Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0076.Quance.86-06-11IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before. THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU CJ. Quance] - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation and Communications) Before: For the Grievor: For fhe -- Emplzl: -- Hearing: Grievor Employer R.J. Delisle Vice-Chairman 1-J. Thomson Member L.R. Turtle Member B. Hanson Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers & Solicitors K.B. Cribbie Staff Relations Officer Human Resources Branch Ministry of Transportation and Communications November 27, 1985 March ,5, 1986 DECISICEJ i By a grievance dated June 29, 1983, the grievor claimed that he was improperly classified as a Drafter 1 and claimed the classification of Drafter 2 .retroactively to December 1,~ 1981. By letter dated November 5, 1985, the grievor was reclassified to Drafter 2 with retroactivity to August 1, 1985. The grievance then is essentially a claim for entitlement to benefits for a greater period than allowed. The classification guidelines for the Draftsman series were filed (Exhibit 19) and it is not necessary to reproduce them wholly here. For our purposes extracts from these guidelines will be sufficient. Drafter 1 Class Definition This c lass covers moderately camp lex drafting work performed by competent and experienced draftsmen. . ..Supervision is general on repetitive tasks, while new assignments are received with more detailed instructions. Work assignments are reviewed on completion. Characteristic Duties Under general supervision, compile, plot, draft, and check moderately complex survey p'lans. . ..Under close supervision, participate in moder'ately complex design drafting in the channe by sen preparation of preliminary and final intersection and ization drawings. . . .Work will be throughly reviewed or drafting or engineering staff. - 2 - Drafter 2 This class covers complex drafting work, involving plans with intricate details, difficult mathematical calculation, extensive survey interpretation. . . . They work under the general supervision of senior-drafting staff with considerable latitude for initiative regarding the drafting techniques used. They are expected to complete work assignments with a minimum of review. . . .Under the general supervision of a designer or professional engineer, prepare final working drawings and plans. . ..May be required to instruct junior drafting staff. As phrased by counsel for the grievor the critical differences between a Drafter 1 and Drafter 2 lie in the complexity of the work and the degree of supervision. The grievor maintains that his job, at the time of the grievance, fit the higher classification. The grievor has a'seniority date with the Ministry of August, 1957. He began with the survey crews and became a Drafter 1 in the Traffic Section in 1968. The Ministry is divided into five regions and each has its own Traffic Section. The grievor was in the Centrol Region which is t busiest with a complex road system. The Traffic Section studies traffic chara~cteristics, traffic control problems he and develops solutions. The Traffic Operations Analyst develops the solutions and the Drafter prepares the graphics which illustrate the solutions. The grievor testified that aside from receiving work from the Analysts he also received work from the Traffic Operations Supervisor, the Head of the Traffic i - 3 - Section, the Regional Planning Supervisor. as exhibits Exhibit Exhibit 17, Speed Zon Exhibit 16, Sign Deta Traffic Signals Engineer and the Traffic Samples of the grievor's work were filed 14, Sign Layouts, Exhibit 13, Strip.Plans, ing Plans, Exhibit 15, Signal Layout, ils. In addition the grievor did sketches I ’ and diagrammatic signs. The grievor had some objections to the Position Specification existing at the.time of his grievance, Exhib The specification states that he receives written or verba instructions and the grievor says he received mainly verba The specification states that he discusses with his superv isor the best method of presentation and the grievor says that the method is usually left to him. The specification states that he prepares preliminary plans but the grievor says he prepares final plans which are submitted for approval to the Analyst or the Supervisor. The Traffic Analyst tells him which signs and what messages and the Drafter determines from the Contract Book and Manuals locations, sizes and spacing. The grievor says that.over the years he has assisted in the training of other Drafters 1. On August 1, 1985, the grievor began a new assignment. In addition to duties with the Traffic Section he was to perform certain duties with the Geotechnical Section. A. new Position Specification, Exhibit 9, was issued with an effective date of August 1, 1985. This Position Specification describes the new duties as occupying the gri evor for 25% of h is time. The grievor noted that no familiari zation period was required -4- to develop the competence for the new duties and indeed he described the new duties as simpler than his existing duties. The work is definitely not more complex. According to the grievor no mare initiative is required in the new position nor is he given any more latitude for decision-making. He maintains that the level of supervision has not changed. Neil Goldsmith, Traffic Analyst and grievor’s supervisor agreed that the level of supervision did not change. When Specification was issued it was reclassified the new Position to Drafter 2. The only retroactivity wi issue between the parties is the extent of th respect to the declarat ion of entitlement to the higher classification. The Ministry by its reclassification effective August 1, 1985, maintains that is the appropriate date. The grievor claims retroactivity to December 1, 1981. All the evidence indicates that with respect to complexity - of the work and level of supervision the grievor’s duties were the same on June 29, 1983, the date of the grievance, as they were 1985. We least ent i as of 20 d after reclass are therefore tled to a dec fication by the Ministry on August, persuaded that the grievor is at aration that he deserves reclassificat ion ays prioito the date of his grievance. The grievor was asked why he fixed on December 1, 1981, and confessed that he didn’t know. The grievance itself was drafted by Donald Stewart, the Local President in the Central Region, and it was he who chose the date. Donald Stewart was only able to offer the explanation for choosing that date that "it was appropriate because a number of I -5- changes had then occurred in the Region". We are not persuaded by any evidence that the grievor is entitled to any further retroactivity than 20 days prior to the date of his grievance and we so declare. We will remain seized of the matter pending the resolution of matters of compensation. Oated at Kingston this Utb day of ~a-& 1986. L. R. Turtle