Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-0387.Messieha.89-09-074 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L’ONTA RIO GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G SUITE 2100- 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST TORONTO, (ONTARIO) M5G 128 -BUREAU 2100 TELEPHONE/ T&~PHONE (416) 5Q8-O688 0387/86 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Be tween : OPSEU (Samir Messieha) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Environment) Employer Before: For the Grievor: For the Employer: Hearing: I.C. Springate Vice-Chairperson J. Anderson Member W. Lobraico Member D. Wright Counsel Gowling, Strathy Henderson Barristers Solicitors R. Younger Staff Relations Advisor Ministry of the Environment July 27, 1989 DECISION These proceedings arise out of a grievance in which the grievor alleged that he had been improperly classified as a chemical laboratory technician 2. He contended that he should have been classified as either a technician 3 or a technician 4. At the time he filed his grievance, the grievor was employed as a particulates technician. Prior to the initial hearing into this matter, much of the work the grievor had been performing was contracted out to a private laboratory. Accordingly, he was transferred to another position. These proceedings rate solely to the grievor’s classification while employed as a particulates technician and not to his status since that time. . In a decision dated August 15, 1988 the Board concluded that the grievor’s regular duties as a particulates technician had fit within the class standards for a chemical laboratory technician 2. The Board also determined, however, that certain special project work performed by the grievor did not come within the class standards for a chemical technician 2 or for any other level of chemical technician. In the result, the Board concluded that the grievor had been improperly classified as a chemical laboratory technician 2, but did not fit within either of the other two classifications which he was claiming. In the normal course, such a finding would have resulted in the Board remitting the matter back to the employer to either classify the grievor in some other 3 existing classification or to develop a new classification which described his job functions. anyone else was still performing the relevant job functions, the Board indicated that the parties should seek some other resolution of the matter. In that neither the grievor nor On July 27, 1989 the matter came back for hearing. At that time the parties advised the Board that the employer had made an offer to compensate the grievor for having been wrongly classified. This would involve paying him as if he had been classified as a chemical laboratory technician 3. This offer is acceptable to the grievor and to the Union. The parties have not, however, been able to reach agreement as to how the grievor should actually have been classified. The employer resists being required to now go through the process of re-classifying the grievor with respect to a position neither he nor anyone else currently occupies, particularly when to do so might require the creation of an entirely new classification. The Union, however, contends that such a procedure should be followed so as to ensure that the grievor recieves proper recognition for the special project duties which he performed. The Union further submits that other employees might be in a situation similar to the one the grievor was in and a 4 could benefit from a determination as to how the grievor should have been classified. Union counsel acknowledged, however, that he was not aware of any employee in such a situation. Counsel did indicate that he was aware of one individual classified as a chemical technician 3 who is now performing some particulate work. He did not suggest, however, that this individual also performs special project work of the type previously performed by the gr i evor . A determination as to how the grievor should have been classified would likely prove to be a lengthy and time consuming process. It could potentially additional litigation before the Board. The only practical purpose for such an exercise would be to ensure that the grievor recieves proper recognition for his project duties. We are satisfied that this objective can be met without requiring that the employer classify what is now a vacant position. In its decision of August 15, 1988 the Board described the project work performed by the grievor in some detail and concluded that because of this work the grievor had been improperly classified as a chemical laboratory technician 2. Presumably a copy of that decision is part of the grievor’s personnel file, and this decision will be also. If such is not the case, we direct that both decisions be made part of the file. We believe that this will prove to be sufficient to ensure that the grievor recieves the proper recognition for his work. 5 The employer is directed to forthwith pay to the grievor the . compensation referred to above. We will' remain seized of this matter in the event there is any difficulty in implementing this di recti on. Dated at Toronto this 7th day of Sept. 1989 I. C. VICE-CHAIRPERSON