The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-0356.Horsfield et al.85-08-21I - 356/84 358184 359184 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEE.5 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (F; Hwsfield, C. Robinson and IM. Spessot) and Grievon The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Citizenship & Culture) Employer Before: R. J. Delisle Vice-Chairman I. J. Thorns& Member H. Roberts Member For the Grievor: 3. A. Millard Counsel Barrister & Solicitor For the Employer: M. Mikh Staff Relations Officer Staff Relations Branch CiviI Service Commission Hearing April 3, 1985 DECISION Three classification grievances were presented to the Board. It was agreed that the Board should deal first with the grievance of Robinson as it was believed that the Board's disposition of that matter might settle the other two matters. Robinson has worked at the Ontario Science Centre for approximately twenty years. His classification has always been that of Preparator 1. 'By this grievance he seeks a declaration that as of the date of the grievance, October 17, 1983, and since, he deserves the classification Preparator 2. The Class Definition for Preparator.2 provides: This class covers positions of employees who perform work at the journey-man level in one or more of the skilled trades, and who regularly supervise two or more Preparators or other employees at the Centennial Centre of Science and Technology. They work under the general direction of a more senior Preparator. These employees normally are responsible for a workshop or laboratory, its contents, and for the quality of work performed in their workshop or laboratory. They ensure that tools and equipment are in satisfactory condition and that the highest museum standards of workmanship are maintained. They keep abreast of methods of museum preparation, and develop and improve methods and techniques in their areas. They assist in 'training staff and may be required to assist on other projects or exhibits, or to work in other workshop or laboratory areas, or in exhibit areas in the fabricating, finishing, or the assembly of exhibits. Then Class Definition for Preparator 1 provides: This class covers positions of employees who perform~work at the journeyman level in one ormore Of the skilled trades and who are engaged in the preparation of exhibits at the Cent~ennial Centre Of Science and Technology. These employees work under the direction of a supervising P~reparator. ; i -2- i They work on projects where the highest standards of workmanship are required and where ,the complexity of the work is such that craftsmen's skills in fabricating or assembly are necessary. They use tools typical to their trades as well as using tools and equipment of other trades when performing work typical to these trades, These employees work in exhibit or workshop areas fabricating and assembling exhibits constructed from various materials. They work on exhibits at any stage of preparation, including the final installation. In , addition, these employees may be required to perform maintenance, handyman, or. other tasks! including the physical handling of materials or equipment. They may be required to assist in the training of, or to give technical supervision to junior Preparators or other employees. It is common ground that the grievor does not regularly supervise other Preparators at the Centre. 'On the odd occasion when the, Centre is presenting an exhibit on the road the,grievor may, as a senior man, supervise others, but it is not this that grounds his claim. The grievor claims entitlement to, the higher classification on the basis that he was, and is, "required to perform virtually the identical duties which, the class standard notwithstanding, are being performed by employees whose position has been included in some othermore senior classification"; Rounding, 10/75. To prepare the exhibits at the Science Centre many trades are necessary: woodworker, machinist, electrician, printer, glass blower, model-maker. The grievor is a woodworker . but maintains that the skills and knowledge possessed by him and demanded of him are of the same level as ~machinists who work in metal and who have the higher classification. ' ( : -3- " Rice-Jones, a Preparator 2 in. the Machine Shop,at the time the grievance was filed, described his. duties. He noted that at that time sevenof the ten machinists were c.lassified as .Preparator 2. His task was to manufacture.the metal mechanical side of an exhibit from drawings, sketches and at times simply from ideas. He worked on his own with little need of supervision unless a major change was contemplated. He always went through his supervisor to secure additional materials. Neither he nor. the other Preparator 2's supervised anyone else. He never was regarded as a lead hand.save and except on some occasions when travelling on the road. He allowed that the tolerances in his work were finer but attributed that to the machinery and described the grievor's skills as equal to his own. The grievor works in the woodshop along with sixteen other woodworkers. Their function,as'well is to assist in the preparation of exhibits. What makes the griever unique is that he is 'a skilled pattern-maker - the only one in the Shop - and, unlike the others, he devotes one-third of his time to making patterns for sand molds and constructing fibreglass molds; "I have to make things which others can't." In constructing molds he works from drawings, sketches, cardboard models, and at times simply~ from ideas; "frequently only a general notion is given to me and I.work from it". The gr<evor.noted that some items listed in the Position Specification, Woodworker - Preparator 1, were only performed by him and that while he had all the Skills and Knowledge there listed he also had the skills of pattern-making which were not there listed; The grievor works -4- with wood, plastics, resins, glues and plexiglass. He cannot gain the same tolerances as a metal worker abut notes that is, solely due to the materials and machinery and not to level of skill. John Schwartz, lead hand in the Woodshop, was and is the only Preparator 2 in-the Woodshop. He testified that he would daily check the grievor's work except for molds and pattern-making; "I leave the whole of pattern-making to Robinson, I can't supervise that, he does all the molds." He described the grievor as Ilan excellent craftsman'. The grievor's supervisor, Mayes Case, also recognized that the grievor is the only Preparator l-who makes molds. Deborah Powell, Personnel Adviser at the Ontario Science Centre agreed that the machinists , classed as Preparator 2, do not fit the class definition, since they do not supervise. She testified that there had been and continues.to be "an error in classification though the Ministry isn't taking any action - I can't justify the Preparation 2 class for the incumbent machinists." She distinguished Preparator 1 as working.under close supervision whereas a Preparator 2 works under only general supervision.' In Montague, 110/78, it was noted: If another employee doing work.identical to the grievor is classified ata higher grade, it may indicate that the employer's actual classification practices differ from the 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 (5” ’ ,~ -5- : not be conclusive for a grievor to show that one ~employee in a higher classification performs the same tasks, for it may be.that such an employee has been improperly classified. In our case the employer's practice has not been consistent with its class definition. A large number of machinists have been classified Preparator 2 though they supervise no one. We are satisfied that the pattern-making and molding skills of the grievor, which are demanded for a very substantial portion of his time are at least equal to the skills demanded'of the machinist. Counsel for the Ministry argues that they are different jobs. We find however that they are the same job, preparing exhibits, but with different skills. The grievor does not fit the Preparator 1 class. He does not, when making patterns or, molds, "work under the direction of a supervising preparator"; no one supervises him in this, he does it on his own. He is,unique in the Woodshop. He deserves to be reclassified to Preparator 2 in accordance with the employer's ac,tual classification system. We allow the grievance and declare that the grievor was, at the time of the grievance, and is now, entitled to the higher classification. We remain seized of this grievance and of the grievances of Horsfield and Spessot pending their final settlement. L 6’ Dated this 2kt day of August, 1985. J. Delisle, Vice-Chairman