Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1363.Behrsin.91-07-22 :~~ - ..c"_ ') - - ~~.. .r.;} ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL 'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE C{.)MMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE: (416) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNOAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G IZ8 FACSIMILE/TÉLECOPf€ .' (476) 326-1396 1363/90 I" THB HAHBR 07 AJf ARBITRATION Under TO CROn EXPLODBS COLLBCTIVB BARGAINING ACT Before I '1'JIB GRIBVANCB SBTTLBKBHT BOARD BBTWEEN OPSEU (Behrsin) Grievor - an4 - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) Employer BEFORE: P. Knopf Vice-Chairperson I. . Thomson Member F. Collict Member FOR THB D. Eady GRIEVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE D. Jarvis EMPLOYEA counsel winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors . - . HEARING January 21, 1991 -. June 7, 1991 I I ... ... DECISION -- This is a classification case. The grievor, Mr. Behrsin, is a Purchasing Officer 2 (P.O. 2) with the Ministry of Transportation and soeks reclassification to the level of P.o. 3. Or, in the alternative, he is ~eeking a "Berry Order" if th~ evidence establi~hes that neither level is .appropriate. The union asserts that the size of the office in which the grievor works, his, responsibilities, and his supervisory duties compel a reclassification. The Ministry disagrees. In order to put the case in context, reference should be made to the Position Specification (Appendix "An) and the Class Sta"ndards (Appendix "B" l. The grievor has been wi.th this Ministry since 1969 and in his current position since 1984. He sa~ his department fundamentally reorganized il1 the mid 1980' s when the Ministry decided to' decentralize al:tivit!es and place mor~. signl ficant purchasing respons ibili ties wi thin the regional and district offices. As the Position Specification sets out, his major function is to procure parts, materials and services within his District. The size and òrganization of this department ·was an important aspect of the Union's case. The Sault See. Marie Department is organized as follows.. The region is made up of two elements, purchasing and warehousing. Supervising both is Dave Rogers, the District Purchasing and Suppl~ Sl.,lpervisor. The grievor's title is that of "Purchasing Supervisor" and he reports directly to Mr. Rogers. Mr. Kerhanowich and the hMotor Vehicle Operator - Purchaser" or driver then report directly to Mr. Bchrsin. When the supply functions were re-organized, the Ministry produced , typical organizational samples for -regional or large I .;.~ - - 2 - -,' districts· and ·small districts·. Neither model perfectly fits the Sault Ste. Marie office. Butcevery witnoss, including Mr. Rogers for the Employer, testified that the model for the ·region or large districtR organization best f~ts Sault Ste. Marie rather than the small district organizational form. Thore is no model for a mid-size district. Statistical evidence was also introduce~. This shows Sault Ste. Mari~ to beneithe~ at the top nor the bottom scale with regard to size. Fo.r examp Ie, in 198 6 i ts purchases were third out of 18 departments oxcluding the head. office. In 1988 it was sixth. By 1989 it was ninth. In terms of employee. complement, at the time of the grievance thi~ district had nine emþloyees. . Six offices, including . Toronto, had greater numbers ranging up to 19. One other office had nine employees. Nine offices' had eight employees, with 'one having only six. The evidence is clear that virtually all the. basic purchasing requests initially come across the grievor's desk. He then determines whether it will be processed by him, his fellow Purchasing Officer, George Kerhanowich, or the driver, who doe's some purchasing work. Mr. Kerhahowich is the only other Purchasing Officer in the District. At'the time of this grievance he was classified as a P.O. 1 but he filed a grievance.himself on the same day as Mr. Behrstn seeking reclassification and his position has subsequently been reclassified on agreement to the position of P.o. 2 retroactive to 20 days prior to the filing of the grievance. However, the organization in their department is that the grievor decides who should process each purchasing request. Work load, more than anything else dictates to Mr. Behrsin who will get the work. Thus, ho co-ordinates the distribution of work. Thereafter, the gricvor reviews every purchase order made out by Mr. Kerhanowich and the driver for' tèchnical correctness. The grievor also spot-checks records of cash purchases. If he finds any problems with , .- 3 - , Mr. Kerhanowich's or the driver's work:, the grievor discusses these with them. However, it is clear that as a bargaining unit member, he exercises no disciplinary power. Mr. Behrsin does check and sign the employeos' time sheets, initials them for accuracy and then forwarqs them on: to Mr. Rogers, the District's Purchasing and Supply Supervisor, who is tho grievor's immediate supervisor. One of the keys to the Union's case was the nature and degree to which the grievor supervises other employees. In addition to the co-ordination and checking functions mentioned above, the grievor testified that he often assigns the department's driver to do typing .and clerical work when needed. He has also trained a couple of people sent to his department for a "development , assignment" to gain purchasing experience. The other ·supervisory· aspect of the grievor's work claimed by the Union is that in 1987 Mr. Behrain filled out Mr. Kerhanowich's appraisal report. Hc:;)weve r , the evidence is clear that, since 1988, the.grievor no longer does this although Mr. Rogers does consult Mr.' Bc~hrsin about the employees who work with him. Mr. Behrain estimates these type of "supervisory" or "co-ordination" responsibilities listed above amounting to approximatel~, 25% o'f his responsibilities and time. In terms of his responsibilities, the grievor undertakes most of the written tenders in the office for items valued at greater'than $5,000.00. Although Mr. Rerhanowich is now recognized as a P.o. 2 and is trained to do the same thing, Mr. Behrsin did alII of this at the time of the grievance. Dave Rogers does wha.t is described as the "more sophisticated procurement work" done in the district including the handling of the purchase and hire of winter equipment, for example, snow ploughs and trucks. Mr. Behrsin is directly responsib10 for a $1,500.00 cash float used to purchase small items on a cash basis as needed. He a1s,o m .- -., - 4 - , ", handles "901" of the emergency procurements but does, when work load dictates, assign these to Mr. Kerhanowich. In fairness, it is also admitted that since everybody wants . their goods or services immediately, everyone considers just about everything to be "an emergency procurement". But I again, the determination of whether it is an emergency or not seems to. rest with Mr. Behrsin~ On the occasions when Mr. Rogers is absent, Mr. Behrsin fills in for him. The relationship between Mr. Behrsin and Mr. Rogers is one of mutual respect. ·Mr. Behrsin describes Mr. Rogers as giving him "a lot ofropeA. Mr. Rogers once said to Mr. Behrsin, "You have a department and I expect you to run it. If you have any problems you can come and see me." Mr. Rogers describes his role as one of "general supervisor" over Hr. Behrsin. They discuss large value items together and Mr. Rogers is there to advise the grievor with regard to any· questions or any unique. purchases. The Argument Counsel for the Union argues that the evidence establishes that the grievor ought to be reclassified to a P.o. 3 or, 'in the alternative, ought to be granted a "Berry Order." It was suggested. that because the Class Standards were drafted in 1958, they cannot recognize or be appropriate for the re-organization which occurred in 1984. However, it was submitted tht the grievor properly can be seen to fit within P.O. 3 Class Standards, even thgough it was admitted that there is a fair degree of overlap between the P.O. 2 and P.O. 3. Spec if ically, it was stressed that the evidence establishes that the gricvor does perform "highly responsible procurement work" and that he "essentially runs the department" and substitutes for Mr. Rogers in his absence. Further, it was said that the Sault Ste. Marie office ought to be considered a large department with regard to the . - 5 - . statistical evidence and with regard t() the Ministry's own organizational charts. This was said to be consistent with a P.o. 3 classification. Further, with regard to the nature, quali ty and type of superv isi()n e.xerc Üsed by the grievor, it was stressed that ~he evidence establinhes that he supervises both the other Purchasing Officer as well as the-driver and other staff. His ti tie is that of "Purchasing Supervisor". It is uncontradicted that he assigns and allocates work, revises work and checks it fOl~ efficiency and adherence to procedures. Further, the fact that he fills out timè sheets and actually performs supervision over another purchasing Officer was said to bring him within the ambit of the P.O. 3. The fact that the grievor is relied upon to ensure economy and promptness of delivery was again së:tid to be consistent with the P.O. 3 because there is no mention of such responsibility within that of a P.O. 2~ Further, the lack of '''over-the-shou1der'' supervision by Mr.· Rogers of Mr. Behrain, Mr. Bahrain's responsibilities with regard to tendering and his work with emergency orders were als¡o said to be characteristic and consistent with that of a P.o. 3. Reference was' made to the two applicable cases with regard to this fact situation. These are Cooper v. Ministry of the Environment, unreported decision of E.N'. Jolliffe dated November 10, 1983, and particularly Lot.t v. Ministry of Transportation, unreported decision of W. Kaplan dated October l, 1990. with reference to the Lott decision, counsel for the Union acknowledged the similarity of facts and the parties and did not take issue with 'the analysis. However, it was strenuously argued that the fact situation in Lott is quite different than that in the case at hand. Predictably, counsc~ for the Employer relied heavily on the Lott decision and argued that there is °no material distinction in the facts of this case with that of the Lott case." Thus, we were asked to follow the analysis in the decision in that award. Turning directly to the facts of -. "~, .. .~ - 6 - ~ Mr. BahrainIs case, counsel for the Employer stressed that there are two· threshold requirements to justify a reclassification to that of a P.o. 3 level. First, it was submitted that the evidence did not establish that Sault Ste. Marie is Aa large dcpartment with heavy purchasing requirements" which is necessary for ~he P.o. 3-level. Counsel for. the Employer relied upon the statistical evidence and stressed the similarity of the figures available for Sault Ste. Marie with those of Bancroft which was the applicable department in the ~ decision wherein the carlier panel of this Board declared Bancroft not to be a ."large department.· Further, it was stressed that a P.o. 3 works under ··general direction", whereas a P.O. 2 works under . . "general s~pervision.A We were asked to accept the evidence that the grievor here works under the general supervision of Mr. Rogers and thus would not fall within the P.O. ~ classification. Further, we were reminded of.the evidence that any "highly responsible· procurement work is done by Mr. Rogers rather than Mr. Behrsin. In fact I the second threshold requirement cited by counsel for the Employer was . . that a P.O. 3 must supervise subordinate Purchasing Officers. The fact that the. Class Standards referred to "Purchasing Officers" rather than Aa Purchasing Officer". was said to be significant in that the evidence establishes that!! the grievor supervises any~ne, the only other Purchasing Officer in the district is Mr. Kerhanowich. Thus, it was argued that it could not be said that he supervised "Purchasing Officers. '. It was stressed that in the Lott case, the supervision of clerks and other subordinate employees was said to be consistent with the P.O. 2 classification and not sufficient to bring the position within the P.o. 3 classification. In any event, it was said that the grievorts work should not be considered 'to be that of supervisor over Mr. Kerhanowich. The Employer relied heavily upon the analysis in the Lott case. · - 7 - ,.. The Decision The resolution of this, grievance must take into consideration the ßoard's previous determinations regarding Purchasing Officers with this Ministry. In particular, the tott case is very significant. In manY' ways, the Lott decision is very instructive. We acc~pt its concepts and we apply its reasonings. However', before it can be said that the Lott decision governs, the factual situation in Lott must - .- be compared carefully with tnat of Mr. nehrsin. The facts are quite similar, although they are not identica~. M~. tott was a Purchasing Officer 2 seeking a P.O. 3 reclassification. Mr. Lot t trained and. claimed to RsuperviseR subordinate staff including a P.O. 1 who was reclassified to a P.O. 2 by the time the ~ award was issued. It was estimated to take up approximately 20% of his time. However, .Mr. Lott's responsibilities with regard to the subordinate Purchasing Officer may amount to a sporadic review of work. But this was not done on a daily basis. Further, he assigned work "on occasion" to the other Purchasing Officer. Mr. Lott never participated in any evaluationso£ that Officer. But the day-to-day procurement work of.Mr. tote and Mr. Behrsin are virtually the same. Mr. Lott worked in the Bancroft district and the Board hearing his case concluded on the evidence that it ought not to be considered as a "large department." Bancroft is indeed smaller than Sault Ste. Marie having only eight staff and smaller yearly purchases. The Lott panel also concluded that the evidence did not establish that he had a relationship of "supervision" over another Purchasing Officer. Rather, the conclusion was that Mr. Lott's position merely reflected his general seniority and experience compared to his fellow employees. , 'c I ,_ - 8 - . Further, as in the Lott decision, ~he evidence does not show that the Sault Ste. Marie office can be considered a "large department·. The comparative dollar values with other localities do not put Sault Ste. Marie among the "large departments".on a comparative level at the time qf the grievance~ The staff co~plemeAt of nine a~so ranks it mid-range. . We do not equate the term "department" in the Class Standards with -districts· in the organizational chart of Exhibit 10 as the Union would have us do. Therefore, we cannot conclude that by the organization alone of the department it must be considered "a large department". The panel in Lott gave several reasons for dismissing the gríevance, but the ones cited above were the most germane to this case. In order to achieve any success in this grievance, the Union must show that the P.O. 2 classification does not cover Mr. Behrsin's responsibilities and duties. In truth, an initial reading of the P.O. 2 standard does .seem to very ably cover Mr. Behrsin's duties. However, the Union can also achieve some success in the grievance if it can show that any of Mr. Behrsin's duties and' responsibilities take him outside of or beyond the P.O. 2 classification. The evidence does establish that the U~ion can claim some success in convincing us that some of the grievor's duties do take him beyond the P.O. 2 levol. P.o. 2's are expected to supervise "subordinates" whereas P.O: 3's are expected to supervise "subordinate Purchasing Officers and clerical workers." c Given this difference in language in the contexual comparison of the P.O. 2 and P.o. 3 supervisory expectations, it must be concluded that P.o. 2's are not called upon to -~ . _. 9 - . supervise fellow Purchasing Officers. The evidence in this case clearly establishes that Mr. Behr-sin does perform some "supervisory" respons~bilities with regard to his fellow Purchasing Officer, Mr. Kerhanowich, as well as other subordinate employees such as the Motor Vehicle Operator Purchaser. The aspects of Mr. Behrsin's responsibilities that must be recognized as supervisory over another Purchasing Officer involve the daily co-ordination and assignment of work and the daily checking of all Mr. Kerhanowich's purchase orders. It also involves giving effective consultative advice with regard to the evaluation of. Mr. Kerhanowich to Mr. Rogers at the time of the grievance. This is distinctly different from the evidence of the supervisory responsibilities and expectations of Mr. Lott with respect to his fellow employees. Mr. Lott did no daily ~ assignment or checking of another Puchasing Officer and he had no advisory role whatsoever wi th r'egard to evaluations. Therefore, it must be recognized that Mr. Behrsin plays a significant supervisory role with resp1ect to Mr. Kerhanowich who is a P.o. 2 and with regard to othler subordinate staff. All this takes Mi. Behrsin beyond the language of a P.o. 2 Class Standard which does not contemplate any supervisory role with respect to Purchasing Officers. However, having recognized thi:;, does this bring Mr. Behrain up to the level of a P.O. 3? We accept Mr. Jarvis' submission and the rationale in the Lott decision that to fit within the P.O. 3 classification, the threshold tests must be met. The Union would have to satisfy us that the grievor do?s ·h~ghly responsible procurement work", does this-under the "general direction" of Mr. Rogers and works in a "large department with heavy purchasing requirements." All these are relative terms. But, as is clear from our conclusions above, we are not satisfied that this is a large t , I ~ - 10 - 7 department compared to the. rest of the province. While Mr. Behrsin's work is very demanding and very important, it cannot be considered "highly responsible procurement work." In Sault Ste. Marie, that "highly responsible procurement work" is done by Hr. Rogers'with regard to the sophisticated winter works tenders and the larger tenders. Finally, we ask ourselves whether the grievor works under general direction as does a P~O. J or under general supervision as does a -P.O. 2.. This distinction is a fine one and we are reluctant to simply adopt the Human Resources Manual distinction offered by management, even though it was referred to in the Lott decision. Certainly, the evidence shows that for the routine daily tasks, Mr. Behrsin operates under the general direction of Mr. Rogers and that Mr. Behrsin is left to run the department independently. But there is also general supervision of Mr. Behrsin in that Mr. Rogers is consulted for unique procurements; he spot checks the grievor's woik and is available for consultation daily. Thus, there are elements of both supervision and direction in Mr. Rogers' role with Mr. Behrsin. . So, it cannot be said that the Union has fulfilled its onus of meeting the threshold test of placing Mr. Behrsin's .duties and responsibilities within the P.O. J classification. Therefore, wd are left to conclude that while Mr. Behrsin has not satfsfied us that he should be reclassified as a P.O. 3, his-supervisory duties with respect to the other Purchasing Officer, Mr. Kerhanowich, bring him beyond the type of supervision contemplated by the P.O. 2 standard. These duties arc significant responsibilities and amount to 25% of his time. Thus, we find that neither classification is appropriate and we conclude that this is a classic situation where a dBerry Orderd is appropriate. This is not surprising given that the Standards were drafted in ~ - 11 - l'S8 when the range of purchasing responsibilities must have been far narrower than now exist. It may be that reorganization and decentralization compel a wider range of levels for Purchasing Officers to be created in the Province in the future. However, given the stan:dards that we have to I wo rk with and the ev id ence pre sen tad tOI us, we have cone 1 uded ! that a -Berry Order- is appropriate. Thus, we order the Ministry to re-evaluate the positon held by Mr. Behrsin within 90 days of this award and to assign to it an appropriate classification and compensation level. The grievor shall be entitled to any compensation arising from the reclassification effective 20 days prior to the filing of this grievance. The panel remains seized with this matter with regard to the implementation of our award. DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 22nd day of July 1991. . þ// auli Knopf - Chairperson _-~~L .'7 . Thomson -. Member tt I Dissentlf (dissent attached) F. Collict - ~Iembe r ~ . ~ - ,', APPENDIX "Ail' t~·, " ro:a;¡II01l1S1'kC H¡;.tol...NAf\I~"~-"''''''''·'''''··'''''''·' ~ S11.' . . ~ _...:::~_.._~..,.~... ..........0..'.......'_... · ....·/6 '-. . ,. _.... .... c:__ eI .... CI~ ",".OCO ~...- e' -,.. .- ~ G'. .~....""".w.cl ." I . ......, . --¡;.lÞ.")dII'~.:' .- 'Aft'( . -'- ,,,... , œ tI(W PURcøASINC SuPERVISOR ' .' .' _ __ -l)~~~? .. - r~"1OUS '__..."'~ . - ./..... ......,.' c.·....OCK ...........";0'" . . , . I l I . ~.__' .,. - .- -- . .-- ;m,"illii. , _'DNq_'"!_..n~"" ',. ~ ;.' 0'&· :;,~J:l. Þ! I Dt..trl~t purdla.tli¡ ';'ct'stlPÞiy SIIP.nota!'! ' " 1 . . 19t' ..n..c f - --. I ............ ....~.,... ~.. ·~;~i ,= ;".. \ :: .... .',¡.... ..", .- 4~ ..v~ r ~1imIlPÓTt.~t_ BIll. comiauntcátlON1 Monl'Nes~eftl bdœ. _ ____ ._..- . i.'; ..'; ':., ,. . 'qc-r... . .oe.o.'_ 16_....' 18 - Sault·Ste. Harte A41Id.at.U'aUCIIl, 160 llAcDougaU Street. P.o. Boa 500 ----- j -- .....-.... "--.eo.,.. -. .....~ S.utt ·s.- U-rie DIItario 1"6.\ 5H5 . ,. _... ,......C"'" _.e",,, ~lItce.... ......"'", . t. i '.. 2; I IIL . Z ' I NIL ____ t. f'URrQ$E OF I'OSIllON_____ Þa_'--."'tf/""" co.oU."C'WQ UCJ . UIl.der..dl.l~ral _åpemdoa of the Dlsu'Ìct PUl'ch..tna an4,supply SlIperdsor t. responsible for the 'JÌ~t ·of aU p.ru~ lIl8urtal.s ..11 service. (l.e. equiplllent repeir parts. prlvaUI:..·..¡ulp_t repatr s.rvice. patrob. projects. electrical. crew _d stlP' shOP. cl~,) wtthln> the DlltJ'1ct. (Approxtmatély 2800 pUE'chaae order. and 160D moblle.equiPlIIi'lftt rep;:!! r orders "r' .,.ar,,) . . 3. SU.....~RY OF DUTIES AND RESPDNSlIIL'TIES __n "ilClInAG' ell '~$I'[-. 0lIl 'toCMCOGWC&OIr ,--' INDtCAft-..__IIT._CllOIOR__...._.fÇJ 1. Carrt.. aut dutte. to procun all uterh18 &lid ·.amce. rebt1w to the operation of the ~ District " perfonlll.ftl ~..b such. ... . . replenhh1DC levels to lIaz1øua quaittiUU ill equip\lleftt. _terial. elactdcat and. sJ en acock '...d OQ detaUed infonuUoo .. CO requireNnt. supplied by t1Ie Warehouse Supemlor¡ . ". - ntc:atvfDa nq...U for dh"ct purdl... of 'paru. lIlatadal. and servlas required by .arap. ..tntenanal, servtce. COIlstructtOll and office persOIInel. n... requests vary 11'0. pncunt1ll81lot of equlp....t parta _cI rapel&' ..rvice. v.dety of CRW Ntedals R- ~u1l'11d to ..nice the District procure_at !)f aervice. (fuel tanks sapply and Instal· laUClO. _11 drllUnl. picnic atte ..int.nlftce. ate.) to cOD,tructi_ ud office sll lpl lea; - perusial District lIScerid req.su 1'.c:ehe4 eDsurtal.f1l'Stl1 that nquestor is duly authoriad to tnltlate ._. S.coadl)'. eD.udal tb. c01llpletAlness of _41lest aa to .ppnpdat. COSt C8atre. chal'þ n"'l'. raqulred datea .. location far delivery. En· .UI'181 tb~t descdptloa supplied of required COlllllOdltle. b COIIlplete to avoid ot'd.rlng Incon.ct ...urta1s which could c.... œl,.,.a III the job an4 'deddes aD _tbocl of proc"rell8l1ot: . ~ecdViDI trOll Carase Shop F0Z:-IIIIII or Iquip~t Co-ordin.cor. IIIIlbt1e equ1pa:at repalr orden lør equlplIIl!Rt repatr service tø be privatized 8n4 purch..ed fn.. the private secto' 70:' Arr_alnl for: rep.ln h'o. approwll repair outlets \laaed CIl type of _rk tø be p..rfo~d as per: dllltllll of require_nu and work instructions .""plid OD ".£.1.0. FlOMlizin& ".1.&.0. as to repair: firm·. name and authorizing .a~; - 1IIIIlotalalne a è:ontrol of H.E.I.O.. \l)' receipt and i..ue tø author-hed personnel witbln the District. lecehlna. checkinc and rocordins all cOØlpleted H.£.I.O.. through control led¡er to ensuE'll proper 'usage Md .arQC~rd at.lnst loss or theft. Advisin& Shop Forcnan or Co-ardlø8Cor 00 dlacrep_c1el notad r..qtd rinG their auentlon or contacting supp Ii HS IUnct h error. ia 1Il111nl. etc.; " - InitlatiDS H.E.R.0.8 an4 aTrancinl ror the r~rairs of c~on~nt parts from Inhouse rèpdlr wode (radiators, .prtnlsl!inhe. bose :I11.ctnb1tcs, .tc.) :tn4 lLc~ repaired fo~i~~l~~_~~l. 4, $Kllt.S ANO KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO 'ERfORM Till w.5iKI$'''1' (1IroIC..1.00.. 'R4......... .........·.Cl UCJ Demonstrated responslllle exp...tenœ fD purcbinlfns. (".oad vorUns knowledge of MInistry pllrch.1!l- ing routines. pr.c~lce. arid p~UCll!. ¡ "t~11C!'d knovJect;e of goods and quallt1.. of goods ant! services pertainlnS to the work assitn"ont; &('(ld knowledGe of sourre of supply and market (',,1\- ditions. price t~ends; e'AcYbnt "'1'lUen ;mll ",:\1 ct'1l\lfl'1I11caUOft s".,~-:- {r..,,' ~.1. S. SIGNATURES ~ J ' .' .....CD....._I_ - ....q _"..OO.oC.l(~"" /..1.../ '. ...1 ..... ~ ~. ""...,.. -, ~~i:..... ...... - J ClA.."'"' I'" ____....!~._._~...---~-Lr....,Lr..."I}.~. ., /1" ~z-:.~....-./... __._1~...J.(· ~; . t~.........._·......... ~-:-l "'........~..............,."....... A. B. Pet.ers, Head, DisLrict. Admin. Sf;cUon W. A. St.c\:art. Dislri.:t. En:\.ne~~__ . ---.----.--- .....-.----.-....... --- -..---- ....-- ~LÊŠÃLLOCAT.ON ' ._.~..._._-_...._..._..---_..- ..-.---.-- C;Õ"~in; _~~~;. ~___-=~- __ . ~.- ."'~~~:;.' _ - -. ~_-I;:~;;~~~·~~~·~-.~rô'i"frif,: ·:~4· 4 ...."·r c¡. a\Sl,....,:, 11l11w1 '1-.......1('1'\. ,....:~c:. ...,n.tOII.... Of.... c....,..o It-'.. ... '.... ."r-.l" ....."..'& III .....0... ~,~.."".. ,.11H 1.11 Caw,," .........t. C""···..I::(,'-tOiø ~,.".... "';A...or.ll..~."o"'MC.. ~ ,...,,- t OI..,OW'.....G _.. "'10*11· Position ot inCumbent who perfor.s responsible technical procurement wort requirinq ~an.id.rabl. knowledge of standard purc'~lS "9 methods, eg. determination of district .. purchasing ~uirement., Obtaining price quot~tions. analyzing data froM ·suvpliers. placift9 orders. etc. Inc\lJllbent. ellrrie. out. stlllndaTd \'Dutine. VTcU....inAry t.o t.endering fOT po.-chase of suppl i .~,; .. and ~ipllen~. rec(I'-fldinCJ invitation nr .l,h'.H·t lsed tender. tnc:-w.bent is required to dovolop effect!". Wl,)1'kin9 relations. e9. intervie..,s salespe~,ol <: c an4 -.nufacturer·s represent.lti"cs, dovol(1p!l new sources of sllpply, obtains Î.n(orln.1ti"" on new ..terl.1., etc. ~ ·;-~.t:·~-;~O·· --lJ....~_. - I. 'k' - _. -:. - - - _. - .. . 4..--...... -.... ......:. ~....;......~~.~ ...... ... ..·......·.41... l' ""'. "0- ..... _.ól! .........- l ./' . J I J . L!ill ......-;-.. . ---~___ _'1.. .ct-_ .~. _Y-.oL...!!cQuc..n __ <___. _ ~ o. .~~ ~~'R' 0' ÐUrllS AID RES,aNSIIILllllS ((:On- t.) , ~'T!' .C .!r . , . . ~::rt._ :/~J:_~ . uoct belaS pdv.tlue! to the prl.,.te lector; .. u..ln& vlth the Shop Fore_ an4 EquJplllent Co-ordlnaCor perUnent to pdvaUnd voñ (vork perfOraMlÞl, .aU.f.ctor, repaln, wnrune" etc.); _ døctdlal wdn DOnaal concl!clona I.he _lb~d of Ilrocur.lllI!Oc for reqlll:sted COlilJllU..J1t,J&:1o . b, eleher direct ,urch.Ma, telephoae løqulr, or wde ten tender M per Hll1istry ,roead__' ' ,_ dUCU8.181 __ ...1.. .......ta with tbe Db~rllct lurch_Ins anð Supply Supervisor ... to __ 01 ,rocun_c ..4 nc:elvu& approvlll for deVS.UOD f~ norar.al purchasing proa4u~ for ura_e or hip ·".h. re,ulralll8OClf when dela, 1a .upply coulcl affact . .,ode 18 ,ro,n.. .11 J.e quite coatl7 to the JUnbuy 10 døvDtl_: - 41.e.dlll vll1:l District ataff artJ' appuent pr~lle_ 10 purell.dns requested mated ala In order to ....11&. beae ...Ualtl. product ae the lIlOlt econoatcal prtca.; - cont.cUnl approprbte per.annel to dt.cusa .~.itltuUOD Ie ..teda1 ceq....stecl is un- ...11.,.1. and aUSIHCfal dlem.cha.; - cOlllplllns lluotaUCIR lpfo....tl00 enaudnl that "¡Ita pertinent to .U tender require- -ta I. co...lee. .. to description and s,edflc:atlona and n.ce....'" caadlttonal fOl'l1l8 an incl.4 In the ce"der packaae. tIa.un thae: aU .uppUers .Ira qualified and rc- atatllJa4 c,o quote GO IIIIIterial or service requtn,d; - pl.C1n1 orden vith .~plter. to purdl.. the De·cessary ten.red or hquested I114terfals; - arrllftl.tnl with .-ateceuren, hi. a;e1lt Dr .uppUen Co haw lllerchaadise not accept- able to the Hlnhu)' eitber return_d lor credJc or ..epl.Ked; - preparinl Central Stons _d Read Offlce requisl.tton. ûd lntama1 raquest (orms; - advbe. auppllera Oft ten_I' proœdures; - func:tlonlnl _ a _mer of the Ten"D '}peninl. Co_lttee tn the absence of the District Suppl7 Supen180r and ...htin, In tINt oP_tnl elf sealed tenders, mutually atreeing with other co_ttee ..ldM:n oa succealful bidder andl .pprovln. .allle b, signing with other __e r. of co_ t tal: - prepare. tender dOCUIIll!Dts for .n o:onstnu:C1óa or utaten_œ contracts of $100.000.00 (1983 lase) or le.. _ . Dbcdct b..b; - .naudnl 100. purchased b, sundlnl asre_.ats or te~ eoncr.cu are releasecl as require" 2. Maintains U.t 01 ClR'reøC .ouree. of sup,l, b7 curylnl out such tasks u: - intervtevtna .ale. personnel, 1UIIufacturers' representative.. general suppliers or tbelr a¡eata to de_lop MY SOURU of supplj. to obtain up-to-d.te: lnformationon new tJllllS of ..edela. .cceptable .~at1tllt. 1IIlIted.... etc. for .ddltLon to ReCht(,r 10% ot Supplle~. (l.e. clenafnl supplle., automotl~. acce..oriea. electrical compon~nt~. equlplllllllt repair o lit Ie ts . etc.): - sscurlnl .....Ie. and introduclnl IIlJV products to tbe approprlace Diatrlct staff fur trIal evaluaclOD. If lIlaterlal acceptable. adding nallle.of same to source of suppln - cOlllpll:lns and t."plnl curront UsUnl of apPl'oved repair sarvica outlets for equl~fllo·nt and ~ØQent parts repa!~ for work to b. done '¡'J' the pdvne seeCor (1.e. labour .' ratea. type of laclllt7. servIces aval1abl., scc.). 3. lxpedltes cS.llver)' of c..-04ttl.. b, carrying out suds tasks as: - contactlns auppllers In ~d":anc. ot predøtQl'lIIined deI1very dates to en$ure adheren~c ." deltvery schednle; - seoklo; otbor sonrC'lts of supp17 for IlIolter1als Ura.Rel)' req'lJred created by sllppll..·,;; 10% Caflure to m.~t their e~lt~nt GO existing ordœra. 4. PedorlllS other related duties 8..:11 as: - reU.~. che District l'urch.Js1ø¡ ad Suppl, Supervisor dudng absences: - contact. -s"Pl'l1ers to dlsellS. product and repair servIce warranties; - tonsures ack!qua~e .ll Irly .and lIIalnUlns seCurity al~d control of procure~nt Conns ....11 10% cOlllp1e~ed tC'ncWr doc...mu ¡ - supcl'Yl.lnl ..l1ot'atln, wo"- to purch~slnt staff. Instruction on new routines, r""Î"",ing coqtletcd .1Ssltnm..·nts to cnst.lr~ conConaanee to sl!ctlon rcqul rellll:nU and/or procuro.:':·.·lIt r".guht('ons and poJ Ides. - rotrC(ll"IIllng s~d:.l aSllt cn~'nls as dlrectl"d by S'~)erY'sor. - .1. asslcne-d. . . . I 1 , .- . , ~ '~ . .ULL' AND IíIiØlUDCZ (caa"C.) 100. leterper.aaal 'kill_: ..tbe..tlc.l an. analytlcal abllltle.; prObI.. .alv1n& and decldOD maklDS .kUla ""11. _del' UN preuure: knOllleds. of the prindpl.. anel tecbnlq... af _rkat r....n:b.... bulk hurln&: ability to neaatIate prices and tenns rar . tbe purchase of goode and ·~enr1ce.¡ abUHy to work Independently: AblUty to sup,rvis,' ataft, to e.t~l1ah df,cu.. vorltlß& I'elatlcmships with cOUe.aues. cllellte anel aup- pUen; tact. dlplOlUCJ.ad a hip desree of personl tnt_adly 8laO nqulnL. . . . . .. . . . .. .... . .~ .. . .' . ¡ . . . " APPENDIX "B" ~ , . PURCHASINO OFFICER. ;~ o Z 04 Z . ) CLASS DEFINITION: Thil I, responsible technical procurement work requllring considerable "knowledge of .pecUlc commodities, etandal'd purchasing rnethodl and material inspec- tion techniques. Responsibilities ill these positions pertain either to pur- chaeinl a variety of materials. supplies and equipment fA a medium-sized department or to larle-Icale purchasing of specific eategol'ies of item. in a laJ'ge department with specialized 1'equiJ'emenU. In thel~ latteJ' pOlitions which are chara~ le.s .aried re.ponsibilities. employeel are in charge of p"aEuremWl iD quantfty..of luch commollltles as cement, eteel. hard- ware. fumtture. c1otb1n. materia1àad equipment. All employees in this clas. receivell¡eneral .upemelon lr.,oM PUlt'ChaSing' offlcers of higher level or from admini.ratÞadn(,~11 Wño confirmdeci.lona involvlDgheavy expenditures or marked a.epartures on kind and quality of materh~l 01' purchaaÚlg methods em- ployed. Employe.s In thil cIa.. may lup~~ile;¡ small group oi.ubordinates performing the more routine aspect; of departft'lental purchasing operations. Theyare required to develop effectivo wOJ'king relationship. with 4epartmental per.onnal and with suppliers, salesmen anc;1 m&l~U£acturerl' J'epre.entat1ves. CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES: . As a speclaliat in a d..ignated Une or ae a dapartment¡~lpurcbaliB.ø ollic.r. confer. with branch official. on purchasing requirements, obtains complete descrip- tions of items required, and eDSU rea purchase reqtlÎ lit ion I are proper 1y author- bed. Submits complete and accurate details to luppüerl on Inaterial requiredancl obtain. price quotations and related'data ou quaUty, dbc,ounts. and probable delivery dates: upon receipt of iDformation lrom vendors. assalyse. c1aca 011 .. basi. ot immediate J'equiremente: placel orders or IUbmJ.tS recommeDdattoDI for pur- chase to luperiors it necenary. . As directed byluperior.. carries out atandardroutinel' preliminaryta tendering for '- purchale of suppUel and equIpment. supervise. the preparation of apread sheetl. analyzes information. and makes recorrlmendationl on placement of orders. Personally examines and approves quality ol materials received in accordance with specialized knowledge ot lines ot merchandiae. expedit"ea delive!y of goods in ,. accordance with terms of contract lor purchase. ;: :,·~uper"ise.s subordinates aaligned to checking. typing and recording dutlea; instructs on work method. and reviews completed aslignn,enu to ensure conformance ". to routines. ~ew. aa1esmen'and manufacturers' representatives to develop new sources of ~pply and to obtain information on new types of material. quality and price : prepares a considerable volume of corresp<)ndence to obtain l'imilar in- 1 ion, -c ., - ~ QUALIF teA TtONS: OZ04Z - l. Succe..ful completion 01 Grade 10. a good knowledge of standardpurcha,ing ( methode and practices: con.iderable knowledge of va l"ious kind. and quaU. tie. of commudltiee pertaining to the work a..¡griment: good knowledge o{ aourc.. of eupply. market condition. and price trend.: {amillarity with purcha.ins neede of the department aerved. z. A minimuino! two yearat experiencea. aPurcha_Ù1g Officer. 1. preferably in the department in which the po.iUon i. located. 3. Ability to prepare written description_ of material. luppUea and eqUipment to be purchased and to analyze vendorlt ofler.: abUlty to establish and maintain effective working relationship.. May. 1958. ( t . . . ~ - ! . . U· . . 0 I _ PURCHASING OFFtCER.. 3 02044 ) C LASS DEFINITION: I This i. ~lT rèiponltble procurement work perlonned under Jeneral direction in n a lar8e department with heavy pUfcha.ing requirements. /Employeee in the.e poeition. may. .1 departmentalpurchaelng oHicers. lJ!flervile and penonal1y participate 1n a va riety of procurement operatlOft'.l ~er po.iUODI in the class. incumbents lenoe al aui.tants to purcbalin . lflcers of higher level I or to other admbdstrattve official. with procuf'ement re'poDsibUlties., 1Vp.ile the.e employees carry out many phase. of their ·..ork with little direction. they usually confirm with their euperiore orden involving major expenditure.. I )Economies obtaifted anclpromptne.. of dellverie., .erve .. criteria of eUlclent penormaftce in theJel'O,ltioD''J! 'Èm~lov"'ellJn tbi, cia.. .upemee lubordinate Purchasing Olflcet'a laad clerical" 1vorlters carrying out a variety of cluties re- lated to purcha8 inr. EUectlve wor'king\~elatic.nehipe with department per- . 8~nnel, representative, of other departmentl I~d a variety of suppliers &DÒ vendors are a requirement of poeitwn. in thi. c:1a... í i CHARAC~ .DUTŒ8: - ~ a departmental purcha.iø, o.fliceY directs proc'lrement .operation. requiriDs i ~~.cale purcha~uch .peclal catesoFie. of item. a. truc:k. and car., . j engineeriDg, electricalan4 hardware eupplie.. flLI1r& equipment. Iram, fertW- I , zer and feed.. furniture, kitchen azullaUftdry e·quipment, medical a:nd dental , :1 supplie., food .tuff., and clothing material; ,uplervt,e. .1l&or~e. eftlaled. 'j in the more routine a.pects of the work: ~i~$Þ:l1&lly ex-mille. and. åpp~"..,e8 ¡I I i. quality ef {~~.......~ta1. :¡-ecelvea-;- . II II îI A. aslistantto a ChiefPul'chasmg Officer. or other administrative official, pantel- !j ..... pates in supervision ol the purchasing unit, ,iUns orders and recommenda- ¡ tions; supervlees a .ectiOllof the WOp ~gatecl.h1 a euperlor: a.ligna and :1 review. the work of .ubordmate ~cl1a.lnund q,tertc.J.l"da£( ~ - Secures specificatioD' onmaterials ancieupplies requi1~ed by departmental branches: 'I i Y obtain. quotations ft"om aupplien on price.. qll1allty and delh,ery date sand ' I . I analyzes data recelved;placee orders or recomr.l~ende purchases to luperiors: ì I e~mine. and approve. quaUty of materia18 reCJl!ived. I j ! .Carries out standard routines preliminary to tenderinJl for purchase of supplies and i , equipment. comparee price.. received and approve. or recommends on place- i ment of ordere. I I Reviews emergency purchase orden prepared and exe,cuted in branche. as a method I I ~ . of maintaining controls on departmental purchaaing. CarrieB out purchaeing routine. perlalningto a wide vàdety of malerial. and auppliel required in the operation of institutional induatr:leø. Interviews Baleamen anel manulacturer.· repreøentaUvOB to obtain information on commoditteø and prices; prepare. a considerable volume of correspondence to obtain similar information. r . '. .... --"-..... J , ¡ . I ; J . : :'j . , QUALIFICA TroNS: 02044 , , I c:l I ~ : ' 1. Succe.úulcompletlon 01 Orade 10 SeconelarySchool education: good work.. í i , ¡ ing kaow1ed.e of .tanclal'd purcha.ing routine. and practice I: detaned know- ! ~ ledge of kind. and quaUti.e 01 commoditiee per.talning to the work .ulgn- i t :1 ment. .. 01 lourc.. of 'UP'!Y. market coDdltlons anel price trend.~ good ! knowled.e of the purchalÚlg need. of the department lerved. . I . 2. Conlleier.ble experiellCe ae a purchasing officer in go.ernment leryice inclwUa. reepo'll.tb1e expertenee in 1&rle .e.1e parch..ing operationl, Î ! preferably in the clepartmeDt in which the po.1tion i. located.. i i i 3. . AbUlty tOJWepare accurate written de.cripticm. of a variety Öl material8, ./ , ; l luppUe. and equipment to be purchaled; abWty to analy.. vendora' quota- I tlODI and to mak. purcha.. decblon. which wut .ecure economies and satisfactory quaUty; abUity- to e.tabUlh &Bd maintalø eUectlYe working relationshipl. ", , . " r May, 1958. (I 4 . · . ¡ I . · . · . I .\ ,/ - i . , I i I I I ! ~ OISENT Re: BEHRSIN, G.S.B. #1363/90 ------------------------~._._.~-._..~-_.-.---- This Member Is In agreement with this award to the effect that grlevor Behrsln does not fall In the P.O.3 class standard. The dissent Is thClt this Memb,er believes that Mr. Behrsln Is properly classified within his P.O.2 class standard and that a ·Berry Order" Is not warranted, This awarcj concludes the following at page 10: ·Therefore, we are left to conclude that while Mr, Behrsln has not satisfied us that he should be reclassified as a P.O.3, his superviSOry duties with resoect to the Purchasing Officer, Mr. Kerhanovlch, brIng t)lm beyond the type of supervision contemplated by the P.O,2 class stanclard. These duties ore significant responslbtlltles and amount to 25% of hl:s time. Thus. we find that neither classification Is appropriate and we concl~Jde that this Is a classIc situation where a ·Berry Order" Is appropriate.· (underscoring added) The above conclusion flowed from the following analysIs at pages 8 and 9 of the award, as follows: 'The evidence does establish that the Union can claim some success In convincing us that some of the grlevor's dutIes do take him beyond the P,O.2 level. P,Q,3's are expected to supervise 'subordlnate Purchasing Officers and clerical workers." Given this difference In language In the contextuc]I comparison of the P,O.2 and P,O,3 superviSOry expectatfons, It must be concluded that P,O,2's are not called upon to supervise fellow Purchasing Of'1cers. The evidence In this ¡.,.þ. - case clearly establishes that Mr. Behrsln does perform some ·supervisory" responsibilities with regard to hiS fellow Purchasing Officer. Mr. Kerhanovlch. os well os other subordInate employees such as trle Motor vehicle Operator Purchaser. The aspects of Mr. BehrsJn's responsibilities that must be recognized as supervIsory over another Purchasln'J Officer Involve the dally coordination and assignment of work and the daily checking of 011 of Mr. Kerhanovlch's purchase orders. It also Involves giving effective consultatIve advice with regard to the evaluatIon of Mr, Kerhanovlch to Mr. Rogers at the time of the grievance: ('Jnderscoring added) .. 40\ 'II! 2 In the view of this Member, the distinction set out fn the above excerpt from the award. is not determinative of the matter, It Is true that the P.O.2 closs standard makes reference to the ·supervlslon" of "subordinates·. while the P,O,3 class standard refers to the ·supervlslon· of "subordinate Purchasing Officers and clerical workers." However. It must be noted that the P.O.2 standard does not refer simply to the supervision of "subordinates· only; but, rother, It makes reference to the supervision, · ...of subordinates performing the more routine aspects of departmental . purchasing operations." Routine work IS the type of work that 0 P,O.l performs and this was Mr. Kerhanov!ch's classification at the tlme the subject grievance of Mr, BehrsJn was flied, Witness Kerhanovlch testified that at the time of the grievance, he (Mr. Kerhanovlch) did nothlno without first checking his next move with grlevor Behrsln. In fact. before the making of any purchase. the purchase order. the telephone and written price quotes and proposed suppliers had to "go across Mr. BehrsJn's desk·, His testimony was that ·everythlng· went across Mr, Behrsln's desk. that he did no tendering whatsoever, and that even the forms were in Mr. Behrsln's office, Mr, Kerhanovlch stated that he would obtain telephone quotes frOm suppliers, that he would put them on Mr. Behrsln's desk for approval. and thot only AFTER Mr. Behrsîn hod checked the quotes would he prepare the purchase orders. Even then, one of the four caples of the purchase order would go across Mr. Behrsin's desk as a further check, Emergency requests only went to Mr. Behrsln (unless he was absent), and only he handled written tenders, From the evIdence of both Messrs, Kerhanovlch and Behrsln, therefore, It was abundantly clear that Mr. Kerhanovlch performed purchasing activities whIch Involved. . ...the more routine aspects of departmental purchasing operations: (from the P,Q.2 class standard) . ,. 3 These purchasing actlvitfes of Mr, Kerhanovich ara what grJevor Behrsln supervised: and this supervisory activity Is precisely that which Is provided for, os set out above. In the P,Q,2 closs standard - the supervision of the more routine aspect's of departmental purChasfnq operations. AccordIngly, thIs Member would conclude thCJt the grlevor faJls squarely wlthln his present classlflcatlon of P.O,2. . As stated In Evans. G.S.B /1531/90 at page 3. "ThIs Board has reclassified employees, or ordered 111e employer to create a suitable classificatIon, when a grlevor's Job functions went beyond the IJmlts Of the classlflcatlon used. That Is. the Board has sold that. If a grlevor's Job Is In fact greater In some way - encompc)sslng responsibilities, skills and quollflcotlons whIch are !!:2Qæ In some way than thf~ responslb1ll11es, skJJIs and qual1f1catlons Involved In the classification used - then the employee ought to be reclassified either to an existIng c:lasslflcatlon or to a new one create specially tor the grlevor.· However. grlevor Behrsln's responsibilities tall within the class standard for a P,O.2. the claSSIfication which Is the subject of this grIevance. One final comment should be made with reference to the~ concept of "supervision· as It applies to the class standards. It was clear from the evtdEtnCe that the ·supervlslon· referred to by bottl Messrs. 8ehrsln and Kerhanov[ch was more In the nature of guidance, collaboration. historical relationship and assIgnment In the sense of a "group leader", as opposed to supervIsor (manager)/subordlnate relatIonshIp (hire. fire. discipline, appraise. grant salary Increases, etc.). In fact. In cross-examination Mr. Behrsln stated that hIs work relationship with Mr. Kerhanovlch was ·work allocation" and "coordination·, The concept of a bargaining unit ·supervisor' Is quite common across the Opg and generally these duties are not managerial. but tend to be more group or team-leader types of positrons which Involve the assIgnment of tasks, some training and guidance, ete, Hence. In reviewing the closs standards. the term supervisIon must be Interpretated very broadly within the class standards. ·, r< .l 4 This Member would have dismissed the subject grievance, The case of Lott. G,S,B. #852/89 closely parallels this case ond It might hove been followed os per Bloke, G,S,B. 11276/87. Y, /1 ~ " 1_) 7~ /.'¿.' I -7. /~",( ., ~/ F,T. Colli ---, /) . ~¿7 /~r// .. . , , -