HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-0390.Jameson et al.89-09-14ONTARKJ EMPLOY~S DE LA CO”RONNE
CRcJv/NEMPLOYEES DEL’ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
IN THE MTTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
OPSEU (Jameson, LeBlanc, Smith)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Agriculture and Food)
Employer
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearings:
R.L. Verity Vice-Chairperson
J. McManus Member
E. Orsini Member
J. Kovacs
Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
C. Slater
Senior Counsel
Human Resources Secretariat
Management Board of Cabinet
April 17,198g
April 18, 1989
i
-2-
DECISION
The grievors are Chemical Control Technicians who are employed at the
Ministry's Central Milk Testing Laboratory in Guelph. In identical grievances,
each allege improper classification as Technician 2, Chemical Laboratory and seek
reclassification as Technician 3, Chemical Laboratory. One of the grievor-s, Mrs.
Doreen Jameson, has since retired and did not appear at the hearing.
The Central Milk Testing Laboratory tests 40,000 samples of milk
for composition and 10,000 samples for quality, each and every month. Data from
test results are forwarded to the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and producers are
paid in accordance with the percentage of fat in milk.
The grievors work in the chemical section of the laboratory and perform
a variety of manual tests to determine the chemical composition of milk samples to
record the level of milk fat, protein and total solids content. In addition,
these technicians perform numerous other procedures including the lactose test,
acidity degree value test, pH levels test, International Dairy Federation test,
somatic cell testing, and the preparation of calibration samples. There are
currently five technicians employed in the Chemical Laboratory.
The Union proceeded with the evidence of Mrs. Grace LeBlanc as a
representative grievor. The Union's claim for misclassification was based solely
on "the standards approach"; namely, the measurement of Mrs. LeBlanc's duties and
responsibilities against the relevant Class Standard.
,
-3-
The Class Definition of Technician 2, Chemical Laboratory reads as
follows:
TECHNICIAN 2, CHEMICAL LABORATORY
CLASS DEFINITION:
Employees in position allocated to this class conduct a
variety of common tests and procedures, under supervision,
withresponsibility for the accuracy of techniques and the
reliability of results. In addition they may assist more
senior technicians or scientists in conducting a variety of
complex tests and in technical demonstrations for trainee
technicians.
They conduct a variety of common tests and procedures such
as: - the extraction of silver by fusion methods; the
extraction of gold by acid method; determination of mineral
and pigment content in paints; alcohol and nitrogen freezing
of semen; the preparation of samples of tocopheral extractions
for analysis by chromatographic methods; determining the water
absorbency of paints; theobarbituric acid test for fatty acid
peroxides; solvent fractionation; the preparation of samples
for the quantitative determination of enzyme activity; the
determination of energy or chromic oxide content in
feedstuffs; the determination of specific gravity and
absorption of fine and course aggregates; measurement of free
silica in samples by chemical means; the measurement of radium
in water by Radon de-emanation method and alpha counting, etc.
They may assist senior personnel, technical or scientific,
in the performance of complex tests following laid down
procedure or verbal instruction. The level of the tests and
procedures in which they assist are exemplified by the
following; testing acids by filtration and paper
chromatography, chemical analysis of meat to determine content
of moisture, fat, protein, and acidity; preparation of
electrodes containing materials for spectrographic analysis;
observing and recording bio-chemical reactions in inoculated
media; nitrogen determination by kjeldhal techniques; etc.
Under general supervision they clean and set up laboratory
equipment and prepare specimens, reagents, plates, tubes,
etc., for common laboratory tests. They keep detailed records
of results of tests, noting variations from expected results.
They assist in the training of trainee technicians and other
laboratory staff and may supervise a small number of
. ,
-4-
subordinates performing common tests on a production basis.
They maintain the cleanliness of their work area and perform
other duties as may be assigned.
UUALIFICATIONS:
1. Junior Matriculation, including Grade 12 courses in
mathematics and science and a minimum of four years'
experience in laboratory work,
or -
An acceptable combination of education, practical
experience and self teaching recognized by Civil Service
Commission as being the equivalent.
2. Alertness; keen powers of observation; skill and care in
the operation of laboratory equipment; accuracy;
integrity; neatness; ability to work co-operatively with
other staff; good judgment.
The Class Definition of the classification sought reads:
TECHNICIAN 3, CHEMICAL LABORATORY
CLASS DEFINITION:
Employees in positions allocated to this class, as
experienced laboratory technicians conduct a variety of
complex tests, under general supervision, with responsibility
for the reliability of results and the maintenance of
associated records. They may make assignments to junior
technicians and instruct trainees in the conduct of a variety
of common tests or act as a group leader in the performance of
such tests. In some positions they may be responsible for the
supervision of a group of Laboratory Attendants and
Technicians engaged in conducting common laboratory tests and
the preparation of standard chemical compounds for test
purposes.
Under general supervision, these employees conduct complex
tests and procedures such as:- analysis of soils for moisture
and mineral content using leaching, kjeldhal and flame
photometric methods; quantitative analysis of herbicide
mixtures, wood preservatives, solvent mixtures, antifreeze,
etc; chemical analysis of equine saliva and urine for drugs;
extracting fractions with solvents and purifying through paper
chromatographic techniques; chemical analysis of water and
coal; qualitative and quantitative determinations of chemical
-5-
compounds in agricultural crops; chemical and fire assay of
precious metals; making specialized cultural media for
research purposes; determination of plant nutrients, pH and
salt concentrations in soils by extraction, calorimetric or
gravimetric measurement; chemical analysis of materials to
evaluate quality by determination of specific gravity, organic
and inorganic components, acidity, absorbency, etc; equipment
for emission spectroscopy or for spectrographic analysis,
etc. In addition to tests representative of those above they
may conduct a variety of routine common tests necessary to the
operation of their work area.
In some positions these employees assist professional or
scientific personnel in direct support of an experimental or
research programme. In such positions they are required to
perform a variety of "cormnon", "complex", and "specialty"
tests and procedures, modifying techniques as necessary; set
up and modify laboratory apparatus; and maintain detailed and
accurate records of the results obtained.
They are responsible for the maintenance in good working
order of laboratory equipment and the cleanliness of the
equipment and work area. They may be required to perform
related duties as required.
QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Junior Matriculation, including Grade 12 courses in
mathematics and science, plus a minimum of seven years'
experience in laboratory work,
OR -
An acceptable combination of education, practical
experience and self teaching recognized by Civil Service
Commission as being the equivalent.
2. Keen powers of observation; proven ability in the care
and operation of laboratory equipment; technical
versitility; manual dexterity; good judgment.
There would appear to be some degree of overlap between the work
performed by a Technician 2 and a Technician 3. However, the Preamble to the
Class Series provides some assistance in classifying the tests performed into
three categories; namely, "common", "complex" and "specialty" as follows:
*
-6-
"Common" tests and procedures are defined as those which do
---I not require exceptional knowledges, skills or judgment in
their performance because the methods are ful1.v prescribed,
the manipulations are not difficult to perform-and the results
are readily recognized. Such tests are learned after brief
instructional demonstrations and the employee's performance
improves as manipulative skills and familiarity with work
processes are acquired through experience. This category may
be further sub-divided into "simple" and "standard" tests and
procedures. As a general rule the performance of a limited
number of "simple" tests on a production line basis, following
prescribed procedures, would result in allocations to the
Technician 1 level. The performance of a number of "standard"
tests where the methods are fully prescribed but the variety
is more dispersed, some elementary judgments are made and
supervision is not closely applied except when new procedures
are used or problems develop will generally result in
allocations to the Technician 2 level.
"Complex" tests and procedures are defined as those which
require highly developed skills, judgment and experience in
their performance because results may be confused with others
of similar qualities. Procedures may require modification due
to differences in batches of ingredients as determined by
results with controls. Tests may be "complex" for different
reasons, thus this category may be sub-divided into
"difficult" and "intricate" tests and procedures. "Difficult"
in this context refers to tests and procedures, the
performance of which require judgment in the selection of
alternatives and variations to standard procedures, the
careful execution of a series of exacting manipulations of
materials and apparatus, the operation and minor maintenance
of sophisticated and sensitive laboratory instruments and the
accurate recording of procedures and results. The performance
of a variety of difficult tests would generally result in such
positions being allocated to the Technician 3 level.
"Intricate" in this context means those tests and procedures
which require a large number of operations with many possible
sources of error at various stages and require a high degree
of skill and judgment of such functions as: - utilizing
reference sources to determine modifications of apparatus and
variations of procedures; selecting, modifying and adapting
test procedures to obtain optimum results; recognizing and
interpreting reactions which are difficult to observe and
which can significantly affect the outcome of the test; and
computing or interpreting interim and final test results which
require the application of advanced mathematical techniques
and a sound knowledge of scientific methodology. The proper
performance of "intricate' tests and procedures requires an
understanding of scientific processes at the professional
level and employees performing such tests would normally be a
-7-
Scientist, but they may, in the absence of qualified
professional staff, be performed by a highly skilled and
experienced Technician.
"Specialty" tests and procedures are defined as those which
are carried out without definitely outlined methods, usually
requiring frequent modifications, and where special or
modified apparatus or equipment is utilized. Interpretation
of results is based on knowledge and experience or on a
comparison with standards from reference laboratories. Tests
and procedures of this nature are usually found in research
settings and normally are closely directed by professional
personnel but the technical work of a sub-professional nature
is conducted by experienced technological staff. Employees in
positions of this nature would normally be allocated to the
Technician 3 level.
Mrs. LeBlanc commenced employment with the Ministry on January 4, 1974
as a Technician 1, Medical Laboratory. Since 1975, she has worked as a Chemical
Control Technician and is currently classified as Technician 2, Chemical
Laboratory.
The grievor's Position Specification and Class Allocation Form was not
made an exhibit at the hearing. However, Mrs. LeBlanc testified at some length
with regard to her duties and responsibilities at the time the grievance was
filed.
Briefly stated, Mrs. LeBlanc testified that of the numerous manual tests
she is required to perform, all are simple uncomplicated tasks, with the exception
of two procedures - the Mojonnier Test to deterine the fat content of milk
samples and the Kjeldhal Test to determine the protein content. Until 1985 when a
rotation system was instituted for technicians, Mrs. LeBlanc worked extensively
in the Mojonnier Lab.
-8-
Currently, a technician works two months of the rotation in the
Mojonnier Lab followed by one month performing mostly Kjeldhal Tests including the
testing of pH levels, and one month performing total solids testing and the
balance of the tests required. At the time the grievance was filed there was no
rotation to the area preparing calibration samples. However, that duty is now
included in the rotation schedule. With the rotation system in place, all five
Chemical Control
Technicians devote 25% of their time to the Kjeldhal Test, 50% to the Mojonnier
Test and 25% to performing the total solids test and the various other testing
procedures. Test results are given to Chemical Lab Scientist John Melichercik for
statistical compilation.
Mrs. LeBlanc testified that, as an experienced Technician, she is
actively involved in training newly appointed technicians in proper techniques and
procedures. According to her evidence there is one month of concentrated training
of new staff followed by one month of observation. Mrs. LeBlanc was of the
opinion that, after six months experience, newly appointed technicians should have
acquired the necessary skills to perform the job. Chemical Control Technicians
are not required to repair equipment but are expected to do minor maintenance
duties such as cleaning flasks and checking oil levels.
Essentially the grievor's duties have not changed throughout the years
and all procedures are performed, without variation, from detailed written
instructions contained in a comprehensive manual. The procedures have been
selected by the CMTL Technical Committee which is a joint committee comprised of
representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ontario Dairy
-9-
Council (representing the processors), and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board
(representing the producers). Chemical Control Technicians have no authority to
modify the procedures or the methodology employed. Similarly, they do not
interpret the test results.
Scientist John Melichercik testified on behalf of the Union. Prior to
assuming his duties as a Scientist in the Chemical Lab, Mr. Melichercik had been a
Chemical Control Technician who was trained by the three grievors. The Scientist
position is responsible for the accuracy of all test results in the Chemical Lab.
In addition, he performs numerous other tasks including the tabulation and
analysis of the test results produced by Chemical Control Technicians. Mr.
Melichercik is involved in the training process of inexperienced technicians,
particularly in the review and discussion of results of the Mojonnier and Kjeldhal
tests. According to his evidence he has minimal involvement in supervising
experienced technicians.
Laboratory Supervisor, Fred Fletcher, was the only witness called by the
Employer. He is the grievors' immediate supervisor. Mr. Fletcher testified that
the various tests performed by all three grievors were done according to standard
written procedures that have been in place for some 20 years, and that technicians
had no authority to modify either the procedure or the methodology and were not
required to interpret the results. In particular, he described both the Mojonnier
test and the Kjeldhal test as simple tests relative to other tasks performed in
the Laboratory.
- lo-
The Union maintained that the grievors were misclassified because they
performed complex tests, worked under general supervision and actively trained
technicians. The thrust of the Union's argument was that the central core of the
grievor's duties were more properly encompassed in the higher classification. In
the alternative, Mr. Kovacs requested the Board to order the Employer to find or
create a proper classification for the grievors.
The Employer argued that the grievors were properly classified in the
current classification and that the Union had failed to demonstrate that the
grievors performed all the compensable factors of the classification claimed.
Mr. Slater maintained that the only issue for determination was a choice between
~Technician 2 and Technician 3 and that the Union's alternate argument was without
merit.
In our view, the grievors are properly classified in the Chemical
Laboratory Series in the provision of technical assistance to the dairy industry
and to the public for purposes of quality control and the detection of
contaminants affecting health.
The Chemical Laboratory Class Standard is general in nature and is
designed to apply to a wide range of positions. The class definitions do not
contain water-tight compartments which are easily distinguishable from one
another, and accordingly reference must be made to the definitions contained in
the preamble of the Class Standard to the tests performed under the definitions of
common, complex and specialty. Inevitably, similar tasks will be performed by
employees in different classifications within the series. Placement in the class
- ll-
series will depend on the complexity of the tasks performed and the degree of
responsibility, independence and judgment required in performing the tests. The
preamble makes it clear that despite the varying complexity of the variety of
tests and procedures required, all recording of data must be carefully performed
and accurately recorded.
If indeed the Union is correct that the Kjeldhal test constitutes a
complex test, that duty alone would not justify the higher classification of
Technician 3, which appears to contemplate a variety of complex tests. The Board
is not persuaded that the Mojonnier test can be characterized as complex - the
test methods are fully prescribed, the manipulations are not difficult to perform
and the results are readily recognized, although some degree of judgment is
required in administering both the Mojonnier and the Kjeldhal tests. Within the
definition of "standard test" it is made clear that "supervision is not closely
applied". Simply stated, there is no selection of alternatives and variations of
standard procedures which is contemplated in tests which are defined as complex
and difficult.
We are satisfied that Mrs. LeBlanc performs her tasks with a minimum of
supervision which is understandable given the fact that she is an experienced and
competent employee.
The grievor assists in the training of new technicians as is
contemplated in the Technician 2 Class Definition. It cannot be said that she has
the exclusive responsibility for training new technicians. Clearly, the Scientist
and to a lesser extent the Laboratory Supervisor also assist in the training
procedures.
<
. Y i .,
- P-
I
In the result, we must find that Mrs. LeBlanc is properly classified. as
Technician 2, Chemical Laboratory. Accordingly, these grievances are dismissed.
DATE 10 at Brantford, Ontario, this l$th.day of :S@t., 1989.
-VERITY, - ., - VICtiHAIRPERSON
J. McMANUS - MEMBER