HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1038.Boulanger et al.92-06-25q m BOARD
COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT, RiGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
Before
TNE GRIEVRRCE SETTLENENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Boulanger et al)
- and -
Grievor
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transportation)
Employer
BEFORE: B. Fisher Vice-Chairperson
G. Majesky Member
M. O'Toole Member
D. Wright
Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE
EMPLOYER
C. Peterson Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
BEARING February 25, 1992
June 2, 1992
BOUt.ABGER
This decision follows an interim decision1 dated May 30, 19911.
At the second stage of this case we heand evidence regarding the nature cd
the supervision that the Grievor exercised in comparison to the nature of supervision exercised by
Technician 3’s with respect to junior members. We also heard1 evidence to determine the actual
percentage of time which the Grievor spent on this type of supervislon.
In accordance with the interim decision our task was to determine if the
degree of training, responsibility or complexity required by the Grievor to supervise otherr
Technicians 3’s was greater than would be exercised when siupervising junior members of the
pa*.
With respect to the first element, the Grievor acknowledged that he does not
train the other Technician 3’s as they are fully trained already.
With respect to responsibility, the Grievor testified that he felt responsible
for insuring that the work was completed when the Party Chief was absent. Mowever, the
uncontradicted evidence of Mr. Campbell, the Party Chief, wa:s that he did not hold the Grievor
responsible for anyone’s else work, even when the Party Chief was absent. In other words if a
3
2
mistake or problem occurred while the Party Chief was away, the Party Chief on his return would,
to use his own words, “chew out” the person responsible for causing the problem, not the Grievor.
In other words the Grievor’s responsibility in relation to the job did not seem to be any greater
than that of any other Technician 3 on the crew.
With respect to complexity, the Union contends that it is more difficult to try
to get another Technician 3 to do something than it is to simply order a junior member to do a job.
One has to use powers of persuasion and diplomacy to build a consensus, rather than simply
ordering someone to do something. The Union contends that this added complexity makes the
Grievor’s job more difficult than that of the Technician 3 who is supenrising junior members of the
w-9.
This Board certainly recognizes that there are various methods of managing
a work force other than the traditional hierarchial model of supenrisor and SupeNised. It may well
be that the skill sets necessary to manage by consensus are more complex and difficult than are
necessary to carry out the more traditional supervisory role. However, in order for the Board to
assess the relative complexity of these alternative methods, we would require a sound factual
basis. All we have in this case is a largely impressionistic view of the Grievor himself. In other
decisions of this Board (notably the line of OHIP Billing Clerk cases) the parties presented
extensive evidence, both by way of expert witnesses and through reference to academic studies
to show that certain factors of a job have traditionally not been properly recognized in the job
classification process.
3
As the onus of proof is on the Union, we are not satisfied that they have
discharged that onus in showing tbat the Grievor’s method of managing his fellow Technicians 3’s
is more complex or difficult than the Technician 3’s who train and supervise junior members of the
Pam.
As we are not satisfied that there is a substantive difference between the nature
of the supervision exercised by this Grievor as opposed to Technician 3’s who supervise and train
junior members of the party, it Is not necessary to determine what percentage of time the Grievor
spends on that activity. However, even if we were to accept the Ministry’s testimony that the Party
Chief was only absent 10% - 15% of the time, this would constitute a significant amount of time
which is relevant to a classification as it represents a core duty, not an ancillary one.
Furthermore, having decided the element of supervision exercised by the
Grievor is consistent with the Class Standard, we do not feel that the cumulative effect of the other
two factors discussed in the interim dward, namely, the use of a computer and the performancle
of both legal and engineering surveys, is sufficient as to say that the Grievor is improperly
classified.
4
The Grievance is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toront
1'
this 25th day of June, 1992.
Lli kc O’Toole - Employer Nominee