Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0471.Hobman et al.87-10-21SETTLEMENT IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: For the Griever: OPSEU (Edward J. Hobman et al) File # 471181 For the Employer: K.B. Cribbie Senior Staff Relations Officer Staff Relations Office Ministry of Transportation & Communications U’earidgk: Griever - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation & Communications) Employer R.J. Roberts J. Best G. Peckham Vice Chairman Member Member M.I. Rotman Counse 1 Rotman, Zagdanski Barristers & Solicitors June 26 and July 16, 1987 1 DECISIOR This arbitration arises out of four grievances which were filed several years ago, in 1981. At that time, the grievors, who were in the classification of Technician 3, Survey, claimed that they were improperly classified. In 1984, the Board issued an award, Re Williamson and Ministry of Transportation and Communications (1984). GSB Nos. 133/81 and 184/U (Samuels), denying grievances from four other Technician 3, Surveys claiming that they likewise were improperly classified. These grievances also had been filed in 1981. They raised the same issues as were brought before the Board in the present case. We are satisfied that the Board was not manifestly wrong when it denied the grievances. Accordingly, the outcome of this case is governed by Williamson and we must likewise deny the grievances herein. At the hearing, Mr. R. Field gave evidence which the parties agreed would be representative of the duties and responsibilities of all of the grievors. The grievors also submitted a written brief which set forth in detail the background to the grievances and the day-to-day tasks assigned to the grievors. This evidence indicated that prior to 1975, survey work in the Central Region of the Ministry was performed by three separate offices: the Land Surveys Office, which conducted legal surveys ; the Engineering Surveys Office, which conducted 2 engineering surveys: and the Construction Surveys Office, which carried out on-site construction surveys. In 197576, however, the Ministry merged the Land Surveys and Engineering Surveys Offices. This meant that the survey crews in the margad ,'office had to acquire double competence. Whereas they previously had been required to perform only cne type of survey, they now were required to perform both legal and engineering surveys. This requirement for double competence formed the crux of the case for the grievors in both Williamson and the present case. It was submitted that the grievors no longer were properly classified under the class standard for Technician 3, Su‘rvey because that class standard contemplated that employees either performed~ one or the other type of survey. It did not contemplate the performance of both. In Williamson, the Board rejected this submission as follows: The Class Standard for Technician 3, Survey reads: This class covers employees who act as senior Chairman for legal land surveys. They obtain precise linear measurements, assist in taking astronomical observations, assist with title searching in the registry office and plot information from field notes or deed. OR These employees act as transitman and levelman on engineering surveys, without detailed instructions, on all routine phases of the work, taking field notes for alignment, topography, profiles and cross-sections. m These employees take charge of a sub-party working on a limited portion of a construction contract. They carry out control surveys for the precise setting of alignment and elevations of new construction and use standard survey techniques for the measurements of quantities. 3 Typical duties include completing level circuits, laying out complex circular and spiral curves, booking field notes in a standard manner, computing quantities of materials including complex shapes in concrete structures. They assist in the supervision and training of junior members of the party and may act as party chief when required. The Union argues that the use of "OR" is disjunctive in this Standard, and that an employee's "double competence" calls for a reclassification. We do not agree. The grievors do the first two types of job described in the first paragraph. The evidence before us demonstrated that an employee doing "legal surveys' could do "engineering surveys" with no additional courses or training. All that was needed was a short period of familiarization for the grievors to take on the "engineering" side of the job. Therefore, the "double competence" does not have a significant bearing on the responsibility involved in the job. The Standard must be taken to mean that, if an employee does at least one of those types of job, then the employee should be classified as Technician 3, Survey. But this does not mean that doing two of the jobs calls for, a different classification. The grievers' job, whether they are doing "legal surveys" on a day or "engineering surveys", is properly classified as Technician 3, Survey. ,.. Id. at - pp.4-5. It was concluded, inter alla, that because the requirement for double competence did not have a significant bearing on the responsibility involved in the job, the grievors remained properly classified. Neither the evidence nor the argument submitted in the present case was sufficient to convince this panel that in reaching the foregoing conclusion in Williamson, the Board was manifestly wrong. And this was the burden that the Union would have been required to discharge in order to convince the Board to set aside its previous determination. See Re Alarcon and 4 Ministry of Correctional Services (1985), GSB NO. 510\82 (Roberts), at pp. 7-g. In the course of his testimony, Mr. Field confirmed that he did the same job as Mr. J. Orr, who gave representative testimony for the grievors in Williams. A review of the award and addendum in that case indicates that the Williamson Board had before it similar evidence to that which was brought before us. Moreover, in'argument we were not directed to any authority tending to cast doubt upon the conclusion reached in Williamson. We are bound to honour our previous determination. The grievances are dismissed. - DATED at London, Ontario this 21st J.VBest