Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0562.Cooper.83-11-10IN THE MATTER OF AN ARHITRATION Cinder THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIU'ANCE SL'TTLEMENT BOARL! Between: OPSEU (Donald L'. Cooper) - And - Griever The Crown in Right 01 Ontario (Ministry oi the Environment) limployer Before: E.B. Jollit'l‘e; Q.C. Vice Chairman P. Craven Memlle 1 J. Morrow Member For the Grievor: L. Stevens Grievance Ol'ficcr Ontario Pub1 ic Service I!:mployecs Union For the Employer: G.S. Fcclcy Manager, lkrsonncl Oporutions Ministry 01' the Envi ronms!nt Hearin r: : ? i -2- DECISION The grievance of Mr. Donald E. Cooper, dated October 4, 1982, is that he was improperly classified as Purchasing Officer 2 and should be reclassified Purchasing Officer 3. This is one of those cases in which the classification complained of followed reorganization of a Section with a redistribution.bf duties. After some years of experience as a manufacturer!s purchasing agent, Mr. Cooper began as a Purchasing Officer 1 with the Ontario Water Resources Commission in February, 1966. Two years later he became a P.0.2, with one year's retroactivity. In April, 1972, the O.W.R.C. was absorbed by the newly-created Ministry of the Environment, and the griever continued to serve as a P.0.2 until January, 1973; when he was made Chief or Manager of Purchasing. Mr. Cooper testified that he then super- vised 15 employees, including six P.O.'s, two purchasing clerks and seven in clerical support. Among the P.O.'s, however, several were newly-recruited P.O.l's, who had to be trained for a year or more by P.0.2'~. The latter had authority to sign orders of up to $1,000; larger orders. were subject to the approval of Mr. Cooper, who reported to the Director of the Administrative Services Branch. - 3 - During the period from 1973 to 1979, the P.O.'s work continued to be more or less specialized. The griever himself was responsible for purchases made necessary by "special projects.". The P.O.l's dealt with routine purchases of standard items; each P.0.2 was concerned with one or more categories of orders. For these specialized purposes there were six officers. Exhibit 4 is a "Position Specification and Class Allocation" of the five incumbents of the P-O.2 position. It was signed by Mr. Cooper in his then capacity of "Manager, Purchasing Section" on May 11, 1977, and by Y.T. Lambert, Director, Administrative Services, on the same date. On the Class Allo- cation the signature of a Classification Officer appears, but it is not legible. Exhibit 4 describes Mr. Cooper (Manager, Purchasing Section) as supervisor of the five incumbents. How- ever, his own Position Specification at that time (if it ever existed) is not in evidence. Undoubtedly he was not classified and paid as a P.O.2. His testimony is that until September 15, 1980, he was classified AM 17, a managerial level, and on that date "red-circled." The change was due to a reorganization in January,'1979. ? , -4 - In the griever's words: "We became regionalized....; we were,, forced by,restraint into drastic streamlining. Formerly each of us specialized in a group of products..... but when we were left with four people we had to operate in water-tight compart- ments..... To make all the work interchangeable we were divided into four clientele groups in which each of us had to know the whole'spectrum of purchases..... The work was more complex and demanding. I had to give the others more authority. I had to do the more important work myself and act as relief." The Ministry has six regions, each with an office. There are also 23 district offices. Although the Purchasing Section had been "regionaIized," its offices remained in Toronto. Some time after the change, Mr. Cooper was required to assume what were in most respects the same duties as other Purchasing Officers. Assignedtohim was the northeastern region together with province-wide responsibility for the Water Resources Branch. He ceased to be "Manager, Purchasing Section," and all the Purchasing Officers became responsible to the "Manager, Purchasing and Office Services." That position, Mr. Cooper said, is not filled by a "purchasing man," and "he does not review any of my work or initial any of my orders." I -5 - The grievor testified that in his present position he has "unlimited authority." As an example he described a recent purchase order for a 45-foot Aluminum Survey Vessel to be used for research purposes on the Great Lakes by the Water Resources Branch. This order was of course awarded after tenders and the eventual price was $215,269, far below other bids. The Vessel, however, had to be constructed in accordance with the design and specifications supplied by a naval architect, Exhibit 12. Due to financial problems encountered by the builder the order had a tangled history, involving negotiations with.the architect, the Water Resources Branch, the legal branch of the Ministry, a ,bank and a trust company as well as the builder. The grievor discussed problems with Mr. A.E. Robinson, Manager, Purchasing and Office Services (his immediate supervisor) but he "chose to leave the.whole responsibility with me." Other duties include "requests for proposals." The grievor said "professionals tend to object to tendering pro- cedures and we have to word our requests diplomatically." He must also check specifications for regularity orlegality, and consult from time to time with scientists or engineers. He added: "We have to stop efforts of consultants to set up in - 6 - business with a big up-front payment." According to the grievor, Mr. Robinson does not call for either requisitions or purchase orders. Statistical reports without details are given to him monthly. The grievor said.that since 1972 his unit had been "looked at" by the Provincial Aud- itor, the Management Board and others, and "we've never been criticized." He asserted that "our decisions are reviewed only by the auditors." The grievor referred to Exhibit 16, a booklet entitled "82/83 Purchasing Directory" issued by the Ministry of Industry & Trade, from which it appears that the Ministry of Transportation is the 'largest purchaser of supplies, equipment and services (about $179,000,000 each year): Government Services ranks second (about $175,500,000); Health is third (about $5fJ,OOO,OOO) and Environment fourth, at $43,300,000. The grievor said between 10,000 and 12,000 orders are placed by Environment each year. The grievor also referred to Exhibit 15, his commentary on and proposed revisions of his present Position Specification, which will be discussed later in this decision. -7- Cross-examined, the grievor mentioned some of his objections to Exhibit 5. This is the Position Specification and Class Allocation in respect of five P.0.2'~. including the grievor. It was signed by Mr. Robinson and by Mr. W.D. Wood (Director, Financial and Administrative Services) on June 22, 1982. The allocation was completed in July by Mr. J.P. Glynn, Personnel Representative. The reasons given for the allocation were identically the same as those given by Exhibit 4 in May, 1977, which of course related to the P-0.2's who were Mr. Cooper's subordinates at that time. Those reasons were as follows: A. The incumbent provides responsible purchasing services relating to the procurement of a variety of materials, supplies and equipment. B. Incumbent obtains complete description of items required, pre- pares spread sheets, obtains price quotations and arranges for delivery of goods. C. Incumbent is required to maintaineffective working relations with user Branches, and with suppliers, salesmen, etc. In other words, Exhibit 5 placed the grievor on exactly the same footing .as the other four Purchasing Officers in his Section. It had been explained that now there are no P.O.l's in the Section --- and there is no P.0.3. It was pointed out in cross-examination that the Standard for a P.0.2 refers to "general supervision from purchasing officers of higher level or from administrative officials who confirm decisions involving heavy expenditures or marked departures on kind and quality of material or purchasing methods employed." For the Employer, Mr. Feeley then read the two paragraphs defining "general supervision" in the "Position Analysis Guide" (Exhibit 17) issued by the Department of the Civil Service in February, 1964, as follows: lhs employee works with considerable functional independence, as in many "journeyman" level clerical, technical and professional positions. He completes most assignments without referral to his supervisor, exercising judgment and making appropriate technical decisions, based on a good knowledge of m&hods, procedures and precedents. 'lhe supervisor is not concerned with work details, but may make infrequerrt spot-checks. Dnployee performance is evaluated largely in terms of difficulties resultiw from poor work or non- production. Mr..Cooper responded that "we have no spot checks," adding that “I’m lucky if Mr. Robinson speaks to me every four to six weeks<" Re-examined, Mr. Cooper said that when he was Purchasing Manager in 1978 he was giving day-to-day supervision to the P.0.2'~ - 9 - in the Section. NOW, however, all officers had increased respon- sibilities and there was no Purchasing Manager to supervise them. Another P.0.2 also testified. Mr. Paul Vandenburg said he began as a P.O.l in.1976 and more than a year later became a P.O.2. At first he worked "under" Mr. Cooper, specializing in office supplies. He signed orders but Mr. Cooper initialled all orders over $1,000, and later (after he became a P.0.2) all over $5,000,. He said: "When I needed it, he gave me guidance. We were regionalized under Cooper. I was given the Southwestern Region (Kitchener) and the West Central Region (Hamilton), but the local offices could spend up to $200." The witness also became responsibile for furnishing t,he Ministry's executive offices, with some collaboration from Government Services, which estimated the cost,of certain furniture. Mr. Vandenburg said that for some time after regional- ization he was supervised by Mr. Cooper, but in 1980 Mr. Robinson became "the boss" and there was no more initialling or super- vision. The largest order he had handled was for about $1,500,000 and the average would be about $25,000. He said Mr. Robinson was probably aware of the areas for which he is responsible, but he - 10 - "hardly ever" reported to Mr. Robinson. However, "copies of my work go to the vendor and the Manager." He said each order is unique .but any P.0. should be able to handle any order. Cross-examined, the witness said "Yes, I sometimes go to Mr. Robinson --- if it's a problem I can't solve." He described Mr. Robinson as "a good administrator but not helpful in purchasing." He agreed that Exhibit 4 was correct, now as well as in 1977. Referring to the requisitions given him, he said he did not write an order until receiving evaluations of the tenders or offers submitted. Mr. Vandenburg further remarked that "there's a lot to learn now --- we have to know more about more products." He also disclosed that he has not had a performance evaluation since 1980. Mr. M. Siddiqui has been a P-O.2 for the past five years with the Ministry of Government Services. He testified that he has signing authority for purchases of up to $2,000 in value. Beyond that figure authority is vested in a Ms.. Shoup, a P.0.3 who is his supervisor, but purchases over $5,000 go to - 11 - her Manager, a Mr. W. Stirr, and anything over $50,000 is re- ferred to the Director. He said Ms. Shoup supervises three P.O's and the clerical support staff. Also tendered as evidence for the griever was Exhibit 14. which includes.notice of a P.0.3 vacancy in the Ministry of Natural Resources, said to have been published in 1982. It is as follows: CON'IRACMNG SPECIALIST (Purchasirg Officer 3) (Schedule 6) $25,400~29,700 (open) Required by the Ministry of Natural Resources, administrative services branch, operations analysis, to: provide consulting advice and support to line management; prepare guidelines: develop training seminars and conduct special projects re min- istry contracting function. The ministry has a decentralized organization which contracts for a wide variety of goods and services such as construction of roads, land scarification, tree planting, fish stocking, aviation, scientific and catcgraphic services and mineral resources inventories. t&ties include: acting as a ccnsultant to main office and the field on all aspects of con- tracting; helping develop agreements; recommending solutions for specific contracts administration problems; conducting.training seminars; developing directives to clarify contracting process; analysing policy proposals from other agencies; participating in operational audits; preparing reports on special topics. Location: 'Ibronto, with some travel throughout Ontario. (Xlalifications: thorough knowledge of contracting theories and policies; demonstrated understanding of the procurement process; proven ability to administer contracts develop draft legal agree- ments ard apply legal opinions; .ability to develop policy and 7 - 12 - pxcedure proposals under general supervision, organize complex projects ard develop, organize and present seminars: good cosnnunication skills. Return application by July 23 to: File NR-175, Personnel Services Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources, Whitney Block, Cueen's Park, Toronto, Cntario, M7A lW3. Also appearing on Exhibit 14 is a notice inviting applications for a position at the Ministry of Labour. The heading has been cut off in reproduction but the position de- scribed was obviously that of a 1?.0.2. Its dutj.es are thought by the grievor to be less responsible than his, which he con- siders comparable to the duties set out in the P.0.3 notice published by the Ministry of Natural Resources., The Ministry of Labour notice in its decapitated form appears below: $391-447 pr week (restrjctedl Required by ~the Ministry of L&our to be reqonsible for centralized ministry purchasing under the direction of the chief purchasing officer. Euties include: procuring laboratory equipment, supplies, chemicals, office equipsrant and audio-visual products; resolving pro- blems with suppliers and purchasing co-ordinators re delivery, quality, shortages, prices, etc.; recommending changes in internal purchasing procedures; maintaining up-to-date knowledge on policies, standing agreements or offers. Location: 434 University Ave., Toronto. Qualifications: specialized training in purchasing procedures and experience in consolidations and tendering; thorough knowledge of government standing offers and agreements: proven expzience in communicating effectively. Return application by June 25 to: File LB-82, Ministry of Labour, Personnel Branch, 2nd Floor, 400 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M7A lT7 I , - 13 - The only witness called by the Employer's representa- tive was Mr. A.E. Robinson, who,joined the public service in 1960, and Environment in 1972, since which he has been Manager of Office Services, classified AM18. The position had respon- sibility for Accomodations, Communications, Printing and Repro- duction Services, Records Management, Mail Services and a Manual of Policy and Procedure for the Ministry. In September, 1980,~he was also given responsiblity for "Purchasing", and in Exhibit 5 (June, 1982) he is described as "Manager, Purchasing and Office Services." Mr. Robinson testified he is now "responsible for resolving problems in the purchasing area and procedures on amendments." It was he who decided the distribution of the the ~work-load and he sees all monthly reports made by the P.O.'s, but he said "Yes,,they do operate quite independently." He explained that they have lists of the persons who can authorize ,purchases --- and their signatures. Purchasing policy is one of'Mr. Robinson's respon- sibilities, but he said he would consult the P.O.'s about such matters and get final approval from the Deputy Minister. He i - 14 - tries to attend meetings at which major tenders are opened: in his absence two P.O. 's can officiate.--- which happens three or four times a month. Clerical staff numbering five are super- vised by a Clerk 4 General. Cross-examined, Mr. Robinson said that "neither requi- sitions nor orders go past my desk..... The P.O.'s come to me when they think I should know..... I wouldn't know what purchases are being made. Monthly reports show the numbers and dollars..... We do have monthly meetings. I get their input on policies and procedures..... Yes,, they are responsible for keeping lists of suppliers up-to-date." Mr. Robinson confirmed that he has done no performance appraisals of the P.O.'s. The witness explained further that when there is a tendering process, the bids are passed on to an evaluation committee and the requisitioner, who are asked to state their reasons if the lowest bid is not thought to be acceptable and reminded that such reasons "must be based on objective and defensible criteria" as required by the Management Board of Cabinet. Exhibits 19 and 20 ("Price Summary Sheet") are examples of the procedure: they relate to ~the purchase of rainguage equipment and a portable ultrasonic flowmeter. In both, it was : - 15 - requested that'the complete file be returned to Mr. Cooper, who had made certain comments. Further questioned, Mr. Robinson said "I do spot checks only on the reports I get." The last time he had re- scheduled the work load was in August, 1982. He estimated that in the following six months he had spent three-quarters of his time on purchasing matters, but he said he was not aware that auditors require purchases above certain levels to be initialled, In deciding whether a position is properly or improperly classified (as this Board is empowered to do under Sections 18 and 19 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act) it is necessary to apply the criteria in the Class Standards which have been established by the Employer. Also to be kept in mind is that in a case of this nature the burden of proof is on the employee who alleges that his or her position is wrongly classified. Mr. Cooper's position has been classified P.0.2 since September, 1980, prior to which the position previously occupied by him had been classified P.0.3. He now claims that his present position should be re-classified P.0.3, principally on the ground that his responsibilities now are "approximately" the same as they were before 1980. Thus the relevant standards are those for the P.0.2 and the P.0.3. Dated May, 1958, they appear in Exhibits 3B and 3C. For purposes of comparison, the "class definitions" are.reproduced in two columns below: PURCHASING OFFICER 2 'CLASS DEFINITION: This is responsible technical procurement ~rk.reguiring considerable knowledge of specific com- modities, standard purchasing methods m&material inspection techniques. Re- sponsibilities in these positions per- tain either to purchasing a variety of materials, supplies and eguipnent'in a medium-sized department or to large- scale purchasiq of specific categories of items in a large.department with specialized requirements. In these latter positions which are character- ized by less varied responsibilities, employees are in charge of procure- ment in quantity of such commodities as cement, steel, hardware, furniture, clothing material and equipment. All employees in this class receive general supervision from purchasing officers of higher level or from administrative officials ho confirm decisions in- volving heavy expenditures or marked departures on kind and quality of material or purchasing methods em- ployed. Employees in this class may supervise a small group of subordinates performing the more routine aspects of departmental purchasing operations. They are required to develop effective working relationships with departmental personnel and with suppliers, salesmen and manufacturers' representatives. PURCHASING OFFICER 3 CLASS DEFINITION: !Ihis is highly re- sponsible procurement work performed under general direction in a large de- pertment with heavy purchasing reguire- ment. hployees in these positions may, as departmental purchasing officers, supervise and personally participate in a variety of procure- ment operations. In other positions in the class, incumbents serve as assistants to purchasing officers of higher level or to other adminis- trative officials with procurement. responsibilities. While these em- ployees carry cut many phases of their work with little direction, they usually confirm with their superiors orders involving major ex- penditures. Economies obtained and promptness of deliveries serve as criteria of efficient performance in these positions. Employees in this class supervise subordinate Purchasing Officers an3 clerical workers carrying out a variety of duties related to purchasing. Effective working relation- ships with department personnel,,rep- resentatives of other departments and a variety of suppliers and vendors are a requirement of positions in this class. - 17 - As usual,' both standards set out "Characteristic Duties," not all of which are to be found in every position. This part of the Standard is therefore less important than the definition quoted above. Nevertheless. "Characteristic Duties" may be compared below: PURCHASING OFFICER 2 As a specialist in a designated line or as a departmental purchasing officer, confers with branch officials on pur- chasing reguirements, obtains complete descriptions of items required, and ensures purchase requisitions are properly authorized. Submits complete and accurate details to suppliers on material required and obtains price quotations and related data on quality, discounts, and probable delivery dates: upon receipt of infor- mation from vendors, analyzes data on a basis of ilranediate requirements; places orders or submits recommend- ations for purchase to superiors if necessary. As directed by superiors, carries out standard routines preliminary to tend- ering for purchase of supplies and eguip- ment, supervises the preparation of spread sheets, analyzes information, and makes recommendations on place- ment of orders.. Personally examines and approves quality of materials received in accordance with specialized knowledge of lines of merchan- dise; expedites delivery of goods in accordance with terms of contract for pan-chase. PURCHASING OFFICER 3 As a departmental purchasing officer, directs procurement operations re- guirirg large-scale purchasing of such special categories of items as trucks and cars, engineering, elect- rical and hardware supplies, farm eguip- irent, grain, fertilizer and feeds, furniture, kitchen and laundry equipment, medical sod dental suppliees, food stuffs, and clothing material; supervises subordinates engaged in the more routine aspects of the hark; personally examines and approves quality of materials received. As assistant to a Chief Purchasing Officer, or other administrative official, participates.in supervision of the purchasing unit, signs orders and recommardations; supervises a section of the work as delegated by a superior; assigns and reviews the work of subordinate purchasing and clerical staff. Secures specifications on materials and supplies required by departmental brnaches; obtains quotations from suppliers on prices, quality and de- livery dates and analyzes data received; places orders or recommends purchases to superiors; examines and approves quality of materials received. - 18 - Supervises subordinates assigned to checking, typing and recording duties: instructs on mrk methods and reviews completed assignments to ensure con- formance to routines. Interviews salesmen and manufacturers' representatives to develop new sources of supply and to obtain information on new types of material, quality and price data; prepares a considerable vol- ume of correspondence to obtain similar information. Carries cXlt standard routines prelim- inary to tendering for purchase of supplies and eguipnent, compares prices received and approves or recommends 00 placement of orders. Reviews emergency purchase orders pre- pared and executed in branches as a method of maintaining controls on departmental purchasing. Carries out Purchasing routines per- taining to a wide variety of materials and .m.rpplies required in the operation of institutional industries. Interviews salesmen and manufacturers' representatives to obtain information on commodities and prices; prepares a considerable volume of correspon- dence to obtain similar information. Clearly there are resemblances between the "Definition" for a P-O.2 and the "Definition" for a P.0.3. The same is true of "Characteristic Duties." There are, however, some differences. It is logical to pose questions about each sentence in the P.0.3 definition. (1) Does Mr. Cooper's position involve "highly responsible procurement work performed under general direction in a large department with heavy purchasing requirements?" The answers must be both affirmative and negative. - 19 - a) The work is in our opinion "highly responsible." (tn contrast, work of a P.0.2 is described as "responsible.") b) The work is not, in our view, performed under "general direction." In the Civil Service "Position Analysis Guide," the terms "Direction" and "General Direction" are defined as follows: c. Direction: The employee has been directed to achieve a definite goal and establishes his own methods and work procedures, deciding manpower and material requirements to achieve program objectives and recommending their acquisition. Normally he plans, organizes and controls the work of subordinate personnel. While employee is held accountable for carrying out certain organization objectives, he should not make decisions which affect policy. 'D-e supervisor does not provide technical instruction. hployee performance and effectiveness is evaluated basically in terms of results, through a process of inspection and review. d. General Direction: A senior official is held accountable by management for accomplishing departmental objectives, expressed in legislation, regulations or general policy directives. He is expected to make decisions in accordance with established policy, and usually participates in formulating that policy. The above may be compared with the definition of "general supervision" which has already been quoted --- and which is the term used in the P-O.2 definition. Although the definitions arenotvery precise, we think - 20 - that "general supervision" rather than "general direction" corresponds to the facts proved in this case. Employees work with "considerable functional independence" and their superior makes "infrequent spot checks" --- the language used in de- fining "general supervision." c) The work is not, in our opinion, performed in "a large department with heavy purchasing requirements." Although Environment ranks fourth in purchases, their cost is less than one-quarter of the costs in Transportation and Communications --- or in Government Services. It would'be accurate to describe Environment as "medium-sized." The regionalizationof purchases has made it correspond with the reference in the P-O.2 definition to "purchasing a variety of materials, supplies and equipment in a medium-sized department..." (2) Does the griever "supervise and personally participate in a variety of procurement operations?" He personally participates, but there is no evidence that he supervises any other employee. (3) Does the griever assist other purchasing officers of higher level --- or administrative officials? We do not think - 21 - so. He functions "quite independently," according to al witnesses. (4) Does the griever "usua 1 orders "involving major expenditures?" .l ly confirm" with a superior In a transaction as complex and protracted as the Survey Ship contract described by the griever, or the $l,SOO,OOO order mentioned by Mr. Vandenburg, there is no doubt this happens, but of course it must also occur under the P.0.2 definition, and there is no real distinction when "heavy expenditures" are involved. If the responsibility , it was simply ise rather than for the ship order was delegated to Mr. Cooper due to Mr. Robinson's confidence in his expert to the applicable classification. The fifth sentence in the P.0.3 definition need not be discussed. (6) Officers and Does the griever "supervise subordinate Purchasing clerical workers carrying out a variety of duties related to purchasing?" He certainly did so during the period before Mr. Robinson took command, but he does not supervise now, and the answer to this question must be in the negative. - 22 - (7) A P.0.3 is required to,have effective working relationships with many others, but the same requirement appears in the P.0.2 definition. Bewteen November, 1981, and June, 1982, the grievor ex- changed correspondence with Mr. Robinson with a view to obtaining re-classification. He also wrote his owndetailed analysis of the factors in the P-O.3 definition and re-wrote the Position Specification, Exhibit 5 --- which applied to all five P.0.2'~. The gist of his case was ably stated in the Summary which appears as the concluding paragraph in Exhibit 13, as follows:' ale to organizational changes which took place in 1979 and 1980 the staff listed above has been reduced to five incumbents and each has been assigned specific local and regional program delivery areas in the Ministry with responsibility for providing a total purchasing service on a clientele basis, as-distinct from a limited specialization in types of products and services within particular requisitions. These have therefore considerably broadened the scope and complexity of purchasing responsibilities which have had to be met by upgraded professional skills and experience. The griever put the matter even more strongly in a memorandum he gave Mr. Robinson, part of Exhibit 15, as follows: Cur Purchasing officers are required to function effectively in a minimal supervision/support environment, personally handling every Purchasing requirement from their assigned client group - 23 - without tha benefit of a shared responsibility structure to assist them, nor as some ministries have --- computerized in- formation storage and retrieval systems at their disposal. It is also a fact that when the Purchasing Unit was restructured by the Branch Director (with new classifications assigned by the Personnel Branch) at the time the Ministry of the Fnvironment came into being on Apil 1, 1972, it had five classifications of purchasing officer, namely PO-l, PO-2, PO-3, Senior Purchasing Officer, and Supervisor of Supply. Since then, senior management has by various subterfuges demoted, downgraded, and red-circled all senior levels, and manipulated the purchasing officers into a common category with the lowest expedient classification PO-2. &ch of the &ties and responsibilities of the former senior levels have had to be learned and absorbed by the purchasing officers, expecially as they are now managed by an administrator and not a senior purchasing officer. Cn the face of it, it is probably true that what our purchasing officers do even exceeds the class standard for a Purchasing Officer 3. In view of Mr. Cooper's very clear explanation of his duties and the history of his Section, we have not thought it necessary to discuss the Position Specification, Exhibit 5. The griever disagrees with much of that document, but we need not decide its validity. There was .no real conflict between the testimony.of the two purchasing officers and that of Mr. Robinson. Whether Mr. Cooper's position is incorrectly classified is an issue to be determined by reference to the class standards and the evidence. - 24 - In our view it is significant that when the Ministry became organized in 1972, it was necessary (according to the' griever's evidence) to train a number of inexperienced P.O.l's who could deal with only routine purchases. The P.0.2'~ were "specialized," each dealing with one or more categories. Mr. C-w was their Supervisor. The arrangement was probably both logical and necessary at that time. Nevertheless, a reorganization was later undertaken by the Ministry. No doubt it was possible because all the Purchasing officers in the Section had acquired --- by January, 1979 --- the requisite experience and expertise. As they were all capable of functioning "quite independently," the Ministry decided, as we understand.the history of the matter, that minimal supervision would be appropriate. Purchasing was added to Mr. Robinson's Office Management function and the actual purchasing was "regionalized," the theory being that any P.0.2 was now capable of handling any kind of purchase. The new arrangement had advantages for the Ministry in economy and efficiency. Unfortunately, the change involved placing Mr. Cooper on the same footing as the officers he had been training or supervising. In effect he was demoted, being re-classified P.O..? but "red-circled," i.e. he had no pay-cut but lost . - 25 - entitlement to any pay increase within the higher range. It is natural that he should consider himself the victim of the changes. We have no doubt that the griever possesses the qual- ifications, experience and competence to function successfully as a P.0.3. As such he personally did not deserve a demotion. The fact is, however, that a P.0.3 position no longer exists in the Ministry of the Environment. It may well be, as the griever has said, that other Ministries of medium size are organized differently. Nevertheless, the Employer has the right --- as clearly provided by Subsection (1) of-Section 18 in The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act --- to determine the comple- ment, organization, work methods and procedures in any Ministry as part of its exclusive management function, and such determ- inations are neither arbitrable nor even grievable. A classification case does not turn on the individual merits of an employee. It is the "position" the employee occupies which must be considered. Some employees have merit exceeding that required by the position, and Mr. Cooper is probably one of them, but the classification of the person can ,: - 26 - be no, higher than that of the position occupied, nor should it be any lower. In his testimony, the griever expressed the belief that his work-load and responsibility is now "approximately the same" as in 1977, when his position (known then as "Manager, Purchasing Section") was apparently A.M.17. We are not per- suaded that the griever's belief is well-founded. The work-load may be the same (or it may even have increased) but there is a real difference in responsibility. The griever himself has said that in 1977 he was supervising 15 employees and gave "day-to- day" supervision to the purchasing officers working under him. An important difference between a P.0.2 and a. P.0.3 is that the latter (according to the class standard) "supervise subordinate Purchasing-Officers and clerical workers..." That is what the grievor was doing until late in 1980; he is not required to do it today. For the reasons heretofore given, this grievance cannot be upheld and must be dismissed. Dated at Toronto this 10th day of November, ,19&X3. "I dissent" (see attached) P. Craven EBJ:sol GSB 562182 (Cooaer) DISSENT Beginning at page 18 of their award, my colleagues on this panel pose a series of questions about the extentto which Mr. Cooper’s work f’its the words of the F03 class standard. While I concur in their answers to many of these questions, there are others with which I must respectfully disagree. In the result, and on balance, I find that Mr. Cooper’s job more nearly fits the PO3 definition than it does the PO2 definition. Taking the points as numbered in the majority award, I would find as follows: (1) (a) I agree that Mr. Cooper’s work is “highly responsible” (PO31 rather than merely “responsible” (FOZl. (1) (bl On the evidence, Mr. Cooper performs his job under neither “general supervision” (PO21 nor “general direction” (FO31. Among the various definitions in the Position Analysis Guide to which we were referred, that of “direction” seems more closely applicable to the arrangements under which Mr. Cooper’s job is performed than any of the others. “General supervision” is inadequate because it involves spot checks by the supervisor. In Mr. Cooper’s work, the supervisor is not qualified on technical grounds to make such checks. “General direction” incorporates a greater role in policy formulation than Mr. : Cooper current1.f exercises. “Direction” recognizes that the supervisor is not involved technically. If anything, this definition’s restrictions as to policy involvement are too narrow for tlr. Cooper’s job. This definition provides that there is “normally” an element of planning, organizing and controlling the work of subordinate personnel, but in using that word it recognizes that this element is not a necessary one. (1) Cc) I must dissent from my colleagues’ finding that Environment is a “medium-sized department,” rather than “a large department with heavy purchasing requirements.” In the first place, the language of the class standards is far ~from clear. In specifying “a large department with heavy purchasing requirements,” what criterion is intended for departmental size? If the volume of purchases is the criterion, then the provision is redundant. If some other measure -- the number of employees, say, or the total programme budget -- then it is probably irrelevant. Moreover in drafting these class standards the employer seems to have taken a leaf out of the retail marketers’ book. There are no “small” departments, just as there are no small hamburgers; there are only medium and large ones. We have to make sense of the evident differences between the PO2 and PO3 standards. The majority proposes to do so by noting that “although Environment ranks fourth in purchases, their cost is less than one-quarter of the costs in Transportation and Communications -- or in Government Services, ” from which they seem to draw the 7 -: 1 conclusion that "it would be accurate to describe .Environment as 'medium sized'." But the PO2 standard applies to "purchasing a variety of materials, supplies and equipment in a medium-sized department" and to “large- scale purchasing of specific categories of items in a large department with specialized requirements." Among the chief reasons for the exceptionally large purchasing budgets of Government Services and Transportation and Communications is the fact that these ministries engage in "large-scale purchasing of specific categories of items" for the other ministries: for example, furniture by MGS and vehicles by MTC. While the evidence does not supply a breakdown of these ministries' purchases by category, it is evident that a substantial proportion of the purchasing undertaken by these two ministries is large-scale and specific in the sense intended by the PO2 standard. It seems possible that if the value of these purchases were to be subtracted from the totals in the two departments, the residue would be of a similar order of magnitude to Health or Environment. In any event, the total volume of purchasing by these two ministries is large out of all proportion to the others. It does'not follow, however, th~at these are the only "large" departments for the purposes of the standards. Among the 22 ministries listed in Exhibit lb, Environment is the fourth largest in total value of purchases. Among the eleven ministries with centralized purchasing, Environment is second largest in total ~value. By contrast, the Ministry of 3 i: + Natural Resoc.rces' purchases amount to only about a quarter of the value spent by Environment: it is the fifth smallest in put-chasing expenditures of the 22 departments. Yet 'according to Exhibit 14, MNR was hiring a PO3 in 1982. It must follow that MNR is a "large department" in the employer's view, if the class standard is to be related to the apparent practice. If MNR is a large department, so a' fortiori must be Environment., The truth is, of course, that all the Ministries are today much larger than wasi contemplated in 1958, when these standards were drawn UP. Moreover the majority fails to note, in comparing the first sentence of the PO3 standard with analogous provisions in the PO2 standard, that the latter identifies the relevant responsibility as "purchasing a variety of materials, supplies and equi.pment .._ * It is noteworthy that nothing is said about purchases of services. Mr. Cooper's testimony underlined the especial complexity of this function, particularly when dealing as he must with professional services (part of this testimony is reproduced by the majority at page 5). According -to Exhibit .lb, over a third of the value of purchases by Environment falls into the services category. If we are to construe the words of these class standards as closely as the majority seems to suggest, it would seem that the PO2 standard does not covet- employees who purchase services; indeed, on the principle of expressio unius erclusio al terius its "materiaIs, supplies and equipment .._ cement, steel, hardware, furniture, 4 c~lothing material and equipment” would seem to exclude them from the classification. The PO3 standard speaks of “a variety of procurement operations,” which clearly includes the purchase of set-vices. (2) I find, in concurrence with the majority, that Mr. Cooper personally participates in a variety of procurement operations but does not supervise other employees. But in this connection, I note that the PO3 class standard says that employees in the classification may “supervise and personally participate” in these operations. The element of supervision is not a necessary feature of the classification. (3) Here too I agree with the majority, but with the following addendum: This sentence is irrelevant to Mr. Cooper*5 position. He is a departmental purchasing officer, as identified in sentence 2: Rigorous analysis of the structure of sentence 2 reveals that a PO3 employee may be a departmental purchasing officer. If he is a departmental purchasing officer, he may supervise and personally participate . . . Sentences 2 and 3 are possibly mutually exclusive, but there is no indication that taken together they are intended to be exhaustive of PO3 position types. Nor at-e the position characteristics that they discuss determinative of or necessary elements fin the PO3 classification. They seem to be illustrative in nature. Contrast the determinative and necessary construction of the analogous sentence in the PO2 description: “Responsibilities in these positions pertain ei thrr to purchasing a variety of materials, supplies and equipment in a medium-sized department or to large- scale purchasing of specific categories of i terns in a 1 arge department with specialized requirements.” Cemphasi s added1 (4) This. sentence admirably expresses the nature of Mr. Cooper’s relation with his supervisor as ,revealed by the evidence. It is worth noting that while the term “general direction” was used in sentence 1, here it is replaced by the term “direction” (and it is recognized,that little. direction is normally required). (5) I concur with the majority. (6) I agree that Mr. Cooper does not supervise .aubordinate purchasing officers or .clet-ical workers. 011 the purchasing officers in the Ministry are currently on the same footing, and the organization of the department removes supervisidn of clerical workers from the job requirements of any purchasing officer. (7) I agree. With respect to the words of the two class standards, then, I find that Mr Cooper’s work responsibilities, as revealed by the evidence,,are on the whole more nearly described by the PO3 standard than by the PO2 standard. I would find him to be squarely within every relevant facet of the PO3 standard were it not for the inapplicability of sentence 6. But I find that the PO2 categorization against which he grieves is seriously unsuited to him. By using the term “supervision” rather than “direction” it contemplates a h .2 $ s form of relatio~l with a supervisor that is foreign to or. Cooper’s experience, and it fails to make any provision for (and indeed may plainly exclude) the procurement of services, which is an important and sensitive element in Mr. Cooper’s purchasing work. Even taking into account the fact that Mr. Cooper does not directly supervise other employees, I find that the PO3 standard more nearly describes Mr. Cooper’s position and responsibilities than the PO2 standard. At page 25, the majority states: “The fact is, however-, that a PO3 position no 1 anger exists in the Minisiry of the Environment. It’ may well be, as the griever has said, that other Ministries of medium size are organized differently. Nevertheless, the Employer has the right -- as clearly provided by Subsection ( 1 )~ of Section 18 of The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act -- to determine the complement, organization, work methods and procedures in any Ministry as part of its exclusive management function, and such determinations are neither arbitrable or even grievable. ” With respect, I must disagree with this view. The griever comes before this Board to say, in effect, that a PO3 position does exist in the Ministry of the Environment -- it is the position he occupies and, he alleges, it is misclassified as a PO2 position. The question whether his position is in fact a PO3 positiowis one for this Board to determine, as the majority elsewhere says, on the basis of the class standards and the evidence. The employer may have th$ authority to abolish a position by virtue of the provision cited above. The employer does not have the authority to 7 0 e 5 . misclassify a position, as section lEl(2) (a) of the Act makes plain. Moreover, the employer is the Crown, not any particular ministry. It follows that evidence about procedures, classifications and positions in other ministries may well assist this Board in interpreting the often vague and confused language of the class standards. Thus, when the PO3 standard speaks of a “large department’ and we see the employer. appointing a PO3 in the Ministry of Natural Resources, we can take that observation as evidence assisting us in our attempt to grasp what the employer means by “large” in the class standard. With respect, it is not a question of how “other Ministries of medium size are organized. ” On the contrary, it is evidence that no matter where we as a Board may wish to draw the line between medium and large ministries, the. employer considers MNR to be a large ministry. It would seem to follow from the majority’s argument that we must defer- to this definition of the employer’s. The result is that Environment has to be viewed as a “large” ministry (being almost four times the size of MNR) ,~ and the conclusion that Mr. Cooper’s position is in “reality” a PO3 becomes inescapable. I put “real i ty” ., in quotation marks because on OUT (in my view unsatisfactory) jurisprudence, the relevant reality is the words of the class standards. For all these reasons I would have found for the griever. 8