The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989-0696.Jagger et al.90-04-03 ONTAR~IO /:MPL 0 Y~"S DE LA COURONNE CFtOWN EMPt. 0 YEE$ DE L'ONTA RIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G IZ8 - SUITE2100 TELEPHONE/T~L~PHONE 180, RUE OUNOAS OU~ST, TORONTO, fONTARfO) MSG ~Z8- BUREAU 2100 (416)598-0688 696/89 IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARC~INING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLESENT BOARD BE~EEN: OPSEU (~a~er et al) Grievor - and - .The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Consumer & Commercial Relations) Employer BEFORE: p. Knopf~ Vice-Chairperson J. Solberg Member R. Scott Member FOR THE R. Stoykewych GRIEVOR: Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE D. Wakely EMPLOYER: Counsel Winkler, Filion and Wakely Barristers & Solicitors L. Gottschling Staff Relations Co-ordinator Ministry of Consumer & Commerical Relations HEARING: January 26, 1990 DECISION '~his is a classi£ication grievance invo].vinp ~os~tion o5 Senior. qlevator Inspector. Th~ 9rJevo¢ is classified as an Executive .Officer 1 (Atypical). He works , wi~h the Technical S~andard3 Division of the Minis%fy o~ Consumer and Commercial R~latioas supe~vis~a9 a group of F~eld Insoe-cto~s a~d inspectin9 elevating devices und~ abe ~_~.!~._PtV ~.~.!.~_~,~_9_n.~_._~.~'~_!_~_~i9~%· Th:a Dar ~.ias have agreed ~o proceed wl~h this case as a represoncative case. They agree tha~ the results of this grievance will be aDp!ie~ to fiv~ ot~er ind[v~dual, s in sim%la~ ~osit~ons. TRe parties furtheu agreed ~o prDce.~d by way of an agree] statement o~ f ac ts, ]~he agreed facns indicate than the position speci~icatio~ effective in January of 198'3 is an accurate d~scrlption o~ the .duties a~nd respoQs£bii'..ni.:~.s o~ [he gr~evor, I~ is appended ~e~e~o as Appendix ! to ~he dec~.s~on, By way o~ [~rt%aer detail, the part~es agree that 20% of the grievor's time is taken up by the supervisory duties as set oun in paragraph 3(2) of t~e Posicion Specification. The inspections referred ~o therein are done on the slEe o~ the elevasi, n9 device, Thus, the du[kes uake him out o~ his o~f'tce for a suDs~antta~ 9ar% o.( his working time. The part~es also note ~hat there are several ob!~er duties tl%e 9rievor ~erforms includln9 - collecting evidence for purposes of prosecutions - consulting with Ministry personnel as an exper% for purposes o~ determining whether to pcosecute - ap6)ea-~in9 as a wiLness in civil and criminal prosecutions a.oproximaaely fi~e times per year -.- collecting monies for a!evar, or licence fees and answmring emergency calls (once or twice a mo n th ) . As me.~tione~l earlier, the grievo~ has been classi. F~i. ed at t. he level of Executive Officer 1. The Class Standac~ fo~ that position is ~ppe~%ded hero, to as Appendix "B:'. The Board was askefl to r~.~msin seized with the is.~ue o~ compensation and with the issue o[ whet payment should commence if th,a ~rievance succeeds. The Argument On behalf of the grievo~, iu was ar._que~ tha~ classification Dea£s little or ~o relation to abe nauu~_~ of the duties p,~rformed by ~he g~ievor as a Senior Elevato~ Ins?ecnor. It was sakd that the core o~ h~s duties is centered on the inspection of elevatou devices an:~ he thus spends consideraOle time away from the o~fice. It was stuessed [hat the grievo~ is engaged in a highly inspect].oq ~]nction, studying .~esign submissions a~ testing and directin9 thai tests be oerformed ia order to public safety. It was further stressed that all his duties, lncl. uding his supervisory duties are the execcise technical expectise an~ the g~vln~ of technical qui<~a~ce and direction. Thi~ J_s cont~aste~ to the administrative a~d organizational ~utLes associated with th~ types o~ functions which the UnLon says would be covered by tha Executive 0EElC,~ ! Class Sta~ar~. Counsel for the U~ion went through the c!~ss definition an~J cha[acterisnic .~u~ies of ~he Execut].ve Office~ 1 level stressing ~he number of concepts which are not ~elaned to the grievor's work s~ecifically. Fur%beE, i~ was stressed that the core function of an Execugive Officer is diffe~e'nt than ~hat of the 9rievo~. was sazd chat the work bE the 9¢ie~or is dtE'fere.qt in and in purpose th.an ls co~l~emplated by ~h~ ,qx.~cu~iv~ O~fic~u L des~gnatiog. Further, it was sai<l tl~at the fact than the Employer has chosen to ,Jesi. gnate this joe as atypical '.Joes no~ assisn the Employer because of the vast difference between the job as perEormed and tile lanou'a~e the classification chosen. Thus, we were asked ~o declare than the qui~vor has been improperly classJ.=ied~, and chat th mattar be remitted back to the parties for th~ position to reclassified. The Board was referre.:~ to i~?_¢.[~ and Ministry .......................... o~Co.~qq.~.~y.._9~,J~_~q~.!~._~.~%~_~, unre;[3o~t.'ed decision of the Divisional Court da~e~ March !3, 1985, ~.~...gQ~__.~.~E~ 217/83 (Vet i ny), ~u55!5~. ~,]..~_~iS~s t~_.9~___~gq~.9~9.~.%9.5, GSB File No. 1574/8~ (Gorsk~), Boac¢~ File No. 95/99 (Ve:~it.¢) and 9( .~9~!oE~.~!gO, Board F~!e No. 10')8/95 (Wilson). On behalf off the Employer it :~as argued than tt~ts Boar;1 has oEten acceoted the co~%cepu_ of aR ar~ygicak classz[ic'a~lon as being a proper m~tl~odology o~ c!asslf~cat~oa. I~ was sai:~ tha~ tn cases whet,~ ~ge ~mp ~ lo,er has 8xercised its legi[lmate .~iscretton Eo ~coperly classify wi~h an abyp~cal desi0na~[on, i~ ~s eot ce~u[red ~haa "fib" be as snug as [t would be in .~ typical siEua[ioa, the classiftcar, ton may s~kl]. De appropriate aad proper. Thus, we were [o look to see that the fit will be genera! nature and more "9eaeric" than one woukd expecz to find in a typical case. I% was argued tha~ i~ the Union was to succeod, ~t would imoly than the Class Suan.~ard must ft~ so tightly to the posi[ion sgec~cation to make them in~erchaageable aad this would ;]imintsh the flexibility Lot a wo required ~ ~kab.]:~ classi[icaaion s~stem. Like abe Uniog, cougs~l ~ook us through ~he SoD sQecifica~toa and the Class Standards bat, in contrast, argue~ how the two bogethe(. It was said that tile Class S~andards could be read generalll; enough to eacompass the kinds of con nempla ted by the job' speci~icat[on, having regard to fact ~hat it has 0een designated as at?pical, We ~[.v~q~., GSB File No. 47/77 (Swan) and ~e[.~9.O_gQ.Q_Q!2!~.!?/ ~.[ ,[~Sq.l[~l.l.,__~q.~2~.lf9__l[~ ,'' GSB F~le No. 497/B5 (Roberts). The Dec is ion Due to tt~.~,~ Fact that the {)aFnies have been able no agree that the position is accurately described in the Position Specification, with the additional details set out in the a~reed stater~ent o~ facts, the exercise fou this BoarJ is to Jetermine whether those functions c-in within th.u Class Standards of the Executi'~e Offic~=r 1 set out in Appendix In doin~ so, we accept the proposition put to us by the Ministry and adopte5 ~n the A..n.~_~.[SO_n- case, .s_..u_~[a.., where it was sa id .: · .. an employee may be Urogerly classified even though he or she does not pe.~form all or a majority of the duties described in a Class Standa.~d. We acceoc, that Class Standards must, by nature, general in scoge and there will be significant variations in the concentrations of the duti..~s of employees who a~e properly classified thereunder. We also accept the concept tlnat an any~ical classi[ica~.~on ty?e of designation is necessary, in the classification schema of the Government Seer ices. There are far too many jogs involving a wide ~a~[ety of duties and responsibilities loc one to ~xpact or hope for acl. ass Jeflnltion fo~ each pos~nlon~ The Class Snandauds must be general in nature and muse be generally enough drafta~d in be.Jet to cover ~he appropria=e numOer of positions. This was recognize4 im the Kg.~Z dec,.s/on, 9~L7i~, where in was said~ I am oE the ogin~on that while ~he B~,.,r_.[y. decision may not have invalidated atypical class ica t ions , this Board ~iven its c~ea~ manJate to direcL thar~ a new classificauion be establishe,~ when it is satisfied that a ~rlevor is impuoperly classi..=.ted musk insist that an atypical classification no~ vary wldeiy in its core features from the archetype of the c] ass if £cation. Thus, while we .accepn th~a concept of an atypical classification, and we accept_ the i~oorcance of generalized Class Standards, we m~]st ensure that the~e not be a wide variation in the posit~o~ in question from t!]e "core feat~res'' of the "archetype" of the classification. One of the most im~o~tan~ tests o~ that ~s that a~ticulate~ in .D_.u..n_n_~n_.q, su_~r_a.., where ~n was sa~d: I cannot conclu.ge that becaus~.~ the bulk of. the 9rievor~ duties and res3onsib%iit[~,s ~a!_l wit'.] the class stan~ard means that he ~s properly classified. What is import-ant is that he "could be called ,]pon at any time by [the] employer to perform [the] functi, ons" beyond those covered the class standard. With all these concepts in mind, we t,.~rn to the Job Specification as amplified in the evidence in the Class Standards of this case. In doing so, we are looking to the core duttes and ~e3pons~bil~ties as well as co tile essencia~ nature and purpose of the pos iroions as specified in the two documents. Once a careful analysis of this is performe~], it must be conclude~ that the 9rievor~s core duties and responsibilities are fundamentally difF~erent than those descri.oed in ~he class definition of the Execur_i. ve Officer 1. The na~:~re and function of the 9rievor~s responsibility .~s co act as aa in$lpecnor fo~.r elevating devices, The vast bulk of his t~me is spent on site, eithe~ inspectin~ or directing the inspection of elevati~9 devices and doing everything necessary to ensure their proper operation un~e~ the .~._l_~.y.a..,~.t. in_g._._D~v_~qe_.:~._~c_'t'. A ..oara of his time, agree'] to be 20%, is s~oen~ in givtng technical supervision to Eie. ld Buz again, nhis involves technical skill and experz~se, His day.-to-day work, his responsibilisies an~] the skills and knowledge he requires all relate to highly technical abilities and knowledge. In contrast, the Class StandarJ an Executive Officer I contemplates a function which, in esse[%ce, involves administration and office management functions and ces[0onsib[]tJ, ties, The phrase "adminlsnrat[v.% au~hos[ny or office managoment" appears throuqhoun the cJass definition. Th~ duties and the p~rpose of Such a classlficat~on seem to cont-~mp[ate o~ganizaCioaal skills aod repo~a[ng functions. Wher~ there is o~;er!ap, th~3 o~erlap canno~ O~ a~triDun~d to any of the nature or co$~ of wha~ one would expect of an Executive Office~. For example, it is tsue nhat thc Class Standard calls for "the frequent application o[ indep~n. Jent judgment an:] initiati, ve within defined limits" and the ability ~o "~leveiop required to implemen5 leqislation and regulations" anJ "p~epa~in~ reports" But these phras~s, while they c,3rtainiy apply to the 9rievor, are so Qeneral ~n nat:~ue that they must be ~ead in co~text with the entire Class Snanda~.~ an~] seem be exercised in cot%junction wl~h the administrative office management duties associated with that kind of position. However, those l~tLer duties are not part o)] 9rievor~s work. The grievor s job must be so~n to be. a classic situation wheue h~s duties racy widely in nheir co~e feature, s from ~he type o~ classification one would exp.gct to b~ co~]ered ~y the Ex3cucive OfS ice~ 1. ~o~ can the duties be said [o oe af~a[ogous because of th8 si..Qni(icaRt dif~.erenc.3s benweea adm~nistCative and ocgan~zational type of duties responsibilities as opposed to the technical requi¢~d in the gr~evoc:s posinion. Finally, the grie~o¢ is called u~oa to perform maa.? .functions be~on-J those covered by the Class Under'aL.l the clrcumst.~,gc.~s~ we :~eclar~ than 9rievo~ has .~aen improperly classi~Le,~ and w.~ direct Mlnisnry to create a proper class~r_'ica~[o~ ~=or hLm, Furr_'.~r, ~%e Emi3!oycr shal. 1 complete this reclassi~i, cat.toa withia a reasonably expeditious period of time. The Boa~J retains jurisdictxo~ pendin~ the impl-=mentation of this decisxon incl~dia~ any ~ssue of re~roactivitv and i~,~.~su shoul~:] the paraies re~uir~ o~.lc furthe~ assista[~ce. DAZED ac ?oronCo, OnCarzo, this 3rd Jay oE April, 1993. "I dissent" (Dissent attached) ............ - ~:~---F~ND I X A .......... Position Specification & C~ass AIiocatlomC$C (Refer to back of form for ~ompletion instructions) sam~s,:Sen~or [nspecco= [ ~7-6004-O~ Executive OJfice~ [ (A~ypical Consult & Co~e~cia~ Relac~on~ Technical Standards ~ivision e,~¢{~evtces ~o,i~. 33~ ~loor Street ~est J 69~0 Shtpp Cen~re,~es~ To. er, 3rd To ~upervl~e 8 group of field inspectors in a region under che ~ener81 direction of a Regional ~ager and ~o inspect elevacln8 devices under the Elevating Devices Act and Regule- C~ons am~ aEop~ sC~dmrds Co ensure as closely es is ~ractEcable t~t an elevetimg device confo~s wt~h the kc~, Regulations and applied codes. ~fle..or in ~he c~ny of an .~'~~e.and c~plm~mca tn~o[v~g .these ,devices, If ne~e~. [) Tnepects ney tne[a[~at~on9 and ~or aZce~aCtons Co ~[ e[evettnK devices as de~ne~ che '~S Devices AcC, [980, end perfome periodic end fo~[ov-up ~nspect~ons ~n -studyin8 r~tetered dest~n su~ieslonm of elevating devices, electrical, mechanical and construction details; ex~ining site controllers, sectors, overhead supports, access, meams of suspensl~, elec~rical syste~, conductors, weldi~and general workmanship; -direc[in8 feat of ape~, capacity and application of safety de-ices, tripping governors, limits of [tavel, door interlocks, levelling devices, [op-of-car operating device, running currem~ end voltage, ~or amd circuit overload protection, door groundin~, (installed, adjusted and ~es[ed by a registered contractor); -checking operation of ~chanicat and electrical systems during ~esta, measuring dimensional requirements, i.e., stopping distances, ~chine room, runway, buffer, stroke, tail rope pull out: -recordinS ~esu~ts of ~ests, operation of safe~[ devices and measurements; -vrLc~n~ clear, concise reports on all Xnspections ~de, ~ecording info~atio~ on standard report fo~s, i.e., directions Co o~ers ~r contractors re: violations found: -discussing such vialaC~ons end atC~ptina to obtain compliance on a voluntary basis clos~n~ d~ equi~ent where unsafe condi~ions exist and/or installation does not conform to registered d~n submission - supervising the acttv~y of a grOuP of field ia~'t~' e~rE ~-fficien't and economical service co the p~blic ~ maxtatze ~he safety atamdard; - s~r~eyin~ ~he dls~ricts of a rest~ [o ensure equal dis~ributio~ of workload; - ~int8lnln8 awareness of each district inspector throu8h visits end telephone con:act; (...comC'd. Skills end kn~ r~uir~ to ~ofm job It fuji working fl~t. (leVitate man.tory cr~lntillt ~ licencit, if H~bersh~p In O,A,C.E.T.T. ac C.~.T. leve~; kno~edBe o~ cu~en~ ~nd pas~ ~ndus~taZ reBa~d~n8 construction. ~nsca~lec~on and p~eve~Cac~ve ma~ncen~ce and replacement ~ devtce~. Sound knovled~e o[ ~he e~eva~n8 g~v~ces Acc and R~sula~ion5 an~ appl~oct f (...conc'd. ~ase S~ture ~V M~m Year ~ ; ~ I O~v Manta I , vl ~x,c.c~v, 0~cer ~ (~cyp&ca~) f 0352x [ ?-or mI 0~ I 8s Pos~cton ~e responsible for ~nspec~on ne~ Sn~ca~ec~ons a~d ~or ~cerac$on~ co e~ev~n~ dev~ces as deC,ned ~n cbs E~evac~ng Devices Acc and per~orm~n~ ~ns~cc~on~ co ensure compliance ~h che Acc, Re~ul3c~ofls ~nd app~od P~sicion is responsible for organizifla, asst~ning a~d supervisin~ the ~ctivil:~. o[ n of field inspectors amd loc providi.~ th~ w~th technical guidamce end am.~Jstance ~o ensure, that safety standards ere met. Post~ion ~s responsible for discussing violations with owners and contractors and comptinnce ~her om a vo]u~tmry basis o~ by closi.g d~ equipment where u.~al~ exist mnd/o~nsta~]m~ionm dm nor ~nfofm ~ r.~.i,~,r~,d dmsi~tn ~i~alq,t- ,,~ ~,.~3~4,1 '~n.,,.,,,v '-- ' ' "D~4u ;', :'- ..~A~;~';,'" · ...... ' .... ~ITIO# SPECIFICATION & CLASS ALLOCATION Page 2 ~ ~NZOR INSPECTO~ .~.*- Duties and related :aska...cont*d. ; 2) -studytn8 registered design submissions o£ elevating devices co be installed in the supervised area; : -editing the tnapector*s weekly inspection reports, running sh~ecs attendance registers; audi: inspectorz' expense accounts. 20% -re'aging the statistical data from inspection reports to the Regional ~na~er: -assisting the Regional Manager in the training o~ new inspectors end advis~r~g on the need for retraining o~ inspectors, when deemed necessary: -accompanying distr~ct 2napectors, to {nspect and report on problem -providing assistance to inspectors, owners and registered contractors. · I -~onitoring and maintaining records on contractors' performance (maintenance, ~ alteration,co, spearers); -monitoring o~er-contractor performance. ~) Performs other related tasks such aa:-attendi~ ¢on~era~c. ec and scn~.nar~, ~:cc~i~ up date on latest development9 in field; .. -inspection of amusement devices, ss required. ~. Skills end kno~ledRe required.,.cont'd. Ability to coa~unicate both oral[~ and ~n ,riCing ~ith registered elevating dev$ce contractors, project managers and engineers. ~b$~tty to supervise the activities of a group of field ~nspectors. Several years as an e:evacot inspector. Administrative ability. elevat~n$ ~evlces as defined in the Elevating Devices Ac~ and performing ' ~nspec~ons to ensure compliance rich the Act, Regulations and epplte~ codes. a. Position la responsible [or organizing, assigning and supervisin8 the activity of a group of field iaapectors and for providing them ~th technical 8uidance and assistance :o ensure that safety standards are ¢. co~plience~theton a voluntary basis or bf closing do~ equipment where unsafe condt:ion$ / e~ist ~nd/o,t,.~Lnstsllati~s do not co~otm to reaist~rc~ design submiss~ons. APPENDIX B o3'~2.a CL~$ DEFINITION: =ion of in~ependen:..ju~en: ~ initiative ~her~ direc~ supe~is~ re=~o~ib~i:ies are no: a major feature of the wark, the e~l~ee v~l d~vrlop ~t~ure~ re~ir~ to ~l~en: lezi~- la:ion ~d re~la:ions, ~d ~ exercise ~u~ aa~{s:ra~ive authcri~ a~ his chief may delegate. ~e ~y m~e ad~cra:ive's~diez, 'org~i:ational :.. review~ ~d ca~ out v~iou~ ~si~neat~ of ~ cogitative, ~vescizacin~ ~r confiden:~ nacre. .. ~here ~upe~ision i~ the decisive fac:or ~n :he uork, the individual for :he de:aile~ interpretatxon of poli~ ~d t:~:a]ly ~ubject only :o :cheryl ~upe~'i~icn, a: :~e~ be specific .~d dcta}le~. .[ CH L~.~CTERI~TIC DUTI~: %s ~ssi~tant to the h~ad of a hr~nch or ins:i~tion, carries out a~sizned r~earch studies, pr~pare~ reruns end info~ationa! r~terial ~d h~dle~ !e~,-~ated a~tn~strarive de:ail~ suck. a~ the pre~ra:io~ and a~iaistratiec ~t ~ffice or institutional re~la:icn~ ~ p~c~ures. >:a>' act f~r thc ?r'.':~ he~ in his absence. ,:~-:-.es, ' ouc field inve~:igat~on~ in gepa~e~t~ opera:in~ district offices. ~n order co ensure that effective Co~rrol~ by Head Office are bein~ exer- r.n..,-r~ tnt: agreements with :he ~ubtic · :cvernment for the p~curin~ of ]eases, righKs of ray, prope~i~s and ~n- · ~c~ as ~ecutive ~ecre:a~ to a~inistratLv~ boa~s and co~i~ees.. ·~ :~f[ce ~anagsr or chief clerk ~f a ~.l~.n~. assigns ~d reviews the work of e~ployees engaged in the collection ~f r.:venu,, the assig~ent of pensions, or the provi~;n~ cf c~cntiat :;~rvices as prescribed ~v legislation ~..r:a~ other related work as =.~ecutiee CUALIFICATIO.NS: 1. Senior dele' f~ a ~iv~rsi~ of ~co~i=ed s~~ o~ c~p~ble professicn~ trig. A ~hn~h ~l~ge of office orwi~=io. .. good jud~en:. .. DISSENT OF J.P. SCOTT In adopting the test for an acceptable atypical allocation enunciated by previous panels of the Grievance Settlement Board, the Chair of this Panel perpetuates what in my view is a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes an atypical allocation. Those earlier panels, and the Chair of this Panel have acknowledged the right of the employer to classify positions, including the designation of an atypical allocation, and they also acknowledge that atypical allocation is necessary For this employer. As the Chair of this Panel so aptly puts it - "There are far too many jobs involving a wide variety of duties and responsibilities for one to expect or hope for a class definition for each position." However, having accepted the employer's right to use, and the need for atypical allocations, some of those earlier decisions have so circumscribed the latitude of the employer that the effective use of such allocations is seriously, if not fatally, impaired. The Webster Reference Dictionary defines 'atypical' as: not conforming to type; irregular; abnormal. The government's Manual of Administration, the pertinent page of which was submitted by counsel For the employer, defines atypical allocation as follows: The allocation to a ctass of a position that in general fits that class better · than any other, but is significantly different from other positions in the class with respect to the: - function(s) carried; or - skills and knowledge required (emphasis added) In the face of such an explicit definition of a process which gave the employer the flexibility it needed in classifying such a large and variable assortment of jobs, the earlier panels established, or adopted, a much different test ss to what constitutes an acceptable atypical alloca- tion. This test suggests that there must not be a wide variation in the position in question from the "core features" of the "archtype" of the classification to which the position is assigned. - 2 - While it may be late in the day for this observation, I feel compelled to say that if a position encompasses, or does not vary widely from the "core Features" of a class to which it is assigned, it properly belongs to that class and is not an atypical allocation under any reasonable definition of the word "atypical" In the employer's classification system, and in some others as well, job classes are developed and positions are assigned to different levels in class series in order that employees may be appropriately compensated for the degree of difficulty and level of responsibility of their job duties. Where there is a need to assign a position on an atypical basis, the employer attempts to find a class where the duties and responsibilities are such that they have attracted a salarylevel which would appropriately compensate the employees in the position being assigned, even though the functions they carry out may be significantly different. In the instant case, the level of responsibility and the complexity of duties covered by the class standards for Executive Officer 1 appear to be appropriate For the position of Senior Inspector. For example, in the position specification for Senior Inspector, the purpose of the position reads, in part, as follows: To supervise a group of field Inspectors in a region under the general direction of a Regional Manager and to inspect elevating devices under the Elevating Devices Act and Regulations and adopted standards to ensure as closely as possible that an elevating device conforms with the Act, Regulations and applied Codes." It was agreed by the Parties that 20% of the Senior Inspector's time is spent on the supervision of field inspectors. The class standard for Executive Officer 1 stipulates that the class covers positions in which supervisory respon- sibilities are not a major feature of the work but also covers positions where supervision is the decisive factor in the work. Lb- Where supervision is a decisive factor, the individuaJ is responsible for the organization, assignment and supervision of tasks of a number of clerks or technical employees in a section of a branch and for the detailed interpretation of policy and legislation. His work is subject only to general supervision, (emphasis added) When an individual spends 20% of his or her time supervising the work of others, this has to be considered an important part of the job and it makes little or no difference whether the people being supervised are technical or administrative employees. In other words, this significant part of the Senior Inspector's job fits well in the class definition for Executive Officer 1. (Counsel For the union referred to these supervisory duties as "largely incidental" and "largely technical direction" Since these terms would only serve to downgrade the value of the grievors' jobs, I have to think he would not be unhappy if the Board chose to ignore this part of his argument.) When the Senior Inspector is not supervising the work of others his work is related to the inspection of elevating devices and includes inspections, writing reports on violations, discussing violations with owners or eon- tractors, editing the inspector's weekly inspection reports, running sheets and attendance records, audit inspectors expense accounts. While it is acknowledged that the actual function of inspecting elevating devices does not appear in the class definition of Executive Officer 1, all of the other duties in the above paragraph can be said to be administra- tive in nature and are covered in the class definition. Paragraph 1 of the class definition of Executive Officer 1 calls for the frequent application of independent judgement and initiative within defined limits and it was agreed by the parties that paragraph 1 does apply to the Senior Inspector's job. Wtb respect to skills and knowledge r~quired, the Senior Inspector's job requires a knowledge of elevating devices. This specific knowledge requirement does not appear int he class definition for Executive Officer 1 but since the educational requirements are "senior matriculation standing or the equivalent, preferably with a degree from a universi%y of recognized standing or comparable professional training't, one could reasonably assume that the knowledge requirements are at least the equivalent of those for the Senior Inspector. Other skill requirements for the Senior Inspector's job are the ability to communicate both orally and in writing, ability to supervise others and adminstrative ability. These clearly fit within item 3 of the qualifications required for an Executive Officer I which reads as follows: "Administrative and supervisory ability; ability to interpret legislationand regulations and to amplify, develop and apply policy in practical operation without direct supervision; ability to maintain harmonious relationships amongst employees and with the general public; facility of expression in speech and writing, initiative; integrity; alertness; tact and good judgement" In short, while the duties are different, the complexity of the assignments and the level of responsibility assumed ~y positions, assigned to the Executive -O~fficer 1. class would appear to be a reasonable' match, by way of atypical allocation, for the position of Senior Inspector. The atypical allocation was effected in 198~ and appears to have been acceptable to the grievors for a numbe~ of years. Now i~ is alleged that the allocation is wrong although there was no evidence that either the Executive Officer 1 standards or the position of Senior Inspector has changed. This suggests to me that the allocation was, and is correct and that the grievors must persue other avenues if they wish to increase their compensation level. The majority decision stipulates that the Board retains jurisdiction pending the implementation of this decision, including any issue of retroactivity and interest. It is trite to observe that if a new class is established, it doesn't necessarily follo~ that the new class will provide a higher level of salary than the atypical allocation. For all of the reasons cited above, I think the grievance shouJd have been dismissed. ..1, R, Scott Hember