Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0850.Sheriff & Dixon.90 L,"; ' ' ?': ~ :""' "' " "'~ " ONTARIO EMPL OY~:S OE £A COURONNE '~ " .~,~ ~' CROWN EMPL 0 YEES DE L 'ON TA R,'O ;~ "~ ' GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE ~ ~,~ SE~LEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTAR~, tuf5G IZ8 TELEPHOhlE/T~.~.PHONE: (4 tS) 326- 1388 RUE ~)UNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2~00, TORONTO (ONTARiO,I, M5G ~ZB FACSIMILE/T~-L~COPIE : [4 ~6) 326-1396 850/89, 851/89 IN THE ~TTER OF ~I 3~RBITI~TION Under THE CRO~N EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEKE~ BOARD BETI~EN OPSEU (Sheriff/Dixon) Grievor - and- The Crown in Right of ontario (Ministry of the Environment) Employer BEFORE: W. Kaplan vice-chairperson G. Maj esky Member D. Montrose Member FOR THE D..Eady GRIEVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE D. Brisbin EMPLOYER Counsel Stringer, Brisbin Barristers & Solicitors HEARING: February 18, 19, 1991 May 2, 13, 1991 introduction By identical 'grievances dated March 21, 1989, John Sheriff and Joseph Dixon gr~e~e that they are improperly classified. Both Mr. Sheriff and Mr. Dixon seek the same remedy: "That I be reclassified in the areas 'of my skills and training and job performance and responsibility." At. the time of the grievances, Messrs. Sheriff and Dixon were classified as Maintenance Mechanic 3's, and both grievors worked as Maintenance Technicians at the Ministry of the EnvirOnment, South East Region Utility Operations (hereafter the "Facility"). In brief, it was the union's position that the grievors, both of whom are millwrights holding certification from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, not only brought greater qualifications than required to their positions with th~ Ministry, but in fact, assumed duties and responsibilities beyond the scope of those set out in the position specification and class standard. In counsel's submission, the grievors acted as millwrights for approximately 80% of the time, and this brought them out of the Mechanic 3 class standard, ~which described routine maintenance work of the - "handyman" variety. For its part, the Ministry took the position that while the grievors were highly skilled, they were, nevertheless, appropriately classified.' 3 It is'useful'to briefly describe the organizational structure of the Facility' as it relates to this grievance. There is an Operations Officer at'the top. Reporting to the Operations officer is the Plant Superintendent. There is an Assistant Plant Superintendent. Below the Assistant Superintendent are the Maintenance Mechanics .and the Operators.. It was agreed by the parties that Mr. Dixon would give evidence on behalf of both grievorso Before turning to the evidence, however, it is useful to set out the relevant parts of the Maintenance Technician position Specification, as well as the class standard for the Maintenance Mechanic 3. The Position Specifications and Class Definition Two position, specifications for'the maintenance technician were introduced into evidence before the Board; one dated August, 1976, 'the other dated April, 1989. There are few significant differences between them. Position Specification - Maintenance Technician (August 1976) 1. Inspects, repairs and maintains all equipment used by the Ministry in the sewage treatment project and 50% in sewage treatment plant, by performing such tasks as: 85% -carrying out regular inspections of plants, pumping stations, 8 diesels and the Cana WPCP (.030 MGD extended aeration) (according to frequency schedule) to locate equipment and structural defects; -performing maintenance work as outlined by the frequency control schedule (the work load is divided into 12 months showing work to be .done daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, half yearly, yearly); this includes 4 lubrications, oil changes, checking mechanical equipment associated with the production and.the use of methane gas to ensure there is no danger to staff or property'due to explosion or asphyxiation, checking safety equipment such as: oxygen masks and tanks, safety harness, ropes, fire extinguishers, checking alignment -belt tensions, chain tensions, impellors, wear rings; -calculating wear and performance of equipment using instruments such as micrometers, meggars, calipers, dial indicators, etc.; -diagnosing causes of malfunctions; -repairing or replacing equipment or parts that: (a) show wear or malfunction (b) breakdown -examples of equipment worked on include, all types of pumps, motors, variable.speed drives, gasoline engines, control and metering devices, chlorinating equipment, aeration equipment, heating systems, 'boilers (natural gas, oil, sewage gaS) and associated equipment, plant vehicles, hoists, comminuting devices, compressors, valves (electrical, hydraulic and. water) gear reduction machinery, sewage gas control, safety devices, travelling bar screens, mixers, filters and flocculators; -installing pumps and piping systems including fire and yard hydrants -maintaining tractor, trucks, mowers, snowblower and portable pumps in good working order; -the calibration, modification and repair of pneumatic and electronic instrumentation and electrical control systems employed in the metering and control of flow, pressure, temperature, level, etc.'; -maintaining proper adjustments on oil and gas-fired boilers and control chemical treatment in boiler water; -repairing equipment by electric and acetylene welding sUch as guards, railing, snowblower, pump housings, scum skimmers, barminutors, piping, pump impellors also fabricating new equipment; -cleaning, repairing, replacing and installation of 110 V, and 55 V. electrical equipment such as wiring, switches, breakers, contractors, relays, etc. (under supervision of Chief Operator). Skills and Knowledge Required " Grade 10 education preferably Grade ~2, having'served a minimum of 5 years as an electrical and mechanical maintenance technician in medium to heavy industry. Have. a good. working knowledge of instrumentation. Capable of doing minor welding jobs, willing to obtain Maintenance Gas Fitters Certificate and an Oil Burner Maintenance Certificate. With respect to the 1989 position specification, there are a few changes in the duties and responsibilities, but none of these changes are very'material to the issues which must-be determined in this case. One material difference, however, is in the "Skills and Knowledge" part of the'1989 position specification. It now reads: ~ Significant knowledge and relevant experience in 'the mechanical maintenance field as a mechanicalTtechnician in medium to heavy industry normally attained through millwright apprenticeship or other comparable trades. Good working knowledge of plumbing, physical properties of material welding, machining, rigging, balanc~ and alignment, electrical, instrumentation, and internal. combustion engines. Must have or be willing to'obtain Maintenance Gas Fitters Certificate and an Oil Burners Maintenance Certificate. Must have a valid Ontario Drivers licence and good driving record. Must have thorough knowledge of sewage and water process and operations. The Preamble to the Maintenance Trades Classes reads as follows: Although work in the field'is not precluded, most of.the positions allocated to these classes involve maintenance work on, in or about a Government institution, building, or field office or other establishment or its associated equipment. Some positions may also involve construction, or alterations to structures or-the installation of new services or equipment. Most of these classes are grouped in two levels, i.e. Journeyman and Foreman, with provisions for positions where "lead hand" duties are ~required. The Maintenance Mechanic series, however, consists Of four levels: Helper, Improver, Journeyman and Maintenance Foreman. This series is intended to cover the following situations: 1.~ To permit recruitment of employees with limited formal educationalqualifica~ions,'who, through on the job training and experience, may progressively acquire the knowledge and skills which will allow them to advance to positions involving more complex work and, eventually, to a journeyman level position, provided a vacancy exists in an appropriate, position (emphasis not ours),r 2. To cover situations where there ~s a requirement for the skills of a particular trade but where such skills are required for less than 60% of the time and thus do not warrant the establishment of a position in that specific trade. 3. To provide for supervisory responsibility over a variety of skills, rather than those of one specified skilled trade. These classes may also be used to cover positions involving work requiring various degrees of manual skill, but not normally associated with a specific ~rade, e.g. repair and painting of bridges; repair and re-finishing of canoes and boats; operation of a water and sewage disposal system. [remainder omitted] The Class Definition for the Maintenance Mechanic 3 is as follows: 1. This class covers positions where th~ employees are engaged for at least 60% of their working time, in general maintenance work requiring.the application ofthe skills and knowledge generally associated with one ~or more of the skilled trades. Under the general supervision of a Maintenance Foreman, Buildings Superintendent, Maintenance Superintendent or other person responsible for the maintenance of a Government Building, institution, establishment and associated equipment and services, or in the field, these employees are required to complete assigned tasks according to acceptable standards of quality and production. Employees in.positiOns in this class may be personally qualified in one of the skilled trades but the requirements of the position us6ally entail the use of that trade not more'than 40% of the working time. 2. Positions allocated to this class involve a variety of maintenance tasks requiring the use' of skills and knowledge usually associated with trades such as: - carpentry, painting, plastering, welding, tinsmithing, steamfitting, plumbing, bricklaying and masonry, electrical, machinist etc., where the complexity of the work assigned and the quality of the finished work, or the percentage of work time involved does not warrant inclusion of the position in one of the skilled trade classes. Incumbents of these positions may be 'required to train and supervise manual workers and less skilled maintenance staff and may also be required to train and supervise such patient, resident, trainee or inmate helpers.as are assigned to them as helpers. They perform related tasks as required, working individually or assisting other tradesman or maintenance staff. This class also covers positions having responsibility for the installation, adjustment and servicing of oil heating equipment or for the operation of a sewage and water plant for a large institution (more than 500 patients, · residents or inmates) including supervision of any subordinate staff and patient, resident or inmate help. The Evidence Mr. Dixon testified first. His employment with the Ministry began in April 1981 and ended in February 1990. During this period, Mr. Dixon was classified as a Maintenance Mechanic 3 and his position was Maintenance Technician. Prior to joining the' Ministry, Mr. Dixon had worked in the private sector as a millwright. Mr. Dixon gave considerable evidence about what exactly he and the other grievor did for the Ministry. Both grievors worked in the Kingston Facility. It is not necessary to describe all of this evidence in detail. Suffice it to say that the Facility consists of a number of plants and satellite service stations. The purpose of the'Facility is to. treat sewage ~and water. A great deal of complex equipment is required in order to perform these functions, and along with the treatment process, this equipment was described to the Board. .~ 8 Mr. Dixon gave evidence'with respect to his millwright training and experience. In general, millwrights are found in industrial environments such as pumping stations, generating plants and pulp and paper mills; anywhere, in short, where there is machinery. Millwrights maintain and repair equipment, and in many cases do not just install replacement~ parts but customize parts for unique machines. Millwrights refer to blueprints ~nd manufacturers' guides in the performance,of their functions, and they also consult as necessary with engineers. However, millwrights also design, construct, modify and adjust machinery on their own initiative. It takes four years of apprenticeship to become a millwright, with the ~apprentice being assigned progressively:more responsible and complex tasks. Mr. Dixon testified that he used his millwright training and qualifications in hi~ position wit~ the Ministry during most of his working time. In.his view, one need not be a millwright to "inspect, repair and maintain" all the equipment at the facility, but to do so in the way that he did 'so, and to perform the tasks that are described in the position specification in the way that he and the other grievor did would require a millwright's training. Accordingly, Mr. Dixon testified about how his background and experience as a millwright were utilized by the Ministry. With respect to the identification and diagnosis of problems with machinery in the facility, Mr. Dixon testified that it was not that 9 hard to figure out when something was not working right. The difficult part was in repairing or modifying the machinery so that the'problem did not re-emerge. To illustrate this point, Mr. Dixon gave the example of a problem with the Return Pump in "C" Plant. There was an overheating'problem with the internal bearings of the magnetic drive. Mr. Dixon's first approach to the problem was'to replace the bearingsand chegk their lubrication. When the problem returned some four months later, Mr. Dixon examined the situation more extensively and determined that there was no point in putting the drive back because modification in the assembly was necessary to cure the problem. The pump in question is in continuous operation at one hundred per cent capacity. Mr. Dixon determined, in these circumstances, that the drive was unnecessary. Eliminating the drive, however, meant moving the motor forward to the place previously occupied by the drive. Housing supported the motor, and so Mr.' Dixon had to fabricate a frame to mount the motor. The original hold-d6wn bolts had to be 'moved, and new drilling became necessary, requiring careful alignment. ~All of this was done and the problem was permanently solved. 'In another case, there was a problem involving an impellor. In this case, the grievor modified a particular system through designing and installing new seals, and then grooving new 'rings. It was necessary, moreover, to consult with chemical engineers and determine which substance to apply to the impellor in order to prevent cavitization. It ~was also necessary to repair the cavitization that had taken place, and this required selection of appropriate packing materials. The end result was turning the machinery in question into a "no-maintenance item." The grievor testified.that this was a fairly typical example of the approach that he and Mr. Sheriff took to the maintenance and repair of equipment. It was Mr. Dixon's 'evidence that it was his millwright's background and training that allowed him to adopt this- approach. That is to say, he knew what materials to use and how to use them; he knew where to go for information, and he had the training and skill to conceive of and then implement modifications to original equipment as necessary. This approach allowed the Ministry to save money and to preserve equipment over a longer period. In another example illustrating his millwright's skills, Mr. Dixon told ~he Board about a big vertical pump in "B" plant. In this case the pump was old and tired. It was necessary to lift the pump, and this required installation of rigging (something that .millwrights have training and expertise in). It became apparent that the pump in question was worn out~ almost to the point of leaking. This was, however, a very important pump.to the Facility, and so the grievor recommended that it be repaired rather than wait for budget funds to become available for it to be replaced. Unfortunately, the pump was so old that replacement parts were no 'longer available. The grievor,- however, was .able to give instructions to the machine shoP so that the necessary parts.could be tooled. Installing the new parts was not an easy matter, as various h~les had to be carefully drilled, and various screws adjusted. In the end, however, the parts were successfully installed and the pump successfully repaired. It was not necessary to. re-order the pump; indeed, it is stilI in service. Other success stories were recounted to the Board as~well. While each account refers to the repair and/or modificatiOn, of a different piece of equipment, the common characteristic shared by all of the examples given in evidence is that the grievor, because. of his millwright,s training and experience, was able to keep the Facility up and running, usUally through the design and installation of one-of-a-kind parts. The most telling example of both grievors' skill and contribution to the running of the Facility is apparent in their contribution to the "A" Plant retrofit. When Mr. Dixon began work in 1981~the "A" Plant had just been shut down. It' remained idle for seven or eight years. Continued population growth' in the region placed demands on the Facility, and so there was some interest in getting the "A" Plant operatin~ again. The grievor indicated to' his suPeriors that he could get the plant working again. Initially he was told that it .was too big a job, and one that was usually contracted out. After the Ministry obtained an estimate of the cost of contracting the job out, the grievor's offer was 12 reconsidered~ Both grievors worked on the project, and did a retrofit of a one- million-gallon-a-day plant, virtually, from scratch. In that process, the grievors salvaged what components they could, while the rest were cut up with torches and discarded. The work was done over the course Of a year and it involved .removing all of the shafts and sprockets, rebuilding the conveyors, determining where Pand how to bore holes, supervising removal of concrete, overhauling of pumps, determining and checking alignments' of motors, sandblasting and resurfacing various components, ordering new · parts, designing parts for construction by a local machine shop and Preparing sketches. The grievors, in effect, reviewed the work of certain manufacturers by examining their parts lists for accuracy, and making corrections as necessary. The grievors also ensured that the best type of equipment was utilized, given the climatic and other conditions, and consulted with various manufacturers in respect of this. When the new equipment was installedl the grievors ensured that it was correctly installed in the right locations. In the process of the retrofit the grievors were the only millwrights on duty, although there were plant operators, who worked under their direction. In Mr. Dixon's view the retrofit demonstrated that the grievors did not do "routine maintenance," but rather performed work as millwrights. Mr. Dixon testified that routine maintenance would 13 include things like adjusting the packing, greasing a bearing, cleaning and housekeeping chores. It might also involve fixing minor leaks and tubing. While the grievors would on occasion perform tasks of this kind, Mr. Dixon's evidence was to the effect that the operators did ~ost of these chores, and that he was involved in. more sophisticated preventive maintenance of the kind described above, which was maintenance of a much higher order than "routine," for it involved diagnosis and repair .skills - millwright skills, in short. To further demonstrate that he was using his millwrighting skills, Mr. Dixon told the Board that when he began work for the Ministry there were no precision tools available at the facility. The'work that was then being done was basic rePair work, not the .kind of Work described above. To do the more sophisticated Work, precision tools were necessary, and Over. time they began to be acquired, Mr. Dixon also came into some demand as a consultant for other,Ministry sewage and water plants, and he would be asked to give advice about maintenance and repairs. In Mr. Dixon's estimation, he worked approximately seventy-five to eighty percent of'his time as a millwright. The remaining time was occupied by paperwork and related tasks. Mr. Dixon told the Board that he received instructions from his supervisor, Mr. Duprau, both written and verbal, but that these instructions were not frequent in that he and Mr. Sheriff. would generally decide when different' 14 jobs were to be'performed. What instructions he did receive were of a general nature, such as "go and look at a particular problem and fix it." In Mr. Dixon's view the reason for the change in his position specification in 1989 to 'make reference to millwrights was because the Ministry had been exposed to him and to Mr. Sheriff and they knew the .kind of valuable service that millwrights provide. Mr. Dixon was questioned at some- length .by counsel for the employer. Under cross-examination Mr. Dixon agreed .that some trades were compulsory in the sense that only a certified person was allowed to perform the job in question, but that in other trades it Was not necessary to have "a ticket" t© do the job. In this regard the grievor agreed that it Was not necessary to be a millwright in order to occupy the maintenance technician position. Mr. Dixon told the Board that before Mr. Sheriff began work in March 1987 (he stopped working at this Facility in September 1990), there were 'two other people who worked alongside him, bUt neither of them was a qualified millwright~ The two men in question had obtained their skills through experience in working at the Facility. Mr. Dixon agreed that he too learned from experience. He was adamant, however, that by bringing his millwright skills with him he was able to offer a level of service that non-millwrights could not. provide. Moreover, Mr. Dixon, before the arrival of Mr. Sheriff, was able to expose his co-workers to his particular knowledge and millwright's skills. .He also testified that he was better able. to handle the problems that arose, prior to Mr. Sheriff joining the staff, than the other maintenance mechanics, because he brought the millwright's knowledge and experience to the position. Mr. Dixon conceded, however, that he gained experience~ over time in the Facility, and that this experience also contributed to his ability to perform the job. With.respect to the position specification, Mr. Dixon.agreed that -much of the initial inspection could be done by operators. For example, an operator could determine that a heat exchanger was overheating. But that would end the operator's involvement in the problem. He or she would report the situation and then Mr. Dixon or Mr. Sheriff would diagnose and repair it. Sometimes operators would assist in performing repairs, but they rarely 'saw a job through from start to finish. The position specification speaks of a frequency schedule in the performance of repairs, but Mr. Dixon testified that he was not instructed to use it. Indeed, it was an "on again off again" type of thing; sometimes it would be 'followed and other, times it would not. When the frequency schedule was followed it"was basically go grease some bearings." The basic maintenance method followed was to deal with breakdowns as they occurred, although~Mr. Dixon noted that by the time he left the Facility it was moving towards 16 instituting a preventive maintenance regime. Over time, according to Mr. Dixon, the number of breakdowns began to decrease, and when problems were resolved it often involved a complete overhaul of the equipment' in question. This approach led to a reduction of breakdowns. In Mr. Dixon's words, "reliability was put into.the System." To illustrate this point, Mr. Dixon testified that when he began work it was necessary to go to the satellite stations of .the Facility approximately three times per week; when he left his position it was only necessary to go once per month. Counsel for'the employer took Mr. Dixon through the various aspects. of his position specification. His evidence in this matter can be' summarized, and it was to the effect that he did most of the work indicated on that specification, although some parts of the description, i.e., the reference to comminuting devices, did not apply to this particular Faciiity.~ He also did not do electrical work, although he could and did connect and disconnect small motors, and he also changed the "odd switch." In elaborating on those duties he did perform, Mr. Dixon testified that many of the jobs were performed by him alone, not by the operators, for instance. Other jobs such as painting equipment were done by him and by the operator~. The operators were involved in some maintenance such as lubrication, but if the piece of equipment needed more extensive work then he would do it. Indeed, Mr. Dixon testified that'when he first began to work at the Facility there was no oil available to change the diesels. Mr. Dixon said that 17 he.would clean out the boilers every two years. Under cross-examination, Mr. Dixon elaborated on the role he actually played in ordering parts, and he agreed that it was necessary to receive authorization from his supervisor or from headquarters,' depending on the value of~the particular parts. He also testified that in refitting a piece of machinery, it was necessary, in his last year or so on the job, to obtain a certificate of approval. Mr. Dixon was, moreover, questioned at some. length about the various projects he had earlier testified about in his examination-in-chief. He agreed that part of the reason he was able to perform these various projects so well was because of trial and error. With respect to the "A" Plant retrofit, Mr. Dixon testified that altogether he spent approximately, four to five months working on it, and ~it was commissioned in the fall of '1989. in re-examination, Mr. Dixon testified about the kind of assistance provided by the operators. Mr. Dixon .told the Board that the operators would Call him when they had a problem. Mr. Dixon would then attend at the site of the problem and fix it. With respect to ordering parts, Mr.~ Dixon testified 'that in the case of expensive parts he was always required to give reasons why he needed them, and in doing so he would give the'pros and cons of the particular decision. When askedwhether it was necessary to be a millwright to have done the work that he did, Mr. Dixon testified 18 that his millwright's training gave ·him the bacRgro~nd to approaching the different challenges that he had faced. Although he had a strong mechanical aDtitude to begin with, it was because of his formal training that he was able to do the job in. the way that he did it,~ The second and final witness for the union was Mr. Bill Duprau~ Mr. Duprau had extensive pr~ivate-sector experience before joining the Ministry in 1969 as a Operator at the Cornwall Sewage Treatment Plant. In 1972, Mr. Dup~au was appointed Assistant Superintendent· of the Cornwall Plant and later that year became Assistant Superint·endent at the~ Kingston Plant. In 1981 he became Supgrintendent of the Kingston Plant. Mr. Duprau left government service in·January 1990 in order to return to the private sector. Mr. Duprau testified that when he began to work at the.Kingston Plant in 1979 it was in need of major repairs because it was old and had not been properly maintained. A major overhaul of the equipment was necessary. Mr. Duprau, who had private sector experience wi~h millwrights, was involved in the selection process that resulted in Mr. Dixon being offered a job. This selection process proceeded in the usual way. 'While some~ of the details on this were understandably sketchy, Mr. Duprau testified ~that advertising, followed by screening, followed by interviews, followed by an oral and written exam, was the process followed. ~The selection committee was looking for a candidate with several 19 years' experience in heavy industrial maintenance such as- apprenticeship in the millwright field. Mr. Duprau testified that the selection committee was looking for millwright experience because of the conditions at the Kingston Facility, and~ because of his past experience working with millwrights and with the quality of work that they produced. Mr. Duprau testified that this View was shared by the other members of the selection committee. Mr. Duprau was a~so involved in the hiring of the other grievor, Mr. Sheriff, and testified that in this case as well the selection committee was looking f6r a millwright because the Facility had expanded since Mr. Dixon had come on board, and there was more complicated and sophisticated equipment requiring maintenance. Mr. Duprau told the Board that in his years at the Facility the bulk of .the general maintenance work was done by the operators. The more complex maintenance work involving, for example, internal inspection of equipment such as pumps, monitoring temperature on equipment such as bearings, or rebuilding of equipment t0 bring it back to original specifications, was done by the two grievors. Indeed,' in Mr. Duprau's view, the kind of maintenance work performed by the grievors was millwright maintenance, and millwright training and~experience was necessary to successfully complete this kind of maintenance. With respect to the "A" Plant retrofit, Mr. Duprau t~stified that th~s involved a complete overhaul of that plant because it had deteriorated to the point where it was necessary to replace the entire system. Materials were purchased as necessary and were installed by the two grievors. The plant was made operational. Mr. Duprau was involved in approving requests as he had the financial authority and responsibility for doing so, but it was'the grievors ~ho supplied, the technical exDertise. Mr. Duprau testified that he relied heavily on the grlevors' recommendations, 'whether it was to repair a piece of equipment or to replace it. In some cases it was necessary for Mr. Duprau to select a'second option presented by the grievors, but this would be because of financial contingencies, not because of any fundamental disagreement with the preferred option recommended by.the grievors. Mr. Duprau testified that if the retrofit had been let out for contract, a millwright would have been hired by the contracting firm to oversee and do the work. Mr. Duprau confirmed Mr. Dixon's evidence that very few of the tools mentioned in the position specification were available when Mr. Dixon began work with the Ministry. As the budget allowed it, these'tools were purchased to assist Mr. Dixon, who also had his own~ personal tools. Mr. Duprau ?contrasted the situation in Kingston with that in Cornwall, where the supervisor and the maintenance foreman were both millwrights and where there were a large number of tools. · In Mr. Duprau's opinion, the two grievors spent approximatel,y seventy-five to eighty percent of their time at the Kingston Plant working as millwrights~ Mr. Duprau. reviewed work orders at the plant on a monthly basis. Moreover, if a problem needed to be addressed, the grievors would approach him, the three men would often go and look at,it, and a decision would be made as to how to deal with it. In Mr. Duprau's view, the complexity of equipment in these water and sewage treatment plants has advanced to the point where millwright's qualifications are essential for those persons charged with performing the inevitably complex maintenance. In cross-examination, Mr. DUprau elaborated on the selection process that led to Mr. Dixon being offered a position. He confirmed that the selection committee was looking for ~ millwright, and he ~testified that an electrician, for example, Would not have been offered the job. Mr. Duprau conceded that a person with extensive experience in an industrial setting involved in the movement o'f fluids would have received consideration. He pointed out, however, that a number of projects successfully undertaken by the gr~evors could be directly linked to their millwright qualifications. Mr. DuPrau also testified to the spending limits for ordering parts and the authorizations required, as well as to touring different plants when he was .acting as Operations Officer. Those tours were not'significantly in depth to allow him to make a determination of the ,relative levels of 22 maintenance in plants with millwriqhts compared to plants without them. " Mr. Duprau was asked whether a non-millwright maintenance technician could do the different jobs indicated on the position specification. His evidence was to the effect that such a person could do some of %hose tasks without difficulty, but successful completion of many of those tasks by a non-millwright would depend on their nature and complexity,.n0t to mention the experience of the particular individual. Experience was also important fox millwrights, and Mr. Duprau indicated that an experienced millwright could be called upon for a higher level of job performance than an inexperienced one. In this regard, the work product of a millwright would come closer, to the original than that of a non-millwright maintenance technician. It could be expected that a millwright's rgpair wouid last longe~ than a non- millwright's repair. Mr. Brian McIvor testified on behalf of the employer. He has been employed by the Ministry at the Facility for approximately twenty- five years. Mr. McIvor is currently the Assistant Superintendent, having replaced Mr~ Duprau in that position when Mr.' Duprau was appointed Superintendent. Mr~ McIvor has extensive experience in t~e operations of the Kingston Plant, having started as an operator and then working his, way up. For two to three years, Mr. McIvor worked simultaneously as an operator and' as a Maintenance 23 Technician. He became a full-time Maintenance Technician~ for approximately four to five years, and then he was appointed Assistant Superintendent.~ Mr. M¢Ivor does not have a trades certificate, but does have the.Gas Fitters Ticket. Mr. M6Ivor testified generally about the duties and responsibilities assumed by the two grievors. In the 1980s he was in contact regularly with both of them, setting work order priorities and ensuring that repairs were done to equipment. At a minimum, he would spend five minutes a day with the grievors, sometimes more, depending on the particular job. 'Mr. McIvor testified that Mr. Dixon required more supervision when he started at the Kingston Facility than later on. Mr. Sheriff developed more rapidly because Mr. Dixon was able to share with him his experience. Mr. McIvor testified that work was given to the grievors by way of work orders, and they were given two types of assignments: preventive maintenance and breakdown maintenance. At times there would~ be two or more jobs that needed to be done, and 'Mr. McIvor would decide which job received priority. 'In making that decision he would discuss the matter first with the Superintendent. If there was a breakdown, the order to repair it could come from the Supervisor to Mr. McIvor and then to the grievors, or it could come from a plant operator to Mr. McIvor and then to the grievors, 24 depending on the circumstances of each case. In some cases,' the operator would contact one of the grievers directly. Mr. McIvor %estified that he had done the same sort of work that the grievors did, although there were some jobs, like those'involving bearings, stripdowns of gearboxes, and the installation of mounts that he had not done, but which were done by the grievors. Similarly, the grievors could and did do overhead welds. Thi~,~ Mr. McIvor testified, Was part of their millwright's training. While. at one time Mr. McIvor could have done such a weld, he could no longer do so. The operators participated to a certain extent, in the maintenance program. Mr. McIvor took issue with Mr. Dixon's claim that his experience as ~ millwright was beneficial when it came to selecting repiacement parts. In Mr.' McIvor's view, one obtains information about parts from suppliers and ministry records, and it was not, accordingly, necessary to 'be a millwright. Mr. McIvor also testified as to the continuing nature of the frequency control program, and told the Board that it has been basically the same for some time. With.respect to the "A" Plant retrofit, Mr. Mcivor initially provided some supervision, but then Mr. Dixon was given the "go-ahead" to finish the job. Mr. McIvor remained in contact with the grievors as they went about completing this' assignment and would' give what help he could to them. Mr. McIvor emphasized the amount of learning that takes place on 25 the job. Although he was not a millwright, he had learned about epoxy fills, and would use epoxys to fill~cavitations, j'ust like the grievor~. In the same way, Mr. McIvor was also familiar with different types of packing. Mr. McIvor testified that one learns the different skills and techniques from seminars, workshops, people~in other plants, and suppliers. It was not necessary to be a millwright to know about them and to utilize this technology. In filling the maintenance position, Mr. McIvor was looking for someone with a wide range of skills and experience. In cross-examination, Mr. McIvor testified that he.relied on the two grievors because they knew what they were doing. Their millwright's training gave them a foundation. However, the millwright ticket was not a determining factor. Experience is what mattered, and the fact that the grievors were experienced allowed ~Mr. McIvor to rely on them. Mr. McIvor would .also rely on an experienced self-trained mechanic. Mr. McIvor agreed that millwright's can do more complex work than non-millwright's because of their technical training, but he emphasiZed that he would also trust a maintenance person with in~ plant experience who was not a millwright. While the grievors did some routine maintenance, it was generally done by the operators, leaving the grievors free for more complex work. In this regard, Mr. McIvor testified that it was necessary to have training or experience with some of the tools mentioned in the position 26 specification, and it did not necessarily follow that a non- millwright maintenance mechanic would, have this training or experience. Mr. McIvor did not agree that the Facility has become more sophisticated and complex. In his view, the basic equipment remained the same. In this regard, Mr. McIvor was ~sked about a particular type of pump now found in the plant, and'he agreed that this pump requires rigging, and that .rigging is an area. in which millwrights are specifically trained. Moreover, in the particular pump in question it was necessary for the grievors, to install the beams and hooks. With respect to the decision-makSng, Mr. McIvor made it clear that he was not saying that he had ever contradicted the grievors. Rather what he was saying was that there'would be cases in Which he Would not follow one Of their .recommendations, but the reason would be fiscal, not a disagreement' about the soundness of the recommendation. With respect to the "A" Plant retrofit, the witness testified that his supervisor told him to leave- the grievors on' t~eir own. Mr. McIvor agreed that in the 1970s, maintenance'was not a priority, but that this changed when Mr. Duprau arrived on the scene. Moreover, there was an increasing emphasis on preventive maintenance insofar as possible. Finally, with respect to Mr. Dixon's appointment, Mr. McIvor 27 testified that he was' on the selection committee, which chose Mr. Dixon because of his millwright ' s qualifications and other experience. Mr. McIvor thought that this experience ~would be helpful in running the .plant. In re-examination, Mr. McIvor emphasized the importance of experience, and testified that he would prefer a person for the position who had six years of in-plant experience to a millwright Without in-plant experience.. If he had to choose between a millwright with in-plant experience, and·a non-millwr~ght with in- ·plant experience, he would chose the millwright~ What impressed Mr. McIvor about.Mr. Dixon during the interview process was that he was .well-rounded, and familiar with industrial mechanics, carpentry and masonry, as well as the fact that he was a millwright. Mr. Patrick Newland also testified for the employer. Mr. Newland has been employed by the Ministry for approximately nine years and is currently the Chief Operator of a treatment facility in Charlottenburg. Prior to assuming this position, Mr. Newland worked in the same capacity ~s the grievors. He was classified as a Maintenance Mechanic 3 for approximately four yearsin Belleville in the Water Pollution Control Plank, a sewage control facility. Mr. Newland is not a millwright, but has his Maintenance Gas Fitters Certificate. .Mr. Newland worked in the private sector before joining the Ministry, and obtained experience in welding and ~28 Sheet metal. Mr. Newland's evidence can be summarized to the effect that when he was classified as a Maintenance Mechanic 3 he performed "99%" of the duties indicated on the grievor's position specification. The one duty he did not perform was· boiler cleanout. Mr~ Newland told the Board that the Maintenance Mechanics in Belleville worked on a frequency control schedule and initially spent most of their time dealing with breakdowns, but over the course of his several years of employment at that facility, they were able Go increasingly turn their attention to preventive maintenance. None of the other Maintenance Mechanic 3's were millwrights, although one of them apparently had some qualifications in the ~lectrical area. Mr. Newland testified about some of the specific maintenance chores he performed, such as removing chains and sprockets and replacing them with new parts, as well as replacing parts of pumps. Mr. Newland'~testified that he used many of the tools indicated in the position specification such as calipers, meggars, power tools, and so on. These materials were provided by the employer. Mr. Newland would make telephone calls for information when replacement.parts were required, although the supervisor had the final say whether or not the parts could be ordered. In his capacity as a Maintenance Mechanic 3, Mr. Newland occasionally worked with outside contractors," and had some- involvement in the selection of those contractors' and the services that'they provided. He also assisted them when they came to do the work. On one occasion, Mr. Newland participated in the replacement of a major pump, and this involved removing the pump from a very small area, having concrete forms poured, mounts installed and the pump put in. Mr. Newland testified that this job took approximately three days to complete and~that he was involved in' ~rel-iminary work, mostly making arrangements by telephone. The Belleville~facility did not have any catalogues to assist in the ordering of materials, but they could be obtained from Kingston. Mr. Newland also described~moving large pieces of equipment' with an overhead crane. It was clear from Mr. Newland's evidence about this and other assignments that he received a significant degree of supervision as he went about his work. In this regard, Mr. 'Newland testified that when he began work as a Maintenance Mechanic 3 the Maintenance Foreman was his immediate supervisor, but 'after he l'eft, Mr. Newland was supervised by the Assistant Superintendent. In either case, the general practice was for his supervisor to give directions every day, and Mr. Newland would also speak to his super¥isor about particular jobs. In his capacity as a Maintenance MeChanic 3, Mr. Newland worked with wood, epoxy, steel and other'materials. In his examination- in-chief, Mr. Newland could not recall any example of his 30 determining that it would be a good idea to substitute one material for another in the repair or maintenance of a Particular piece of equipment. In re-examination, .Mr. Newland testified that he had on occasion recommended the substitution of parts. Mr. Newland also gave evidence with respect to a return pump where some substitution of packing materials was eventually employed, although it was not clear from Mr. Newland's evidence how that came about. What was clear was that a local machine shop would'resleeve these pumps. Mr. Newland would be involved in ordering the replacement parts, but the reorders would go through his~supervisor. With respect to the class standard, Mr. Newland testified that he' did a lot of rough carpentry, painting, drywall, we~ding (arc with minimal overhead), tin smithing, plumbing, and repairs to concrete caused by frost damage. M~. Newland did not dQ any bricklaying, although he did do some rough electrical work. According to Mr. Newlahd the three Maintenance Mechanic 3's at the Belleville facility were interchangeable in the sense that any.one of them could do any of the particular assignments. Mr. Newland's view is that there is no difference between someone who is a miliwright and someone with significant mechanical experience. In cross-examination, Mr. Newland agreed that he had never worked at the Kingston Facility, nor had he worked with either of the grievors. Mr. Newland also elaborated on some of his ~vidence in- 31 . chief. For instance, with respect to the example of his having changed some sprockets, Mr. Newland agreed that his job involved replacing the worn-out sprockets with identical new parts with the same pitch. With respect to changing the sleeves on pumps, Mr. Newland told the Board that the Belleville facility had spare sleeves available on the shelf, and that it Was simply a matter of installing them as required. Mr. Newland also'testified in cross-examination that the Belleville facility received a major expansion in 1981, and a lot of new equipment was introduced in the result. Mr. Newland agreed that it was easier in some ways to maintain new equipment. When asked about his experience with millwrights, Mr. Newland told' - the Board that he did not know anything about the training that millwrights receivedJ Mr. Newland had, however,~ worked with them on other occasions and he ~reiterated his earlier expressed view that 'there was no difference between a millwright and an experienced maintenance mechanic. The final witness for'~he employer was Mr. W.G. Spencer, who has been'employed'by the Ministry for'approximately twenty-one years. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Spencer was the Operations officer in the Kingston region, which encompasses some 25 to 30 water projects including the Kingston Facility discussed aboye. These projects vary considerably in size. Along with a large staff of both management and bargaining unit- employees, Mr. SPencerl is responsible for matters as diverse as the preparation of budgets,_ ongoing operations, rates, plant eXpansion, and review of design and efficiency. Mr. Spencer is also consulted aboutmyriad matters relating to the different facilities and in these consultations he is. able to draw upon his vast reservoir of knowledge in'the water treatment process. Technically, Mr. Spencer must approve any expenditure over $100, although as a practical matter small expenditures are not brought to his attention. What is brought to him are the major matters involving the expenditure of significant funds. Expenditures between $5,000 and $10,000 go to the Utility Manager, while expenditures over that amount to $i00,000 go to the Regional Director. Expenditures over $100,000 must be approved by the Deputy Minister. As a~ready noted, Mr. Spencer is responsible for these various facilities. The different plant superintendents report to him.~ While Mr. Spencer is not certified in any of the'trades, he has a degree in civil engineering. Mr. Spencer is not involved in the running of the various facilities on a d~y-to-day basis. Rather, he gets involved at the request of the d~fSerent plant superintendents, or-in the process of a plant.inspection. On these plant inspections, Mr. Spencer may perform an audit of the maintenance program, and in that process he may bring a maintenance person along to assist him. Mr. Spencer drafted and signed both position specifications for'the Maintenance Mechanic 3 position, and in fact, he redrafted the second position specification, 'which makes reference to the millwright qualifications. In h~s evidence, Mr. Spencer explaine~ that he liked to do routine maintenance of position specifications in order to ensure that they remained up-to-date. In changing the position Specificat$on at issue in this case, Mr. Spencer noted that references to electrical Work were removed and the reason was because a maintenance electrician had been hired. Mr. Spencer testified that he discussed the position specification with the grievors, and it was at their request that he wrote in the reference to millwrights in the qualifications Portion of the specification. In Mr. Spencer's view, a millwright has a head start on maintenance mechanic work when compared to.someone without maintenance mechanic experience. ~Mr. Spencer is of the view 'that other trades would have a similar head start, such as Sanitary engineers, for instance. When it comes to doing maintenance w~rk, Mr. Spencer likes routine maintenance and repair to be done by the maintenance mechanics. When it comes to a Complete rebuilding, however, Mr. Spencer prefers that the machinery be taken to a shop for overhaul. This procedure ensures warranty protection and avoids subsequent disputes about whether parts were properly installed. 34 Mr. Spencer had some familiarity with the "A" Plant retrofit. He observed this retrofit taking place on occasion, and was involved in the initial approva% of it. Mr. Spencer testified that similar. retrofits have been done in other facilities, such as the one at Batawa, where it took place uhder the supervision of the plant superintendent. In Mr. Spencer's view, while most facilities have the expertise to undertake jobs of this kind, the contingent factor is whether or not they have the time. In approving the Kingston Facility "A" Plant retrofit, Mr. Spencer knew that it would result in a sacrifice to routine maintenance, but since the Facility was meeting various performance criteria, Mr. Spencer gave the project the go-ahead. Moreover, the grievors remained available to handle any emergencies should they have arisen. Mr. Spencer testified about the Batawa plant retrofit. It involved a sewage treatment plant about one-half the size of the "A" Plant. This retrofit was performed by the operators, one of whom was a welder, while another had a refrigeration license. It was a very similar type of retrofit to that which took place'in-Kingston. Mr. Spencer also gave his views, about.some of the examples given in evidence by the union in support of its claim that the grievors were performing millwright work. Changing the speed on a return pump was not, in his view, unusual. Indeed, Mr. Spencer~testified that doing so might even go against current thinking on conservation. In another example, Mr. Spencer indicated that he 35 would have been critical about the grievors installing a part themSelves, because Of the possible effect on the warranty. Rebuilding the interior of pumps was also routine. Changing parts required, after. 1987, approval from the Enforcement Investigation Branch, and in this regard Mr. Spencer explained the approval process. Mr. Spencer testified that in looking at the plants with millwrights and those without them, there was no evidence of any difference in criteria such as amount of effluent. In cross-examination, Mr. Spencer repeated his evidence-in-chief, that millwright training provides a good background for maintenance mechanics.. With respect to the "A" Plant retrofit, Mr. Spencer could not recall if he saw.t~e tenders for that retrofit, but did remember that they were two or three times higher than the cost of the griewors doing the job. To the best of his recollection, the cost was $100,000 for the grievors to do it Mr. Spencer was also questioned about effluent criteria.. In his opinion good maintenance is one factor establishing acceptable effluent r.at~ngs, but it was only one factor. A good treatment facility and good process control were more important.~ Indeed, effluent criteria was only one basis for judging the abilities of maintenance staff; it could also be assessed by examining costs, or just by walking around and seeing how the plant was operating. ! Mr. Spencer testified that the Kingston Facility met the effluent criteria between 1981 and 1989-90, when the grievors stopped 36 working there, although he noted that this question was somewhat difficult to answer because of the increase in flow. Mr. Spencer was asked whether the Batawa plant retrofit involved s~ripping the plant down to concrete and starting over, as was the case with the "A" Plant retrofit. He replied that like the "A" Plant the Batawa plan~ had been totally useless, The "A" Plant had a"capacity of approximately 800,.000 gallons per day, while the Batawa plant was in the 150-300,000 gallons-a-day range. Mr. Spencer told the Board that in the 1980s he had different regional ~esponsibilities, and that he spent considerable time doing field work. Indeed, between 1981 and 1987,. Mr. Spencer was not responsible for the Kingston plant. He became responsible'for it in 1987. Accordingly, 'there was a significant period'of time when he .did not sign the requisitions that came from the Kingston Facility, and so he was not as up-to-date on the work taking place there. Between 1981 and 1989 of the approximately twenty-five plants which he was responsible for, six or seven failed t0 meet the effluent criteria. In Mr. Spencer's view, the effluent criteria at the Kingston Facility indicated that there were good maintenance people working there. ~ Union Argument Counsel for the union began his submissions by'drawing the Board's attention to the Preamble of the Maintenance Trades Classes reproduced above. In counsel's view the most important part Of 9 ' 37 this preamble was paragraph 3, and he argued that this class series did not apply to the grievors because, on the evidence before the Board, they Spent considerably more than 60% of their time exercising their millwright skills. This took them out of the Maintenance Mechanic Class standard. Turning to the Maintenance Mechanic 3 class standard, counsel argued that it p%cked up where the preamble left off. The first sentence of this class standard states that the class covers positions where the employees are engaged for at least 60% .of their working time in general maintenance work requiring the application of the skills and knowledge generally associated with one or more of the skilled trades. However, in counsel's submission, this sentence is modified by the last sentence in the paragraph, which indicates that employees in this class may be personally qualified in one of the skilled trades b~t that the requirements of their positions "~sually entail the use of that trade not more than 40%'of their working time." Moreover, the next paragraph of the standard indicates that while positions in this class involve a variety of maintenance tasks requiring the skills and knowledge usually associated with different trades, "the complexity of' the work assigned and the quality.of the finished work, or the percentage of work time involved does not warrant inclusion of. the posi'tion in one of the skilled trade classes." In counsel's submission, the evidence was clear that the grievors spent much more ~than 40% of their time exercising their trade and, 38 moreover, the complexity of the work assigned to them, e.g., the "A" Plant retrofit, and the quality of their finished work also served to take them out of this standard. · Counsel reviewed the evidence before the Board indicating that the grievers, as a r~sult of their millwright training, were able to assume complex tasks and often repair and modify equipment to very high standards, Indeed, union counsel indicated that the grievers received training as millwrights in many of these tasks, and counsel drew the Board's attention to the relevant portions of the millwright training requirements that illustrated this point. It is not necessary to repeat that evidence here as it has been fully set out earlier in these reasons for decision. In counsel's view, the fact that the two grievers are millwrights doeS not take them out of the class standard. The fact that they were working, on the evidence, for some 75% to 80% of their time as millwrights, a skilled trade, meant that the Maintenance Mechanic class standard did not apply. Counsel argued that the standard only applied if you were doing maintenance work and did not have a skilled trade, or were doing maintenance work, but not exercising a skilled trade. The evidence was consistent from Mr. Dixon, Mr. Duprau, Mr. McIvor and Mr. Spencer that the grievers were performing- complex work, and while they did some routine maintenance, by and large this was performed by the operators, leaving them free to undertake.the kinds of tasks described'above. Union counsel contrasted the type of'work done by'the grievors with that described by Mr. Newland. -In counsel's submission, the activities described by Mr. Newland were extremely routine. The type of work done by the grievors demonstrated a much higher degree of initiative, skill, and responsibility in the diagnosing of problems, in the development of solutions, in the selection of parts, in their discussions with manufacturers and in the installation of new and rebuilt equipment. Moreover, as the evidence had 'indicated, the grievors were frequently able to restore equipment to. an "almost new" status. None of the activities described by Mr. Newland came close to paralleling what - the grievors did. Indeed, what Mr. Newland did and~did not do in Belleville was, in counsel's view, irrelevant to whether or not the grievors were properly classified when they were employed at the Kingston Facility. With respect to Mr. Spencer's evidence about'the Batawa Facility, counsel argued that it was a different'type of plant with much less capacity than the Kingston Facility. Comparisons here, as drawn by the employer in evidence, were not of much use. In any case, it was significant.that two of the maintenance mechanics involved in the retrofit of that Facility had trades experience. It was' also significant that the grievors had to supply their own tools, the tools of the millwright trade, and they used those tools in the performance of their responsibilities. 40 Counsel pointed out that Mr. Duprau testified that one' of the reasons he hired Mr. Dixon was because he was a millwright (and this was also the case wi~h Mr. Sheriff), and he als0 testified that when millwrights did repairs the quality of their finished work was very high. Mr. Duprau only gave the grievors the most general of supervision, and Mr. McIvor testified.that he put a lot of stock in' the, grievors' recommendations. The fact that the ~employer liked millwrights and their work was, Counsel argued, mad~ apparent by the change in the qualifications portion of the position specification set out above. Counsel referred the Board to the. Swibb 1107/87 (Watters) decision. In this case the Board reviewed the classification of some Maintenance Electricians. "Simply put, it was the position of the grievor that changes in electrical technology had altered his job in a qualitative sense ~uch that the class standards, which were drafted in~1967, were now obsolete" (at 2). After reviewing some of the changes in the job which had taken place'the Board said: [W]e think~ that the actual duties performed must be 'assessed in order to determine whether they fit within the intended scope of the class standards. In other words, the Board accepts the suggestion of the Union that a particular job may evolve with time such that is no longer caught by the language of the class standards. The longevity of the standard is not determinative in this respect as, by definition, they are drafted with general wording in the contemplation that certain changes may occur .... What is of paramount importance is whether the 'actual electrical work engaged in falls within the language of the class standards. The Board has considered all of' the evidence placed before us relating to the changes which.have occurred in the grievor's job. We are satisfied that the demands of such job, as performed at the time of the grievance, exceeds the expectations of the class standards. We think ~hat they type of electrical work .listed therein is more routine in nature than that now engaged'in by the grievor. The Board finds it significant that no reference is made to the kind of sophisticated and complex components which the grievor now confronts on a daily basis (at 6-7). t ...In the final analysis, we find that the complexity of the work performed, and the additional knowledge required to effectively complete same, goes well beyond the standards now before us (at 8). Accordingly, the Board in this case issued a Berry order. Union counsel argued that the Swibb decision was applicable to the instant case, and he noted that the preamble to the two position specifications indicated that the Kingston Facility has grown considerably larger over time, and he referred to some evidence before the Board indicating that operations had become more complex. This case, therefore, supported his position Ghat a Berry order was an appropriate result. Counsel also referred to the Avsec 1589/89 (Low) decision, which sets out th~ test ~for granting a Berry order: To satisfy the test to be met before such an order will be made, the Grievor must satisfy this Board that there is a substantial difference between the duties performed and those referred to in the classification.standard. It may also be expressed as a requirement that the standards do not fit the nature of the job, but I do not take it that this requires that the job be totally different from that expressed in the~ standard. It is sufficient that there be a substantial variation either in the nature of the duties or in the scope of the duties that the employee is required to perform (at 6). Counsel argued that this test had been more than met in that the 42 evidence clearly demonstrated that the grievers'were spending a high percentage~ of their time working.as millwrights, that the .scope and quality of their'.w0rk was way beyond that.cOntemplated in the Maintenance. Mechanic 3 class standard, and that as a result they were not properly classified. ACcordingly, this was .an appropriate case for the Board to issue a Berry order. Employer Argument Counsel for the employer argued that the millwright trade was a Combination trade[ While it was not a "handyman" trade, it nevertheleSs transcended other trades by its general nature. "In this regard, it was noteworthy that there was general agreement in the evidence that the position specifications accurately described the tasks the grievers performed. .This vas, therefore, a case where employees who happened to be millwrights were doing maintenance mechanic work, and not a case of persons classified as Maintenance Mechanics doing millwright work. Counsel pOinted out that Mr. McIvor and Mr. Newland, who were not millwrights, had done the job, and this too indicated that it was not necessary to have millwright qualifications. Counsel for the employer gave some examples from the evidence of the similarity in tasks performed by the grievers and by non-millwright Maintenance Mechanics. In counsel's submission, it was significant that the class standard for Maintenance Mechanic 3 stated that employees in the class "may be" qualified in one of the skilled trades but that. the 43 requirements of the position "usually" entail the use of the trade not more than 40% of the time. in counsel's view, the word "usually" did not mean "never" and should not be read as such. Similarly, while there was mention of millwrights in ~he qualifications section of the 1989 position specification, there was no requirement that the person be a millwright, and it was clearly envisaged that a person might have obtained, significant knowledge and experience through apprenticeship in one of the other trades. With respect to Mr. Duprau's evidence that the work in.the 1980s became increasingly complex, counsel for the employer noted that Mr. McIvor testified that ~what became more compl'ex was the electrical part of the operation, not the maintenance the grievors had responsibility for. In addition, ~Mr. Duprau never worked as £ a millwright and so did not, unlike Mr. McIvor, have the hands-on experience which' would enable him to make an assessment of this kind. The one major difference, in counsel's submission, between the two position specifications is the removal in t~e second one .of responsibility for electrical matters, reflecting that this was the area of increasing complexity. Counsel for the employer did not dispute that the grievors were highly skilled employees rendering valuable service to the Ministry in an exemplary manner. What he did dispute were the grievors' claims that they were performing millwright work. In counsel's 44 view, Mr. Dixon's evidence was given from a self-interested Point of View and was embellished. Mr. Dixon did no more than Mr. McIvor had in the performance of his duties, and this alone demonstrated ~that it was not n~ecessary to be a millwright. Counsel pointed out that before Mr. Dixon could order any major part or make any major change his supervisor's permission was required, and at a later stage it was necessary to obtain a certificate of approval. These' two facts demonstrated how circumscribed the grievors really were in the performance of their duties. In addition, the substance of the job did not change over time, and the fact that the duties and responsibilities as indicated o~ the two position specifications were almost identical suggested that this was the case. In counsel's view, it was clea~ from evidence that the grievors were doing the same work as other Maintenance Mechanics such as Mr. Newland, who were not millwrights. Mr. Spencer, counsel argued, then completed the picture with his evidence that what the grievors did was well within the range of what other Maintenance Mechanics who were not millwrights did elsewhere in the system. Counsel contrasted the Swibb-case with the instant one, pointing out that in that case there was substantial evidence of a changed job. There was, counsel submitted, no such evidence in the instant case. Counsel referred the Board to the Far~uharson 673/81 (Draper) decision, wherein the Board stated: Again, we note that we are not called upon to judge the Grievor's qualifications. He may well be qualified to do the wor~ of an EDT but if he. is not, in fact, doing either work encompassed by that classification or work being performed by employees~ in that classification he is not entitled to have his position re-classified as he requests (at 10). Likewise, employer counsel argued that it was not material in the instant case that the grievors were qualified .millwrights. What mattered was that they were doing the same Work as other Maintenance Mechanic 3's and so were Properly classified as such. Counsel also referred the Board to the Enn~.s, ~chuler 17/85 · (Kirkwood) decision, where the Board said: In order for the grievors to obtain a hi~her classification, the Union must persuade the Board that significant job duties are beyond those assigned to the present classification and constitute significant duties of the higher classification that the grievors seek (at 4). Counsel also referred the Board to Kuhnke.989/89 (Verity), where it was held that class standards are "generally worded Statements designed to cover a broad spectrum of tasks and working environments" (at 11). In counsel's view, the union had failed to. discharge its onus of proof that the grievors had significant job duties beyond those assigned to the class standa'rd. Accordingly, counsel submitted that the grievance should be dismissed. Decision Having carefully considered the evidence and the arguments of both parties, we have come to ~the conclusion that this grievance must be upheld. We are satisfied that the union has discharged the \ 46 burden before it,~namely to demonstrate through its. evidence that the grievors were improperly classified. We have reached this conclusion for a number iof reasons. The Preamble to the Maintenance Trades Classes, reproduced above, is intended to cover general maintenance work in a/ variety of provincial institutions. The second paragraph of that pream~le is a salient one in that it indicates that one of. the purposes of this class is to cover'situations where there is a requirement for the skills of a particular trade, but where such skills are required for less than 60% of the time, and accordingly do not warrant the establishment of a position in that trade. We find on the evidence before us that the grievors were not only members ~f a particular trade, but for a large percentage of their time on' the job, certainly more than 60% 'of their time, they exercised the skills of their trade. The evidence supporting this finding is set out in'detail above. It is clear from this evidence that the grievors' millwright training and skills were put to work for the Ministry on a daily basis for a significant portion of each work day. Turning to the Maintenance Mechanic 3 classification, this standard cover~ positions where employees are engaged for at least 60% of their working time in general maintenance work requiring the skills and knowledge generally associated with one or more of the skilled trades. However, the last sentence of this standard indicates that employees in this class may be personally qualified in one of the 47~ skilled trades, but that the requirements of the position usually entail the use of that trade not more than 40% of the working time. How are the first and last sentences to be reconciled? Our reading of the first sentence of the standard is that it covers positions where.the employees are doing maintenance work of the kind generally associated with the different skilled trades. This sentence is then modified by.the final sentence of the paragraph. We agree with counsel for the employer that "usually" does not mean "never." In the instant case, however, the class standard goes on to enumerate a wide variety of maintenance tasks generally associated with the various trades, and then states "where the complexity of the work assigned and the qualitY of the finished work, or the percentage of work time involved does not warrant inclusion of the position in one ~f the skilled trade classes." What appears to be envisaged both here and in the Preamble is general maintenance work, not work 6f the kind and quality one would expect from a member of .one of the skilled trades, nor maintenance work requiring the use of the_trade for the large part of the employees time on the job. From the Preamble and from the Maintenance Mechanic 3 class standard it is clear that a general maintenance classification is established because a specific trades classification is deemed unnecessary. Persons holding positions under this standard do maintenance work requiring the application of skills and knowledge generally associated with one of the trades. The class standard recognizes that in some cases such persons might be qualified in one of the trades. However, it is not neccessary .to establish a special class for each trade just because some maintenance position associated with it was held by a member' of one 'of the skilled trades. What this class standard does is delineate when a special ~class for a trade need not be established. Inferentially, therefore, this class standard also indicates when a class standard for a particular trade should be established. In most cases, an employee holding a position in this class will be performing maintenance work requiring the application of the s~ills and knowledge associated with one or ~ore of the skilled trades'and may be a member of a skilled trade and performing their trade less than 40% of their time. In this situation the employee will'likely be properly classified. In~ some cases, an employee will be a member of a skilled trade and performing their trade more than 40% of the time and still likely be properly classified. That ~will take place when the "complexity of the work assigned and the quality of the finished work.. ~.does not warrant inclusion of the position in one of the skilled trade classes," or'perhaps as the Preamble indicates, where the trade Skills are required for less than 60% of the time. As the ~class standard notes, however, "usually" the position will not require employees who are qualified in one of the~trades to use that trade in their position more than 40% of the time. These observations aside, in the instant case the grievors are members of a skilled trade and spend the b~tter part of' their working time exercising their trade, certainly more than 60%. They assume complex tasks, and they produce high quality finished work at the level Of their trade. 'This is, accordingl~y, not a case where either the Preamble to the class standard or the class standard, its~elf can'be said to encompass the work performe~ by these grievors. The grievors are using their trade for most of their time on the job, and the complexity of the work assigned and the quality of their finished work takes them out of this class standard. Simply put, the grievors are not performing the maintenance work envisaged in the standard. It may be that at one very general lev61, the grievors and,other persons with the Mechanic Technician Dosition specification can be described as doing the same thing. On another level, the one of the clas~ standard, however, it is clear.that.the way in which the grievors go about their work, and the extent to which they use~.the millwright skills they bring to that process, is Well beyond the kind of maintenance envisaged in the class standard. They are doing the various things enumerated in the pgsition specification 'but are doing them as millwrights. They are, in short, performing millwright maintenance. The e~idence amply establishes that this is'the case. 50 Turning to the evidence, a few comments are in order. We find the testimony of Mr. Duprau very persuasive. He Supervised the grievors for many years, and he corroborated Mr. Dixon's evidence about the kind and quality of the grievors' work. He testified that the grievors were working as millwrights and regularly~.using their ~illwright's training and' skills. The great'many examples we.heard of this more than proves this point' While the evidence establishes that th~ grievors did do ~ome preventive maintenance, for the great part,of their time they were maintaining the Facility. using their millwright skills. Their maintenance was far from routine, and we find as a general matter that this class standard is about routine maintenance, not.about the. day-in and dayLout exercise of one of the skilled trades. The fact that the grievors did not have ~the independent ability to spend, or that they received varying degrees of supervision, or that certificates of approval were eventually required, does not affect Our' finding-on this point, for the evidence establishes that they diagnosed, initiated and maintained to a high level the equipment at the Facility. Mr. Duprau's evidence that the selection committee was looking for a millwright~ when it hired both grievors was never Seriously challenged. And the fact is that the position specification was changed to make millwright training a desirable qualification. The conclusion is inescapable that one reason why it was changed was because of the millwright service the grievors wer.e providing to the Facility and to the Ministry. The'"A" Plant retrofit is the best example proving this point. whiie Mr. McIvor testified that he did much of the same work as the grievers 'when he was a millwright, a careful comparison of his evidence with Mr. Dixon's evidence does not establish that this was so, Mr. McIvor was on the selection committee that chose Mr.' Dixon, and one reason was the fact that he was a millwright. In passing we would like to note that we do not find any of the. hypotheticals put to the various witnesses as to whether or not they would prefer a millwright for the position of the grievers very helpful to the issue which we must determine. That issue is, of course, Whether these two grievers were properly classified as Maintenance Mechanic 3's. And we find that they were not. With respect to Mr. Newland's evidence, it was clear-that he was subject to considerably more supervision than either of the grievers when he was occupying a comparable position at a different facility, it is also clear that he was involved in routine maintenance. None of the examples he provided comes close in comparing to the kind Of work testified to by the grievers. Mr. Newland was doing routine, replacement part maintenance, while the grievers were doing maintenance of a much higher order. While Mr. Spencer has considerable knowledge about different facilities, he was not around for a significant period of time and has =ery little first-hand knowledge of the grievers' activities and 52, responsibilities. . In ordering the grievors to be reclassified, we f'ind 'that the extent and complexity of the work performed by the grievors, and the additional knowledge and skills that they brought, as millwrights to that work, take them out of the Maintenance Mechanic 3 classification. We also find that this case meets the standards set out by the Board in Avsec in that there is a substantial 'difference between the duties performed and those referred to in the classification standard. The grievors were doing maintenance work, but it was so pervasive and highly skilled that it is well beyond what is. contemplated in this class standard. In the result, both grievances are upheld and the employer is ordered to reclassify both grievors. We remain seized with respect to the implementation of this award. Dated at Ottawa this day of 1990. William Kaplan Member~ D. Montrose Member re sponsib i 1 it ies. In ordering the grievors to be reclassified, we find that the extent and complexity of the work performed by the grievors, and the additional knowledge and skills that they brought as millwrights to that work, take them out of the Maintenance Mechanic 3 classification. We also find that ~his case mee~s'the standards set out by the Board in Avsec in that there is a substantial difference between the duties performed and those referred to in the classification standard. The g~ievors were doing maintenance work, but it was so pervasive and highly skilled that it is well beyon~ what is contemplated in this class standard. In the result, both grievances are upheld and the employer is ordered to reclassify both grievors. We remain seized with respect to the implementation of this award. Dated at Ottawa this day of 1990. William ~aplan Vj ~9/rp'ers°n // ~/v~//~ )/ Mem~ D. Mo~trose Member