation to a number of matters, including: (1) Material requirements, (21 The sub-contracting of repairs to outside firms, (3) Preparation of estimated budget requirements as they relate to air quality assessment. His estimates were passed on through the chain of cormnand in the Department. (3) .The decision wheth'er repairs of equipment could be effected in the shop or whether it was necessary to return the.equipment~ to the manufacturer for repairs. In referring to contacts, the qrievor related the follqy- ing examples: (1) He now deals with Peter Wong, the Head of the Instrument Unit, which was not the case prior to 1975. His dealings with Mr. Wong relate to the evaluation of new instruments. (2) His contacts outside the Ministry, prior to 1975, were restricted to attendances on salesmen. Subsequent to 1975 his contacts w%th manufacturers was expanded to inCl\lde: manuractorers' representatives, and na~ufsctc"~~5 ___ through t!ieir engineering departments. ~In'addition,he was part of the Pickering Nuclear Station Contingency Program , Eazzard Response Team, Technical Coordinating comittee, alonq with his supervisor, J,:r. Austin. :!r . A.usti.3 was t:he primary representative of the !.!i.nistry i;ith tL:.e $ZleVOr bei. the secor.? li.75 representative. It 'n'a5 t:Te qrie.,,or 3 5 ":,i;^e-'Ce t.'..st :.tr. Chcrhcn2ea~~ :<as 3150 a xerr.ber of t:ke Ccmittee, as t:? e -,>irs x;e ripresentative. The 19 qrievor also.referred to his having ,from 1979 to the time of the filing the qrievance,been an employee member of the x Employer-Employee Safety Committee. As well, the qrievor has acted as a consultant to the Federal Government counterpart of the Ministry in matters involving equipment . In such'cases the consultation is. received b.y the qrievor through Xr. Austin. It is in this way that the qrievoi responds to the request for advice sought. Mr. Don Ogner, Chief, Air Quality Assessment, who, supervises Mr. Austin, the Supervisor, Air Monitoring Operations, who in turn supervises the qrievors, '(See Exhibit 5) gave evidence .on behalf of the qrievors. Mr . Oqner is classified as a P.4.P. 19, which is a manaqement position. ,Mr . Austin is an 2.T. 4, which is a non-management position. It was Mr. Cqner who prepared Exhibit 6. Ae testiCied tha' i L the Special Surveys Technician classification recognized the need for specialized persons; .one to be responsible for in-house repair work to instruments. Such a person must be capable-of.diaqnostic and repair skills without significant support from the manufacturer. That is, the greater portion of trouble shooting and repair work should be capable of . . being performed in the shop. The position would also cali for stock keeping and equipment evaluation responsibilities. This is the position that came to be occupied by Xr. Skomorowski. The other position recuired the employee to be respon- sible for the instalation of eauiorrent at, najcr stations as well - _ as tie rnodificaticn of existinq stations ar.6 the instalation of equipment at s:2ch stati0r.s. T3.i 3 is t.25 ?osition that came to 'be occG?led fv c :7 2 r 5 0 n .? e a '3 . %r. ,.r 20 According to Mr. Ogner, prior to the reorganization above referred to, in 1975, no such specialized jobs existed. Subsequent to the creation of the new positions,it became clear to Mr. Ogner that relying on the four factors of: knowledge, judgement, accountability and contacts, he was of the opinion that the Special Surveys Technicians (the grievers) had ., much more demanding responsibilities than the Field Instrument -Technicians, who were also classified as E.T. 3's and that in his opinion the qrievors should have been properly classified as E.T. 4's. .??r . Oqner agreed that Exhibit 6 accurately described the jobs being performed by the grievers in 1975. In Mr. Oqner's opinion, as the jobs evolved subsequent'to 1975, there was a considerable evolution in the nature and quality of the work expected of the grievers and not only their work load. He supported Mr. Skomorowski's evaluation of the change in the technical complexity of his job as a Special Surveys Technician. Xe also supported Mr. Skomorowski's assessment of the increased knowledge, called 'for at the time the grievance was filed, as a result of . . . the incrasing complexity and sophistication of the equipment and the monitoring stations. Re also referred to the emergence of new safety measures which had to be taken in response to the changed conditions. :".r. Cqner also noted the increased responsibilities callizq for more frequent and .more serzsitix:e applications of ;utgemer.t in carrying out the job responsibilities of the qrievors -- 21 Iie attributed this development to.the fact that supervision had to increasingly rely on the expertise of the grievers, in large part because some of the problems coming to supervision were now being transferred to the grievors, which was not the.case in 1975. Mr. Ogner also testified that the scope of accountability of the grievors,had been considerably enlarged since 1975 and the consequences of error on their part was significantly greater. Because much of the work.they did was of a highly specialized nature, their supervisors had to accept the assessments prepared by the grievers and that such checking of their work as took place was largely based upon a reliance of the grievers' developing expertise. As he put it, details of the grievers' work iJ2re not closely checked by supervision. Mr . Ogner also supported the grievers' submissions re,iating to the growth of their outside contacts and the increasing recuirements imposed on them through the introduction of micro- electronic techniques and micro-processors and computers. In particular, he referred to the large difference between the 2xFertise expected of Mr. Skomorowski and the Field Instrument Technicians, -dho srere also classified a's 2.T. 3's. In referring to the equipment for which Mr. Skomorowski was responsible, Xr. Cqner.testified.,that the range of cost extended .:rom 510,OOO.OO to, in some cases, several hundred thousand doiiars. I?r . Oqner was of t:?e opinion t:~at ::r. Skomorowski had 22 ': experience in the field, do not have the same responsibility for deciding when a piece of equipment could be put in the field as did Mr. Skomorowski. Mr. Ogner indicated that when the grievors were classified as E.T. 3's in 1975,he believed that they were then considered to be in the higher range of the E.T. 3 classification. The other E.T. 3's (Field Instrument Technicians) were then rated at the lower end of the E.T. 3: classification. Xe testified that this disparity has grown to the point where, in his opinion, the qrievors were performing at the E.T. 4 level. He .described the work,performed by them as being of a kind expected of Senior Technicians in the other regions who are classified as S.T. 4's. the made special reference to the fact that iW. Skomorowski, unlike 0ther.E.T. 3's, performs repairs to the component level. Repairs performed by other 2.T. 3's are only to the board or module level. There was a suggestion, from Mr. Cqner, that the repair work undertaken by Nr. Skomorowski was of a more complex nature than that undertaken by Senior Technicians outside of the Central Region in that where a Senior Technician, outside the Central Region,performed ;Jork on components,he only did so to a limited extent. I note that no rnernber of ;nanagemenc was aresented by the ~:m~loyer to challenge .hl.r. Ocner's evid2nce that the Crievcrs ~2~2, in 1375, considered to be at &he higher ranqe of the Z.T. 3 classification. 23 Mr . Fred Austin, since 1974 the Supervisor, Air Monitoring Operations, and the immediate supervisor of the q~rievors, described the purpose of the unit which he supervised as being the monitoring of air quality for the Central Region for a variety of pollutants. The data obtained from the air monitoring operation is fed inma central computer located in the Central Reqion located at 880 '3ay Street, in Toronto, which data is then pubiished Andy mad2 available to a variety of sources-in and outside of government. He described his principal function as checking the data obtained, for accuracy, and carrying out additional surveys on request. He 2 stated that he usually delegated the most difficult functions to the qrievors. The other technicians are assigned the respon- sibility of attending to the operation of field stations once they have been established. He referred to his primary external contact as being with the Pickering Operation, above referred to. A2 described his other outside contacts as being mainly with employees of the federal government. Inreferring to his position as group leader over all technicians in the shop,he'testified that th2 grievers were responsible for delegating which of the technicians would serve as group 12aders at the project sit2s. Mr. Austin stated that the decision to prepare Sxhibit 4 was prompted by the fact that the grievers' work was now so clifferent as to require a fresh description. He testified that the responsibilities performed by the qrievors ;i2re not interchangeable wit3 any of t:;.e other S.T. Z's and that, in his opinion, the .qrievors 'xere at t.?,e uR~erm.ost level of :he :.I. 3 classification in terms ..~. : 24 of ~the requirements imposed on them by the work including the responsibility for supervising other employees. As an example, the referred to the fact that when the qrievors were on vacation, he and another employee performed some of their work,provided it was not too difficult. He further stated that he reviewed Exhibit 4 vith Mr. Oqner and !<r. Kennedy. He also discussed the contents of the exhibit with the qrievors. In IYr. Austin's opinion,Exhibit 4 ~I fairly respresents the description of the work and work related factors applicable to the jobs performed by the.qrievors., In commenting on the nature of mr. Skomorowski's responsibility for the repair of instruments, Mr. Austin explained that, in the case of instruments under warranty, they~were returned to the manufacturer for repairs. Where problems were encountered . .~. in instruments which were off warranty and they could not be repaired in house, Mr. Skomorowski usually dealt with representatives of the manufacturer to obtain guidance. In the case where equipment had to be modified to meet the requirements of modernization, Mr. Skomorowski would often perform this function upon obtaining up- dating kits for this 'purpose. b!r. Austi;l acknowledged that Mr. Skcmorowski was usually able to 2-ifect repairs entrusted to him without the necessity of sending instruments to outside sources. '!r. Ron FIorn, the Supervisor, :iylrology and Monitoring, with the Water ?esources 3ranch of the Cntario Government and a member cf the Corrnittee established 'by the Ministry to review c,om,=laints relating to alleqedlv _ im~r'>cer classifications, :;as 25 presented as a witness by the Employer. The Committee has, as one of its purposes,,the provision of advice to the Personnel Services Branch concerning the E.T. 3 classification and has done .'-;,: so since 1974. In the course of carrying out its duties the Committee would review the position specifications (class Standards; Exhibit 3). According to Mr. Austin,there,had been a freeze on reviews by the Committee since early in 1979. Along with I"r. Bore, the other respresntatives were chosen for their expertise in a number of areas. Mr. WilliamGibson. formerly the Nanager of Technical Support was chosen for his background in matters pertaining to Technical Support. Mr. John Gray, Manager of LYunicipal and Private Abatement, South-West Region, London, was chosen for his expertise in municipal and private abatement as applied to water and sewage treatment plants.~ Xr . Ian Gray, industrial Abatement Officer, Barrie District Office, Central Region, was chosen for his involvenknt in matters pertaining to industrial pollution and Mr. Bore for his background in water resources. The Chairman was ."rr. G. S. Feeley, Manager of Personnel Operations. In presenting Mr. Hore, Mr. Kennedy indicated that Mr . Hare's evidence was not intended to establish the correctness of the 3nployer's classification of the grievors but was limited to demonstrating the fairness of the process followed by the Employer. iYr . Peter Wonq, the Zead of the Instrumentation Unit, Air Quality and ?!eteorology Section Air Resources 3ranch, which is a :-:ead Cffice operation, was the final .di;.~,ess presented 'cv the Z.n::loyer. Mr. Wang, who ;7015s a Ilaster's ,ieqrse in Chemical 3zci7eering ircn t'p.e L:niversity 0-T Tzr=nto,=sstifie? tb;at ?:e is . rPSyns13LO fo; 3.7 ,pervising a n,lmber ,cf functions incl;idinq: 26 (a) Maintaining audition (quality control) services with respect to instruments located in various regional field stations. (b)~ Instrument repairs to a network of high volume dust collectors. (Cl The supply of calibration gases to the regional ambient air monitoring network. id) Xvaluation of new instruments coming into the market. (e) Liaison with representatives of the federal government. (f) Performance of calibration on more complex instruments in the regions. (9 ) Provision of technical support and advice to the r~egions. tYr . Wonq testifed that the air monitoring equipment used in the Central Region was similar to that used in his ' laboratory. He also stat,od that he has an academic background in instrumentation, having done graduate work in the area at the University of Toronto and has had practical experience in the maintenance of air monitoring equipment, such work being performed in his laboratory. Mr. Wong described the equipment used by the Ninistry and compared the older ebuipment,based on the use of wet chemicals having an acid or basic me~dium throuqh which air bubbles,and the new, dry equipment based on a gas to gas reaction or enerqized radiation whic:h substitutes a good de-1 of electronics involving photo multiplications for the use of corrosive materials. :ie also noted the introductionof 2 ew F n s t r urn PP. t 3 involving modular sections. 13 !A? ..-. Wang ' 5 view, the repair c:?allenge was 3ow 15s than he.3 the elder eq-lipment was usad. 3: e 5 a i 5 t 5. 3 A- +- ;-: j, s ;j a 5 '2 e c a 1: j e t;;..e ,-Ii L . eq??i;me:: i?::cl:.~e", a go02 deal ,cf i:.:zicate ha?.4 wiri:q and . . soLzerr?.g, '.Gnsre.s ;_.,e:.- _ :-;.p 7 ::r -0,; +-:-;.e >.ec,.; ec.2.;:p..=7.- b-2 3 ,-pr+-ai- '<.i?,2 of -acio.pally .adsortij& ;elei..ision Set ! ",n?:asar") ;;;?hic;-, c-ntsiL-.ed ,. /.. -. 27 modules. .When it was ascertained which was the malfunctioning part,it was only necessary to obtain and ,insert a replacement module, thus avoiding the previously encountered d:=< iLLiculties incident to complex hand wiring and soldering. According to fir. Wonq,the guidelines for servicing equipment contained in manuals prepared by the manufacturers were usually fully descriptive, containing adquate diagnostic detail and circuit diagrams of the electronic network. In his opinion the instructions for diaqnoisis and servicing obtained from the manufacturers were fairly comprehensive. It is significant that this assessment was subject to his further statement, "for those who knew what they were doing". iilr . Wonq stated that a Technician in his lab was responsible for locating the problemsin malfunctioning equipment and then attending to its repair. In Nr. Wonq's opinion the nature of the repair work he described called for skills equivalent to those of a radio and T.V. repair man who works to the circuit board (component) level without being required to use sophisticated electronic equipment. In assessing the impact of a malfunctioning air monitor, Mr. Wong stated that the adverse effects on the public would be very small unless there was a malfunction of major dimensions, srhich could affect the larger part of the system. A breakdown of major proportions would be 'highly unlikely,?.- his opinion. In cross examination,Xr. Wong acknowledged that there jiere no stations as part of his unit and that there wer2 no 28 In argument, Mr. Ryder; for the Union, while not .~ challenging the system of classification, did challenge the continued assignment of the qrievors to the E.T. 3 classification. In assessing the four factors of knowledge, judqement,accountability and contacts, Mr..Ryder, while he acknowledged that this might be done by comparing a description of the jobs required to be performed by the qrievors with the actual words describing the E.T. 3 and 4 classifications in the Class Standard (Exhibit 3), submitted that this was a less useful approach to the one proposed by him. This is because the language contained in the descriptions contained in Exhibit 3 is couched in such broad terms that it is susceptible of too wide a range of possible interpretations. His approach stressed an examination of the grievers' work responsibilities within the Ministry, historically. Mr . Ryder, while he acknowledged that he is obliged to accept the ciassification of the grievers as E.T. 3's in 1975 as being correct, asked the Soard, to accept Mr. Oqner's uncontradicated assessment of both qrievors as being in the higher range of'the E.T. 3 classification at the time of their appointment to that classification in 1975. Nr . Ogner is two steps above the yrievors in the Technical Support Section's hierarchy (see Sxhibit 5) and from the evidence, is very familiar with the responsibilities which were involved in their jobs, from shortly before their-aopointm.ent as E.T. 3's to t:he time t;he nrievances were filed. %e is in an excellent position 10 comment on 'I;le evaluation of their jobs 2nd to make an iniormed 2ssessmer.t of c.'.eir o.lacement in the s~ectr:x~ of t:le ?:.T. 3 class- _, I:lCZtiOZ. :-: e ;;ave his evidexe i? a straic:;tforward m-nner and I I. would, in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, accept his conclusion that, in 1975, at the time of their appointment as E.T. 3's,the grievers were at the upper end of the E.T. 3 classification. ‘Yr . Cgner's description of the grievers' responsibilities in 1975 agrees with that of the grievors and it was, in no significant way affected by the evidence of any other witness. That is, in 1975, at the time of their appointment as E.T. 3's, they were mostly concerned with the routine servicing of air monitoring equipment in the field which job they.carried out under close supervision. At that time there was also some minor-~ involvement in special surveys work. Exhibit 6 represents an accurate description of the job responsibilities of the grievcr~s f~rorf 1973 to 1975. Since their appointment as E.T. 3's in 1975, the job responsibilities of the grievors has been substantially altered and they have continued to evolve until at the time they filed their grievances in 1980 they were performing qualitatively different functions from those with which they were as~sociated in 1975. Furthermore, these functions involved substantially greater attainments in the four areas 'set out in the class standards than those expected of them in 1975. I n the ca*e of both grievers, while they are still subject to supervision, the supexxision is of quite a different nature from that which existed in 1575. At the time of the filing of the grievances, according to t:heir uncor,tradicted evidence ar.3 the uncontradicted evidence of XI-. Cgner, thev had acquired S-C:Y a ?egree of expertise 1.; many of their jc.2 f2inctiop.s t:7at .supervisicn was required to increasixqly rely on this e:cFertise to tne 3olnt ii;-.ere a good .deal of s,u?eroision eras Fro forma. ?3 I 30 a lesser,, though still significant extent, this situation was confirmed by Mr. Austin. It is necessary to distinguish the case of the other E.T. 3's who, while they made recommendations, had only a minor input into this area. There is a vital difference ,: between employees'who make recommendations which may or may not be accepted and those whose recommendations appear to be usually determinative. This conclusion was supported by Xr. Caner. Mr. Ogner disclosed no personal interest in supporting the position of the grievors and his position in the Branch hierarchy adds to the weight of his esridence. In the case of Mr. Charbonneau, he became a major figuke in the process when a decision was made to acquire monitoring sites by purchase or lease. in addition, he made a significant input into the plans for making (a) ~modifications to existing structures and (b) arrangements with contractors and the obtaining of bids. Furthermore, hiss responsibilities developed to the point where his decisions were instrumental in the final placement and instalation of equipment, including support equipment. his further responsi- bilities related to the ongoing instruction of Field Technicians. .It was also acknowledged that this griever's involvement in special surveys increased substantiallv over the period 1975-1980. Incomparing the judgement to be exercised by Kr. Char'bonneau in 1975 and in 1980, it is clear that in 1975 he had the responsibilities of a serviceman ?erforrr.:ng routine ser:Tices. E i s responsibilities in 1990 could no ior.cer be so described and his judgement then in\,ol.;ed. a signifi::ant res?cnsibility for the 31 establishing of new monitoring sites. Mr. Cgner agreed that he did not possess a sufficient degree of expertise in this area to review the 'griever's work as he might in the case of the Field Instrument Technicians. In order to.carry out his responsibilities E"r. Charbonneau, between 1975 and 1980, had acquired, a significant body of new knowledge relating to juilding and electrical codes and new instrumentation and support equipment for the functioning of stations. As a routine serviceman in 1975,Mr. Charbonneau's accountability was much less than in 1980, by which time the cost of an error on his partcould amount to $150,000. Mr. Kennedy's statement that in the total picture of government expenditures $150,000 was not particularly significant cannot detract from the, notable difference bet-deen the potential for loss in the jobs performed by the grievor in 1975 and 1980. In any event, I would regard the amount of the potential loss in 1980 as considerable within the meaning of that term in the Class Standard for E.T. 4's. Similarily, the contacts of Mr. Charbonneau changed qualitatively from 19i5, when they represented those expected of a serviceman engaged in routine functions, to the case where, in 1980, he was reqired to meet with members of the public, government officials and officers of corporations. Lo In the case of or. Skomorowski, his job in 1075 was essentially tlhat of a repairman responsib,le for performing 32 could not be repaired in the -field because of a lack of necessary equipment and,~ as well, because, of a lack of expertise by those in the field: His evolving responsibilities came to.include the maintaining of an 'inventory of parts~ and equipment' and the provision of instruction to technicians as new equipment was introduced.' The important task of evaluating new equipment was left to the grievor and this represented a significant qualitative change in his resoonsibili'ies i . His evidence, confirmed by Mr. Oqner, was that, as ~a result of this testing function, although this grievor's decision need not be followed, his expertise was almost inevitably recognized and respected when the decision was made. I would find that the cost of the individual itemSof equipment with which the griever was involved was not insignificant, ranging from $5,000.00 to $12,000.00. ‘~ It was demonstrated that there is a clear and substantial differentiation between the job responsibilities of both of the grievors and the other technicians. For a number of purposes the grievors were associated with Mr. Austin, for example in the Pickering Nuclear Energy Response Management Team and through the qrievora assuminq Mr. Austin's responsibilities when he was absent. Althouqh m. Wang compared'the repair functions of Mr. Skomorowski to those of a T.V. or radio repairman, an.d his -v;dence prsuades me tha' - - i the grievor's description of his 33 functioning in this area was to some degree se.lf serving, this does not address the other significant responsibilities of the grievor. In any event, I am not persuaded that the analogy is an entirely apt one. From the Uncontradicated evidence, it appears that Mr. Skomorowski's repair functions go beyond replacing modules and involve a continuous-need to learn about changes in equipment. I am satisfied that Mr. Wong is correct when he said ,..~-~.~': that the following of manufacturers instructions for trouble shooting and repair are reasonably clear. However, he added, "to someone .who knows what he is doing'. The evidence,in its entirety, satisfies me that although it is.not a function that requires a university degree, the person performing repairs, as Mr. Skomorowski -is.reguired to do, must possess a considerable degree of expertise and ability to adapt to changing technology. Qualitatively, the demands of this aspect of his job have considerably expanded from 1975. I am also affected by the fact that Nr. Skomcrowski has come to 'be treated as a source of technical expertise by persons involved with equipment in the other reqions where considerable aspects of his work arebeinqperformed by Senior Technicians, who are classified as E.T. 4's. When equipment problems are experienced in the regions, Xr. Skomorowski is not infrequently consulted. The uncontradicted evidence was that only if he was unsuccessful in effecting repairs in suc:7 cases, did the equipment .have to be sent outside of t'he Xir.istrv for repairs. . 34 IMr . Kennedy argued that the standards as set out in Exhibit 3 are objective and clear, notwithstanding a certain amount of overlap; While I would agree with Xr. Kennedy that it is essential to evaluate the position of the parties in the light of the class standards: in evaluating the language of Exhibit 3 it is proper to examine how those standards have been applied to others. It must be assuimed that such application, which has not been altered, is in accordance with the views of the parties as to the correct application of the standards. If the standards alone serve as the determining factor and the application of those standards must be ignored, the relative position of the various classifications would become distorted. Although there are no counterparts to the positions occupied by the grievors,the significant difference in the factors set out in the Class Standards, as they apply to the other E.T. 3's, is apparent from the evidence. Although the Senior Technicians employed in the other Regions, who are E.T. 4's,are not counter- parts of the grievors, the degree of expertise expected from these Senior Technicians is more in line with that expected of the qrievors than that expected of other employees classified as E.T. 3's. Although many jobs evolve;' there was no evidence indicating the extent of the qualitative development in the case of the remaining S.T. 3's. ?lr. Iiennedy characterized the changes In the job performed by the grievers as quantitative. I canzct agree. The chances, although in sart a function of quantity, .was early anc s~Sstant~ally qualitative as z:-.e evlence, <"-isclosed. In the absence of comparisons, and in the absence of the uncontradicated evidence of Mr. Oqner that the grievors were.at the upper range of E.T. 3 classifications when appointed in 1975, I would experience some difficulty in differentiating between the language chosen to describe the E.T 3 and E.T. 4 classifications in .Exhibit 3. However, when tested in the light of the realities recognized by the Employer in classifying other E.T. 3's and E.T. 4's, there is a clear basis for making a finding in favour of the position of the grievors. I wish to emphasize that my view of the responsibility of this Board in classification grievances is as stated in the case of Re Montague, 110/78 at pp.5-6: "The task of this Board in classification grievances is to assess whether the position has been improperly classified according to the class standards established by the government's classification system. In deciding such grievances, the Board considers not only whether the qrievor's job comes in within the words of the higher class standard which he or she seeks, but.also whether the srievor's duties are the same as those cf an employee within the more senior classification sought (Re Lynch, 43/77; Re Roundinq, 18175; Re Wheeler, ~156/78). "A recent award by another panel of this Board elaborated on this second line of enquiry in McCourt and,Ministry of the Attorney Genera:, L98,'78. Zoinq work identicai to if another employee higher grade, the ririevor is classified at a it ma-q indicate that the emclover's actual classification practices tiiffer from t:he written. classification standards. It should be noted, however, that the.concern is with the proper application of the employer's classification system. Therefore, it may not be concl,ssive for a qrievor to show that one .en?loyee - in a higher classification Ferforms the same tasks, for it may be that such an em-,Loyee has ‘been imFro3erLy 36 classification system from the written standards. The Board's concern is with the question of whether the griever's job has been improperly classified, when that job is measured against absolute standards. Often, the description of jobs of employees in the higher classification will only serve to illustrate the application to particular cases of what are necessarily generally worded standards." I treat the class standards,as being the absolute standard. The reliance on evidence relating to jobs performed by other employees covered by the class standards provides an illustration of "the application to particular cases of what are necessarily generally worded statements".. To this extent they serve as aids -to interpretation. They cannot,however, serve to undermine the class standards as the governing basis for determining classification > disputes. It was only after applying those standards to the jobs performed by the grievors .~,.. that a decision was made. Such evidence as was examined as to the work performed by other E.T. 3's and E.T. 4's only served as an aid to inter Fretinq the generally worded class standards. Mr. Ogner emphasized that while he and his counterparts in supervision had the knowledge to completely assess the work performance of Field Instrument Technicians, the supervision of the grievors' work required heavy reliance on their expertise because he. and other persons supervising them did not possess the technical expertise to do so. In his view they were in the areas where they functioned. , L 37 Accordingly, and for the above reasons, I would allou the grievances and, pursuant to art. 5.1.2. of the collective agreement,.find that the grievers would be properly classified as E.T. 4'5, being the classifications claimed by them in their ,grievances. In so awarding I have accepted the classification system developed by the Employer, as I am bound to. My applica' i of the facts of th,is case to that system has satisfied me that the grievers would properly be classified as E.T. 4's. ion DATED AT London, Ontario this 4th day of January ,1982 M. R. Gorsky Vice-Chairman (See dissent attached) D. 9. Middleton Xember I concur II. Perrin iNember ~DISSENT OPINION 435/80 This dissent opinion is an abridged version of more extensive comments made known to the Chairman of the Board on receipt of a draft award from him some time ago. There have been several prior decisions of Grievance Settlement Boards concerning Environmental Technicians seeking upgrading through the grievance procedure from E.T. 3 to E.T. 4. This member participated recently in such a'case; Mr. Clifford M. Faulkner 489/80. The unanimous decision of that Board bears a strong resemblance to the instant case under review, and contained a timely listing of prior kindred classification cases - Haldane 308/80, Stiles 310/80 and Newdick and Jensen 515 and 517/80 in which E.T. 3 and 4 classifications became the core ~subjects of .final adjudication. The Clifford M. Faulkner case was noteworthy because it identified clearly and hewed closely in application to the commonly accepted adjudication norms in classification cases set up and made solid by numerous prior G.S.B. decisions as described in the last paragraph of Page 5 of that award: "It is common ground that there is not in the E.T. 4 classification a position with duties to which those of the griever might reasonably bear domparison" . 2 - 2 - c On this very consideration in the instant case my notes and memory both confirm that Union Counsel refrained from instancing or putting on the witness stand any person classified as E.T. 4 for job duty comparison purposes. The only E.T. 4 witness was a Mr. F. Austin who was the Group Leader or Supervisor to whom the two grievors reported along with other Environmental Technician 3s. Continuing with ouT reading from the Faulkner Award immediately after the above quotation from the last paragraph of Page 5, the second adjudicatory norm commonly applied is set out as follows: "The issue raised by the grievance must therefore be determined by a comparison of the work performed by the qrievor and the E.T. 4 class Standard". Later in the same award and, in the view of this member, pertinent to our deliberations in this case we read "Any given classification commonly accommodates a range of positions involving numerous indivi- duals and varieties of work. The four classifica- tions in the E.T. series are examples". My earlier and more comprehensive written comments to the Chairman of this Board went into more detail comparing the evidence as to the job duties of the two grievors which were disparate to each other and to the E.T. 4 Class Standards and the updated job specifications submitted to this Board as Exhibits ,2 c 4 and 6. - 3 - Our opinion then as now is that the work normally and regularly perfo:rmed by the grievors, Charbonneau and Skomorowski, was not of the complexity or specializations encompassed by the E.T. 4 class standard being particularly lacking in leadership (group or supervisory) characteristi.cs. Additionally, there was to my mind insufficient evidence of a convincing nature that either grievor had as a regular continuing part of his duties the direction and training of technical staff, or accepted accountability for comprehensive technical reports, or indeed represented the Ministry in policy matters involving him in person-to-person contacts with.other Provincial Ministries, the Government of Canada and International agencies. I conclude, without belabouring the point any more, that the grievors failed, through the advocacy of their Counsel ~C_.. . . . or by their own witness, to discharge the burden of proof that they performed identical (or nearly identical) jobs to those in the E.T. 4 classification by comparison of Class Standards (,3 to 4) or timely Position Specifications as an aid to such comparison. :, Further authority as to the nature of proof required where comparison to Class Standards and Job Specifications is - 4 - involved may be found in a recent unanimous award, Messrs. J. G. Burski and G. I. Freedman 186/81, Pages 4 and'5, and the relevant part reads as follows: "In the first place the qrievors may show that comparing what they do with job speci- fications for the classification that they are in and the classification in which they claim to be, it can be shown that they ark doing an identical job function to that of the higher classification." In summary, the two established means by which Charbonneau and Skomorowski could have succeeded with their grievances and attained the higher E.T. 4 classification, as set out in appropriate prior jurisprudence of this Board, did not and could not justify the outcome determined by the majority of this Board. Careful reading of the majority award, in my view, discloses that the authors of the majority award recognized this lack of prior arbitral support for the end result of their deliberations (see Page 28 of the award). The Majority Board in support of its position then goes on to assess the evidence particularly of a Mr. Ogner which they hold to be conclusive to the point that the grievors in 1980 were performing qualitatively different functions than in 1975, .- 5 - and involved substantially greater attainment in the four areas set out in the Class Standards: Knowledge;. Judgement; Accountability; Contacts. Although Mr. Ogner has no particular qualifications in Nage Administration, the Majority Board also accepts his sayso that thee grievors were at the high end of classification E.T. 3 whatever that may mean in 1975. In agreeing with Mr. Ogner and the selfserving evidence of the grievors themselves, the somewhat more down-to- earth contrary evidence of Mr. Wang, Head of the Instrumentation Unit, Airmonitoring and Meteorology Branch of the Ministry of the Environment, obtained short shrift in the Majority Award both in reporting and influence. My overall assessment after reviewing the evidence is that the majority of this Board can be excused for their con- clusions but, nevertheless, allowed themselves to be sold a Bill-of- Goods. The innovative concept that upgrading can be justified . outside of the accepted prior arbitral norms, as outlined in this dissent, on the basis of qualitative advancement in job-duties over a span of time has little, in my opinion, to commend it and poses - 6 - certain obvious residual problems which are not going to go away. These two grievors cannot be neatly separated away from the technological progression of society as a whole, or of the members in the E.T. 3 classification also in their Ministry whose expertise must in some comparable degree be changing correspondingly during the years under review 1975-80. The Supervisor for instance of the grievors, Mr. F. Austin, surely could not adequately continue to supervise eight or more technicians without keeping up in essentials with the qualitative changes and/or advances in technique and knowledge of the individuals in the group. Technological progress has indeed happened during these years, in question affecting society at large and each one of us, but in practice has not disrupted the normal ranking or pay relationship of a given work group or profession, either in private industry or public service to a noticeable extent or so the experience of the minority member of this Board dictates. The majority award ,by selective upgrading of two in.divi- duals out of a larger group who happen to have come under the special attention and review of this Board has, in my thinking, created a serious inequity by wiping out the supervisory differ- ential in grading between the grievors and their supervisor Mr. F. Austin - all to be E.T. 4s. ,2 - 7 - 3' This is a deplorable end result in industrial relations, and disruptive in salary administratiotl~and one which this minority member would have avoided by following the precepts of former awards of the G.S.B. in this field in which we have had personal prior involvement. This minority member then would have dismissed the grievances and recommended that the excellence of the two grievors in their quite separate specialties be.suitably recognized inky /t the rate range of their present classification i.T. 3. D. B. Middleton, Member.