HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0852.Lott.90-10-01 ONTARIO EMpL O Y~' $ DE LA COURONNE ~
CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 D'IJNDAS STREET WEST, StI[~TE 2.100, TORONTO, ONTARK). MSG ;Z~I TELEPHONE/TELePhONE: (415,i 326-r.~88
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BLIREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO), MSG 1Z8 FACSJMI,LE/T~-L~COPtE ; (476) 326-?.396
0852/89
TN THE I~TTER OF AN ~tB1'TRATi'ON
Under
THE CROWN EHPLOYEE5 COLLECTIVE BARG~,~N'rNG ACT'
Before'
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEF, ENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Lott) .
Grievor
- and-
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Transporation)
Employer
- a/~d-
W. Kaplan Vice-Chairperson
J. Carruthers Member
D. Daugharty Member
FOR THE D. Eady
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strath¥ & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE D. Jarvis
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler,'Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HE~RING September 4, 1990
2
Introduction
By a grievance dated June 29, 1989 Eldin F. Lott, a Purchasing
Officer 2 with the Minister of Transportation, District 10, in
Bancroft, seeks reclassification to Purchasing Officer 3. Two
days of hearing were held in Toronto. The main issue in dispute
was whether the grievor's duties and responsibilities were best
described by the Purchasing officer 2 (hereafter "PO2") class
standard or by the Purchasing Officer 3 (hereafter "PO3") class
' standard. The union sought an order reclassifying the grievor as
a PO3, or in the alternative a Berry order requiring the employer
to create an appropriate classification if we found that neither
the PO2 nor the PO3 class standard was applicable. The
alternative remedy was not strenuously pursued. This is not a
case where the existing classifications can be described as
misfits.
It is appropriate to set out the PO2 and PO3 Class Definitions.
Purchasing Officer
CLASS DEFINITION
This is responsible technical procurement work
requiring considerable knowledge of specific
commodities, standard purchasing methods and material
inspection techniques. Responsibilities in these
positions pertain either to purchasing a variety of
materials, supplies and equipment in a medium-sized
department or to large-scale purchasing of specific
categories ot items in a large department with
specialized requirements. In these latter positions
which are characterized by less varied
responsibilities, employees are in charge of
procurement in quantity of such commodities as cement,
steel, hardware, furniture, clothing material and
equipment. All employees in this class receive general
supervision from purchasing officers of higher level or
from administrative officials who confirm' decisions
involving heavy expenditures or marked departures in
kind and quality of material or purchasing methods
employed. Employees in this class may supervise a '
small group of subordinates performing the more routine
aspects of departmental purchasing operations. They
are required to develop effective working relationships
with departmental personnel· and with suppliers;
salesmen and manufacturer's representatives.
CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES
As a specialist in a designated lihe or as a departmental
purchasing officer, confers with branch officials on purchasing
requirements, obtains complete description of·items required, and
ensures purchase regulations are properly authorized.
Submits complete and accurate details to suppliers on material
required and obtains price quotations and related data on
quality, discounts, and probable delivery dates; upon receipt of
information from vendors, analyzes data on a basis of immediate
requirements; places orders or submits recommendations for
purchase to superiors if necessary.
As directed by superiors, carries out standard routines
preliminary to tendering for purchase of supplies and equipment,
supervises the preparation of spread sheets, analyzes information
and makes recommendations'on placement of orders.
Personally examines and approves quality of materials received in
accordance with specialized knowledge of lines of merchandise;
expedites delivery of goods in accordance with terms of contract
for purchase.
Supervises subordinates assigned to checking, typing, and
recording duties; instructs on work methods and reviews completed
assignments to ensure conformance to routines.
Interviews salesmen and manufacturers' representatives to develop
new sources of supply and to obtain information on new types of
material, quality and price data; prepares a considerable volume
of correspondence to obtain similar information.
[Qualifications omitted.]
4
Purchasing officer 3
CLASS DEFINITION
This is highly responsible procurement work performed
under general directign in a large department with
heavy purchasing requirements. Employees in these
positions may, as 4epartmental purchasing officers,
supervise and personally participate in a variety of
procurement operations. In other positions in the
class, incumbents serve as assistant to purchasing
officers of higher level or to other administrative
officials with procurmment responsibilities. While
these employees carry out many phases of their work
with little direction, they usually conform with their
superiors orders involving major expenditures.
Economics obtained and promptness'of deliveries serve
as criteria of efficient performance in these
positions. Employees in this class supervise
subordinate Purchasing Officers and clerical workers
carrying out a variety of duties related to purchasing.
Effective working relationships with department
'personnel, representatives of other departments and a
variety of suppliers and vendors are a requirement of
positions in this class.
CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES
As a departmental purchasing officer, direct procurement
operations requiring large-scale purchasing of such special
categories of items as trucks and cars, engineering, electrical
and hardware supplies, farm equipment, grain, fertilizer and
feeds, furniture, kitchen and laundry equipment, medical and
dental supplies, food stuffs, and clothing material; supervises
subordinates engaged in the more routine aspects of the work;
personally examines and approves quality of material received.
As assistant to a Chief Purchasing. Officer, or other
administrative official, participates in supervision of
purchasing unit, signs orders and recommendations; suDerVises a
section of 'the work as delegated by a superior; assigns, and
reviews the work of subordinate purchasing and clerical staff.
Secures specifications on materials and supplies required by
departmental branches; obtains quotations from suppliers on
prices, quality and delivery dates and analyzes data received;
places orders or recommends purchases to superiors; examines and
approves quality of material received.
Carries out standard routines preliminary to tendering for
purchase of supplies and equipment, compares prices received and
approves or recommends on placement of orders.
Reviews emergency purchase orders prepared and executed in
branches as a method of maintaining controls on departmental
purchasing.
Carries out purchasing routines pertaining to a wide variety of
materials and supplies required in the operation of institutional
industries.
Interviews salesmen and manufacturer's representatives to obtain
information on commodities .and prices: prepares a considerable
volume Of correspondence to obtain similar information.
[Qualifications omitted.]
The Facts
Mr. Lott testified first. His seniority with the Ministry is
approximately 28 years. He has been in the Purchasing Unit since
1979, and in his. present position since February 1984. 'At the
time the grievance was filed there were two Purchasing Officers
· in the Unit, the grievor and a PO1, Mr. Randy Jessup. (It should
be noted~that Mr. JessUp also filed a classification grievance
which was scheduled to be heard at the same time as Mr. Lott's.
However, the Board was advised that Mr. Jessup's grievance was
resolved and he was subsequently elevated to the PO2
classification.)
According to Mr. Lott, he was the Purchasing Supervisor and Mr.
Jessup worked as his assistant. The Purchasing Unit is made up
of Mr. Jessup and Mr. Lott, although a supply clerk named Cindy
Kellar had worked in the unit for approximately one-and-a-half
years. In addition to supervising Mr. Jessup, Mr~ Lott had
trained him. He had also trained members of the warehouse unit
6
receiving instruction in the supply function as well as temporary
employees and students. Mr. Lott also gives instructions to the
pick-up driver, who is part of the Warehouse Unit staff. Mr. Lott
reports to the District Purchasing and Supply Supervisor, Mr.
Bill Foote. Mr. Lott has his own office.
Mr. Lott testified about the work of the Purchasing Unit° It was
responsible for purchasing all of the repair parts and other
supplies required by the Ministry's 14. patrol yards and service
crews in the Bancroft District. Between 2,000-3,000 items are
kept in the warehouse, and the stock turns over two to three
times a year. The Purchasing Unit is responsible for purchasing,
and .the Warehouse Unit is responsible for storing the purchased
items. The range of required items was large, including supplies
such as engines, automobile parts, electrical supplies,
construction materials, shovels, concrete, batteries and life
jackets. This work required specialized knowledge, particularly
insofar as the building materials were concerned. Some of the
purchasing is on an "as needed" basis, while other purchasing
requirements can be determined in advance and are subject to
.yearly tendering. Some of the purchasing is done on a cash
basis.
Mr. Lott is required to keep abreast of matters such as sources
of supply. He is also required to have a good knowledge of the
different procedures that must be followed to obtain goods of
7
varying values, and Mr Lott's evidence illustrated his command of
all aspects of his position. In those cases where his purchase
orders had to be' confirmed, by his superior, confirmation was
generally just a formality.'
Mr. Lott testified about the amount expended annually by the
Purchasing Unit. For the fiscal year ending March 31, .1989 the
Purchasing Unit spent a99roximately $4.4 million. For the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1988 app=oximately $4 million was spent.
$3o6~million was spent the year before, $2.9 million the year
before that and $1o9 million in the fiscal year ending March 31,
1985. TheSe figures illustrate the growing dollar value of
purchases by 'the Unit. Mr. Lott testified that the growth in
expenditures was accompanied by an increased workload~ in part
the result of decentralization efforts of the ~inistry.
In addition to.purchasing necessary supplies, Mr. Lott's unit is
also responsible for purchases associated with the Day Labour
Program. Purchasing for this program is particularly specialized.
Very simply, the Day Labour Program is a program of construction
on secondary highways in the district. The purpose of the
program is to promote the local economy, and employees are hired
on a daily basis. One of Mr. Loft's jobs is to ensure that all
necessary equipment and supplies are available for'thi~ program,
and as is the case with purchasing supplies, there are various
procedures that must be followed. Mr. Lott must also confirm
that the equipment that he hires meets Ministry requirements, and
this requires familiarity with the Ontario Road Builders~
Association book: Rental Rates for Construction E~uimment. On
occasion Mr. Lott is required to attend at the job sites° The
Day Labour Program is particularly sensitive because Mr. Lott
must ensure that the equipment hires are fairly distributed among
local equipment owners,
Mr. Lott is responsible for emergency p~ocuremento In emergency
situations the usual advertising and bidding process cannot be
followed. In cases of this kind Mr~ 'Lott's years of experience
and expertise are put to the test as he must.move quickly, and at
the same time ensure that Ministry procedures arerfollowed. Mro
Lott is also responsible for ensuring compliance with WHMIS when
exercising his purchasing responsibilities.
Mr. Lott testified about his supervision of Mr. Jessup.
Generally, Mr. Jessup works on his own, but he is required to
obtain Mr. Lott's approval when an item he needs to purchase is
above his designated limit. Mr. Lott ensures that Mr. Jessup .is
aware of all Ministry policies and procedures. While Mr. Jessup
is familiar with his duties, he still requires guidance and
assistance in their exercise, and for both he turns to Mr. LOtto
Mr. Lott reviews Mr. Jessup's purchase orders .to ensure that his
monetary limitations are not exceeded. In all, Mr. Lott
estimates that approximately 20% of his time is spent on
9
supervision, not just of Mr. Jessup, but of the driver, supply
clerks, students and others.
Mr. Lott described the type of supervision that he personally
received. It was, he said, of a general nature. He told the
Board that he brings any unusual matters to the attention of is
supervisor, but ~hat wher~ day-to-day purchasing was ~concerned,
the Purchasing Unit functioned with very little direction.
In cross-examination, Mr. Lott elaborated on his relationship
with Mr. Jessup. Mr. Jessup has been working with Mr. Lott since
1985. He began work as a clerk and was later elevated to the PO1
position. When Mr. Jessup began work he had some knowledge of
his required duties because of his experience in the private
sector. Nevertheless, it was necessary to fully train him .
insofar as MinistrY procedures and policies were concerned.
Basically, Mr. Lott and Mr. Jessup have different
responsibilities. Mr. Lott is primarily concerned with the Day
Labour Program and Mr. Jessup is responsible for purchasing
equipment parts for the District garage. Nevertheless, Mr.
Jessup is familiar enough with Mr. Lott's work to fill in for him
when Mr. Lott is away. While it was once necessary for Mr. Lott
to review Mr.. JeSsup's work on a regular basis, that is no longer
the case. As Mr. Lott testified, Mr. Jessup is more than capable
in carrying out his work. Nevertheless, from time to time Mr.
10
Jessup will aDproach Mr. Lott for guidance, which is provided to
him. While Mr. Jessup's work is self-generating in that he
responds to requests for parts that come in from the district
garage, on occasion Mr. Lott will assign duties to him. As
already noted, Mr. Lott has a higher signing authority than Mr.
Jessup, and in those cases Mr. Lott instructs Mr. Jessup how to
proceed. Mr~ Loft does not discipline Mr. Jessup or participate
in the evaluation process.
When Mr. Jessup testified he agreed that Mr. Lott was his
supervisor and he generally confirmed Mr. Lott's evidence about
their working relationship. While Mr. Jessup described their
discussions about purchasing as more in the nature of
consulta%ions rather than instructions, he testified that Mr.
Lott was in charge and that if there was any disagreement about
how to proceed, it would be Mr. Lott who made the final decision.
The third and final witness for the union was Mr. McKenna, the
former District Purchasing and Supply Supervisor, who appeared
under subpoena. Very briefly, it was his evidence that the
Bancroft District was a large pur=hasing district. Moreover, he
testified that Mr. Lott trained various employees in the
purchasing function as well as supervised them. When Mr. McKenna
was District Purchasing and Supply SuDervisor he provided' only
general supervision to Mr. Lott.
The evidence of the past District 'Purchasing and Supply
Supervisor was followed by that of the current incumbent, Mr.
G.Wo Foote, who testified as the first witness for the empioyer.
Mr. Foote has had a long career with the Ministry, some 28 years
of service. Mr. Foote testified that he was responsible for the
Purchasing Unit and the Warehouse. Unit. These two units made up
the Ministry's Bancroft District. Mr. Foote is in charge of
coordinating the activities of the two units.
Mr. Foote described the purchasing process as largely routine.
One reason that it is routine in Bancroft is the knowledge that
Mr. Lott and Mr. ~Jessup bring to their work. While the Day
! Labour Program often involved certain headaches and unknowns,
e.g. what equipment would be required on any.particular day, the
procedure for obtaining that equipmen~ was constant. Mr. Foote
also explained that the value of the equipment obtain'ed depended
in large part on how long the equipment was used. The total cost
of the equipment was, in the result,, beyond the control of the
Purchasing Unit. Mr. Foote testified that he relies on Mr.
Lott's judgement because of his knowledge and expertise. Mr.
Loft does not require direct supervision, according to Mr. Foote,
but he is given general supervision and guidance. Mr. Foote does
not, for example, give Mr. Lott instructions on a regular basis.
By and large Mr. Lott is free to go about his work as he sees
fit. Mr. Lott is required, however, to consult with Mr. Foote
about any unusual matter and to keep him generally informed of
his activities.
Mr. Foote described the relationship between Mr. Lott and Mr.
Jessup as generally one where each of them did their own work,
keeping the other one generally informed. He noted, however,
that Mr. Lott was in charge of the unit, and that all purchasing
went through .Mr. Lott. Mr. Foote testified, however, that -Mr~
Lott received his own office because one was there, and that if
another one were available that Mr. Jessup would get it. Mro
Foote is responsible for disciplining and evaluating Mr. Lo~t and
Mro Jessup.
In cross-examihation, Mr. Foote agreed that the Day Labour
Program was a sensitive one. He maintained, however, that the
actual purchasing function was routine.
The second and final witness for the employer was Mr. John Kenny,
a Human Relations Officer With the Ministry in the Eastern
Region. Mr. Kenny has held that position for twelve years and
has 24 years' senioFity with the Ministry~ Mr. Kenny testified
that the only PO3 positions in the province were at head office.
He also gave evidence of his understanding of what was
encompassed by various terms such as "general supervision" and
"general direction." An extract from the Position Evaluation
Manual was introduced into evidence and will be referred to
below.
Mr. Kenny's also testified with respect to the relative position
of the Bancroft Purchasing Unit as compared with Purchasing Units
in other districts. Suffice it to say ~hat the Bancroft Unit was
among the smallest, and by a significant margin, both in employee
complement and in total purchasing expenditures. This evidence
was corroborated by two exhibits that were introduced into
evidence. .The Bancroft District had, for example, only 8
' employees. The Toronto District .had 19, the Burlington and
Thunder Bay Districts had 16, and the Kingston District had
Indeed, only one district, Kenora, had fewer employees than
Bancroft. The .Pur.chasing Summary told a similar story. Based on
these comparisons Mr'. Kenny concluded that the Bancroft District'
was not a large district, particularly since much of the money
spent at Bancroft was for the Day Labour Program. Mr. Kenny
testified that other districts have also experienced a growth in
annual expenditures.
~rgument
Union counsel argued that Mr. Lott should 'be classified as a PO3
because he was engaged in "highly responsible procurement work
performed under general direction in a large department with
heavy purchasing requirements." In the pleadings exchanged by
counsel in advance of the hearing the union also submitted that
the economies that Mr. Lott obtained and the promptness of
delivery service were criteria of his efficient performance.
14
This point was not, however, addressed in argument.
Mr. Eady argued that Mr. Lott's work was highly responsible.. He
noted that Mr. Lott had the same signing authority as did the
District Purchasing and Supply Supervisor. Moreover, Mr. Lott
was in charge of purchasing for the Day Labour Program, and this
was a program of some importance and sensitivity° If the
equipment was not there the program could not proceed, and great
care had to be taken in arranging the purchase of this equipment°
Mr. Eady discussed the grievor's supervisory duties and he
pointed out that Mr. Lott's Performance Planning and Review form
dated June 15, 1989 referred to Mr. Lott as the "Purchasing
Supervisor°" This same form also referred to Mr. Lott's training
function: ."The training of one of our Warehousing staff, Cindy
Kellar, has been completed. The training was thorough, of a high
calibre and a credit to our two Purchasing Officers."
In union counsel's view, the crucial difference between the PO2
and PO3 class definitions is the level of supervision. The PO2
class definition states that "employees in this class m_~
supervise a small group of subordinates..." (emphasis ours). The
PO3 class definition states that "employees in this class
supervise subordinate Purchasing Officers .... " As Mr. Lott
supervised Mr. Jessup, a Purchasing Officer, Mr. Lott belonged in
the PO3 class. Not only did Mr. Lott and Mr. Jessup both
consider Mr. Jessup to be the supervisor, Mr. Eady argued that
15
the employer also r~garded him as the supervisor. Mr. Foote had
testified that Mr. Lott was in charge, and' that Mr. Lott had a
higher signing authority than Mr. Jessup. The characteristic
duties of the PO3 position referred to the PO3 supervising the
Purchasing Unit. In Mr. Zady's view, classification of Mr. Lott
as a PO3 also made sense from an industrial relations point of
view. The workplace would be organized with the District
Purchasing and Supply Supervisor over a PO3 (Mr. Lott) over a PO2
(now Mr. Jessup). In the alternative,.Mr. Eady argued that Mr.
Lott was serving as an assistant t° an administrative official
with procurement responsibilities, namely Mr~ Foote, and
therefore that he belonged in the PO3 classification on this
basis°
Mr. Eady also pointed out that the PO2 class definition did not
refer to emergency procurement, and this was one of Mr. Lott's
significant responsibilities. With respect to the relative value
of'the purchases, Mr. Eady argued that value was not as important
as significance. Appropriate distribution of purchase orders in
the Day Labour Program was as important 'as the purchase of a
fleet of trucks. Indeed, counsel submitted, that the purchase of
a single large order was arguably not as responsible as the
purchase of a large variety of smaller items. This reinforced,
in counsel's view, the point that the main difference between the
PO2 and PO3 classifications was in the type of supervision being
performed.
For the employer, Mr. Jarvis argued that the union had not
demonstrated that Mr. Lott was improperly classified. Counsel
began by reviewing the requirements of the PO3 classification.
Mr. Jarvis agreed with Mr. Eady that supervision was critical to
achieving the PO3 classification. In his submission, however,
exercising a supervisory function was not enough to make someone
~ a PO3. In his view, supervision had to be combined with "highly
responsible procurement work performed under general direction in
a large department with heavy purchasing requirements." Counsel
argued that the threshold to the classification was "highly
responsible procurement work performed under general direction in
a large department with heavy purchasing requirements" combined
with supervision of "subordinate.Purchasing Officers and clerical
workers 'c~rrying out a variety of duties related to purchasing."
Counsel argued that only if this threshold was met should the
Board go on to inquire whether the employee in question was
serving as a "departmental purchasing officer" or as an
"assistant to purchasing officers of higher level or to other
administrative officials with procurement responsibilities."
In counsel's submission, the Bancroft Purchasing Unit was not a
large department with heavy purchasing requirements. It was a
small department with technical and routine purchasing
responsibilities. It had a small number of employees, and a
17
relatively small purchasing budget. Money expended assists in
determining size, 'and counsel urged the Board to take into
account the fact that a significant part of the monies expended
by ~his unit was for the Day ~abour Program and that the value of
equipment hire transactions depends on the number of hours for
which work is performed.
Counsel also noted that the PO3 class definition referred to
'"general direction." Mr. Kenn~ gave eyidence about his. view of
the difference between "general direction" as found in the PO3
classification and "general supervision" found in the PO2. An
extract from the Position Evaluation Manual introduced into
evidence defines "general direction" as follows:
~ senior official is held accountable by management for
accomplishing departmental objectives, expressed .in
legislation, regulations or general policy directives.
He is 'expected to make decisions in accordance 'with
established policy, and usually participates in
'formulating that policy.
The term "general supervision" is also.defined:
The employee works with considerable functional
independence, as in many "journeyman" level clerical,
technical and professional positions. He completes
most .assignments without referral to.his supervisor,
exercising judgement and making appropriate technical
decisions, based on & good knowledge of methods,
procedures and precedents.
The supervisor is not concerned with work details, but
may make infrequent.spot-checks ....
Mr. Jar~is argued that the evidence indicated that Mr. Lott
worked under general 'supervision, not general direction. Counsel
pointed out that in his evidence, Mr. Lott described his
supervision as "general" in nature. There was, moreover, no
evidence of the grievor being involved in policy development.
In counsel's view, not only was this not a large department with
heavy purchasing requirements, and not only did Mr. Lott not work
under general direction, but he also did not perform the degree
of supervision necessary for the PO3 classification. Counsel
argued that the PO3 classification referred to supervision Of
subordinates, and this required more than one subordinate°
Moreover, in Mr. Jarvis's view, Mr. Jessup was not a subordinate°
There was a historic relationship of supervision, but the
evidence indicated that Mr. Jessup was not being supervised at
the time. of the grievance. Mr. Lott taught Mr. Jessup how to do
the job, but wha~ is relevant to this case was whether or not Mr.
Jessup continued to be supervised by Mr. Lott. Counsel argued
that the evidence was to the effect that no such supervision was
taking place. Consultation yes, but supervision no. Moreover~
there were no other clerical employees in the Bancroft Purchasing
Unit, and the PO3 classification spoke of these employees b.eing
supervised as well.
Counsel submitted that even if Bancroft P~rchasing Unit was
considered large, and if the Board read the mandatory supervision
19
requirement of the PO3 classification as singular an~ found that
Mr. 'Lott was supervising Mr. Jessup, the request for
reclassification should still be denied because Mr. Loft was not
a 'departmental' purchasing officer or an assistant to an
administrative official with procurement responsibilities. The
evidence indicated that Mr. Lott was functionally independent in
the performance of his procurement responsibilities.
In Mr. Jarvis's submission, Mr. Lott was a PO2. That
classification was appropriate for Mr. Lott. It referred to the
"general supervision" that he received. It spoke of responsible
technical procurement work requiring considerable knowledge of
specific commodities which Mr. Lott possessed. .And it noted that
employees in this class might supervise a small group of
subordinates. Mr. Jarvis suggested that insofar as Mr. Lott
supervised, this is the type of supervision that he performed.
In conclusion, Mr. Jarvis pointed out that while it was correct
to say that the PO2 classification did not refer to emergency
procurement, the reference in the PO3 classification had to be
given context. The reference to emergency procurement states:
"Reviews emergency purchase orders prepared and executed in
branches as a method of maintaining controls on departmental
purchasing." The only evidence with respect to emergency
procurement was that Mr. Lott was responsible for it. He did not
review such procurement carried out in branches.
Decision
Both Mr. Eady and Mr. Jarvis referred Us to the Cooper decision
(GSB 562/82). In that case, Donald Cooper sought
reclassification from a PO2 to a PO3. He was unsuccessful° Mr.
Eady relied on this decision of Mr. Jolliffe for the distinction
the Board made between the PO2 and P03 classifications. At page
26 the Board said: "A~ important difference between a P.O.2 and
' a P.O.3 is that the latter (according to the class standard)
'supeFvise subordinate Purchasing Officers and clerical
workers .... '" Mr. Jarvis relied on this decision because the
Board adopts and applies the definitions of "general direction"
and "general supervision" quoted above. In the Cooper case, the
Board applied the PO3 class definition to the grievor and found
that it did not fit. Accordingly, the grievance was dismissed.
In this case, we reach the same result. We do not find that the
grievor's duties and responsibilities can be described as "highly
responsible procurement work performed Under general direction in
a large department with heavy purchasing responsibilities." To
be a PO3 the grievor's duties would have to meet this threshold.
While not always the case, the first sentence in class
definitions often set out the basic requirements of that
definition.
The Bancroft District is not a large department. It is one of
many ~istricts within the. Ministry, and one of the smallest in
both employee complement and purchasing expenditures.. The work
in question is responsible, very responsible. But it is not the
most responsible purchasing conducted by the Ministry.
Relatively speaking, the purchasing responsibilities of the
Bancroft District cannot be described as "heavy."
The PO3 classification is the highest classification in the
. series. It seems logical, therefore, that it would apply to the
most responsible purchasing, and w~ile other factors will
undoubtedly come into play, dollar value is a significant
indicator of responsibility. Here the dollar value is relatively
.! small°
We are also persuaded that the grievor works under general
supervis.ion, not general direction. The evidence is clear that
he has a high degree of functional independence. It is not
necessary to adopt the definitions cited above to reach this
result, but we do find them useful in as an aid to'distinguishing
between the PO2 and PO3 classifications. The fact that they were
adopted and applied in the Cooper case must also be taken into
account.
Both Mr. Eady and Mr. Jarvis were agreed that supervision was an
essential ingredient in the PO3 classification. That is also our
view. We find, however, that while there was an historic
relationship of supervision by Mr. Lott of Mr. JessuD, at the
time of the grievance that was no longer the' case. It is only
natural given that historical relationship, that Mr. JeSsup would
continue to consider Mr. Lott his superior. But that is not
enough to find that a real supervision relationship exists. Nor -
is the fact that Mr. Jessup has a lower signing authority than
Mr. Lott sufficient to make the relationship a supervisory one.
This merely reflects the fact that at the time of the grievance,
Mr. Jessup was a more junior employee with a PO1 classification°
The fact that he had to seek approval for expenditures over a
certain amount does not, in the absence of any other relevant
factor, make the person who gave him the approval his supervisor.
We also find that Mr. Jessup does not serve as a "departmental
purchasing officer." He serves as a district purchasing officer,
one of many. 'Moreover, his district is not one of the largest,
and while the word "department" might in some circumstances be
extended to "district," the district would, in our view, have to
be a large one, and the Bancroft-District is not a large one in
terms of size or expenditure. Finally, Mr. Lott does not serve
as an assistant to an administrative official with procurement
responsibilities. The evidence of Mr. Lott and Mr. Foote was
clear that Mr. Lott was in charge of purchasing for the Bancroft
District.
Mr. Lott's duties can be described as responsible technical
23
procurement work requiring considerable knowledge of specific
commodities, standard purchasing methods and material inspection
techniques. Mr. Lott is in charge of purchasing a variety of
materials, and he receives general supervision. As Mr..Lott and
Mr. Foote testified, Mr. Lott does the work, and keeps Mr. Foote
generally~informed. When something out of the ordinary comes up,
he advises Mr. Foote specifically. .From time to time Mr. bott i~
called upon t° supervise, but there is' no ongoing supervision.
Indeed, Mr. Lott testified that there were not permanent clerical
or other positions within the Purchasing Unit.
In all of this we would like to note what we saw, and what Mr.
Foote and Mr. McKenna confirmed. Mr. Lott is'an excellent
employee and is highly valued by the employer. His evaluations
indicate as much, and he very favourably impressed the Board.
Nevertheless, we do not find that the PO3 class definition fits.
We find that Mr. Lott's core duties and responsibilities, as set
out in his position specification, and as described' in the
evidence presented to the'Board, fit the PO2 class definition,
and fit it well. Needless to say, had we found neither
classification appropriate we would have granted a Berry order.
24
The grievance is dismissed.
i~~~D at Ottawa this ~s~ day of 0¢~ob~rl990.
lam KaPla~
Vice-Chairperson
Member ~