HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-1503.Di Renzo.88-09-12Before:
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
OPSEIJ (L. Di Renzo)
Griever
and
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Tourism and Recreation)
Employer
J. Forbes-Roberts Vice-Chairman
J. Solberg Member
P. Camp Member
For the Griever: N.A. Luczay
Grievance OEficer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
For the Employer: B. Crichley
Manager, Human Resources Operations
Ministry of Tourism & Recreation
Hearing: June 22, 1987
September 4, 1987
i
.
DECISION
The grievor, Mr. L. DiRenzo, is employed as a Cabinetmaker at Upper Camada Village. He is classified as an Artisan 3. This is the hlghest ranking in "Artisan Series". The griever seeks to be compared with and classified as Preparator 1, obvi,ously a position from a different series.
Upper Canada Village is an historically accurate recreation of nineteenth (19th) century Canadian life. It contains an operational mills, a blacksmith's shop, bakery, a carpenter's shop
etc. The Village is open to the public from Ray 15 to~october
15, (the "season") that is approximately four (4) months of the
year.
The employees, many of vhom are seasonal, dress in period
CO6tUlW6 and demonstrate the manner in vhich our nineteenth
(19th) century forebearers survived vithout microwave ovens or
Black and Decker paver tools.
The gr ievor is one (1) of the Village's fev full-time
employees. During the season he demonstrates to the public the art of cabinet making. He describes vhat he is doing and ansvers
questions. It is his job to build various pieces of furniture
for purposes of demonstration, and in the off season to repair
and restore existing Village furniture.
The interesting vrinkle in this case lo that the grievor,
Luciano DiRenxo, is at vorst a master craftsman and should
probably be more accurately described as an artist at his trade.
diS
skill level far exceeds that required for the initial
position. The question becomes did the Employer allov the
position to grov into the griever's skill level?
The gr ievor commenced employment at the Village in approxi- mately 1971. It vould appear that at that time there vas a
position specification in place. hs time vent on, in addition to
his demonstrating duties the grievor began building period pieces
of euch quality that not only va6 the Ministry able to sell them,
but hi6 reputation became quite formidable throughout 6&&
Ministries. A' flood came in for commissioned vork6, all for vhich
the Employer and not the grievor received payment.
In 1978 the griever’s position specification vas re-vritten. In the 1978 version vmanufacturing nev furniture as required for
u6e w..." (emphasis added) appeared In the Summary of
Duties and Responsibilities. The 1971 spec had made ILL mention
of manufacture for ~a&.
It vas the griever’s
The griever remained an Artisan 3.
unshaken testimony that since 1978 he
spends approximately sixty (60) per cent of his time creating
furniture destined for sale.
.Sometime betveen 1978 and 1985 the grievor'built a Victorian
stage coach. To aCCOmpli6h this he had to design and build a
vood bending box. In 1985 hi6 position spec vas once again
re-vritten. Lov and behold, amongst other recently demonstrated
skills, part of his enumerated Duties and Responsibilities became
"steaming and bending vood". The grievor remained an Artisan 3.
The grievor is understabdably frustrated.
In classification cases the Board must evaluate the ine, not
the mvidud performing it. Hovever in this case the Employer Seems to have taken the attitude that if the grievor can do it,
it ik part of his job.
The grlevor's job has changed substantially since he
-2-
commenced employment In 1971. Then he vas a '@demonstating
repairman”. Nov his considerable skllls are belng employed sixty
(60) per cent of the time to create an additional source of
revenue for his Employer. The skill level vhich creates this
revenue has not been recognized vis a vu his classification.
The Class Standard for Artisan 3 makes ILL mention of produc-
tion of articles for sale. It simply states that v...During the
non-operating season, they assume regular tradesmen duties by
performing a variety of duties for m-e v.”
Clearly the griever’s duties exceed this narrov definition.
Hovever neither does the Class Standard for Preparator 1 appear
appropriate to the griever’s function.
Consequently the Board makes the folloving order.
The grievance is hereby alloved and the Employer is ordered
to properly classify the grievor. The financial remedy is to be
made effective tventy (20) days prior to the filing of the
grievance. The Board vi11 remain seized in the event 0f aiffi- culty in the implementation of this avard.
Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of September , 1988
&airman . . I// -
J. Solberg, Member
.*
.Y---- ,~. (Addendum
.: ~~. ..,~'.~ /
\-I? . L&- ‘, ,.r,
attached)
-.
F. Camp, fiember--~--- k
Addendum
I am in full agreement with the members ocif the
Hoard in their conclusion which in part states:
In respect tn the corder to properly rlassify the
gr ievor . I assumed this tc mean: to review and
revise the appropriate pc85i tion speri fication a53
necessary.
The final comment which has been a question in my
mind, Does the mankfacture nf new equipment for
sale require the use nf “Ski 11s” c~er and above
those required for “Demonstration and repair” ?
The forgning is ,in the interest lrlf maintaining
prcaper ~classificatican system integrity and not
tu detract in any way from my impressinn cbf
Mr. Direnzn’s skill and application which
greatly impressed me.
P.D. CAMF