Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-2045.Zurawski.91-12-02 DecisionEMPLOY& DE LA COURONNE DE L'ONTARIO commission DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G 1z8 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G 1z8 (4 16) 326- 1388 : (4 16) 326- 1396 2045/90 BETWEEN BEFORE : FOR THE GRIEVOR FOR THE EMPLOYER IN the MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION under TEE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD OPSEU (Zurawski) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) Employer R. Verity I. Thomson D. Montrose Vice-Chairperson Member Member K. Whitaker Counsel Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman Barristers Solicitors G. Karayannides Counsel Genest Murray Barristers & Solicitors HEARING April 8, 1991 July 24, 26, 1991 2 DECISION Andy Zurawski works as Sewage Plant Operator at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre and is classified as Waste and Water Project Operator 1. In a grievance dated June 11, 1990, he claims that he is currently misclassified and seeks reclassification under a Berry type Order. The grievor has worked at the Mental Health Centre since February, 1984 and in his current position since February of 1987. He is the sole operator of the Waste Water Treatment Plant (a conventional activated sewage facility) which is located approximately 1/2 kilometre from the main institution The purpose of the plant is to treat sewage water generated by the Institution in order to discharge a final effluent, free of contaminants, into Georgian Bay. The plant is a Class II facility under the Ministry of Environment certification program and the grievor holds a Class II Waste Water Treatment Certificate issued by that Ministry in 1990. The plant is part of the Institution's Plant Service and Maintenance Department. The grievor reports to Plumbing Foreperson Lawrence Gregoire, a licenced plumber. Mr. Gregoire supervises a staff of seven - two plumbers, three maintenance mechanics, one preventive maintenance mechanic and the grievor. After the grievance was filed, a job audit was prepared by Personnel Officer Richard Whiting. The job audit resulted in the 3 preparation of a new Position Specification form dated August 26, 1990 (effective June 1, 1990) which reads, in material parts, as follows: 2. Purpose of position' To maintain the daily operation of the facility's second- class activated sludge and sewage treatment plant and to assist other Plant Services staff in performing maintenance and general repairs across the Mental Health Centre. 3. Duties and related tasks 1. Maintains the daily operation of the sewage treatment plant by: - Checking and recording all meter, and temperature gauges as well as flow chart readings on influent, effluent and waste levels; - Checking the operation of all electrical and mechanical equipment such as control panels, pumps and valves to see that they are functioning within prescribed parameters indicating proper operation; performs immediate maintenance required to correct malfunctions; - Performing the prescribed tests of samples from treatment tanks as required by the Ministry of the 60% Environment; - Calculating and recording the monthly Sludge Volume Index; - Regulating the chlorinator to maintain a proper chlorine residual in the effluent, recording the amount of chlorine used; - Checking that the digester is functional, unobstructed by sand or other debris, cleaning same on scheduled maintenance; checking and cleaning the aeration, settling and final effluent tanks as required; Cleaning the drying beds as required; - Measuring and recording the amount of sludge removed; - Requesting chemicals and equipment necessary for plant operations from the Plumbing Foreperson. - Performing general maintenance and housekeeping chores in the plant and around the grounds. 2. Assists other Plant Services staff with repairs and 4 maintenance of mechanical equipment throughout the hospital by: - Making simple repairs to plumbing and heating equipment, for example, unplugging a toilet; - Helping plumbers and mechanics install or repair grill-gate doors at Oak Ridge; Checking the chemical inhibitors across the site as part of the department's preventative maintenance programme ; - Keeping a log of pump and plant maintenance performed at the Sewage Treatment Plant, e.g. schedule of plump oiling; - Making repairs to water softening equipment and ensuring the softeners have sufficient level of salt; Note: This involves handling 20Kg. bags of salt - 20% - Helping electricians remove and install motors; - 3. Performs testing and treatment of the facility's water supply; - Performing the pH test each scheduled day on the facility water supply; - Collecting water samples as scheduled and forwarding to the Orillia Public Health Laboratory; 10% - Checking water softeners as scheduled to see that they are running properly; regenerating the softeners by running them through a cycle and backwashing, introducing new brine to the system. 4. Performs related duties such as; - Advising supervisor of equipment malfunctions and material needs; - Performs the monthly diesel engine test on the water circulation pump located at the Administration Building; 10% - Assists with fire hydrant flushing as required; - as assigned. 4. Skills and knowledge required to perform job at full working level. Possession of a Second-class Waste-Water Utility Operator's certificate issued by the Ministry of the Environment under the Water Resources Act. Awareness of safe handling of chemicals such as chlorine and alum. Physical capability to lift supplies up to 20 kilograms and shovel drying beds. Experience in the mechanical and electrical trades to assist tradespersons. Valid Ontario driver's licence. 5 The grievor testified at length as to his actual duties and the nature of the operation of a conventional activated sewage plant. He agreed that he performed most but not all of the duties set out in the revised Position Specification form. In particular, he described a variety of tests that he performs on a daily basis on sewage samples at various stages of treatment, and the need to interpret and log the test results. According to his evidence, the tests performed are for his information. In addition, he is required to send monthly sewage samples for independent testing to the Ministry of the Environment and to comprehend the significance of the Ministry's written test results. The grievor maintains that 75-80% (as opposed to 60%) of his job involves duty #1 (the daily operation of the sewage treatment plant) and 5% of the job (as opposed to 20%) in duty #2 (assisting other plant services staff). The grievor testified that -although he has a good relationship with Mr. Gregoire, the Supervisor visited the plant only twice in the last three years. According to the grievor's evidence, he was never given technical advice by his Supervisor, the Supervisor was unfamiliar with the tests performed, and the Supervisor did not review his work or the test results received from the Ministry. The grievor's unchallenged evidence was that on one occasion Mr. Gregoire had told the grievor: "I haven't the foggiest idea what you do down there". The grievor also stated that when he was hired by Mr. Gregoire's predecessor, he was told words to the effect: "it is your baby and that anything that goes wrong is your 6 responsibility". In November, 1989, the grievor attended an activated sludge course and as a result instituted further testing procedures and obtained permission for the purchase of new equipment. \ Lawrence Gregoire testified that he has ongoing daily responsibility for the maintenance of plumbing and heating throughout the Institution. He frankly acknowledged that he was not capable of running the sewage treatment plant himself. He does, however, have signing authority to authorize the purchase of parts, equipment and supplies for the sewage treatment plant and authority to provide manpower upon request. Mr. Gregoire admitted that he had very little knowledge of the various tests performed by the grievor. However, he was actively involved in the preparation of the job audit. Personnel Officer Richard Whiting prepared the job audit and concluded that the grievor was currently properly classified. He acknowledged that the audit was prepared in consultation with Supervisor Gregoire and based primarily on prior Position Specification forms. He did interview the grievor for some ten to fifteen minutes and toured the sewage treatment plant. The grievor was allowed to review the completed job audit and was asked for his written comments. It would appear that the grievor's suggestions were ignored for the most part. 7 The current Class Standard with accompanying Preamble reads as follows WASTE AND WATER PROJECT OPERATOR SERIES This series covers positions of employees engaged in the operation of either waste treatment or water purification facilities. These employees carry out a variety of duties related to the monitoring and control of waste and water treatment processes in installations located throughout the Province. The size of the facility ranges from projects serving small municipalities and requiring only one or two employees, to installations serving densely populated areas with a relatively large and diversified staff operating on a continuous shift system. The responsibilities of these positions involves the carrying out of regular inspections of the project, operating and maintaining process control equipment and undertaking various assignments to ensure that the project is operating in accordance with established standards. The series contains a trainee level covering positions of employees lacking the necessary knowledge and/or experience to operate at the full working level. Excluded from this series are positions where the primary responsibility is the repair and maintenance of plant equipment, the conducting of laboratory tests, groundskeeping, caretaking and unskilled manual labour. Such positions should be allocated to class series more specifically designed to cover their responsibilities. Also excluded from this series are positions of Chief Operator (no more than one per plant for each shift) and higher level positions concerned chiefly with the management of the plant. WASTE AND WATER PROJECT OPERATOR 1 This class covers positions of employees who, under the supervision of a Chief Operator, carry out a variety of operating and inspectional duties in either a waste treatment or a water purification facility. 8 These employees carry out regularly scheduled inspections of all equipment in buildings, collect samples and perform routine laboratory tests, in order to ensure the effective operation of the facility. They perform preventive maintenance procedures by checking machinery and electrical equipment when required, and may overhaul or assist in the overhaul of equipment if necessary. In some plants these employees may also be required to perform some groundskeeping and caretaking duties- SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE Mechanical and electrical aptitude; familiarity with and understanding of the operation of a variety of moderately complex process control equipment. Reference was made by the Union to Waste and Water Project Supervisor Series to give meaning to the term "Chief Operator". That Class Standard, deleted in 1981 and not replaced, reads as follows:. Preamble WASTE AND WATER PROJECT SUPERVISOR SERIES This series covers employees engaged in the management of water and waste treatment projects in municipalities throughout the Province. DEFINITION OF TERMS Project A project is a water treatment and distribution or waste collection and treatment facility or group of facilities which constitutes an organizational unit for administrative purposes. Projects range in size from small facilities requiring only one or two full time employees to major installations employing a large diversified staff. Project Superviosr A Project Supervisor is the employee who reports to a Regional or Head Office position and is accountable for all 9 aspects of the administration and operation of a project. Chief Operator A Chief Operator is an employee who reports to a Project Supervisor, and who has significant supervisory responsibilities in respect of the operation of a project or segment of a project. There are six levels in the series, and allocation of a position to the appropriate level is governed by the degree of responsibility assigned. To simplify the evaluation of the degree of responsibility of positions, six classifications of project have been determined based on the following four factors: 1. Design Flow: This is the capacity of the project expressed in gallons per day. 2. Complexity of Equipment: This is an assessment of the overall complexity of equipment and process used in the project, which can range from simple primary treatment processes to relatively sophisticated installations employing automated control systems. 3. Operations Budget: The annual expenditure associated with the operation of the project. 4. Number of Staff Supervised: The total number of staff reporting directly or indirectly to the position. The allocation of positions of Project Supervisors to the appropriate level in the series is determined by reference to the project class designations, which are detailed under the following Project Classification Index. Positions of Chief Operators are few in number and tend to exist only in the large projects. The overall responsibilities of these positions should be measured against the responsibilities characteristic of the first four classifications of project, and allocated accordingly. Any subsequent change in the classification of a project must be supported by a significant quantitative change in one or more of the four factors listed above. Excluded from this series are supervisory positions responsible for a segment of a project, which does not include the supervision of operators. 10 WASTE AND WATER PROJECT SUPERVISOR 1 This level covers Project Supervisors who are accountable for all aspects of the administration of a Class 1 project and Chief Operators with equivalent responsibilities. (See Preamble for Definitions) WASTE AND WATER PROJECT SU PERVISOR 2 This level covers Project Supervisors who are accountable for all aspects of the administration of a Class 2 project and Chief Operators with equivalent responsibilities. (See Preamble for Definitions) WASTE AND WATER PROJECT SUPERVISOR 3 This level covers Project Supervisors who are accountable for all aspects of the administration of a Class 3 project and Chief Operators with equivalent responsibilities. (See Preamble for Definitions) WASTE AND WATER PROJECT SUPERVISOR 4 This level covers Project Supervisors who are accountable for all aspects of the administration of a Class 4 project and Chief Operators with equivalent responsibilities. ( See Preamble for Definitions) WASTE AND WATER PROJECT SUPERVISOR 5 This level covers Project Supervisors who are accountable for all aspects of the administration of a Class 5 project. (See Preamble for Definitions) WASTE AND WATER PROJECT SUPERVISOR 6 This level covers Project Supervisors who are accountable for all aspects of the administration of a Class 6 project. (See Preamble for Definitions) The real dispute in this case focuses on the level of supervision given the grievor by Mr. Gregoire. The Union maintains 11 that the grievor works virtually autonomously and that Mr. Gregoire does not perform the function of "Chief Operator" as contained in the current Class Standard. The Employer recognizes the concern and asked the panel to read out of the Class .Standard the reference to "Chief Operator" or alternatively, to find that Mr. Gregoire filled that role. The Union requested the panel to have regard to the definition of "Chief Operator" in the deleted Class Standard to determine the nature of the supervision contemplated in the grievor's current Class Standard. Mr. Whitaker contends that "Chief Operator" is someone with technical expertise who is significantly involved in the actual operation of the plant with the requisite skill and ability to operate that facility. He argued that, on the evidence, Mr. Gregoire does not fit the description of Chief Operator. Further, he argued that Mr. Gregoire does not exercise significant supervisory responsibilities of a technical nature in the operation of the plant. The Employer maintained that the grievor is currently properly classified on a reading of both the Preamble and Class Standard. Mr. Karayannides argued that with the exception of the phrase "under the supervision of a Chief Operator", the grievor admitted that he carried out all of the duties as encompassed in the current Class Standard. On that basis, Mr. Karayannides contends that the Chief Operator provision should be read out of the Class Standard 12 or that Mr. Gregoire as the grievor's Supervisor filled that role. In classification matters, on the Class Standards approach, the grievor's actual duties and responsibilities must be measured against that standard. If those duties are found to fit within the general language of the standard, the matter is concluded. The nature of the Class Standards are such that they are by definition general and designed to apply to a number of different jobs. The Class Standard must be read with the grievor's particular job in mind and it would be inappropriate to read out any part of that Standard. There is no dispute that the grievor's job has not changed in any material respect throughout his tenure. Similarly, Mr. Gregoire is and remains the grievor's Supervisor. The Class Standard for Waste and Water Project Operator 1 specifies that employees work "under the supervision of a Chief Operator". The Preamble to the Class Standard makes it clear that positions of "Chief Operator" are excluded from this series. To give meaning to the phrase "Chief Operator" it is appropriate, we think, to refer to the Waste and Water Project Supervisor series which bears the same date (July 1, 1973) and which also deals with Waste Water Projects. In the Preamble to that particular Class Standard, "Chief Operator'' is defined as "an employee who reports to a Project Supervisor and who has significant supervisory 13 responsibilities in respect of the operation of a project or segment of a project". A project is defined as "a water treatment and distribution or waste collection and treatment facility". We would agree with the Union that "Chief Operator", as defined, contemplates an employee with the technical expertise and the requisite skill and ability to operate the plant. Although the Waste and Water Project Supervisor series was discontinued in 1981, there was no corresponding amendment to the grievor's current Class Standard. On the evidence before us, we are satisfied that Mr. Gregoire is not a Chief Operator. Simply stated, he does not exercise significant supervisory responsibilities of a technical nature in the operation of the Sewage Treatment Plant. That is understandable in view of Mr. Gregoire's training as a Journeyman Plumber with primary responsibility for the maintenance of plumbing and heating throughout the Institution. Mr. Gregoire was frank to admit that he was not capable of running the Plant and that he was unfamiliar with the various tests performed by the grievor. Similarly, the evidence established that Mr. Gregoire was also unfamiliar with the required standards of the Ministry test results. We are satisfied the grievor is currently misclassified. The grievor's actual duties and responsibilities are performed virtually without supervision. Accordingly, it cannot be said that 14 the current Class Standard accurately reflects the grievor's actual duties and responsibilities. In effect, the grievor operates and co-ordinates the management of the Waste Water Treatment Facility. He is the only employee operating the facility, monitoring quality control, performing various tests, interpreting the results of those tests, and determining what action is to be taken to alter the operation to ensure quality control objectives. This is the appropriate case for a Berry type Order. In the result, we order the Ministry to re-evaluate the position held by Mr. Zurawski and to assign the position to an appropriate classification and compensation level, within 90 days. The grievor shall be entitled to full compensation arising from this reclassification effective twenty days prior to the filing of the grievance. We shall remain seized pending the implementation of this Decision. DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 2nd day of December, 1991 ...... ......... R. L. VERITY, Q.C. - VICE CHAIRPERSON ................ I. THOMSON - MEMBER .... D. MONTROSE - MEMBER