HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-0919.Moore.92-03-31
ONTARIO f,MPLOYÉS DE LA COURONN£
7j' CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO
,/..- 1111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
~
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
/80 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSO lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE: (4 /6) 326- /]88
/80, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2roo, TORONTO (ONTARIO), M50 IZ8 FACSIr.l1/LE/niLÈCOPIE: (4161 ]26-1]96
-
919/90
IN THB MATTBR OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THB CROWN EXPLOYBES COLLECTIVB BARGAIHI:HG ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Moore)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of Transportation)
Employer
BEFORE: M. Watters Vice-Chairperson I
I. Thomson Member
D. Montrose Member
FOR THE P. Chapman
GRIEVOR Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman
Barristers & solicitors
FOR THE M. Failes
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING December 20, 1990
May 16, 1991
November 25, 1991
t
-
---
-
~ ---
~ r ,
'7
c'
The grievor is a,Computer Services Officer 1n the Planning
and Design Section of the Employer's Eastern Region Office
located in Kingston, Ontar'i 0, He has been in the position since
1982. The grievor, throughout his tenure in the job, has been
classified as a Systems Officer 2 (5.0.2), His grievance dated
April 27, 1990 claimed that he is improperly classified at that
level and· requested a reclassification to Engineering Services
Officer 3. On the first day of hearing, the gr1evor and the
Union advised that such request would not be pursued, Rathe r. it
was asserted that the grievor ~hould be reclassified as a Systems
Officer 3 (8.0.3) retroactive to June, 1988. The class standards
for the Systems Officer series are appended to this award as
Schedule 'A' . The grievor's position specification 1S attached
as Schedule 'B' ,
The Planning and Design Section 1 s generally responsible for
the planning and design 1n respect of the construction of new
road corridors and the reconstruction of existing corridors; the
calculation of quantities for road building projects; and the
preparation of contract packages which are supplied to
contractors. The Design Services Group, whìch ìncludes the
grievor, is a subgroup of the aforementioned section. This group
provides services to those persons actually involved in the
design of the various projects. This necessitates contact with
i nterna ì designers, external consultants, and representatives of
affected municipalities. The Board was told that between eighty
1 -
1
~
percent (80%) and ninety percent (90%) of all projects are
designed by external consultants or engineers. The Design
Services Group also includes a Corridor Control Offi cer, a
Corridor Control Technician, a Contract ~eview Officer, and onE'
( 1 ) other Computer Services Officer. Th,= Group 1S supervised t,y
Mr. B. Collingwood.
.
Tfle gr i evor testified that the position specification is
" generally accurate with some exceptions " Firstly, he noted
that the specification does not allude to knowledge or use of
micro-computers. The grievor stated that there has been an
increased emphasis on the introduction of micro-technology within
the section. This form of technology allows the consultants to
access the section's main frame computer from their own offices.
If required, the grievor arranges for thE=- hook up 1 ink from the
consultant's computer to the main frame. This process involves'
the use of the 8el1 Telephone lines, a modem, and certain
software packages. This development has created certain new
difficulties in the area of communications. For example, i t has
required the grievor to devote more time to instructing the
consultants on the input procedure 1 n respect of the computer
programs, discussed 1n greater detail below, Secondly, the
grievor stated that he no longer provides leadership and
d-irection to a Computer Services Technician as was the case 1 n
the past, For reasons which are not matEfr'ial to the present
dispute, the Technician position was upgraded to the same level
~
,~ -
; ,
r
.../!J
as the grievor's position. The gnevor testified that he and his
colleague now divide the work assignments between themselves on
the basis of relative ability and time constraints. He did
advise, however, that as the senior Officer he looks over the
other persons shoulder to ensure the work is being completed 111
an· accu rate fash ion. He also indicated that he advises and
trains the other Officer, as necessary.
When a project 1S issued, it is the responsibility of the
Planning and Design Section to determine the " correct and most
economical design " In i ti all y , employees in the Surveys and
Plans section accumulate raw data from the pre-construc~ion site.
This information is put into the main frame computer and
thereafter may be accessed by persons in Planning and Design.
Depen~ing on who is assigned the responsibility for designing the
. ~ the grievor will be consulted by , .. , internal
p rOJ eC'I~, e 1 uler
designers or external consultants to facilitate the use of
certain computer programs for design pur-poses. Briefly these
'programs may be described as follows:
( , ) System 50 - Input from the base data supplied by Surveys and
, 1
Plans is keyed into the system by the designer, The output
provides a working report which includes quantities of earth,
rock, cut, and fill which must be manipulated within the roadway
'structure to yield an economic design. Its use allows the
designer to fashion a more complete design, including final
dra-inage and adherence to property limits. The program attempts
3
,-
,
~
to incar-porate all of the various road building standards which
may be applicable.
( i i) Svstem 5:3 - This system 1 s a data base for information
gener-ated by the System 50 program. It Has descr-ibed oy the
grievor .. an interactive program" which permits the user to
as
mak.e alterations to the templates in ord'er to finalize the
design. From the evidence, it would'also appear to provide for
graphic illustration of cross-sections.
( i i i ) Tender Analysis Proqram (T.A.P~ - This program is
used 1 n the tender process. It breaks down quantities into items
and gather-s specifications. We were advised that it is issued to
contractors for bidding purposes. The program is also employed
by the Ministry to estimate the cost of projects.
The grievor provides technical support and guidance to the
users of the programs, be 'they internal or external designers.
He initially advises and consults with them as to the application
of the programs vis a V1S the project being undertaken. He
assists the designers in determining whe~her the desired results
can be achieved through the programs. The grievor next advises,
instructs and consu 1 ts wi tr-t respect to inputting and coding.
This process must be properly completed so that the designers may
effectively communicate with the systems, In a related vein, he
must assist the designers 1 n learning the specific language
required to interact with System 53. The grievor subsequently
consults with the designers with respect to output, Simply
4-
-
,--
t:-."r
,.
stated, they must be assured that the output is compatible with
their requirements. In certain instances, problems with output
may be (esall/ed 1n the region through the use of alternate
input. If that proves unsuccessful. the grievor wi 1 ì initiate
the process for program alteration, as described below;
In many respects, the above-described functions have a
t(aining element as the grievor serves as the trainer or resource
person with respect to the use of the programs. This 18 a
significant role glven the fac~ that the external consultants may
not be acquainted with the use of the Ministry's systems. This
ì açk of familiarity may from time to time require the gt-i evor to
0isit the consultant's office. He may also be required to assess
whether the consultant's in-house program would be accept,ab 1 e to
the Project Manager's Office. The grievor described his training
function as "on the job" and subject to need and his
availability. The Board was advised that a more formal schedule
of training existed previously. Training is provided by t.he
grievor to all new internal staff. Additionally, if a new system
1S introduced, or a revision is made to an existing system, the
grievor 18 responsible to acquaint the users with the new
application.
The grievor testified that he constantly monitors whether
problems' exist with the systems. Similarly, he attempts to
ensure that the programs keep pace with new methods of road
5 -
"
~
building, If a problem or deficiency 1"S isolated, the grievor
does not himself redesign or reprogram the system. Rather, trìe
problem or need 1 S referred to the Automated Systems SE:!ction
managed by Hr. ,.., TUrner. The information is then relayed to the
0.
Computer Services Branch which '1 s headed by Mr. I. Cha¡-ney. This
latter Branch perfor,ms the bulk of the n:~med i a 1 programming for
the oroar-ams used In the Regions. The grievor acknowledged that
, .... '
he does very 1 ittle programmIng. He estimated that he becomes
involved with that task once, per year at most. He agreed that
his position specification contains no direct reference to
computer programming,
The need for a new or revised program may also be addressed
at quarterly meetings of the Computer Needs Committee. This
Committee is composed of Systems Officers from each of the five
( 5 ) Regions. The members of the group discuss desired changes to
the software. An attempt is also made to prioritize their
respective concerns. Ultimately, HI" . Turner's section will
consider the requests for change and wi 1 'I establish the
priorities and prepare the necessary specifications for the work
to be done. As noted above, any actual programming required 1S
preformed by Mr. Charney's section. ,Testing is undertaken within
,
the Computer Services Branch. Thereaftet- , further standard tests
are applied by the Automated Systems Section. The product is
then forwarded to the Regions for additional testing under .
regional conditions. Any flaws discovered are reported direct.ly
Ô
-
I
0
., ,.
"
,0<
oof..'!l
to the programmers for resolution. User manuals are prepared by
1>1r. Turner's group. It would appear that Regional personne 1 ,
such as the grievor, are involved in the writing and review
pr-ocess. ¡VI r . Turner stated that the Regional Systems Officers
may spot, 'errors that could prevent the user from effectively
using the program. This may result ln revisions to the manuals.
The grievor testified that he must ensure any new or altered
design is "practical" for those who use it. He noted that the
Systems Officers in the Regions are the "1 ast line of testers".
The gn evor estimated that approximately twenty percent (20%) of
his time 1S used to ensure that the systems do what they are
supposed to do. He described this function as systems analysis.
It 1 s clear from the grievor's evidence that he assists in
program and systems development through the identification of
needed modifications and by the subsequent, testing of product
generated by the Compute r- Services Branch.
The grievor is also responsible for maintaining the data
bases used 1 n the Planning and Design Section. , These data
sources are accessed by in-house and external users. This
responsibility involves the compr-ess i on and transfer of data as
wen as the creation of new data bases, The grievor further
testified that he does little actual maintenance of computer
software. His role ;s limited to making recommendations
concernlng perceived deficiencies. In contrast, he do'es engage
7 -
"
,
~
1 n the maintenance of ha,.-dware. Such wo,.-k would include the
replacement of a hard drive, the insertion of computer chips or
the maintenance of a printer,
The gn evor described the impact of errors as being "fairly
large" 1n terms of contract dollar value. He advised that any
errors could be corrected and minimized at little cost if caught
at the design stage. He noted that errors discovered later Î n
the process could cause significant delay and extra cost if they
required the intervention of programmers or a lot of manual
~
carr-ect ion. From his pe,.-spectiv8, the " ~wrst case scenario "
would be the discovery of a.n err'or durin~3 the actual construction
phase. At that juncture, corrective action could result in
significant delays to the project. The grievor described one
programmlng error that he had found which involved a failure on
the part of the programmer to implement a new policy relating to
stripping of organic material, He stated that such error Gould
have had major repercussions on the p roj E~ct had it gone
undetected, The grievor acknowledged that the designer 1 s
ultimat.ely responsible for seeing that the output generated by
the programs is correct.
It is apparent from the evidence that the grievor has day to
day contact with designers, both internal and externa 1 ; Project
Hanagers; and others In the Planning 'and Design Section. ïhese
contacts focus largely on the computerization of the design
8
-
,
· '-,
\
þj
process. The grievor also has regular contact with his peers 1 n
other Regions, both over the telephone and at the meetings of the
Computer Needs Committee.
The grievor's immediate supervisor is Mr. ß, Collingwood.
Mr., COllingwood provides what may be described as administrative
supervlslon. For example, he approves vacation requests and
establishes work priorities when necessary. The grievor advised
that he receives " little, if technical supervision ..
very any,
from his supervisor. This degTee of technical independence 1 s
reflected in the position specification. If the grievor
experl ences problems with hardware or söftware, he contacts both
the Computer Services Branch and the Head Office of Planning and
Design for assistance. In the case of problems with plans or
specifications, he approaches the functional Head Office and the
Project Hanager. The grievor advised that approximately fifty-
percent (50%) of output related problems can be resolved by way
of adjustment to input, If that method proves unsuccessful,
program alteration may be necessary through the Computer Se r-V ices
Branch.
A substantial amount of oral and documentary evidence was
adduced in support of the claìm for retroactivity. This evidence
may be summarized as follows:
9 -
.
~-
( , , On ,J une 20, 1988, the grievor wrote to Mr. J.R. Bestvater,
. 1 )
the Design Services Supervisor. In this cor respondencE= , the
grievor refer r'ed to the erosion of his position. He noted tha,t
his salary was not being maintained 1 n compar1son to certain
other positions. This wage compression was partly as a
consequence of grievance settlements, The g rl evor requested that
his position be evaluated. In cross-examination, he stated that
this reference to evaluation was another way of asking the
Employer to review the appropriateness of his classification.
The grlevor indicated in his letter that he wished to maintain
the historic .. gap .. in salary that existed between his position
and that of Technician 3. Further, he all uded to additional
responsibility he was required to assume in the areas of micro-
technology and staff training. Reference was also made to other
positions 1n the Design Services Section which had been upgraded.
The grlevor concluded by stating: "In order to maintain a fair
relationship, within the Design Services Section, as we 1 1 as
keeping historic salary differences in the Planning and Design
Office, the Computer Services Officer position should be re-
evaluated to maintain its traditional re-:ationship, and future
a.dditional responsibilities."
(i i) Mr, Bestvater responded by way of a memo dated June 21 J 1938
to Mr. A. Hickey, Head of the Plannin~ and Design Section 1n tll,e;
Eastern Region, a copy of wh i ch \-'las p:rov i ded to the grievor. Hr.
Bestvater stated ne recognized t.hat grievance driven salary
lncreases had destroyed the equality which formerly existed
10
-
.
·U
.
~
between the Contract Revíew, Corridor Control and Computer
Services Officers. He recommended, to Mr. Hickey that this salary
balance be restored.
( i i i ) On April 21 , 1989, the grievor wrote to the Head,
Planning and Design. He stated that he took this initiative as
Mr, Collingwood had advísed him that his section was being
excluded from an ongoing evaluation. He also noted that the Head
of Planning and Design had changed 1n the interim, The grievor
wanted to ensure,that the new person was kept current as to his
concerns. The letter, wh'ich repeated many of the points raised
in his earlier correspondence of June 20, 1988, requested all
" evaluation" of his position. It also spOke of the need to .. re-
evaluate" the Computer Services Officer position and the salary
attached to same.
( i v ) The grievor testified that, at some point after the date
of the above letter and before late January, 1990) he was told an
evaluation was being performed on his position and that his
concerns might be rectified as a consequence; He further stated
that he was advised his salary would increase given the
assumption of additional responsibilities.
(v) On ·January 21, 1990 the grievor had a meeting with Mr.
Collingwood and Mr. D. Kimmett, the new Head of Planning and
Design. A large part of their discussion concerned the upgrade
of the Systems Officer 1 to Systems Officer 2. As noted earlier,
this adj ustment resulted 1n the grievor loosing certain
supervisory duties which were previously exercised in respect of
1 1
-
·
"
,
the Computer Services Technician. Nevertheless, the grievor
stated he did reiterate the need for salary equalization between
the various subsections of Design Services. He testified that
tv1 r . Kimmett did not disagree. The Head of Planning and Design
indicated, however, that any att.empt:to negotiate the issue would
be deferred pending a Regional evaluation of all Systems
Officers. ivl i nutes of this meeting, as taken by the gr 1 eVOt~, WE~ r e
filed with the Board.
e vi) On March 1 1990, the grievor wrote a 1 et ter to tvir.
Kimmett in which he outlined his concerns in some deta i 1 . He
recommended, inter alia, a reclassification to Engineering
Services Officer 3 or, ln the alternative, a rec1assificat.ion
within the Information Officer series. In the body of the
letter, the grievor cited the following elements of his position:
program processing; monitoring; 1 i as i ng ; advising; regional
instructing; and user support. He noted further that, w h i ì e t (" e
Computer Service Officer in the Region does not engage 1 n
programming or systems design, they do ta.ke an act i ve par-t 1 n
recommending program and system changes. The grievor described
his job in the following terms:
" Their main functions are to provide program
input preparation advice, monitor program
operation and output for accuracy, 1iase with Head
Office personnel to implement policy changes or
enhancements, instruct and advise a variety of
internal and external professional and non-
professional people in program operation,"
In summary, he stated that he acted as a "Computer Information
Resource person " The grievor testified that he was again
, 2 -
¡
\-
î:
advised he would have to wait for the completion of the on-going
evaluation.
(vii) The grievance which has led to these proceedings was
filed on April 27, 1990. The gnevor stated that he did not see
alot of progress being made on the issue notwithstanding the
support he was receiving from his superVlsor. It was his opinion
that he had given the Employer " a fair amount of time" to resolve
the matter.
It was acknowledged bv the Union that the grievor's job does
.,
not fit neatly within any of the alternate descriptions found
within the 3.0.2 and S.0.3 class standards. Counsel suggested
this resu1ted from the fact that the Planning and Design Section
does not employ a formal systems development process as described
in the Preamble to the Systems Officer Series. Nevertheless, it
was submitted that the grievor's position is captured by the
s~ries. Counsel noted, in this regard, that his job "touches ..
almost all of the factors referred to 1n the Preamble.
It was the position of the Union that, wh i 1 e it might be
difficult to slot the grievor into a particular level within the
serles, certain factors could be identified which would
facilitate an appropriate allocation. These factors were stated
as follows:
1 . Complexity of the system (software and hardware) with which
the employee works.
13 '-
~
,
.
2. The degree of responsibility exercised measured according to
three ( 3 ) criteria:
( i ) range of product-programs the employee '] s respans i b 1 E~
for and the degree to which they are connected to the
overa 11 system;
( i i ) extent to which the employee 18 involved ln a broad
range of activities; and,
(iii)nature of employee contacts.
3. The degree of supervision and lèvel of independence.
Counsel applied these criteria, which were distilled from the
class standards, to the evidence presented. She concluded that
the grievor works with complex, a,nd specialized programs which
have an engineering application. It was submitted further that
the grievor's involvement, across a broad range of activities,
impacts significantly on the overall design process relating to
the building of roads and other structures. Counsel a 1 so arguE~d
that the grievor's role requires f requen t rather than
occasional contact with users and line management. She stressed
that this contact focuses on the application of the various
systems and on user training. Additionally, it was asserted that
similar contact occurs vis a vis co-workers for the purposes of
the exchange of information; the resolution of problems, and the
provision of technical guidance and revi¡:!w. Lastly, it was
submitted that all of this work i s perfol~med under general
supervision. The grievor was described as being "technically
independent" . For all of these reasons, the Board was urged to
conclude that the grievor's position is more accurately described
1 n the higher 5.0,3 class standard.
14 -
.
. -.-... \
'.
.....
, ,
"
It was also submitted by the Union that retroactivity should
be granted to June 20, 1988, the date of the grievor's initial
letter to Mr. Bestvater. Counsel suggested that the na tu r-e of
the grievor's concer"ns shou 1 d have made the Employer aware that
the classification was being challenged. She also stated that
the delay in the filing of a grievance resulted from the
Employer's cont 'í nu i ng assertion that the matter was under reVlew.
In substance, it V.las argued that the grievor acted reasonably in
that he gave the Employer a fuì 1 opportunity to address the
issue. His grievance was filed as a 1ast resort when it became
apparent that progress wasn't being made. The Union, therefore,
asked that we not apply the normal twenty ( 20) day rule with
respect to compensation.
In response, it was the position of the Employer that the
Union had the onus of establishing that the grievor's job fits
within the higher class standard. Counsel asserted that the
Union's case must fail if the fit could not "be demonstrated. It
was further argued that the Board must have regard to the "hall:'"
mark" duties described at each level within the series. Counsel
suggested that it would be wrong' to simply focus on the factors
isolated by the Union. We were asked to conclude it was the
performance of certain specific functions that wouìd elevate an
employee to the 5.0.3 1 eve 1 . In this regard, the Employer
submitted that the grievor's position 1 s not described in the
opening paragraph of the 5.0.3 class standard. Firstly, counsel
1 5 '-
0
'.
!
.
.
argued that the grievor is not t-espons i b'l e for the development of
"detailed design. .. It was suggested :tha~ such task falls within
the mandate of those employees working with Mr. Charney's and Mr.
Turner's sections. Counsel acknowledged that the grievor 1 s
engaged in support activities. He submitted, however, that both
support and design work has to be performed in order for the
position to fall within the higher st.andard. Secondly, it was
argued that the grievor is not a senior programmer providing
technical leadership to programming staff. Lastly, it was argued
that the grievor does not engage in the design, development and
maintenance of large and complex computer programs. Instead, it
was the position of the Employer that the grievor's
responsibilities are captured by the .,s.O,2 class standard, More
particularly, the Board was urged to find that his support and
maintenance functions are described in the last sentence of the
first paragraph of the aforementioned standard. It was also
suggested that the grievor performs evaluation, testing and
modification of software and program products as set out ln the
second parag raph of the same st.andard:-
It was the further position of the Employer that the type of
supervision described ln the second paragraph of the 8.0.2 class
standard reìates to design and programming r-ather than to SUPPOI~t
and maintenance, Similarly, counsel sugsested that the last
sentence of the same paragraph speaks of design and programming
errors in contrast to errors made by persons uSlng the various
systems.
-
1 6
-, , .,
,. . ,
,¡ I
For all of the above reasons, it was submitted that the
grievor is properly classified as a S.0.2. In the alternative,
counsel argued that the grievor 1S not entitled to the
i retroactivity claimed. F (-om the Employer's perspective, the
I
complaint was treated as a "pay issue" by the grievor unt ì 1 1990.
Counsel noted that a claim for reclassification was not advanced
unt i 1 tv1arch, 1990. The Board was, therefore, asked to apply the
twenty (20) day rule in the event the grievance was allowed.
, ,
In Reply the Union, inter alia, stated that the Board could
issue a Berry Order if we found the grievor's job does not fit
within either of the 5.0.2 or 8.0.3 class ,standards. Counsel for
the Union argued that the grievor could not be left "hanging " 1n
an improper classification. She emphasized, however, that the
Union was not seeking a Berry Order, at first instance. Counsel
for the Employer objected to this submission. He argued that the
Union had not'advanced a Berry argument earlier i n the
proceedings and suggested that its entire focus related to the
appropriateness of the 3.0.3 standard. The thrust of counsel '5
submission was that a new argument or claim should not be
advanced in Reply. He stated that had the Employer known that
such a request would be made, it would have led additional
evidence to show how the grievor fits "into the whole scheme of
the series " The Board was asked to reserve on the question of
.
remedy and to permit further representations should we determine
that the grievor's position falls outside of the 5.0.2 and " " '"'
;::¡.v.w
class st.andards.
-
1ì
.~
.
.
It is clear from a reading of the Preamble that the
grievor's core responsibilities fall within the broad parameters
of the Systems ûfficer Series. To a greater or lesser extent, he
is engaged in systems analysis, support, maintenance,
implementation, consulting and training. He also has a
contributing, or secondary, role in design. All of these
functions are referred to and described in the Preamble,
Similarly, we are satisfied that the gri,avor has knowledge and
sk ills 1n the areas of computer software, hardware, and data ba.se
technology. Further, he requlres a strong "client and business
orientation " in order to carry out his responsibilities.
The Systems Development Process is described in the
Preamble, It includes a planning, design and implementation
phase. It 1S readily apparent that the grievor's position cannot
be neatly incorporated into this desc r i p't. i on of systems
development.
The planning phase appears to refer to planning ab initio.
From the evidence presented, the grievor 1S not involved at that
stage of the process, His role is 1 imi tE~d to suggest i n'g changes
or enhancements to existing programs on the basis of the
exper1ence in the Region. The grievor, -: n our judgment does not
serve as a project leader nor 18 he a senior analyst. Similar-ly,
the analyst's work in respect of a " sma 1 i project" does not
correspond to the grievor's job as the analyst also does the
18
-
·.Æ~
0-
~
system'design. We are satisfied that this grievor does not
engage in that type of process.
While the grievor must advise project designers on the use
and application of the various programs, the Board is unable to
find that he is involved 1 n the design phase as described 1n the
preamble. It would appear that the description of same reflects
the type of work engaged 1n by Mr, Turner's and Mr. Charney's
sections. The grievor does not develop "a general design
framework", Similarly, the Board has not been persuaded that 'hi s
job includes "detailed analysis and design". He does not prepare
a detailed systems specification which forms the basis for the
design of programs within the system. That role, again, is the
responsibility of Mr. Turner's group. The grievor also does not
engage 1 n programming. To be clear, the grievor is simply not a'
programmer.
On the evidence, we find that the grîevor is more involved
with the implementation phase. His work does necessitate contact
with staff at several levels. Further, he participates in the
testing of new modules or enhancements and in the preparation of
procedure manuals, He also provides training for users. The
evidence discloses that he shows the consultants and in-house
designers how to input the various programs and how to make
changes and corrections. Additionally, he must ensure that these
individuals understand the system, its components, and its
1 9
,-
.
~,
~
t
applications. This systems analyst role requires that the
possess a "specialized knowledge " of the highway design
gnevor
process. Indeed, the position specification states that the
incumbent requires a "detailed knowledge of the design process. "
The Board does not cons i det- that the grievor's position
falls within the grouping of jobs under the Technical ;3 u p po r t
heading. We have not been convinced that his job reflects " a
high level of expertise " in the "technical aspects of computer
software, hardware or programm1ng. " Without doubt, the grievor
does provide support for the users of thj~ programs, We are
unable to conclude, however I that such support is "technical" 1 n
nature vis a V1S the software and hardwal'·e. As noted earlier, i t
18 clear that the grievor does not program. The Board 18
satisfied that the grievor serves as an advisor or resource to
the designers, both in-house and external, in respect of the use
of the various programs. He may also provide assistance to those
directly involved ln program design by pt-oviding information as
to problems' and needs experienced in the field by those actually
using the programs for road and structure design.
The S.O.3 class standard has three ( 3 ) alternate
descriptions of positions classified at that 1 eve 1 . The parties
agreed that the second and third alternatives are inapplicable to
this case, The second alternative refers to maintenance of the
key service components of the operating system. Employees do not
20 -
.
·
,. '-\
I
~t
perform this task In the Planning and Design Section. We,
therefore, consider the level of supervision; knowledge and
ski 118 required; and contacts described in this alternative to be
of little assistance in respect of the lssue before us. Clearly
those descriptions must relate to persons performing the actual
servicing of the operating system. The third alternative relat.es
to those employees working with administrative and office
systems. The language of that alternative does not capture the
major thrust of the grievor's position. The grievor's claim must
consequently be determined by reco~rse to the first alternative
as found in the opening paragraph on the first page of the S.û,3
standard.
The initial alternative provides for three ( 3 ) groups of
positions. These are as follows:
(1) working level computer systems analysts responsible
for the analysis and development of detailed
design and for associated systems support
activities;
( i i ) senior programmers who provide technical
leadership to programming staff; and
(iii)those who design, develop and maintain very large
or complex computer programs.
A.fter reviewing aìl of the evidence and argument, the Board
cannot a'gree that the grievor falls within the first group.
While he performs system support activities, he does not engage
in detailed design as contemplated by the class standards. That
function is reserved to others in ¡"'lr. Turner's section, Further,
21 -
"
'- "\
.
,
the grievor 1S not a senior programmer so as to fall within the
second group. Work of that nature IS pel~formed by those in Mr.
Charney's section. Lastìy, we do not think that the grievor's
job, in substance] encompasses the d~sign or development of laíge
or complex píograms. These programs ,are designed and developed
by others for the use of those ~¡ nvo 1 ved 1n road corridot~ design
1n the Regions. It 1S clear from the evidence that thE~ grievor
performs his work under the genE~ra 1 direction of a supervisor.
Further, we agree that he has frequent contacts with users of the
system and co-workers in order to discuss the use of the pr-ograms
and to resolve problems. Additionally, he participates in the
provision of user training. These aspects of the grievor's
employment are not, however] experienced 1n the context of "-,
Lrle
types of responsibilities outlined 1n the first paragraph of tív3
8,0.3 standard. We can, therefore, not agree that they assist
the grievor In ¡ris claim for reclassification,
The 5.0.2 class standard has two ( 2 ) alternate descriptions
of positions classified at that 1 eve 1 . The parties agreed that
tile second altenìative 1S inapplicable here, The first
alternatlve provides for three (3) groups of positions which an=
as follows:
( i ) computer programmers responsible for design
of small programs or modules for large programs
and for coding, testing, modifying and maintaining
computer programs;
( , , , employees involved in minor computer ~ystems
\. 1 ì )
analysis and design activities; and,
22
-
·--- \
-
t
(iii )software analysts/systems programmers who are
responsible for support and maintenance of progr~am '
products, software programs and utilities for a
specific client community, which do not have a
(l)qj or i i'npact on the over'a ì 1 hardware/software
system.
The Union acknowledged that the grievor I s position does not fall
within the first two ( 2 ) gr'ouplngs. We agree that the grievor is
not a programmer and that he is not primarily involved 1 n design
.
work, In this latter respect, we think that the grievor assists
with systems development through the identification of practical
problems experienced by the users. Counsel for the Union further
acknowledged that the grievor ~oes the type of work described in
sub-paragraph (iii) above. However, it was her position' that his
work does have "a major impact on the overa 11 hardware/software
system .. and 1 s , therefore, not captured by the language 1 n
respect of the third grouplhg.
The class standards before us are extremely technical 1 n
content and, for that reason, are not easy to interpret and
apply. Additionally, tfley are premised on a Systems Development
Process that is more formal than that employed within the Eastern
Regional Office. We agree with the Union that this makes it
somewhat difficult ~o precisely slot the grievor's job into one
of the levels within the series.
t
After considerable thought, the Board concludes that the
9 t' i e v 0 r ' s posìtion is properly classified. We find that the
23
-
·
,
nature of his work is caught by the last sentence of the first
paragraph of the 8.0.2 class standard. As noted previously, the
grievor consults with in-house designers and external consultants
1n respect of the computerization of road design. Tf1ese
individuals may be considered as a "spec'ific client community"
for purposes of the class standards. The grievor advises this
group on appropriate input and assists them 1 n aSSeSS1rlg
resulting output. He must also determine what modifications or
adjustments can be made locally to accomodate their needs. If
problems are experienced which cannot be resolved within the
Region, assistance is sought from Hr., Turner's and Mr. Charney's
sections. Clearly, the gr1evor, through his support role, serves
to maximize the effective use of Systems 50 and 53, together ~ith
the other programs referred to above. We are unable to conclude
that this means he has a major impact on the " overall" software
system. The Board does appreciate that the grievor's efforts
have a significant impact on the ultimate success of the project.
This is not, however, the relevant criteria for purposes of the
class standards. Additionally, the evidence demonstrates that
the grievor participates 1 n the evaluation and testing of
enhanced or new programs. This type of work 1S referred to 1n
the second paragraph of the 5.0.2 class standard. Similarly, it
;s apparent that the grievor has on-gains contact with his co-
',..,0 rke rs to exchange information concernirg the various systems
and to resolve problems arising from same. This would include
his contacts with in-house designers and with his colleagues in
24
-
I I
0
, -~ -'" "
,¡
0
~
other Regions. FUr-ther, the grievor does have regular contact
with external users of the system. While the class standards
speak of .. occasional contact" with the user, the Board 1S not
satisfied that such discrepancy alone leads to the conclusion the
grievor is improperly classified. The reference to occasional
p~rticipation in training in the last sentence of the class
standard appears to reflect the grievor's present involvement 111
that area. As stated earlier, the 9 r i evo r no longer provides
technical guidance or supervision to a Computer Services
Technician. That type of involvement 18 contemplated by the
standard.
The second paragraph of the S.0.2 class standard refers to
work being performed under .. general supervision" of a more senior
programmer or analyst. " This does not describe the type of
administrative supervision provided by tv1r. Collingwood. As
mentioned above, the grievor is technically independent 1 n
respect of the exercise of his responsibilities. He does,
-'
however, receive technical guidance and assistance from Mr.
Turner's and Mr. Charney' sections on matters relating to design
and pr-ogramming. We a1so find that errors relating to the use of
the programs can generally be detected before any serious damage
is sustained, The latter two ( 2 ) aspects of the grievor's work
i are caught by the language of the class standard.
.
25 "-
,
.
f
In summary, the Board nas not been persuaded that the
grievor is improperly classified at the 8.0.2 1 eve 1 , This 1S not
to suggest that the level ref 1 e,cts a perfect fit. There are
certain elements of the grievor's job which are not fully
captured by the language of the class standards. Nevertheless"
we are satisfied that this language provides a sufficient
description of the grievor's responsibilities. The Board 1 s,
therefore not inclined to issue a Berry Order. Had we found the
5.0.2 level to be inappropriate, we would have reserved on the
question of remedy to permit for further evidence and argument,
Last 1'y , it is unnecessary to rule on the ìssue of retroactivity
given our disposition of the grievance. We thìnk, howeve r, that
the facts adduced, by the Union would have supported a departure
from the normal twenty (20) day rule~
For all of the above reasons, the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto ,Ontario this 31st day of March ,1992.
('r('J¡ ch a.d ~ ' Wd:Úuo
-
M. v~ers. Vice-Chairperson
.';~
I, T 0 on, Member
~ ¡'
-- \' - -~.
_-c_~ ~_ ~ ",~,_~
D. MontrOSE! Member
-