Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-1675.Mulligan.89-07-21IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under TEE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Beford THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEblENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Mulligan) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources) Employer Before: For the Grievor: J.W. Samuels Vice-Chairperson M. Lyons Member W. Lobraico Member N. Coleman Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors For the Employer: M. Failes Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors Hearings: May 2, 1989 June 19, 1989 2 Roger Mulligan was a seasonal employee of the Ministry for eleven months in 1987, working in the Blind River District. He was classified as a Resource Technician 2. He claims that, during the period May 7 to July 16, he did the work of a Resource Technician 3, and that he should have been classified as an RT 3 for these 45 working days. Generally, each summer in the Blind River District, the Ministry undertakes a tree-planting program. Some of the work is contracted out, and some of the planting is done by Ministry personnel. In 1987, from May 7 to July 16, two crews of Ministry &mploj;ees wqrked together on two consecutive projects-the first in Shulman Township, and the second in Peshu West. Each crew had a crew boss. The overall coordination of the two crews was left to Mr. Mulligan. He reported to Mr. A. Van Roon with respect to the Shulman work, and to Mr. D. Johnson with respect to the Peshu West work. Both of these gentlemen are classified as Resource Technician 3. In previous years, Mr. Mulligan had been a crew boss, but he had never coordinated the work of more than one crew. Each crew consists of six to eight workers. The crew boss is responsible for ensuring that these workers do their jobs correctly and safely. The crew boss drives the workers to the site and keeps track of their hours. In the 1987 season, Mr. Mulligan started out transporting trees for planting and establishing survival assessment plots. There is no doubt that this work would not justify classificaion as an RT 3. However, when the two crews moved to Shulman Township, it became clear that Mr. Van Roon was too busy to do the daily on-site coordination of the twos crews, including dealing with any differences which arose between the crew bosses. So the job of coordination was given to Mr. Mulligan. He decided the daily work locations of the two crews. He ensured that the planting was done properly. He settled any problems 3 between the crew bosses, and between each crew boss and his workers. He kept the records of work done and reported to Mr. Van Roon. He handled various administrative tasks related ~to the two crews. Mr. Van Roon visited the site two to three times per week for about one hour each visit, and would talk with Mr. Mulligan each time. And the same organization applied when the two crews moved to Peshu West, except that Mr. Johnson was the RT 3. During this period, the RT 3s would be responsible for several projects each. For example, Mr. Van Roon was overseeing four work areas in June 1987, including Shulman Township. In the past, in the Blind River District, the Ministry had used an RT 2 to coordinate the work of several tree-planting crews. And, on one occasion, when an RT 3 had to be absent for a period of time, an RT 2 took over as RT 3 on an acting basis. The Preamble to the Resource Technician Series, and the Class Standards for.Resource Technician 2 and 3 are appended to this award. Based on the work Mr. Mulligan did during the 45 working days, was he properly classified as a Resource Technician 2? As the Preamble says at the outset, “This series covers the positions of employees engaged in the performance of operational duties”. For employees like Mr. Mulligan, who have graduated from an approved technical program (Mr. Mulligan has a Forestry Technician Diploma from Sir Sanford Fleming Community College), the entry level is Resource Technician 2. “As experience is gained, daily supervision is reduced to instructions covering specialized technical problems.” Thus, it is contemplated that, at the 2 level, a Resource Technician will perform operational duties which require suitable education, and that the experienced RT will work with minimal supervision. 4 According to the second sentence of the Class Standard for the RT 2, this employee “may be required to take charge of casual employees in such activities as . . . ..tree planting”. The Union argues that this Standard refers to the crew boss, not the coordinator of several crews. In order to better understand the RT 2 Standard, it is useful to look at the Standard for the RT 3, because there is no clear dividing line between the two. The Union emphasizes the second paragraph of the RT 3 Standard, wherein it says that such an employee may supervise or take charge of “groupz” of emplbyees. It is argued that this means than an employee who coordinates the work of more than one group is not an RT 2 but should be classified as an RT 3. In our view, this argument is not correct. The hallmark of the RT 3 is found in the first paragraph of the Standard. The RT 3 is an employee “performing more complex, demanding and responsible technical duties”. The second paragraph merely refers to some of the possible job duties of the RT 3-supervising and/or training regular employees or taking charge of groups of casual employees. But whatever the RT 3 does, his work involves “more complex, demanding and responsible technical duties”. The supervision, training and taking charge must take place within the general context of “more complex, demanding and responsible technical duties”. Thus, for example, Messrs. Van Roon and Johnson are involved in planning a season’s planting. They are involved in determining where planting should take place, and what other forestry management operations should be performed during a year. It is this work which is critical in determining their classification. The Union goes on to argue that, during the planting season, an RT 3 may spend 75-80% of his time supervising planting operations, just like 5 Mr. Mulligan did in the summer of 1987. Therefore, it is suggested, Mr. Mulligan should have been classified as an RT 3 for the 45 working days. In our view, this argument too is incorrect. The RT 3s are not classified as they are because they spend 75-80% of their time during the planting season supervising planting operations. They are classified as RT 3s because of their overall duties over a whole year. During the whole year, the central core of their work is “more complex, demanding and responsible technical duties”. Mr. Mulligan did not do the technical duties.which are the core of an RT 3’s work. He was given the plan of action for the planting. The demanding technical problems had been worked out by the RT 3s and higher management. He was simply responsible for the daily coordination of the work being done by two work crews. -+ 6 In our view, his work in the summer of 1987 is covered by the second sentence of the Class Standard for Resource Technician 2. He was properly classified. For these reasons, the grievance is dismissed. Done at London, Ontario, this xst day of JUI~ , 1989. (Addendum attached) :I M. Lyons, Member W. Lobraico, Member FILE NUMB23 1675/87 MULLIGAN (OPSEU and MNR) ADDENDUM OF MICHAEL LYONS, MEMHEP. I concur that the duties assigned to the Grievor for the 45 working days from May 7 to July 16, 1987 were not of such a nature that he should have been reclassified to HTd5; however, it is clear to me that the work he did during this period required more knowledge , ability and responsibility than the job he normally did. Accordingly, I feel the Grievor deserves some add- itional compensation for the 45 working days from May 7 to July 16, 1987. ~~- 41100-04 CLASS STANDARD: PREAMBLE RESOURCE TECHNICIAN SERIES This series covers the positions of employees engaged in the performance of operational duties in any one or more of the specialised services, e.g. Forest Protection, Timber, Fish ani iiildlife, Lands, Parks, Research, etc. Employees in positions allocated to this series may perform a variety of duties ranging from those of a manual nature requiring only a relatively elementary understanding of natural resource management to those of a technical nature requiring independent judgement. Entry into this series for candidates who are gr uztes of an B‘ approved Technical School in Resource Management or an approved related discipline is at the Resource Technician Tlevel. At this leve_l.such employees receive training in practical aspects of theoraes studled and, as experience IS gained, daily supervision is reduced to instructions covering specialised technical problems. Positions involving full time performance of Fish and Wildlife management and/or enforcement duties are restricted to employees who are graduates of an approved Technical School in Resource Management. Research Branch positions allocated to the third level in this series will normally be underfilled by one grade for a period not longer than one year, to allow for the necessary "on the job" training in specific research aspects of the duties involved. Positions will be allocated to a specific level in this class series only when all the requirements of that level have been fulfilled. - DEFINITIONS FOR USE WITH THIS SERIES Service: Functional field equivalent of a Ministry Division, e.g. Forests, Mines, Fish and Wildlife, Parks, Conservation Authorities, Field Services, Lands. CRITERIA FOR RANKING FISH HATCHERIES - year round trout culture. seasonal pond culture. trough or jar culture. CRITERIA FOR RANKING PARKS 1. Camper days User Days Large natural environment 4. Complexity because of special situations. Revised Mav 1, 1973 41102 I CLASS STANDARDS: @MJRCE TECHNICIAN 2 This class covers positions of employees responsible for performing a variety of skilled and/or technical, prcdnction oriented duties in any or all departmental services. They may be required to tske charge of casual employees in such activities as fire suppression, tree planting, lake surveys, etc. They may dlso be assigned to specific duties which contain some latitude for decisiom, such as scaling, property assessment, technical laboratory or field work, etc. At this level technically qualified employees, may receive practical training in more complex resource management work e.g. Fish and Wildlife management -and/or enforcement, technical research work, basic Timber management, etc. sKIr.U AND KNOWLEDCE REPCIRKD: 1. Ability to control.work of others; ability to meet and enlist co-operation of public. 2. Good knowledge of operations in the specific area of activity concerned, October 1, 1970. This class cover3 positions of emplo~aes performing more complex, demanding end res’pnsiblo tech&r1 duties contdning considerable latitude for decision &king e.g. check scnling; compiling lake derclopnent data; training f&-e crew; operating type W parks or type We hatcheries; carrying out Fish end Yildlifo menaganent and/or enforcement work; gathering; - assembling ud compiling technical or scientific datr, preparing technical reports and/or plans; aeseasing technicill needs of Wuiganent or acfentiffc pmjecta end autmitting tecluiical recoprmeldatiom, etc. in any assigned area of responsibility. They may rupervise and/or train regular employsea or take charge of groups of casual employees ud, in this context, organizo ti schniulc activities within the genpral framework of laid dovl?-plena, pr instructions ad assume rorpanaibility for the quality ud quaati~ of production and for the work porfomaiico of usignal rtaff. SKILLSAND KNOWLEDGERJWLRCD: Ability to organise projects and eupenire implementation; initiative ard ability to assimilate new techniques to be applied in a variety of situations; good understanding of roeource management principles. 0,:tober 1, 1970. . :-.