Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-0114.Borraccia et al.88-04-22IN THH MATTER Or' AN ARBITRATION Between: ------- Under TBX CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BAHGA INING ACT Before TBE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARU The Crown in Right Of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) Before: ------ M.V. watters Vice Chairman 3. ncnanus @Iemner I. Cowan Member OPSEU [Borraccia et al.) and A Grievor Employer r'or the Grievor: _---------_---- for the EmplOyeK: _-----___------- nearings: _---__-- B. Hanson Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes and LennOn Barristers 5 Solicitors N. nber, counsel Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, SKewatt, Srorie . . Barristers and Solicitors November 2, 19M7 December 29, 1987 DECISION This is a classification grievance involving four (4) employees: Mr. J. Borraccia; Mr. J.A. Dikschei; Mr. K.J. Kafieh; and Mr. T.Y.C. Shen. Each of thes.e individuals claims that they have been improperly classified as an Architectural,Job Captain 2 (A.J.C: 2) and requested in their respective gsievandes that their position be reclassified as an Architectural Job Captain 3 (A.J.C. 3). At the hearing, counsel for the Union also asked the Board to order that the Employer properly classify the grievors should we find their positions not to f.all.within-the scope of either of the relevant class standards. In this regard, the Union submitted that the award in RE: Fenske, 494/85 (Verity) and the Divisional Court decision in RE: Carol Berry (released March 13, 1986) confirmed the Board's authority to make such. .. order. The sole witness called for the Union was Mr. Borraccia,' who had served as an A.J.C. 2 since 1977. It was agreed by the parties that his evidence pertaining to the nature of his present position would apply to and "bind" the other three (3) grievors. Before turning to the evidence presented, it should be noted that the claim of the Union was based on the "class standards approach“ to issues of this type. They did not rely on what has been referred to as the "usage approach"._Evidence was not- adduced that other employees performing equivalent duties are classified in a higher classification. For purposes of reviewing the treatment accorded to classification disputes by other panels of this Board, we have considered the awards fin Re Montague, 110/78 (Swinton); Re Goobie, 240/84 (Verity); Re Wriqht, 248/81 -2- (Barton); Re Switzer and McKenna, 804/84, 805/84 (BKunneK); e Adams, 508/84, 1600/84, 1612/84, 1613/84, 1614/84, 1642/84, 1644/84, 1645/84, 1646/84, 1648/84, 1649/-84, 1651/84, 1652,'84, 1653/84; 1654184, 1~655/84, 1662/84, 1663/84, 1666/84, 1674/84, 1675/84, 1701/84, 1708/84 (Delisle); and the decision of the Divisional Court in Ontario Public Service EmploYees Union v. The - Queen in riqht of Ontario et al., 40 O.R. (2d) 142 (H.C.J. Div. ct. 1 The grievors all work within the Architectural Section of the Design Services Branch of the Ministry of Government Services. More specifically, they form part of the 'Working Drawings.Group' that is comprised of one (1) Senior Architectural Job Captain who is classified as an A.J.C. 3; seven (7) A.J.C. 2s'; three (3) Se~nior Architectural Drafters whop are classified as A.J.C.l's; and two (2) Intermediate DKafteKs who are classified as Drafters 2. The chief of'the section is MK. J. Bartha who was called upon to testify on behalf of the Employer. An organizational chart for the section was filed with the Board as Exhibit '5'. We were advised that a similar document did not exist in respect of the StruCtUre of the Branch. Nonetheless, it is apparent that it encompasses a number of other sections in-addition to Architectural Services. These include Mechanical Engineering; Electrical 'Engineering; Civil EngineeKing; Estimating; and .Specifications. Generally, the function of the Branch is to provide construction documentation in respect of government buildings that are subject to a tender process. It is the 5% -3- resPonsibility of the section, and more particuiarly those employees within the 'Working Drawings Group', to prepare the necessary working drawings subsequent to the establishment of the design concept and to coordinate the efforts of all of the other sections to ensure that the required documentation is completed in'a timely fashion for tender purposes. As will be indicated below, the A.J.C. 2 plays animporta~nt role in this overall ~process. Much evidence was tendered at the hearing as to the nature of the job performed by the A.J.C. 2. The Board was provided with the position specifications as they existed at the time of the grievance (Exhibit '9') and as revised shortly thereafter (Exhibit '10'). The relevant portions of these specifications read as follows: Exhibit 9 - dated May 26, 1976 9, 2. Purpose of Position To develop design and to prepare and co-ordinate preparation of contract documents for small and larger capital projects. To assist Chief of Architectural.Section' in checking contract documents prepared by.Associate Architects. Some projects. may-involve the supervision of several draftsmen and job captains. 3.. Summary of Duties and Responsibiliti-es (1) Establishes bas~ic requirements for design by:- receiving from Chief of Architectural Design a description of basic client requirements, and discussing and further clarifying these requirements with Client Ministry: advising client re. possible alternatives; as necessary. . 10% 55% 10% 10% 5% 5% -4- (2) Develops design scheme by:- developing a design idea to incorporate requirements re. space arrangements, services, circulations, etc.: consulting engineering specialists to obtain advice re. mechanical, electrical, etc. services; submitting preliminary design to client for approval and attending meetings to.discuss same, as necessary. -. (3) Develops contract documents by:- developing architectural working drawings and details; co-ordinating preparation of contract documents by other sections to ensure adherence to design and details. (4) Co-ordinates post tender activities by:- examining manufacturers' shop drawings for conformity with plans and specifications: liaising with architectural designer and construction co-ordinator during construction of project, analysing ramifications of proposed substitutions and changes. (5) Assist Chief of Architectural Section in checking contract documents prepared by Associate Architects by:- checking 70% complete contract documents with alternatives and Design Reports to ensure adherence to approved design and materials; checking. 90% complete contract documents with all comments and approvals made to date: checking 100% complete contract documents, as required. (6) Supervises subordinate personnel assigned to serve as part of project team by:- _* discussing requirements, checking work in progress, and upon completion: providing advice on architectural detailing, materials, practices, government codes and procedures, etc. (7) Performs other auxiliary duties as assigned. . ios 10% 60% -5- Exhibit 10 - dated May 20, 1986, II 2. Purpose of Position To administer, prepare and co-ordinate requirements, design and tender documents for in-house capital projects involving new'buildings and additions, alterations, renovations, repairs to existing buildings. Projects may involve providing guidance to several drafters and job captains. 3. Duties and Related Tasks In a ministry responsible for the development of design and construction of government buildings, the incumbent: (1) Prepares requirements by: discussing and further clarifying client's basic requirements; advising client re possible alternatives. (2) Develops desi,gn scheme by: preparing schematic design which incorporates program requirements, space arrangement, building services, circulation etc; consulting with engineering specialist to obtain advice re mechanical, electrical etc, services; submitting design scheme to client for approval, and attending meetings to,discuss design, as necessary. (3) Develops tender documents by: preparing working drawings, details, schedules and checking specifications: participating in hardware list preparation: taking measurements and listing conditions of existing buildings: -. co-ordinating the work of engineering sections, and ensuring integration of engineering design into architectural drawings: participating in the preparation of co-ordinated addenda during'tender call: obtaining approvals and permits from authorities having jurisdictio~n. 0% 5% 5% 5% -6- (4) Co-ordinates post-tender activities by: examining manufacturers shop drawings for conformity w,ith plans and specifications: analysing substitutions and making recommendations for acceptance or rejection: issuing co-ordinated wording for Notice of Change, to construction co-ordinator; maintaining liaison with designer and'construction co-ordinator to ensure adherence to design and specifications; preparing as-built drawings. (5) Checks, comments and co-ordinates comments of Engineering Sections on tender documents of Architects by: reviewing 70, 90, 100% complete documents, to ensure adherence to alternatives, design reports and, comments made to date. (6) Performs other auxiliary duties suchas: .providing guidance to a small 'group of job captains and drafters~by discussing requirements, checking work in progress and upon completion: providing advice on detailing, materials, practices, codes, procedures, etc.; as assigned. .~ hour conclusion, from a review of all of the evidence, is that the job performed at the time of the grievances was closer to that described in Exhibit 10. Indeed, in cross-examination Mr. Borraccia indicated that/with some minor exception, he was involved with the duties and related tasks listed in the more recent set of position specifications. The A.J.C. 2s' spend the majority of their time working on Wmajor capital projects'. These were described as being "complex" projects having a value in excess of $400,000.00. Mr. Borraccia estimated that approximately seventy-five percent (75%) of his efforts were in respect to this type of project. The balance of his time was devoted to "minor capital projects" of lessor complexity and having a value less than the figure mentioned immediately above. The evidence suggested that these minor capital projects were generally assigned to A.C.J. Is'. Both Mr. Borraccia and Mr. Bartha reviewed the responsibilities of an A.J.C.2 from the commencement of a project to its completion. For this purpose considerable attention was given- to Exhibit '12', which represents an internal office guide and check-list for the preparation of working drawings on major capitai projects, and to Exhibit '14' which provided a similar check list for minor capital projects. While it is unnecessary to refer to all of this evidence, the following would seem to be the most significant components of the job performed by the A.J.C.~2: (i) After the architect or prime designer provides the preliminary design sketch, the A.J.C. 2 will request the establishment of a design team if one has not already been established. This team is comprised of individuals from the other sections in the Branch, i.e. Architectural: Mechanical: EleCtrical; Structural; Sanitary: Specifications; Estimates: Interior Design. Authority to commence this process must first be obtained from the Chief of the section. (ii) Once such a team is established, the A.J.C. 2 will call for a 'First Working Drawing Meetilng'. Documentation relevant to the project, such as~the design report and any preliminary drawings, to the first meeting. is circulated to Ithe team members prior Additionally, the A.J.C. 2 will determine tentative target dates for the completion of the interim working drawings. These drawin,gs are referred to as 50%, 70%, and 90% complete wo.rking drawings. Mr. Borraccia . stated that these tentative dates were not set in conjunction with the Chief or the A.J.C. 3. Mr. Bartha appeared to suggest that the A.J.C. 2 does consult with the A.J.C. 3 in respect of these dates, in that he testified that he would discuss same with the A.J.C. 3 prior to the first meeting. (iii) At the First Working Drawing Meeting, the target dates for the completion of the interim working drawings are finalised. This group, including the A.J.C. 2, does not have the authority to set the final target date as such is previously established by more senior management. It was Mr. Bartha's evidence that this final date is set by himself in consultation with the A.J.C. 3. The parties also differed as to who serves as chairperson atthis initial meeting. Mr. Borraccia-testified that this was the responsibility of the A.J.C. 2 and that generally neither the Chief nor the A.J.C. 3 attended the session. In contrast, Mr. Bartha claimed that the A.J.C. 3 chaired the meeting. Subsequent to the meeting, a target date schedule is distributed to all team offices together.with the minutes of the meeting. (iv) On the completion of the 50% architectural drawings, the A.J.C. 2 will issue same to all of the project team offices. Subsequent thereto, they will receive back from each office the 50% cbmplete engineering drawings. It is the responsibility of the A.J.C. 2 to see that these latter drawings are returned .by the interim date established at the first meeting. If they are not forthcoming by such date, the A.J.C. 2 will personally discuss the matter with the person responsible for the delay. The objective of such contact is to ensure that the necessary task is completed in such a fashion that the timetable for the remainder of the project is not jeopardized. (VI On receipt of the 50% drawings from the respective sections, the A.J.C. 2 will review them to determine whether they.~can be coordinated with the design concept. Their task at this juncture is to ensure that the design architect and the engineers "are in line". This process .involves both a "checking" and a "co-ordinating" function. If errors or problems are isolated, the A.J.C. 2 will--either resolve them personally if they fall within the scope of their technical expertise, or will consult directly with the section member respbnsible if such concern is design related. If the problem is not informally remedied through this latter course of faction, the A.J.C. 2 may elect to involve either the main architect or the Chief. (vi) A similar process occurs in respect of the 70% and 90% complete drawings. Mr. Dorraccia testified that 70% drawings were completed for only fifty percent (50%) of the major capital projects. Mr. Bartha stated that such drawings were always used. It is clear, in any event, that with respect to -g- both sets of drawings, the A.J.C. 2 is responsible to see that the interim target dates are complied with. Failure to meet a 90% complete date is more significant than failure to satisfy an earlier date in that it could ,affect the final target date. If the final date is threatened, the A.J.C. 2 will communicate with the A.J.C. 3. A decision will then be taken by senior management to either extend the date or to approve overtime on the project. As with the earlier.stages of the process, the A.J.C. 2 is similarly responsible for checking and coordinating the various drawings. Conflicts.or problems are resolved either personally or through consultation with the architect or engineers depending on the nature of the concern and the ability of the A..J.C 2 to resolve same. (vii) The 90% complete drawings are also issued to the Estimates and Construction sections: the Property Management Branch; and to the client Ministry. If the A.J.C. 2 subsequently is advised that the project is overbudget, they will attempt to discover the reason leading to the extra cost. Depending on the nature of such reason, they may then engage in discussions with the design architect and other engineers in an effort to bring the project back within budget. If the matter is not resolved at that stage, the Chief is contacted so that he might discuss the development with his equals in the other sections involved. (viii) Tracings~ of 100% completed working drawings are next obtained from the design team members following which the A.J.C 2 proceeds to issue a final set of drawings. Before doing so, the checking and coordinating work previously described is again undertaken. At or about this same time, the A.J.C. 2 receives, checks, and ultimately returns'the draft specifications forwarded from the Specifications section. It would also appear that drawings prepared by the Interior Designer are reviewed and coordinated with the architectural drawings. (ix)- During the course of the project preliminary discussions are conducted with public authorities such as the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour, and the Office of the Fire Marshall. Following completion of the 100% drawings, the A.J.C. 2 requests the necessary approvals from these authorities. If technical concerns are raised by these offices, the A.J.C. 2 will endeavour to resolve the problem. As indicated above, if the problem is design related such would normally necessitate the involvement of the architect or other engineers. 1x1 The final meeting of the Design Team is organised by the A.J.C. 2. The purpose of such meeting, which is chaired by the Chief of the section, is to ensure that the task is -lO- complete and is ready to proceed to tender. From the evidence presented, it seems that the A.J.C. 3 does not regularly attend the 'final meeting. After the contract is ultimately awarded, the A.J.C. 2 might also attend a briefing session involving, amongst others, the contractor and the trades inspector. At such time, they would raise and discuss items which they perceived as being critical to the success of the project. (xi) Lastly, the A.J.C. 2 has certain post-contract responsibilities largely involving the coordination of shop-drawings with the specifications and working drawings; If donflicts arise, the A.J.C. 2 may be required to reject the shop drawings. They are also expected to liase with the architectural designer and construction coordinator during the period of construction of the project. In this capacity, the A.J.C. 2 mu~st analyze the ramifications of proposed substitutions and changes. If changes are required at this stage, they are responsible for the issuance of coordinated word,ing for a Notice of Change. As is the case throughout the entirety of the process, the A.J.C. 2 may approve changes which are technical and not design .related. ,It is apparent to the Board that the general process described above requires the A.J.C. 2 to exercise a number of what may be termed "core functions". First, they are required to actually Second, with a v t, ,. 1 prepare the various architectural working drawings. hey must check the work prepared by the other sections ew to coordinating it into their drawings. Third, if problems arise, they are called upon to resolve same either on their own initiative or through consultation and/or referral of the matter to the architect or to an appropriate engineer. . . Fourth, the A.J.C. 2 may be required to supervise other job captains or drafters assigned to the specific project in question. As noted above, and as reflected by Exhibits '12' and '14', there are a number of steps to the process. We find no reason to questionthe assertion of Mr. Borraccia to the effect that the I i -ll- A.J.C. 2 proceeds from one step to another without first seeking the approval of the A.J.C. 3 or the Chief. Indeed, the afore-mentioned exhibits were likely prepared to avoid such necessity. Similarly, we are also persuaded that the nature of the job requires the A.J.C. 2 to exercise a significant degree of independent judgment for they are responsible for keeping then process moving in respect of the projects to which they are assigned. This is done under minimal supervision. Mr Bartha testified that he would not engage in daily supervision of the technical or coordinating work performed by Mr. Borraccia. In fact his contact with this employee might be as little as once per month. To a certain extent, he attributed this to the fact that Mr. Borraccia is "the senior man". Mr. Bartha categorized the A.J.C. 3 position as being "semi supervisory" vis a vis the work of the employees classified as A.J.C. 2 and A.J.C. 1. He conceded however that with respect to the former, the A.J.C. 3 really serves as a technical resource. He agreed that the A.J.C. 3 would not supervise the A.J.C. 2 on a daily basis in terms of a review.of their work. Mr. Bartha further stated that it was possible that the latter could proceed through a project without seeking such technical assistance. Indeed;' this seemed to reflect the experience of Mr. Borraccia who.testified that he rarely sought out Mr. Choudhary on technical matters. His evidence was that he preferred to consult with the other A.J.C. 2's if such problems surfaced. Mr. Choudhary, the sole A.J.C. 3, was not called on to I ‘i -12- present evidence. Our understanding of the responsibilities of the position is therefore founded on the testimony of Mr. Bartha and Mr. Borraccia. As stated above, the former viewed the - position as being "supervisory" in nature. In this regard, he testified that the A.J.C. 3 is responsible for the assignment and coordination of work'of the A.J.C. 2s', the A.J.C. ls', and the Drafters. Such employee is also expected to provide instruction and advice to the job captains. It would seem from the evidence that the majority of such assistance and supervision is 1.ikely provided to the employees classified as A.J.C. 1 in that they would not possess the ability and experience of the A.J.C. 2s'. In respect of both classes of job captain, the A.J.C. 3 is required to complete monthly progress.reports on their work. These are submitted to Mr. Bartha. Additionally, the A.J.C. 3 is involved., in conjunction with,the Chief, in the initial selection of the architect and in the deployment of further personnel should such be necessary on any given project. The class standards for the A.J.C. 2 and A.J.C. 3 were filed at the ‘hearing as Exhibits '7' and '8' respectively. They read as follows: Exhibit 7 n ARCHITECTURAL JOB CAPTAIN 2 CLASS DEFINITION: This class covers the position of employees in the Architectural Drafting Section of the Department of Public Works who, under the supervision of the section supervisor; -13- are responsible for the development of complete architectural contract drawings for new projects as assigned by the section head. These projects will range in value from two hundred and fifty thousand to three million dollars*. Maintaining the preliminary design and guidelines.laid down by the approved preliminary design sketches, they prepare working design drawings from data obtained, assigning, directing and checking the work of draftsmen assigned to the project (three to eight draftsmen). They co-ordinate and control the progression of drawings (i.e. plans, sections, elevations, etc.), maintaining constant liaison with client department; and all engineering and other interested personnel, to work out revisions necessary to accommodate requirements. NOTE: It is emphasized in making allocations in this series, the dollar value of the building or alterations and additions to buildings must be commuted to 1963 dollar terms on the basis of D.B.S. data. CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES: Make preliminary studies to gather pertinent information relative to the project, contacting the structural, mechanical, electrical and sanitary engineering divisions and representatives of the department for whom the building is being constructed. Working from approved preliminary design drawings, gather all available facts and information on proposed new projects. Search and interpret building codes to establish minimum standards of requirement that must be applied to proposed structures. Contact Fire Marshal's (sic) Office and Department of Labour for clarification. From past experience and previous drawings, select ideas to develop design of space arrangements, incorporating engineering systems and equipment requirements, while maintaining original approved design layout. Gather information on proposed engineering features (structural, heating,. power, electrical;'sanitary, etc.) through consultation with Engineering Division personnel. 'Prepare sketches incorporating design ideas based on al.1 data obtained to determine if design is workable prior to assigning the development of working drawings to draftsmen. Recommend changes in space allocation, prepare interior room layouts. Supervise and direct the production of contractdrawings assigning parts of project to draftsmen or subordinate -14- Architectural~ Job Captains, based on individual abilities, explain details of project (framing system, fenestration, etc.) instructing on the amount of detail desired and advising on required completion dates. Control and co-ordinate the development of drawings to ensure conformity of detail on the overall project. Work with draftsmen individually and daily examine the drawings in progress, discussing problem areas, marking areas for .correction, and advising on revisions required by data received from client, engineering staffs or necessitated by equipment selection. Maintain constant liaison with applicable personnel during -duration of project to work out details of revisions. Consult with client department~+.Engineering Division, etc., to ensure agreement on the inclusion of details and requirements and suggesting alternate ideas, QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 12, preferably graduation from a technical school, including two to three years technical training in drafting or equivalent; a thorough knowledge of building techniques, standards, and materials. A thorough knowledge of standard architectural drafting practices and procedures and preferably. of departmental drafting practise and procedures. 2. A minimum of twelve years' architectural drafting experience. OR - Three years as an Architectural Job Captain 1. 3. E.xpert knowledge of drafting techniques, work procedures and departmental specifications, tact, supervisory ability, personal suitability. Exhibit 8 ARCHITECTURAL JOB CAPTAIN 3 CLASS DEFINITION: This is highly responsible supervisory work in regard to architectural drafting performed in the Department of Public Works by the employee in charge of the Architectural Drafting Section. Under general technical direction of the Chief of Plans and Specifications, he is responsible for all drafting work (except sketch design) from sketch.stage to the final -15- I I working drawings for this employee is sub accepted standards, tendering purposes. Though the work of ject to general review for adherence to he exercises a high degree of independent judgment in accordance with professional principles and standards. He supervises a large staff of Architectural Job Captains and Draftsmen engaged in the detailed.work involved: he has contact with architects and engineers in consulting firms and senior officials in the Department to co-ordinate the preparation of plan. CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES: Receives and analyses Directors' reports, surveys and requirements for projects and establishes from preliminary sketches the structural, mechanical and electrical systems and requirements; reviews these with architects and engineers. Supervises the development of drawings for all types of minor and major public buildings for approval of the various provincial authorities. Supervises the completion of contract'drawings which are subject to approval of the Chief of Plans and Specifications, in accordance with the provincial and national building,codes. Supervises the checking of contractors' shop drawings', work schedules and materials. Co-ordinates the work of the architectural drafting staff w ,ith sketch designers, structural and mechanical engineers, surveyors and specification writers: maintains effective working relations with consulting architectural firms. Performs other related work as required. QUALIFICATIONS 1. Grade 12,- preferably graduation from technical school: expert knowledge of the principles of architecture and ability to apply them in the work situation: a good working knowledge of such related areas as building materials and costs, estimating, surveying and mathematics. 2. Many years of progressively responsible senior architectural design experience. 3; Demonstrated ability to prepare architectural plans for a variety of structures: ability to instruct and lay out work for draftsmen and other professional and technical employees; -16- ability to work co-operatively with senior professional staff; ability to exercise sound judgment. II It is to be noted that these standards have not been materially revised in a number of years. This likely explains the use of certain terminology therein that does not correspond to current descriptions. One example of such is the expression "section supervisor" found in line number three (3) of Exhibit '7'. Another, is the use of the title "Chief of Plans and Specifications" found in line number fours (4) of Exhibit ~!a'.. The Board has closely scrutinized the class standards for the A.J.C. 2. this case, it that the posit In response to the threshold issue presented in is our judgment that the Union has not established ,ion is improperly classified. We~find that the core responsibilities and duties of the. A.J.C. 2, as described in the evidence, do fall within the general wording contained within the class standards for that position* Specifically, we conclude that the A.J.C. 2 is responsible for (i) "the development of complete architectural contract drawings for new projects as assigned"; (ii-) "maintaining the preliminary design and guidlelines laid down by the approved preliminary design sketches"; (iii) preparing "working design drawings from data obtained"; (iv) "assigning, directing and checking the work of draftsmen assigned to the project" (v) coordination and control of the progression of drawings while maintaining constant liaison with all engineering and other personnel: and; F -17- (vi) working out "revisions necessary to accommodate requirements". Given the nature of their work, and the fact that forthe majority of time they are working on the more complex projects, we do not find .it surprising that the A.J.C. 2 is called upon to exercise a significant degree of iindependent judgment, especially in the context of the checking and cobrdinating functions. While the use of such judgment is not specifically alluded to in the class standards, it is our opinion that suchhis~ implicitgiven the nature and quality of the responsibilities assigned. The Board cannot therefore agree with the .argument advanced by the Union that the exercise of independent judgment renders the class standard for the A.J.C. 2 inapplicable., Similarly, we cannot the section. A.J.C. 2 wil personnel in find that the class standard is limited to coordinating within As we read Exhibit 'l', it contemplates that the 1 need to coordinate the work of, and liase with, the other sections who are contributing their efforts to the project in question. The 'Characteristic Duties' described therein are consistent with the expectation that the A.J.C. 2 will consult with, and coordinate the work of, employees from outside of the section. Lastly, we have not been persuaded .* that the nature and level of supervision received by the A.J.C. ‘2s' takes them outsidk'of the class standard. Had we reached the conclusion that the A.J.C. 2s' were improperly classified, this Board would not have been inclined to find that they should be reclassified as A.J.C. 3s'. While the A.J.C. 2 may on occasion exercise some "supervision" over other , : -18- job captains or drafters, we do not consider the position to be "supervisory" in nature. The supervision or direction provided is in the context of specific projects and does not have effect right across the section. Indeed, the evidence indicated that there may be projects for which no other job captain is assigned. In contrast, while recognizing that the A.J.C. 3 does not engage in daily supervision of the A.J.C. 2s', the incumbent is responsible for. the assignment and monitoring of their work. Additionally, the A.J.C. 3 is responsible for extensive supervision of those employees classified as A.J.C. Is'. Mr. Choudhary would appear to be responsible for the timely completion of all of the work of the section. As noted above, monthly progress reports would be prepared by him in respect of the various ongoing projects. This overall responsibility may .be contrasted with that entrusted to the A.J.C. 2s' to ensure~that their specific projects are finished in a timely fashion. Further, we cannot find that the detailed work actually performed by the A.J.C. 2s' in respect of the assigned projects would fall within the parameters of Exhibit '8'. For all of these reasons, had we allowed the grievances, this Board would haves ordered the Employer to properly classify the grievorg. -19- The grievances are therefore denied. Dated at Windsor, Ontario this 22118 day of April 1988. M.V. Watters - Vice Chairman J. McM,$ks - Member I. Cowan - Member