HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0840.Landry.87-04-10\ .t I’ BETWEEN:
awa4
IN TBB NAlTF.R OF AN ARBITUTION
Under
TKF, CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
TEIB GRIRVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BEFORE:
OPSZU (G. Landry)
- And -
-- Griever
The Crowr in Rig.ic of Ontario
(Ministry cf*Goverrunent Services)
Employer
M. R. Gorsky Vice-Chairman
I. J. Thczson Yember ./
P.. D. caq Member
FOR TRE GRIEVOR: A. Milla::
Counsel
Barrister & Solicitor
FOR TNE WLOYER: P. D. Vaz Hone
?!mager
Staff Reli:ions 3ranch
Ministry :f Government Services
HEARING DATES: kdsust I:. 1985
5:vember 3. 22, 1385
DECISION
Evidence of the Grievor
The Grievor is classified as a Steam Plant Engineer 1. On
July 9, 1984 he filed a grievance (Exhibit 1) grieving his
improper classificatioh and requesting that he be classified as a
Maintenance Mechanic 3, retroactive to January 1, 1981. The "
Grievor is employed by the Ministry of Government Services and
was first employed on July 16, 1973, and commenced employment as
a Steam "Plant Engineer 1. His first employment was at.the MTC
complex in Ottawa and he described his position as basically
-relating to.the operation of the steam plant. His evidence was
as follows:
(1) The regional complex had a maintenance garage with two
low pressure steam boilers, a main office, a heated garage for
snow ploughs~, a sign shop, and a small laborato.ky for the testing
cf concrete to be used on highways and bridges.
(2) Each building had its own heating system except for the
combined sign shop and testing laboratory.
(3) The complex, as above described, was altered in 1977,
after the time of his first employment, with the main garage
expanded by two-thirds. This expansion added more work to his
position.
(4) After he filed the grievance, he was informed that a
job audit would be performed.
(5) The job audit is found in Exhibit 3. The Grievor
2
S’ 2
Indicated that he had added his own comments to the job audit
where he differed with the statements of the auditor.
(6) He was responsible for ongoing routine operations and
maintenance duties within the MTC complex, including a power
,plant ccnsisting of 3 low pressure steam boilers and 1 hot water ,. .
boiler. There were 3 hot air furnaces. His other duties
involved minor maintenance and repair duties within the complex.
(7) The Grievor added to the position over-view:
"Maintains continuous operation of all heating/air conditioning,
plumbing and related mechanical equipment and support systems at
MTC complex."
A good deal of the dispute relating to the work performed by
the Grievor concerned the.auditor's use of the word "routine" and
the word "minor" for example, the."purpose of position" states:
"To perform routine operations and maintenance duties and
miner repairs associated with heating ventilation air- conditioning equipment, plumbing and related mechanical equipment and support systems within the MTC Complex in Ottawa."
The Griever's comments were that the operations and maintenance
duties performed by him were "not necessarily routine" and that
the repairs were not merely minor but were "minor and major."
Throughout the duties and responsibilities,listed in the
audit, "minor" was changed by the Grievor to "minor and major."
The nature of the issue concerning the position overview, purpose
of position and duties and responsibilities can be seen upon an
examination of Exhibit 3, which is annexed to this Award.
(8) He viewed routine matters as being those.of regular
occurrence, such as the regular oiling and greasing of equipment
according to a routine. He was frequently called upon to attend
to matters which did not occur in accordance with a regular
.pattern. An example which he gave was being regularly called by
someone in the main office, at Kemptville, when there was a
heating problem, such as where there was too much or too little
heat. He regarded such matters as not being routine.
(9) In endeavoring to explain the difference between major
and minor matters, the Grievor referred to the changing of a
light bulb as representing a minor matter and replacing a bearing
which had failed in a large motor as a major matter. He also
referred'to the daily check of the.ventilation system, where a
belt-tightening might 'be required, as being minor and the
replacement of a bearing in the main fan, as being major.
(10) The Grievor testified that he i.sa stationary engineer,
holding a provincial third class stationary engineer's
certificate.
(11) The MTC'complex, because of the reduced horsepower
which exists there, is capable of functioning without a
stationary engineer. At one time there were two stationary
engineers on duty. ,Both stationary engineers held fourth class
papers, one being himself, the other being his chief.
(121 Major repairs in the steam plant might be peformed
about once a yea:.
4
(131 Further examples-of minor matters referred to by the
Grievor were the ~adjustment of tension in belts, major matters
being the replacement of bearings, fans and electric motors. He
stated that he has replaced the coil, being part of the heat
, .-recovery system contained in the garage.paint spray booth.
(14) He described the energy wheel on the heat exchanger,
which he equated with a heat recovery wheel where heat from the
exhaust in the main garage is added to the incoming air to the
garage and further stated that he opefated the heat exchanger.
(15) He.was required, approximately twice a mcnth, to change
bearings and was responsible for determining when a bearing had
to be replaced.
(i6) He took the position that he solved all minor problems -
and disagreed with the statement that he only resolved them if he
was able to. As I understood the Grievor, he would respond to
calls, such as calls from the district office in Keaptville, when
he was advised’that an office was too hot or too ccid. He would
attend at the office to ascertain the nature of the problem, for
example when the boiler had ceased to function, a thermostat was
down or a window was open.
(171 .He would only refer matters to the district office when
a tradesman was required and stated that he made the effective
decision if a tradesman was required. The example he gave was a
case where a boiler had broken down and he did not have the parts
or did no possess the knowledge or certification tc effect
repairs. In such circumstances, a tradesman would be called in, I
7
*
such as an oil burner mechanic. He stated that he had the
authority to call .in private tradesmen, i:. the circumstances
described. In fact he referred all requests to Kemptviile.
However, it appeared that his recommendations were followed as a
'matter of course.
(18) He would respcnd and resclve ma;x problems, referring
to a case of a burned act motor reqAring an electrician who
would remove the motor fcr rewinding. The Griever acknowledged
that he did not perform the work in the circumstances descrived,
but merely assisted in a non-trades capacity.
(19) He was not usually responsible for major or complex
problems. He described some of his additional responsibilities ,
as involving the replacing of toilet bowls 'as well as the
mechanisms in the toilet tanks, such as flush valves.
(20) He has installed "complete" sirks. He added that he -.
installed steam traps once or twice a year and installed feed
water lines on boilers three or four times a year.
(21) He spent approximately three hours a day on what he
described as routine checks.
(221 He stated that preventive maintenance was planned by
the Kemptville office and was contained c: cards and that such
work took up approximately three hours a day.
(23) He spent apprsximately two hours a day dealing with
unanticipated matters, referring tc work 5n fans and door locks.
Because he was often called away from roctine maintenance it was
?
i\
6
difficult for him to more accurately assess the amount ci time
spent on preventive maintenance.
(24) In referring to overhauling locks which where not
operating properly, he stated that sc:=h work was r.at done very
,frequently and identified the L;:rk as entailing oiling the lock
or, if the lock was found to be loose, taking'the lock cff the
door and tightening the brackets, lubricating and aligning the
parts. Damaged locks were sometimes taken aDart by him :epaired
and put back together. he did not install new leeks but called
the Kemptville office when such work had to be done.
(25) In referring to the third paragra$h of p.4 of Exhibit
3, the Grievor stated that this function took place approximately
once. a year and specifically referred to the*cleanlng of the
energy wheel. He indentified the work as replacing bearing
motors and fans and installing plumbing drain lines. It was the
position of the Grievor that he did the same work as an
Maintenance Mechanic 3 in the circumstances described. The
t senior maintenance mechanic referred to by Cm was Mike Aldham,
whose evidence will be referred to.
(26) One item which the Grievor stated he did not perform
was the recharging of fire exthguiskcrs.
127) In dealing with the fifth ;aragra?h of s.4 of Exhibit
3, the Grievor stated that he ?.ad, on two cccasiors, reFiaced the
small air pump on th< CO; analyzer, -Rich he regasded as a major
job.
1
(28) In addition to the unblocking of sinks, he aiso
repaired holes in sinks by placing silicone caulk under the hole.
He did not perform janitorial services, such as filling soap
dispensers.
$29 ) He added p.6 to Exhibit 3, which contains a list of
additional responsibilities being "requisitions required replace-
ment parts from stores" and "maintains relevant records of all
maintenance and repair work for further use by Kemptville
Regional Office."
(30) He was supervised by a.Building Superintendent, Maureen
Croll. He stated that she did not supervise him on a day-to-day
basis in either of his repair or preventative maintenance .-
functions, as she was located in Kemptville and visited him ,,
infrequently.
(31) There was no other supervision of his work at the
MTC complex and that there were no other maintenance mechanics.-
located there, the Grievor thinking of himself as a maintenance
mechanic
'(32) He was the only person at the MTC complex doing repair
and mechanical maintenance work except when outside tradespeople
were called in to perform work that he could not perform.
(33) The Grievor was shown Exhibit 4, which is the.Position
Specification and Class Allocation form with respect to the
position that he occupies. He testified that he had never seen
this form previous to the hearing. It was agreed that Exhibit 4
was prepared after the completion of the audit (Exhibit 3). The
R
Grievor referred tc Item 4 in Exh ibit 4 "Skills and Knowledged
Required to Perform the Work" and stated that he had the qualifi-
cations and skills set out in that Item. In referring to the
statement "sufficient mechanicai aptitude and knowledge of HVAC",
the Grievor testified that HVAC stood for high velocity airy
conductor.
(34) Inreferring to the Maintenance Mechanic 3
qualification set cut in Exhibit 2, being the class standard with
respect to the maintenance trades classes, the Grievor stated
that he met the qualifications listed under paragraphs numbered 1
and that he has an elementary school education with knowledge of
handtools and power equipment;. that he met the requirements of
paragraph numbered 2, as he had,completed.the required
apprenticeship training in one of the skilled trades and had
obtained certification of completion by the Department of Labour
(third class stationary engineer's certificate). The Grievor
also stated that he had the ability to work from fairly
complicated blueprints and specifications, as set out in
paragraph 3 of the qualifications; that he had never had occasion
to instruct less skilled assistants; that he had the ability to
_ perform a variety of maintenance tasks employing hand tools and
power equipment wi,thout supervision and was in good physical
condition.
(35) When referred to that portion of paragraph numbered 1
of the Maintenance Class 3 Standard: II . . . these employees are
required to complete assigned tasks according to acceptable
8
::
B
9
standards of quality and production," the Grievor stated that he
was not aware how this would apply to him and he further stated
that no one net even his nominal supervisor, Ms. Crol.1, actually
checks up on the work that he does.
(~36) He painted the housing fan on the boiler room floor,
has repaired brick work in the bcilers and replaced lining in the
doors of the boilers. He stated further that there is a welding
machine in the garage which he has used in carrying out his job.
(37) In addition to assisting tradesmen, when they were
called, as above referred to, he also assisted other maintenance
staff, when called in.
(38) He would call a drain cleaning company which provided a
private drain cleaning service whose servicemen would attend at
the MTC complex for the purpose of cleaning out catch basins and
oil interceptors. On occasion,.the ordering of drain cleaning
-. services would be.made from-Kemptville. -'
(39), He felt that he fell under the provision of Item fi(ii)
as set out in the Maintenance 3 Class Standard, as he was not
supervised by a Maintenance Foreman or someone in a skilled
trades position. He also felt that he fell under II(i). He was
of the opinion that he was the incumbent there referred to, this
being the Journeyman class.
(40) He also concluded that he fell within the Maintenance
Mechanic 3 position by virtue 0, c the application of the language
in II(iii). !=Ie stated that he "must estimate the quantities of
material and labour required, as he ordered material, for
I 10
example, replacement.parts for plumbing fixtures, venting,
bearings, light bulbs, air filters, repair kits for plumbing
vaives, which represented the stock on hand kept by him. He
testified that he had forms on hand with which to order
replacement parts which he completed, signed and forwarded to
Kemptville for implementation, which fcllowed automatically.
(41) He acknowledged that he did not keep account of
materials used but that he did keep account of repairs performed,
(42) He kept a record of work authcrizaztion forms which
ccntained the approximate amount of time which he spent on a job
but stated that this form did not list 2arts used by him.
(43) In his opinion, the work performed by him imposed
responsibilities not assumed by.any other maintenance mechanics,
as he was the only person in his location overseeing the
operation. . .
(44)
In cross-examination, he stated that~he would be
involved in the performance of what he referred to as major
matters approximately a dozen times a year.
(45)
He described the replacement of bearings (major in his
view) as involving the removal of "bad" bearings. The job
required the loosening of bolts at the base of the bearings,
iifting up the shaft and fan and removing the old bearings using
a wheel puller. He stated that he would then clean up the shaft,
p.:sh the new bearings in place using a 'natmner and drift punch.
?::e bearings were positioned by him in the proper place on the
skaft. iie then tightened all set-screws, lowered the fan and
shaft back onto the pedestal, inserted :he bolts and tightened
them, with the bearing in its proper place.
(46) It took approximately fcur hours to complete this task.
The Grievor stated the job takes between one hour and one and
half hours when a Maintenance Mechanic 3 assisted him.
(47 ) He kept some bearings on hand and restocked them after
use through the employment of a requisition form.
(48 1 Field purchase orders are issued by him for use on the
site. Three orders authorized by Supervisors at Kemptville were
put to him, dated respectively, June 21, 1983, December 21, 1983
and October 23, 1984, which he cacknowledged represented the only
replacement bearings ordered by him in a two year period.
(49) He reiterated that.he.had replaced bearings on a
regular basis, approximately two times a month. When it was pur
to him, in cross-examination, that the record of purchase orders
with respect’to replacement bearings,diC not substantiate his
evidence, the Grievor did not corrnent.
(50) In cross-examination, the Grievor stated that he had
performed the task of replacing bearings on large machines
entirely on his own on one occasion. Wzen asked how often he hrd
done so with a Maintenance Mechanic 3, he stated he had done so
on a number of times but stated further that he had replaced
smaller bearings on unit headers, quite a few times.
(51) In cross-examination, the Grievor was shown the Boiler
Room log book for 1983, which was maintained cn the site. The
log book showed that on December 14, 1913, two new bearings hat
?
z
12
been installed on an electric motor on t?.e garage ventilaticn
system (s,upply air fan). The record als: showed that on December
14, i983 :here was a maintenance work orter in which a
Maintenance Electrican from Kemptville, C. Malcomson; had charged
six hours for the.installatLon of a new tearing in the fresh air ,.
'~;a, in the MTC garage. The Grievor testified that he was net
sure if :his was the same jcb as he had referred to, but stated
that he had performed such work along wirh Mr. Malcomson.
(52) Further, in cross-examination, the Grievor was shcwn an
entry on April 5, 1983, with respect to rhe installation of new
bea:ings on the motor fan on a gas burner for the Sign Shop. On
the same date, three hours was entered.t: replace bearings on the
oil burner in the MTC Sign Shop, the person performing the work . :
being shcwn as R. Saunders. The Grievor stated that he did not
knew if this.was the same jcb that he said he performed; although
he acknowledged that it could be the same job, but maintained
tha: he bad done the same job on a number of other occasions.
(53) When asked about an item involving major repair work on
the boiler, the example cited by the Griever was replacement of
the feed-water line on the existing line and he testified that it
was subject to oxygen pitting resulting in leaks from the inside.
He testified that he would have to break open the pipe unicn (one
tc the pzmp and one to the boiler) which was closest to the leak.
He state? that he threaded the union, removed the pipe on the
jch, which then had to be cut and threattd. For this purpcse, he
wc-:ld bcrrow a threader frc% a plumber zz .an electrician. 3e
E
13
stated that he c*L:= a new pipe, threaded the pipe and placed dope
on the threads. :-:e saiC that he would perform this job once
every two or three years.
(54) He replaced the coil in the garage spray booth. He
stated that he wculd assist two plumbers A. Chapman and B.
Saunders.
(55) He servic ed the energy wheel in the garage once a
year. To do this he had to shut the system down and rig-up the
pressure washer used to wash the wheel. The unit contains a
water pump under high pressure and water soap mix is used to
perform the job.
(56) In cross- examination;he said that the need for a
tradesman might vary from five to six a day to none over a number
of weeks.
(57). In cross-examination, he testified that he would
attempt to repair less complicated oil-burner malfunctions on his
own, however, in the case of such matters as a burned out motor,
he arranged for the attendance of an Oil Burner Mechanic by
phoning the Xemprville office.
(58) In cress-examination, the Grievor clarified some of his
statements, in-chief, concerning his experience in plumbing
work. He testified that he had not installed any complete toilet
bowls but that he had installed a sink in the coffee shop in the
Highways Garage. The Eighways Carpenter made the hole for the
new sink and he set the sink, attached the new fixture and
installed a new plastic trap. He testified that while he could
install copper pipe, he had never done so inthe cou:se of
performing his job. He referred to steam traps being a 'device to
prevent steam from going through drain water. 3e sta:ed that he
maintained steam traps and if there was a leak would repair it
,with a repair kit for replacing worn out parts. He stated
further that he did this once or twice a year. He also testified
.that he attached heat rads, steam headers and replaced steam
traps. When asked about further examples of installation of
plumbing he refirred to the installation of a s'ump pump in the
boiler room.
(59) There were certain items under scheduled preventive
maintenance, which program was contained on ca:ds which he
received from Kemptville. By consulting the cards he knew the
various items of preventive maintenance that were scheduled. The
logs kept by him recorded the time spent in the perfcrmance of
any job.
(60) He also clarified his earlier eviden:e as to his work
on locks. He testified that he looked after, vhat he referred to
as, obvious problems as when "doors jammed." Ke stated that he
did not tear down locks in order to put in replacement parts and
he did not install new locks. He stated that he wouid call
Kemptville if there was a problem with a lock requiring a new
installation.
(6i) He was not involved in the repair or servicing of fire
extinguishers, his responsibilities being limired to a monthly
visual pressure check. When the fire extinguishers had to be
~,,
2 . - -3
refilled he would call someone in Kemptville who wc,uld arrange
for refilling.
(62) He did'not .service the gas analyzer in the garage, this
task being performed by a Toronto firm.
..i63) He cleaned the filters of the approximate 25 air-
conditioners within his work area but was not respcnsible for
servicing a large air-conditioning unit on the garage ro:f. Ee
'did not work on the compressors of the window air-conditioning
units, that work being performed by an electrician. ;
(64) The garage venting system was serviced by an c-tside
contractor. He identified the outside contractor as the
Honeywell Company, which was said serviced the controls and
thermostats. .
(65) He kept no stores and called Kemptville for an$
requirements,, save for certain small items which he kept on the
site such as pipe insulation, gasket material, packing, oil, _,
paint and a few pipe fittings.
(66) In cross-examination, when referred to the job specii'i-
cations for the high velocity air systems, the Grievor testified
that he did not really know much about them.
(6-J) He checked the garage ventilation system, tested the
boiler water and added chemicals where necessary, blew down tke
water columns and lifted the safety~valves on the boiler and
checked the office heating system. Other scheduled preventive
maintenance tasks were referred to by him, included the 2aint:r.g
of the boiler room floor. Entries with respect tc this task
.?
16
where shown in the log book for the month of January, February
and March 1983.
168) A company, Perolin-Bird-Archer, assisted with the water
treatment for the boiler. The Chief Engineer designs the water
.treatment,of the boiler water. In cross-examination, the Grievor
~qualified his earlier testimony by stating that he assisted in
the process of water treatment, if required.
(69) When referred to the entry, March 10, 1983, invclving
an electrician installing a,three way switch, the :Grievor
testified that he had assisted in this work. The Griever added
that if a fixture was broken on existing wiring he would perform
the repairs.
(70) He assisted plumbers in the placement of seals on a
toilet.
(71) He replaced ballasts associated with fluorescent
lighting.
(72) He reiterated, in cross-examination, that he had
operated and maintained the air compressor in the garage,
receiving parts for this purpose.
173) He referred to occasions when the floor drain in the
main garage would become plugged. He stated that when he could
not unblock it he would arrange with the Kemptville office'to
have someone (e.g., Roto-Rooter) do SO.
(74) An entry in the log on September 21, 1983, referring to
a roof ieak, was explained by the Grievor as follows: He called
17
someone in Kemptville who looked after the matter and he
acknowledged that he might have had nothing to do with this work.
(75) Referring to an entry of September 28, 1983, which
concerned the repiacement of a latch top on the spray booth door,
.the Grievor stated that the doors were misaligned. He testified
that he could not remember what happened after he attempted to
fix the latch top.
(76) Referririg to an entry of October 4, 1983, concerning
damage to the spray booth in the main building, he stated that h,e
had called Kemptville and that the damaged panel had been removed
and repaired.
(77) The Grievor testified, further, that he had performed
some. welding on the job. Welding jobs referred to by him were on
brackets holding the motor on the air compressor. He stated that
he took the brackets to a bodyman and used an acetylene torch to
do the job. He stated that this was the only such welding he had
ever performed.
(78) He had note performed very much brick work. He added
that there was not much brick work to be performed after a
conversion to gas.
(79) Pricing of work authorizations was performed at
Kemptville and he would often not know the prices of work
performed.
(80) The majcrity of purchases which he was authorized to
make were for under 8100.00.
(81) He alsc cut gaskets.
‘f - .I
Evidence of Michael Aldham
The second witness called by the Union was Michael Aldham,
who was employed by the Ministry of Government Services a: the
..#err.ptville Agriculture College as a Maintenance Mechanic 3 for a
r~,-umber of ministeries lot; ted at the College at the relevant
time. He testified as follows:
Ill His work at Kemptville involved a large variety of
mechanically related jobs, including heating, cooling and
'electrical systems.
(2) -. He was required to perform different functions-in
different buildings. The buildings provided for a wide variety
of purposes, ranging from office buildings to pig barns.
Different buildings would involve the maintenance of different
kinds of equipment.
(3) He was not resp.onsible for the repair of burners. I_f
burners required repair, an Oil Burner Mechanic was called in.
(4) His heating and ventilating maintenance function
involved a number of pressure vessels furnishing heating at the
complex, there being a number of different types of heating
supply sources. In referring to hot water ~boilers within the
complex, he testified that he was responsible for the maintenance
of pipes involving lubrication and change of pipes, bearings or.
motors, belts, seals, fan units, and maintenance of radiator
grills and air 'filters. ,He had little responsibility with
respect to three steam boilers which were serviced by a
-5
19
stationary engineer. Referring to a number of hot air furnaces
(gas and oil fired), he stated that there were more gas than cil
fired furnaces and that the servicing perfcrmed by him was
essentially the same as on the hot water bcilers. He also
.-gerviced some electric unit heaters which were present in some of
the buildings. These were described'as being space heaters from
1000 to 5000 watts capacity, usually not.being portable. He was
responsible for oiling the fan motors every three months and
checking the heaters tb see whether switches had to be changed.
Any decision with respect to a change in a switch would be made
between himself and his supervisor, the latter making the final
decision. If there was a problem with a thermostat, he might
repair it but that more complex electrical problems would be
referred 'to an electrician and th$t plumbing problems would be
referred to a plumber.
(5) In referring to ventilat+on and air-conditiocing, he
stated that he would change the filters, which he described as
being sponge rubber similar to filters found in a home except
that the latter are normally made of fiberglas. The filters were
slid into a receptacle and removed dust from the air.
(6) He replaced bearings on oil pumps.
(7) He also referred to servicing of air-conditioning
units, the largest being a nine ton unit in one building. He
stated that in the case of prcblems an expert in air-ccnditioning
would be summoned
20
(8) He referred to a function Terformed by him involving
the resetting of time clocks, the checking of fuses going to the
compressor, the checking of fuses to control circuits and the
checking of fuses on compressor units. In the event of a
problem, and there being evidence of power available at all
sources, a specialist in the area would be broug?.t in ta effect
repairs.
(9) He unpluged blocked toilets, repaired plumbing leaks,
replaced ballasts (associated with fluorescent lighting) and
light bulbs.
(10) He reiterated, on a number of occasions, that his
supervisor would make the final decision to call in outside
tradespersons upon advice being received from him.
(11) Mr. Aldham emphasized, in his testimony, that any work
of greater complexity than described above would be referred to
outside tradespeople or to those on the site.
(12) He replaced defective wall switches and plugs which
required him to unwire the old unit and rewire the new unit.
(13) In referring to plumbing functions, he stated he would
replace taps and seals but that he was not respcnsible for such
tasks as refilling the soap dispense: which job was performed by
a janitor. He moved such items as sinks and ran water lines. He
reiterated that if the job was in acy way involved, a plumber
would be summoned. He stated that he spent some considerable
period of time assisting plumbers by performing soldering
functions. The Grievor described his involvemen: in such work as
21
moving sinks requiring him to bolt the sink to the wall and tc
soldering pipe.
(14) He would obtain the monthly maintenance schedule from
his supervisor. He stated that his time allotment for planned
maintenance would be approximately 40%. This schedule would be . .
dete--' ,...ined by the maintenance cards. Referring to the balance of
his work, which he described as unplanned repairs and painting,
he stated that this took up approximately 60% of his time. He
stated th$t the painting of equipment did not take up much of
this time. In referring to hispainting work he mentioned such
things as rust prevention painting or painting motors after new
bearings had been installed.
(15) He also referred to the log which he maintained for his
supervisor, where he checked off scheduled maintenance and added
non-scheduled repairs performed by him. He stated that this
function was performed every two weeks using the time cards. He
stated that he would log what he had found, what he had done and
the time spent on each job. He stated that this information
would be handed in every two weeks with the time cards.
(16) He stated that he did little work involving maintenance
of locks and doors and stated further that he did little
carpentry work.
(17) when referred to a small number of heat recovery
systems within his area, he stated that his functions varied
1ittLe from those performed on what he called normal "heat
systems”.
‘+. -
22
(18) Ther~e was a refrigeration cold storages system within
the complex but he had little invalvement with it. He stated
that such work was he performed w- as similar to the air-con-
ditioning functions which he had described earlier, as part of
his maintenance functions. He , cleaned window air-conditioning
units, washed filters and that he might, on occasion, change a -,
switch on the units. Such functions were provided for on his
preventive maintenance cards.
(19) There was an electric rotor which was par: of the
operations system of an overhead garage door located on the site
but he stated that he had never had occasion to repair it but
that he had oiled the chains and checked the belts-of the system
,which functions were provided for on his maintenance cards.
(20) He indicated that .he operated vacuum cleaners and .
washed down equipment.
~(21) He furnished requests co his supervisor, requisitioned
parts for repairs and routine maintenance. There was a small
store of parts which he kept for certain tasks which frequently
occurred. In referring to such ?arts, he mentioned popular sized
bearings, some spare pumps and parts for replacement motors.
(22) In referring to the disputed job audit (Exhibit 3), he
identified certain items as not having been performed by him.
One of,them, listed on page 1, Vas "adjusting operating pressure"
on certain stationary boilers. :ie stated, however, that he had
adjusted water regulation valves, repaired valves, checked safety
valves for proper release of pressure, established minor
23
preventive maintenance routines, performed zinor adjustments and
repairs, prepared boilers for inspection by opening, draining and
*washing them and alerting his supervisor to problems and to
situations where ~further maintenance might be required.
J.23) He described his nurrtier one priority as being public
relations which he stated representec a "gocd part of his job".
He described himself as being a “general mechanical
handyman” but excluded from that designation any work requiring
carpentry.
(24) In cross-examination, Mr. Xldham stated that he had
obtained either a grade 10 or I1 edu:ation and that he had taken
some night school courses including a grade 12 chemistry course.
:le described his,prior education as Including training as an auto.
mechanic where he had an “A” licence, permitting him to do
mechanic’s work with the exception of body work.
(25) He described his work with the Mixistry, prier to his
work in Kemptville, as requirisg him to travel through the region
where he worked with a plumber. He described the work as being
maintenance oriented and his vork as being fhat of a pl;u?rber’s
helper. He stated that he performed this work for between five
to six years. He stated that St the time cf his giving evidence
he was “on then road”. assistins a plutier, answering caiis within
the region. He stated that he left -he Kez?tville operation in
the spring of 1985 in order tc perf crm work within the region.
(26) In cross-examinatior., Mr. Xldham stated that there Yere
roughly 50 buildings on the ci~pus c:. about 100 acres. :de stated
i
24
that he would move between jobs on the campus in a truck in which
his equipment was located. :le described the truck as a plumbing
truck containing plumbing eqA.pment. He further described the
equipment as including light servicing plugs and recepticles
along with an array of plumbing parts. This would include a .
plu&ing torch with which tc solder joints on pipes. He stated
that within the shop he operated an acetylene welding torch which ,
was p&table in nature. There is also an electric welding torch
which he used as well, althcuqh he is not a welder by trade. He
stated that he would weld such equipment as ladders, angle irons,
steel bars such as window bars. He stated that he would also
grind weld using a disk grinder. The grinding which he described
involved the grinding of steel hand tools to smooth corners. the .
also stated that he wculd operate chain hoists which would lift
motors, boiler doors, and heavy equipment and doors from inciner-
ators.
(27) He also stated, in cross-examination, that he operated
a reciprocating power hacksaw which is electric motor driven and
which cuts through pioe. He described this as a simple process,
and easy to learn. Ee also operated a gas operated
air- compressor jack hammer.
(2E) His services were sometimes called upon when the
incinerator door would not open. The door was air operated by a
mechanical device. ';e said he would often be able to remedy the
prcblem. He stated -,hat this wouid happen during cold weather
.im to thaw the 1 .ines to get the door and it became necessary for h
to operate. In performing this job he refe:red tc having to
by-pass a few safety switches. He describe< the job as not beizq
complicated. He said it would take a persc:. about ten minutes to
learn how to perform this procedure.
:<:2 9 1 For the most part he handled all “trouble calls” on
campus.
(301 He did not do burner repairs because they could only be
done by a licenced person and he did not have such a licence. Se
would determine if a burner mechanic was needed but added that he i
did some work in relation to the burners. 1 take it that this
referred to minor matters which he decided he could do on his
own.
(31) He assisted in putting pipes together on the heating
systems in the main boiler room and in other pl~aces. He referred
to there being .a main boiler room as well as seven or eight
smaller buildings with their ocjn heating systems.
(32) He stated that the steam from the heating unit in the
central building heated eight larger buildings (nine if the plant
itself was included). He stated that if there was a malfunction,
he would be required to go to the buildings where the problem
might be found to exist. He explained his function as
endeavoring to find out why there was no heat. In cases where
heating was by hot water he would check the hot water
temperature, the functioning of the pump and the zater Fressure.
He stated that he would repair pumps by tearing them down and
repairing and rebuilding them.
2E
(33) Ina case of problems Cth a thermostat he would
endeavor to repair it in the firs: instance, before requesting
service person., Using a power testing device, he woald check
circuitry.
.-,(.34) He would estimate the c:st of repairs where the cost
might exceed the cost of a new unit. He said other cost
estimates would be performed by his supervisor after the witness
had identified the problem. He then went on to say that in the
case of small items he would establish the cost. He described
his jurisdicticn as involving,electric motors to pumps.
(35) He performed no repairs on air-conditioning units
although he might change a fan or an electric switch, if it was
of a common type.
(36) In cross-examination, he referred to his replacing '
faulty parts on existing plumbing and went on to state that he
would repair holes in pipes, replace piges, thread pipes and
solder He also stated that he wculd change toilet bowls and most
parts relating to the bowls. /
(37) In referring to electrical work he stated that he would
install socket switches, and ballasts. He emphasized that he
would endeavor to stay within the 110 volt range. He stated that
if a new piece of electrical equipment was installed, he would
start it up.
(38) If anything unusual oco;lrred, relating to the operation
of equipment, he would record it and pass it on to the district
office.
i
27
(39) Sometimes he would transfer suc5 infcrmaticz as serial
number, horsepower, amperage draw, rpm, belt size,
manufacturer’s name, date of installation, to a record card. He
referred to the fact that he was permitted to FJrchase certain
3mall parts on his own and he referred tt fan belts, saint
brushes, oil and grease. He referred to his having a 925.0:
limit placed on such purchases.
(40) He performed some repairs on the heat recovery.sys:em
involving pumps which he described as being sir.Llar t: the vsrk
that he did on heat system circulating p;;nps.
(41) He referred to the existence of fire hydrants on the
campus and his responsibility,for draining them and filling them
with anti-freeze in the winter an.d b1owir.g them down In the
spring. This job was part of his preventive maintenance
scheduled duties. He testified ,that he uas not respcnsible for
maintenance of the hoses used in conjunction with the hydrants.
(42) He also stated, in cross-examination, that he was
responsible for cleaning out the grease trap ir. the kitchen in
the boys’ residence. He described the grease as coming.froz?
cooking and as being part of his preventive maintenance program,
along with the maintenance of exhaust fax on the tog of the
cookstove.
(43) In cross-examination, he stated that he sai his job as
having the purpose of reducing the amount of work that would have
to be performed by specialists. He stazed thas Kemprville is
sufficiently far from the city as to im;?se a considerable
26
financial burden if it becomes necessary to call in a specialist.
Where he could perform repairs, a considerable saving could be
effected.
(44) He spent very ,little of his time welding. He also said
that he rarely used the power hacksaw and that very many
different people used it as it was not a high skill operation.
(45) In referring to entering information concerning new
equipment on the card, he stated that he did~not fill in the
instructions from the manufacturer.j
Evidence of Willis Render
Willis Render, is a Maintenances Mechanic 3 employed by the
MGS in the Kemptville regionat the time of the grievance He,was
off ill, and off work, from May 20 1984 to April 9, 1985.
He testiffed.as follows:
(1) He became a Maintenance Mechanic 3 around 1972 and had
he had no trades certification. He had taken no courses in
trades training while he was in the pcsition of Maintenance
Mechanic 3 and he had been involved in a number of different
kinds of mechanical work on different jobs.
.(2) He had performed maintenance work on the fire
extinguishers and was the only person at Kemptville who did so.
He said that approximately 10% of his time was spent,in servicing
the fire extinguishers, involving checking the pressure,
inspection and recharging.
i
29
(3) He described his work as involving maintaining heating,
ventilating and air-conditioning equipment. This involved the
changing of filters, fan belts, cleaning, in much the same.way as
did Mr. Aldham, pursuant to a routine schedule of maintenance.
Re also described his work .as dealing with routine breakdowns in
much the same way as did Mr. Aldham.
(4) He did not perform any work with respect to the steam
plant pressure vessels.
(5) He described his work as involving minor plumbing work
which he performed on his own, the more complicated work was
performed by plumbers with his assistance.
(6) He installed new kits (faucets), replacing valves and
repaired the flushometer, which operates on urinals or toil'ets.
He.described his responsibilities as involving the changing of
toilet bowls and urinal bowls. He stated that in such cases he
would arrange to call a plumber who performed the job with his
assistance.
(7) He described his electrical work as involving the
changing of ballasts, light bulbs and fluorescent tubes. He
stated that he did not move switches as this required wiring. He
stated that he only replaced defective switches and receptacles.
(8) He checked the, amperage on electric motors employing a
tester to see if the correct number of amperes were being drawn,
as specified on the motor.
(9) He indicated that in the case.of locks which were not
30
operating properly, he would endeavor to overhaul and repair
them.
(10) He also described his work in attempting to repair non-
functioning incinerator doors.
(,ll) He worked, with assistance, on refractory (fire) brick -
which would be placed inthe door.
(12) He worked on micro-switches when they malfunctioned.
He stated that if the malfunction was due to parts sticking he
would endeavor to clean the parts or replace them. In more -2
complex cases he would request the service of specialized
tradespersons.
113) He performed minor carpentry repairs.
114) He unstuck windows, painted motors and.pumps. . .
(15) He replaced bearings on motors on a regular basis lone
a week). He referred to doing this cn small motors including fan
motors and pump motors.
(161 He described the breakdown of pre-set and unscheduled
work as being roughly equal.
(17) He would attend to lightin; problems, in cases where
circuit breakers had tripped.
(181 He also attended when an area was too hot or too cold
or where doors would~ not open.
(19) He added that the work on fire extinguishers was
generally ccnfined to one month during the summer.
(20) He referred to the fact that he would replace, not
repair, heat controls and thermostats.
1 He indicated that he might requisition parts frcm
stores or buy equipment from petty cash. He believed that his
limit was $40.00. He went on to add that his supervisor would
authorize any purchases.
(22) He worked on the hot water or steam heating systems ..~L
31
where he would make adjustments in pressure and bled the lines
for air locks. He referred to working on the forced air‘cil
burner system, where he would check electrodes and fuel lines,
clean the burner nozsel and change filters. If this did not 3
correct the problem, he would arrange for an oil burner mechanic
to be called. He stated that he could usually get the oii burner
working. He testified that if the electrodes were no longer
functional he would replace them. .
(23) He generally did not do janitorial works such as .
'replacing soap.in the soap dispensers.
(24) 'He described the work performed by him when he worked
in the region where Kemptville is located, and not at the
Kemptville centre,' and testified that he performed zhe'sane type
of maintenance in government buildings within the region as he
performed at Kemptville.
125) He described his being trained to work on the fire'.
extinguishers over a,two day period by tradesmen and said he once
attended a seminar in Ottawa.
(26) He also described having attended a one day seminar in
Toronto with respect to air-conditioning,maintenance.
32
(27) in describing his work with pumps, he stated that he
might need assistance from another trade such a plumber. He
indicated that he or the plumber might lead in completing the
work and that this would depend on which of them were more
qualified. .
(28) In describing the faucet kits, he said, in cross-
examination, that they included washers and cartridges, some
would take a whole cartridge and some would be made up of valves,
stem and seal with a tap washer and some would involve work with
a tap washer on a seat. He referred, in cross-examination, to
placing seals in pumps, new couplings between the pump and motor,
keeping a record of bearings, if the bearings had not been
replaced w'nen in a ,torn down state. tie also referred to.the
replacing of oil pumps.
(291 He did not perform conbustion tests on oil burners.
(30, His recorded historical information concerning
machinery on cards.
(31) In cross-examination, he testified that he worked with
a technical clerk of the district office in connection with the
establishment of a history for a particular piece of equipment.
He was responsible for setting up the card index for all
mechanical equipment in the district. The historical record
provides information as to size, number of pieces in each,
building. It represents a means of inventory control as well as
a means of determining where equipment is located.
(32
ind
)
,i,
33
He was responsible for maintaining a control card which
cate when equipment requires service. 'From his evidence, I
gathered that this information is transmitted to the technical
clerk. The decision as to the frequency of service is decided by
Mr. Render's supervisor. . .
(33) He indicated that he has a grade 10 education-and has
taken maintenance courses at Algonquin College in Ottawa dealing
with welding (gas and electric), metal fabrication, drafting,
English up-grading and Algebra. Before being.employed by the
Ministry he was employed by .a. feed company and worked.with
mechanical equipment, including motors, pumps, electrical control
panels and air-compressors. He also worked with industrial size
sewing machines and staple machines. He also serviced lift . trucks. He also obtained experience in working with domestic
electric refrigerators, assisting in the changing of compressors
and the injection of freon.
(34) In cross-examination, he stated that when on the road
he would communicate with his supervisor several times a day but
it was basically not possible to furnish him with much
supervision and he had wide latitude when in the field.
Evidence of Brian Bellinqer
The Employer called as a witness, Brian Bellinger, who was
the District Manager for MGS in the Kemptville District. His
major experience prior to employment with the MGS was in his own
construction business for approximately 20 years and as a
34
specification writer with the Ottawa Housing Authority. As a
specification writer, he wrote specifications for contracted
repairs in maintenance as well as construction and maintenance
specifications. While in the constructicn .business he wrote new
construction specifications.
As District Manage: he was responsible for the provision to
all ministeries in the district of accommodation. This includes
340 government owned buildings and 150 leased buildings and a
-.! number of houses in land banks. As part of his job, he was
responsible for a staff complement of 56 employees including 4
unclassified employees. The Grievoris cne of the members of his
/ staff.
Mr. Eellinger testified: '
(1) The Griever's job had been audited once-before, some
three or four year's ago, when the Griever questioned his
classification; Esther Kulman,. from the ?ersonnelDepartment in
Toronto, performed a classification study employing a list of
duties. The Grievor was a Steam Plant Engineer 1 which paid more
than an Maintenance Mechanic 2. In the result, the Grievor was
red circled, which meant that he would remain in his position
until he would be classified as more than a Steam Plant
Engineer 1.
(2) The notations on Exhibit 3 indicating routine
difficult) or complexity, while it might lead to certain involved
procedures being performed, was, nevertheiess, routine in the
sense that the proced,;res had to be repeated over and over again.
-
-- 2,
He regarded the cards created when new equipment was installed
(Exhibit 6) as representing a routine task performed with
frequency. These cards would be brought forward ona regular
basis for the Grievor to perform his routine ta'sks.
t.3 ) Referring to Exhibit 7, the Work Authorization Form, . I
the witness stated that this form would go to the Griever for
performance of a task. It described ~for the Grievor the list cf
duties to be performed by him.
(4) He referred to Exhibit 8 as representing duties to be
performed daily, being in the form of a check list.
(5) The Griever's job involved.mostly uncomplicated
matters. An example chosen by him in identifying what he
regarded as being minor was a case.where small cracks would be
found within the boiler. In such case the fire clay in. the *
boiler would be patched. Where the defects were major, an
outside contractor would have.to be brought in to replace the
clay or create a major patch. The Grievor would only be expected
to do minor patching.
(6) He regarded such tasks as checking tension belts on air
handling units, replacing the belts and the drive couplings or
bearings as representing minor repairs. He identified major
repairs as arising when a unit would cease operating and, in
order'to repair it, the mechanism would have to be dismantled.
He compared this with merely replacing the bearings.
(7) In referring to the allegation that the Grievor had
repaired a coil, the witness stated that he could only recall
1
36
this being done once and that it was IL, -ye in the nature of
routine servicing. He was not able tc recall who performed the
repairs but felt that the Griever was only peripherally involved
in the repair work.
0) The Grievor did not resolve major problems. He did not . . ..-
regard such tasks as setting a thermostat as major and he stated
that the Grievor was not expected to replace the wiring in a
thermostat.
(9) Referring to p.2 of Exhibit 3, Mr. Rellinger testified
that the Grievor was not expected to instal circuit breakers in a
panel or run to the switch or rcn to the new light fixture. This
work would be performed by an electrician.
(10) The 'Griever would be expected to adjust and tighten.
locks but not to take them apart to add and replace parts. The
Grievor would not be expected tc overhaul locks: This would be
done by a specialist, such as a carpenter or locksmith.
(11) In working on a motor coupling or Rump, the Grievor -
would only be expected to recogcize an operations failure and to
ask,for a Maintenance Mechanics 3, such as Yr. Aldham to assist.
He stated that minor bearing or coupling replacements fall within
the Griever's duties, but nothing ,beycnd thaz.
112) The Grievor, in working on the CO2 analyzer, which
measures air quality in the garage, wculd replace filters and do
routine maintenance, but an expert wo.:ld be expected to set Up /
and calibrate the machine. There was a cons-derable difference
37
between preventive maintenance (lutricaticn, etc.) and
recalibrating a machi,ne.
(13) The Grievor could order materials up to the amount of
$25.00 and maintenance work authorization would-have to be
ordered by supervision at Kergtville and filled out by the
personnel performing the work.
(14) Referring to Exhibit 6, he stated'that a clerk at
Kemptville would be responsible for the maintenance records.
(15) He compared the area for which the Grievor was
responsible with the area for which Mr. Aldham was responsible at
Kemptville. He testified that the Kemptville complex encomposed
600 acres, comprising 50 buildings related to the College, the
Ministry of Natural Resources District Office, the MGS District
Office and the. nearby M.inistry of Natural Resources Nursery
Complex. He stated.that the number. and diversity of buildings in
the Kemptville'complex differentiated the nature of the
maintenance work to be performed at the MTC complex on Tremblay
Road, which was comprised of a-large office building, truck
garage, sign shop and heated storage areas. At Kemptville, there
were two large residences housing 300 students, cafeteria,
administrative building, library, farm, machinery building,
welding shop, student union buildir.g, veterinary lab, steam
plant, several lecture halls, green houses. In addition, there
were research facilities, farm buildings, a beef operation, a
sheep operation and an arena for shows. He compared the work
performed by the Grievor and Mr. Aldham and concluded that the
38
Grievor's work was cf a fairly routine nature and that
Mr. Aldham's responsibilities we:e much less routine. He
described the Griever's wcrk as basically comprising the
following standing crders contained in a check list which he
performed as a routine every day. He referred to the routine -
preventive maintenance functions performed with the aid of cards.
He stated that there was a much larger block of work expected of
the Grievor that fell within the description of routine. -8
The witness stated that he expected a Maintenance Mechanic 3
to perform at the tradesman level, while he expected the Grievor
to perform more at the handyman level. He stated that-a
Maintenance Mechanic 3 reqaired more judgment in deciding what
should be done in the case of malfunctioning equipment. The S
Grievor, he stated, was only required to recognize when a
component required replacement cr ‘repair; A Maintenance,Mechanic
3 would have to decide whether a unit ought to be replaced or
repaired. He state< that a Maintenance Mechanic 3, such as Mr.
Aldham, would have to have greazer involvement in the creation of
a preventive maintenance progray, while the Grievor would only
have,to carry out s-ch a prograrr. He stated that the Grievor
would not be expected to train cr supervise anyone, while there
might be occasions vhen W. Aldham would do so.
He saw the Maintenance Mechanic 3 position as requiring an
incumbent, such as :!r. Aldham, zo resclve the problem in his own
way over a large and diverse area. The Grievor, on the other
hand, would be expected :c repcrt a problem and nor attempt to
35
resolve it except for very minor matters. The Griever,
Mr. Bellinger testified, would be expected to refer tll matters
of any complexity to his supervisor.
(16) From his cross-examination, it became apparent that Mr.
~@ellinger was speaking of a theoretical situation ant was not
really aware, as a result of direct observations, of what the
Grievor actually did, or was expected to do in practice. Ee
acknowledged that there was no Maintenance Mechanic f or skilled
tradespersons at the Tremblay Road facility and that :he
maintenance routines there were different and he was not really
aware of’who prepared the routines as set out in Exhibit 6
He did not appear to know whether the Grievor did, in fact,
perform more closely to the, level df Mr. Aldham or other “’
Maintenance Mechanic 3s or whether the Grievor had greater
latitude in decision making; as the Grievor testified. His
knowledge of what ‘was ~expected of Maintenance Mechanics 3s also
appeared to be based eon theoretical expectations.
(17) He did notregard the changing of bearings, as
performed by the Grievor, as representing complex wcrk. He
compared, what he regarded as, the simple changing cf bearings on
a fan belt, as performed.by the Grievor, and the more complex
changing of bearings on an automobile.
(18) In comparing jobs, Mr. Bellinger stated that Mr. Aldham
was required to work throughout the entire region or. a wider
variety oft equipment and would be more likely to be sent c-t to
correct a problem. This was compared with the Grie\.:r’s m..)re
i
40
routine work performed on a scheduled basis. He stated that a
Maintenance Mechanic 2 was expected to take out a part and
replace the same part while a Maintenance Mechanic 3 was required
to go out, correct malfunctioning equipment, realign equipment,
..end.put such equipment back in operation. This would require
.setting up, diagnosing a problem, fine tuning and adjusting the
set-up, (Mr. Aldham) compared with taking a part out and putting
it in and turning the machine on (the Griever). By way of
example, he referred to the steam converters at the College in
Kemptville, which heat tubes of hot water. If one fails, a
Maintenance Mechanic 3 must dismantle; diagnosis, -clean, .-
reassemble and put it back into operation. This, he qualified by
explaining that the work'would be'done by a -team made up of a
plant engineer and others, including a Maintenance Mechanic 3. '
In this case, .Mr. Aldham would assist. He described Mr. Aldhamn
as being required to perform the job with the assistance of
.others such as a steam plant engineer. I concluded that the
i, witness believed that this would be the case but had never
directly observed the work.
(19) Another example cited by Mr. Bellinger, related to the
incinerator at the College, which is a large oil fired unit,
described ,as a top loading unit with a pneumatic door, which was
characterized as a "unique piece”. The pneumatics were said to
,~ be controlled electrically. On occasion, when the door would not
work, there could be a number of explanations for the
malfunction. Mr. Aldham was said to routinely fix this kind of
4i
item. .In similar- circumstances, a Maintenance Mechanic 2 would
be expected to call for assistance frcm an electrician and a
tradesperson experienced with compressed air. He stated that he
had never seen the Grievor perform work of this complexity. I
found no evidence to show he had ever seen the Grievor working.
Mr. Bellinger acknowledged that there were some large fairly
complex units at the MTC garage, referring to the heat recovery
system from the spray booth. However, he was of the opinion that
this was. simpler in operation than the incerator above referred
to.
(20) Mr. Bellinger acknowledged that Mr. Landry and Mr.
Aldham performed some similar tasks but stated. that a Maintenance
Mechanic 3. would be expected to perform 'up to the Maintenance
Mechanic 2 level and beyond.
Evidence of Maureen Croll
Maureen Croll was called as a witness on behalf.of the
Employer. She is employed as a Building Superintendent and has
held that position since 1984. This required her, among other
duties, to supervise operational and maintenance service
contracts as well as Min~istry staff at remote buildings. She was
the supervisor of the Grievor who reported directly to her at all
material times. Her office was at Kemptville and she was some 30
to 40 minutes away by automobile. She would personally communic-
, ate with the Grievor when she was at the MTC complex. She
testified as follows:
1
i
42
(1) That she would review work assignments and discuss
problems *'ith the Grievor, when she was at Trembly Road and that
she was available to deal with problems as they came up by
telephone. She had no trades background and would rely on the
:Grievor's initial assessment as to what-trade to call upon.
(21 At the beginning of the month, the Grievor would
receive mcnthly work assignments which were contained on cards
stating the type of maintenance duties tc be performed. The
Grievor wculd then perform work, sign and date the documents
evidencing that~ the work had been completed.
(3) Ms. Croll stated that the program to be followed by the
Grievor was prearranged with the assistance of the mechanical
supervisos. The frequency of work was based on the type of
equipment.
(41 The information with respect to the 'schedule was given
to a technical clerk at the district office in Kemptville and was
furnished to the Grievor either by a mechanical supervisor.or by
Ms. Croll. Exhibit 8 was an example of the regular routine tour
inspection, demonstrating the check list of functions performed
daily. If, during a tour, the Grievor noticed, .for example, that
belts~ were noisy or were flapping, he woxld return and change
them. This would represent abnormal or anknown matters not
planned for.
(5) Such duties as painting of machines were performed once
a year and other painting jobs were performed as required.
.Painting 'was include< in the area of reTilar maintenance.
43
(6) When equipment was malfunctioning and the Crievcr was
unable to remedy the matter, he was required to call Ms. Croll.
The final decision as to what to do was assigned tc Ms. Croll.
Any complex problem would be referred by her co the mechanical or
electrical supervisor. If a problem was idecrified, it was up to
Ms. Croll to instruct the Grievor as to whet?.er he could go ahead
and complete repairs. When it was concluded chat the Grievor
could not perform the work, she would refer -he repair function
to someone else. As far as electrical work was concerned, the
Grievor was only to replace such things as wall plugs, ballasts,
light bulbs and fluorescent tubes. When a specialist was called
in, the Grievor might assist, for example by getting a tool or
assisting in lifting an object.
(7) She described the kind of plumbing work'perfonned by
the Grievor as being limited to replacing washers, adjusting
taps, unplugging toilets, replacing parts wizh repair kits and
unblocking grease traps. The Grievor assisted plumbers by doing
such things as taking off bolts, assisting in the roving of
fixtures and directing the plumber to the proper area.
(8) In referring to work on the CO2 analyizer in the
garage,. Ms. .Croll stated~that the Grievor wai not authorized to
do any work on this piece of equipment. If there was any problem
with the equipment, he was.instructed to refer the matter to
Kemptville and an electrician would then be called in with the
Grievor providing non-trades assistance.
i .
19) In referring to work involving heating, ventilating and
air-conditioning units.in the MTC complex, Ms. Croll stated that
the Grievor would adjust heating valves, replace valves, take off
old insulation from heating lines and rewrap the pipe. She did
not refer to any work relating to ventilating equipment performed ..'.
by the Grievor and stated that only minor maintenance functions
were performed by him on air-conditioning equipment.
(10) She stated that a Maintenance Mechanic 3 would perform
.more work requirin; greater skill in all the areas in which the
Grievor was involved. She stated that if there was a Maintenace
Mechanic 3 assigned to the MTC complex, and the Grievor was not
there, the Maintenance Mechanic 3 .would be required to do. all of
the work performed by the Grievor plus some operations requiring
. more skill. In cross-examination, Ms. Croll stated that a ' .
Maintenance Mechanic 3 did many of.the,same things done by an
Maintenance.Mechanic 2, but performed tasks calling for slightly
greater skill and initiative. Further, in cross-examination she
acknowledged that she had'no Maintenance Mechanic 3 under her
supervision and that she had never supervised an Maintenance
Mechanic 3. Ms. Croil acknowledged that she had no technical
qualifications at the time the grievance was filed.
(11) After the Grievor filled out the cards, as described by
him, relating to new equipment, it would be up to her and the
mechanical superintendent to set up the schedule of routine
maintenance. This schedule would then be given to the technical
clerk who would put it on the formal card system (record and
history card).
(12) The operations manual would. be kept in the Kemptville
office. In the case of equipment involving electrical detail,
the routine would be worked out between herself and the
electrical supervisor.
(13) In referring to calls frcm the Griever, identifying
problems, e.g., of an electrical o: mechanical nature, she stated
she could not recall a situation where the Grievor could not
identify whether the problem was electrical or mechanical.
(14) She described her infrequent observations of the kinds
of work actually performed by the Griever as disclosing a
.handyman's rather than a tradesperson's level of performance.
'Evidence of Beth McCormick
The Employer's final witness was Beth McCormick, employed in
personnel administration by the Ministry. Part of her job
involves performing job audits and she performed the job audit
(Exhibit 3) with respect to the Grievor.
Her evidence was, as follows:
(1) In her view, a major "matter" would require a disassem-
bling and reassembling of parts or equipment such as the overhaul
off a compressor. She stated that the Griever's involvement in
such cases is limited to calling the disrrict office to have a
specialist tradesperson sent to perform the work and that the
Grievor would merely assist on a handyman level.
46
(2) In her conversations with the Grievor, while performing
the audit, she concluded that he felt he had a supervisory role
in the various contracts where tradesperson were sent to effect
repairs. This was because he advised them where the equipment
w.as to go and that he observed.them in order to see whether the _
work was being properly performed. He also felt that he.was
acting in a supervisory capacity because he might ask.them to
repeat the job if he was not satisified that the correct result
had been achieved. He also relied on the fact that he,signed
service reports.
(3) She felt that the Griever's involvement in these
circumstances was rather limited and minor, involving-a call to
the Kemptville office to have some.one sent to perform work, and
when that person.arrived,.to point out the location where the
work was to be performed and to assist them by doing such things
as removing bits.of pipe, shovelling debris, assisting in the
obtaining of such items as pipe from the tradesman's truck and
filling in holes with asphalt.
.( 4) She prepared Exhibit 4 and chose the maintenance
classification because the nature of the work performed by the
Grievor fitted into one of the levels of the classification and
she proceeded to find~the appropriate level. She examined the
first level and the nature of the work outlined and the typical
tas:& and found a few of the tasks to be similar, but concluded
that the Grievor did more. She noted that paragraph 2 of the
positions specifications for the Maintenance Mechanic 1 position
-
47
(first line) disclosed that it covered handyran tasks and also
the previsions contained in the fourth line, but ccncluded that
the Grievor was responsible for zore stistanzial wcrk.
(5) She next examined the Maintenance a'echanic 2
classification and concluded that. virtually all portions of the
level applied to the duties of the Grievor, involving semi-
skilled work. Some areas did nor apply (these relating to the
care and maintenance of building areas) nevertheless she found
this class to represent the best fit. .To test herdecision she
examined the Maintenance Mechanic 3 classification and concluded
thattbe work Rerformed by the Grievor was less complicated than
the tasks provided for in the Maintenance Mechanic 3
classification but equal to those'found in the Maintenance
Mechanic 2 classification. She concluded that the Grievor would
not fall under the Maintenance Mechanic 3 classification as he
did not fit into any of the three categories set oJt in the class
standard, whereas he qualified under the three requirements
provided for in the class standard for Maintenance Mechanic 2.
Analysis
Ecth parties referred to the jurisdiction of the Board as
,approved by the Divisional Court (See OPSEU v. 'The Queen in then
Riqht cf Ontario etal. (1982), 40 O.R. (2d; 142 at 145. There
the Ccxt stated:
"3 a classification grievance the Board is generally mandated' to consider two matters, namely whether or not the Crievor's job measured against the relevant class standard comes within a higher classification w?.ich he seeks, and, e':en if he fails to fit within the'hig;:er clrss standards,
40
whether there are employees performing the same duties in a
higher more senior classification."
In dealing with the latter test, the Union called Messrs. Render
and Aldham, who were Maintenance Mechanics 3, who had worked at
the Remptville complex. No serious challenge was made to the
‘description of their duties, on behalf of the EmPloyer, and, in
fact, it was submitted that the duties performed by the Grievor
were not "the same duties" as performed by the employees in the
"more senior classification," referring to Messrs. Render and -1.
Aldham.
It was acknowledged that there was no supervision for the
Grievor present at the MTC complex. The evidence of Ms. Croll
was that she rarely had occasion to see the Grievor performing
his duties as she was located at the Kemptville complex and only
saw the Grievor about once a week. I find that at such times she
did not actually view his work being performed but discussed with .-.. -
him problems that he might be having. Mr. Bellinger had never
seen the Grievor functioning in his job and was testifying
largely on the basis of what he would expect the Griever to do in
carrying out his job duties. Ms. McCormick and the Grievor,
where they differed in the assessment contained in the job audit,
differed in their view of the complexity of some of the tasks
performed by the Grievor. MS. McCormick, while she had kneed to
refer to the class standards for the Maintenance Mechanic 3, in
performing the job audit, had never observed the work actually
performed by Messrs. Aldham and Render, as Maintenance Mechanic
3s. Her a;ldit was based on her considering "whether or not the
49
Grievor's .job measured .against rhe relevant class standard [came]'
within a higher classification which he [sought]."
There was no suggestion made on behalf of the Employer that
Messrs. Render and Aldham were Rerforming duties which departed
from those expected of other Miintena?ce Mechanics 3s and, as
above noted, they were stated to be engaged in work which ought
to be contrasted with that performed by the Grievor.
Dealing with the second criteria established by the
Divisional Court, ,fbr a Grievor to sccceed,upon a Vlass usage"
claim, the Union must show "that the Zmployer’s actual classific-
ation system differs from the written one." Re Brick and
Ministry of Transportation and Commur.ications (1982) GSB 564/80
(Samuels), at p.50. In Re G. ?iffard et al and the Ministry of /
Community and Social Services L982, GSB,602/84; 605/84; 606/84; , r
.reference was made to Re Crockford and Ministry of Communitv and
Social Services (1985), GSB 545/83 (Roberts)'; at p.10; and Re -
- Aikins and Ministry of Health (19831, GSB 603/81 (Draper)
standing for the proposition: "In ix decision over the years,
the Board has come to accept that this test is satisfied upon a
showing that the Grievors are Rerfozing substantially similar
work to that assigned to a job in the higher classification." In
the Piffdrd case, the, arbitrator saic further at p.55: " . . . we
accept the measure of 'substantial similarity' as whether the
work of the grievors 'is the same in its distinctive and
essential elements as that being pe rformed by employees in the
classification sought."'
50
In :he present case, the-Union entered evidence which was
intended to show that the work performed by the Grlevor was
substantially similar to the work actually being performed bye
Maintenance Mechanics 3s, the examples chosen being -Messrs.
.Bender and Aldham. As noted above, the evidence as to what
Messrs. Render and Aldham were doing in their jobs was not
seriously chalienged, the Employer endeavoring to demonstrate by
comparing work of those Maintenance Mechanic 3s and the Grievor
that the necessary degree of similarity ofjthe work performed was
absent.
Counsel.for the Employer,referred to a number of earlier
cases where a test of virtual similarity had to be satisfied
before the second part of the test could be met. The later :
decisions~cited in this Award recognize that it is not a task for
task comparison that must be met but rather a test based on
"distinctive and essential elements . . . being performed . . . "
This is how I view "the same duties". In the circumstances, the
fact that the Union has acknowledged that there are differences
between the duties performed by the Grievor and those of Messrs.
Aldham and Render is not fatal to the Union's case. Nor is the
fact that the Grievor performed certain steam plant duties and
Messrs. Aldham and Render did not is not fatal to the Union's
case. The question is whether the nature of the those duties "is
the same in its distinct and essential elements as [those] being
performed by" Messrs. Render and Aldham.
51
The Employer relied on the fact that Mr. Render maintained
fire extinguishers in the region but the Griever did not. It
would appear that no Maintenance Mechanic 3 other than Mr.
Render, performed the fire extinguisher job and it would be
unnecessary for the Grievor to show that he also serviced fire _
extinguishers. Most of the,functions pe:formed by the
Maintenance Mechanics 3s, and by the Grievor, require a level of
skill and responsibility which is considerably less than would be
expected of a licenced tradesperson. ~j
A further difference relied upon by :he Employer was that
the Grievor worked alone in a relatively small complex whereas
Messrs. ,Aldham and Render worked at a much larger complex 'which
included the'Regiona1 Headquarters: Nevertheless, I. find that .
the work there performed and the level of skill applied to the
various functions was essentially the same as that performed by
the Grievor. On the evidence adduced and employing the first
test, I might have had some difficulty in finding that the
Grievor fell under the Maintenance Mechanic~3 classification,
yet, I would have the same difficulty, net knowing where the
Messrs:Aldham and Render had been classified, in finding that
they were within the Maintenance Mechanic 3 classification. But
this is not the analysis that I am presently engaged in. Neither
the Grievor, nor Messrs. Render ore Aldha.., engaged in what I
would regard as a major repair function associated with certifie:!
tradespersons. The range of buildings -&here maintenance
functions were carried out is not partic,iiarly significant. What
52
is significant is the nature of the functions there carried out.
There may be many more complex pieces of equipment at the
Kemptville complex. The question is; however: what was-the --. ---~..
responsibility of Messrs. Render and Aldham with respect to such
equipment? I could find no significant difference in what Mr. .
Render and Mr. Aldham did in performing their various maintenance . .
functions on equipment and what the Srievor did at Tremblay Road.
Messrs. Aldham and Render had to travel further and were
involved with more kinds of equipmen=, but only in ways that were
functionally very similar to the involvement of the Grievor.
They all cleaned, made minor adjustments, uncomplicated repairs
and summoned assistance when repairs were-required which were in --
any way complex. That is, those requiring the services of
skilled tradespersons.
Notwithstanding the submission by the Employer, when I
compare the evidence of Messrs. Aldixm and Render with that of
the Grievor, I cannot find that the work they performed was in
any meaningful way more complex, nor do I find that they were
unsupervised to any greater extent :han the Grievor or had
greater decision making powers. All of them followed more or
less established.routines and Messrs. Aldham and Render had
supervision close at,hand. The Grievor, on the other hand, while
he had to follow regular routines, as well, seems to have rarely
had any one look in on the non-scheduled repair work he was
performing. That is, no one seems co have checked to see whether
he was doing what they may have believed he was doing. He
53
received many calls, for assistance when probiems arose with ..~
respect to machinery and equipment he attended and personally
looked after simple mattersby-clbsing~.windows, changing light ~~-
bulbs, installing ballasts on occasion, installing fluorescent
Ilights, installing light bulbs, opening and closing, switches,
cleaning filters, changing bea,rings, replacing switches, doing
simple plumbing work, such as changing taps, cleaning traps,
installing toilets and other work ranging from the lower to the
higher level of handyman's work. So were, according to their
evidence, Messrs. Aldhain and Render, although the Employer
endeavored to elevate their functions to a level higher than that
performed by the Griever. While it was stated by Ms.~Croll, who
had never supervised Maintenance Mechanics 3, and by Mr.
Bellinger, who never supervised work of Maintenance Mechanics 3s, '
and by Ms. McCormick, who was operating from class standards,
that Ma~intenance Mechanics 3s worked under less supervision than
the GrievorI the evidence did not disclose that this was the
case.
The differences which the Employer relies on were largely
differences relating to location work and the different kinds of
equipment worked on and the relative time spent for scheduled and
unscheduled work,. What was overlooked was the actual nature of
the work performed, which did not on the evidence~~presented,
involve repairs beyond the handyman level. On the evidence, I
found the Grievor and Messrs. Aldham and Render had only the
vaguest idea of the ratio between scheduled and unscheduled work
54
-- performed by them, and they had little confidence on the "ball-
park" figures which they furnished. The figures chosen by them
were rather "out of the air." In the result,- 1~ was lef.tto_rely
on their description of what they said they did. I feel we might
,have been assisted by the evidence of those persons who directly
supervised Messrs. Render and Aldhani:
I did not find the application of the skills or knowledge of
a skilled tradesperson in the performance of the Grievor or
Messrs. Renderjand Aldham. The fact that Mr. Aldham appears to
be the only one certified in a skilled trade does not change this
fact. He did not,function in a trades capacity, at least
according to the evidence which he gave and which I-accept.
When the Grievor stated that.he did not do all the jobs.of
'the Maintenance Mechanics 3s, he was referring to the kinds of
machines and equipment s~ome Maintenance Mechanics 3s worked on
and not the nature of the functions performed on those machines.
I find the functions performed by the Grievor to be substantially
similar to,the kinds of work performed by Messrs. Aldham and
Render.
It may very well be that Ms. McCormick's view of the
Griever's work, where she and the Griever differed, is correct.
That is, in the identification of some of the work asbeing
minor. This is not determinative of the issue before me, the
question being related to a comparison of what the Grievor did
with what Messrs. Render and Aldham did.
,.
fS
-The Employer'relied on a supposed difference between the
responsibilities of Mr. Aldham and Mr. Render as Maintenance
Mechanics 3s and Mr. Landry. While-it is-true that- in-the ~view----
of Ms. Croll, Mr. Bellinger and Ms. McCormick, Mr. ',andry was
,nly required to identify problems to itemptville and
Messrs. Aldham and Render were required to identify and rectify
problems that occurred, the evidence disclosed that, in practice,
the Grievor's functions did not differ in any material respect
from those.'performed by Messrs. Aldham and Render as they related
to .the identification and rectification of problems. All of them
only endeavored to rectify identified problems at a level well
below that of a licensed tradesperson. When Hr. Bellinger and
Ms. Croll testified that the Grievor was only required to
identify problems to Kemptville, they were.operating on the basis
of expectations. The Grievor was permitted to function as he did
for many years and' there was no evidence to indicate that he was
asked to change the way in which he performed his functions after
the grievance was filed. My view of the evidence is that all
three employees performed routine preventive maintenance
functions and also spent a significant portion of their time
answering non-routine trouble calls. They appear to have been
equally capable of identifying the source of problem and limited
their attempts at rectification to skills and ,knowledge at a
level considerably lower than those associated with the skilled
trades. I would emphasize that the knowledge of El:. Bellinger
and Ms. Croll as to what the Grievor did in Rerforming his
. .
56
functions, as contrasted with their view of what they believed'he
was suppose to do, compels me to view their descriptiori of the
Grievor's functions as based on theoretical expectations.
Because of the independent way the Grievor was permitted to
,$unctiq-i, there is no one who could refute his evidence based on
direct observation. On the evidence, the work performed by the
Grievor was functionally the same as that performed by
tiessrs. Render and Aldham, within the limits set out in the
Aikins case. This is seen to be the case when thejdistinctive
and essential elements being performed by the employees in the
Maintenance Mechanic 3 classification.(Messrs. Aldham-and Render)
are compared with the distinctive and.essential elements of the
work being performed by the Grievoi.
Mr. Bellinger's identification of a difference between the
work of Mr. Aldham and Mr. Landry, based on the fact that
Mr. Aldhsm worked on a wider variety of equipment is not signifi-
cant given the very limited functions performed by Maintenance
Mechanics 3s, and Mr. Landry. Notwithstanding what Mr. Bellinger
believed to be the case, I did not find the work of Mr. Aldham
significantly different from that of the Greivor in the area of
diagnosing problems. The diagnosis was basically one that the
equipment did not work and there was an assessment as to whether
a plumber or an electrician or othei person was needed. The
Grievor did this in much the same fashion as did Mr. Aldham. Any
repairs effected tended to be well below the standard of skilled
tradespersbns. Mr. Aldham was said to change taps as a unit,
57
while Mr. Landry only replaced washers;etc. This-was not the-
evidence forthcoming from Mr. Landry and Mr. Eellinger's evidence
was based on what he,believed to be the case. On the evidence, I-
did not find that either Mr. Aldham or Mr. Landry resolved major
problems. Once again, the Employer's reliance on a vas: differ- ._
ence between the work sites and the variety and number cf
buildings and related equipment did not, in any significant
.manner, affect the functioning of Mr. Landry and Mr. Al&am.
Throughout the Employer's ar.gument, emphasis was placed on
different types of equipment being~worked on and different types
of tools used. There was one difference referred to in that
Mr. Aldham had on site oxy-acetylene and arc-welding equipment
and did braising .and fabrication welding. The evidence disclosed'
' that Mr. Landry did have occasion to perform welding.
Similarly, there was evidence from Mr. Aldham that he went
through a fairly,complicated process of repairing the incinerator
including using a chain to remove the doors. He testified as to
his repairing the incinerator by first by-passing a safety
micro-switch and making the necessary adjustments either mechani-
cal or involving the electrical solenoid. The evidence disclosed
that Mr. Landry did not have any equipment of this nature at his
job site. and did not complete any repairs of this nature.
There was evidence from E",r. Aldham as to his completely
replacing toilet bowls while it was suggested that Mr. Landry was
limited to the installation of standard repair kits in the toilet
I.
r-
58
tank. Such was not his evidence which disciosed a more extensive
involvement including sink installation.
Mr. ‘Render testified that &serviced and charged-fire
extinguishers and replaced complete faucets and taps. While the
Grievor did not service and charge fire extinguishers, he did . .
maintenance work of equal complexity. The short training
required to perform work on the fire extinguishers did not
satisfy me that this created maintenance skills beyond those
possessed and carried out by the Grievor. While Mr. Render
checked amperage of electrical motors with testers, there was
evidence that the Grievor did the sanmwork. While Mr. Render
overhauled and repaired locks , my examination of the evidence
does not disclose that the work on’locks performed by the
Grievor, which.was of fairly minor nature, differed in any
material respect from the work performed by Mr. Render.
Mr. Render poured refractory into incinerator doors and repaired
electrical malfunctions in the incinerator including limit
switches, however, when I examined the evidence the nature of the
repairs fell below that which require skilled trades
qualifications. The Grievor also did repairs to the refractory
brick.’
Although Mr. Render replaced heating controls and adjusted
pressure reducing valves, the Grievor also adjusted pressure
reducing valves and the nature of the replacement of heating
controls by Mr. Render was of a fairly low level of complexity,
as he himself testified. The nature of the repairs performed on
‘>
59
oil burners by MZ-. Render was not very differen: from that
performed by the Grievor. Both of them szated that they would
only call the oil burner mechanic if they could not get the unit
going and neither of them attempted to do work ::?at cculd only be
performed by a licenced oil burner mechanic. . While the,posicion
of the Employer was that none of the oil burner duties was
performed by the Grievor, the Grievor testified otherwise and as
above noted there was,almost no .direct supervision qf the
Griever's performance. I am more impressed.wit>. the evidence
given by Messrs. Render and Aldham than the gloss endeavored to
be placed on it by Mr. Bellinger. He seems to have been quite
removed from their work peiformance and I am not satisfied that
he actually ever saw them performing work over any significant
period of time. If it was intended to der.onstrate that the
evidence given by Mr. Render and Aldham deliberately downgraded
the complexity of their functions, I would have expected their
supervisors to testify. They had supervision cn site and in the
absence of such testimony.1 accept the description of their
functions furnished by them, which I four6 to be at.a lower level
than Mr. Bellinger believed to be the case.
There was an endeavor on the part of the Employer to find a
.difference between the functioning of Mr. Render and the Grievor
by referring to Mr. Render's setting up and cress-referencing Of
a card system, by buildings, for various :ypes :f equipment. He
prepared an outline of information required on cards for new
installations, after recording the manufa:turer's maintenance and
<
9
60
servicing instructions. He reccrded the dates and details of
maintenance;repair and servicing work perfcrmed on equipment,
passing this information to the technical clerk in Kemptville for
posting to the respective cards. He recommended a preventative
maintenance schedule for the egdipmenc and recommended changes as
appropriate. It was suggested :hat all Mr. Landry did L;as follow
preventative maintenance scheduied as outlined on cards which
were prbvided each month by his supervisor.~ Mi. Landry's
evidence was that :ind while his involvement in the prepa:ation of
cards might not have been as extensive as Mr. Render's, it was
sufficiently close to.it to sa tisfy me that there was no appreci-
able difference in their functioning to be discerned. There was
no indication as to Mr. Aldham's invclvemenz in the card system .
being significantly different from that of the Grievor.
Inevitably there will be differences in the actual functioning of
employees who, nevertheless, can be found, looking at the
totality of the evidence, to be performing functions which are i
substantially similar. .If I accepted the test as to similarity
put forward by the Employer, the Grievor would fail on the second
branch of the test. I do not agree with the Employer's test
which requires that the Grievor perform virtually the same duties
as Messrs. Render and Aldham. There has been a change in the
jurisprudence which is less rigid in its definition of what
constitutes performance of the same Curies. Such a test
recognizes, more fully, the fact tha: every duty between two jobs
can never be completely identical ar.2 the soluticn to the prcblem
T
!T
61
is not assisted by requiring that the duties of the two jobs be
virtually the same. It is the functional demands which must be
assessed. This becomes clear when one examines the jobs
performed by Messrs. Aldham and Render, both Maintenance
,&lechanics 3s. There jobs are far from being identical and were
aiso far from being virtually the same. Nevertheless, the
Employer made no attempt to show that they represeazed isolated
examples of persons performing at the,Maintenance Mechanic 3
level who were not representative of persons normally occupying
that classification. There were as many differences between the
work performed by‘the' Grievor and Mr. Aldham as there were
between the work performed by Mr. Aldham and Mr. Render.
Nevertheless, the distinctive an+ essential elements,making up
the functions performed by them, as opposed to the Rlaces they
performed them or the machines and equipment found in those
places, where substantially similar. All of them did a
substantial amount of simple uncomplicated routine maintenance
and their non-routine maintenance functions were considerably
below the skilled tradespersons standard. All of their attempts
to remedy machinery breakdowns fell well short of the standard
expected of skilled tradespersons and all of them seemed equally
capable of identifying which skilled tradespersons services would
be necessary where a breakdown occurred.
In the result, I conclude that at the time of the Grievance
t:?e Grievor's duties and responsibilities, while t:-.ey required
different jobs to be performed than those performed by
<
62
Messrs. Render and Aldham, nevertheless involved duties and
responsibilities that,‘were "substantially similar" to those of
Messrs. Aldham and Render representing duties and
responsibilities required of Maintenance Mechanics 3s. I find
that not only the regular preventative maintenance functions but,
as well, the non-scheduled maintenance functions were
substantially similar in the case of all three witnesses and that
I could not find any significant difference in exercising
independent authority to make repairs to exist betweeg them.
After the grievance was filed no authority was withdrawn from the
Grievor which would alter the way in which he was to carry out
his responsibilities. I have nothing to say about what would be
the case if the functicning of the.Grievor was changed to ccmply
'with the view of Mr. Bellinger and Ms. Croll of the
responsibilities the Grievor was to undertake as part of his job.
In the circumstances, the grievance succeeds on the second
test involving substantial similarity of duties and
responsibilities and I need not consider the first test. On the
evidence, I would find that the Griever ought to be awarded the
classification of Maintenance Mechanic 3. The Grievor is
entitled to retroactivity pius interest in accordance with the
rule ennunciated in Re Smith and Kinistrv of Community and Social
Services (19851, GSB 237/81 (Roberts), which "would limit
retroactivity to 20 days before the date of filing of the
grievance. " Id. at p.5. There are no circumstances which I find -
to raise an equity against :he Mizistry's reliance on this rule.
63
Interest is awarded upon retroactive payments in accordance with
the formulations set forth in r.- -3 Jones and NLnistry of
Correctional Services (19841, ESB 537/82 (Jcliffe). The Soard
will retain jurisdiction of this matter perking implemectation by
ehe parties. .
DATED at London, Ontario
this 10th day of April, 1987.
M. R. Gorsky
Vice-Chairman