HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1998.Meacher et al.92-12-15 < ~. ' ON'f~l~lO EMPLOYEsDE LA COURONNE
, ~ ... CROWNLCMP.[OYEES
DE L'ON TARtO
: GRIEVANCE C.OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
STREET WEST, SUITE 2100. TORONTO. ONTARIO, MSG .t.Z.9 TELEPHO~-JE:/TE£IEPHO.,'VE.. i-'r(;] .?.2'6-~38E.
1998/90, 1860/91, 1862/91, 1863/91, 1864/91, 1866/91, 2333/91,
2351/91, 2352/91, 2353/91, 2354/91, 2355/91, 2356/91, 2357~/91,
2358/91, 2359/91, 2360/91, 2362/91, 178/92
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Meacher et al)
Grievor
~ and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Environment)
Employer
BEFORE J. Samuels Vice-Chairperson I. Thomson Member
A. Merritt Member
FOR THE C. Dassios
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE C. Peterson
-EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING April 4, 1991
September 13, 1991
October 1, 17, 1991
May 7, 1992
November 12, 23, 1992
2
The grievors are process operators at the South Peel Sewage System
Plant in Toronto (known as "Lakeview"), one of the largest and most
complex domestic waste water treatment plants in the provin~ce. They are
classified as Waste Water Project Operator 1, and they grieve that this
classification is not suitable. They ask for a Berry Order to set their
classifiCation straight.
We will start with the WWPO1 classification standard itself, because
our basic issue will be whether or not the standard is appropriate for the
grievors' jobs.
The Preamble to the .WWPO Series reads:
This series covers positions of employees
engaged in the operation of either waste treatment
or water purification facilities. These employees
carry out a variety of duties related to the
monitoring and control of waste and water
treatment processes, in installations located
throughout the Province,
The size of the facility ranges from projects
serving small municipalities and requiring only
one or two employees, to installations serving.
densely populated areas with a relatively large and
diversified staff operating on a continuous shift
system.
The responsibilities of these positions
involves the carrying out of regular inspections of
the project, operating and maintaining process
control equipment and undertaking various
assignments to ensure that the project is operating
in accordance with established standards. The
series contains a trainee level covering positions
of employees lacking the necessary knowledge
and/or experience to operate at the full working
level.
3
Excluded from this series are positions
where the primary responsibility is the repair and
maintenance of plant equipment, the conducting of
laboratory tests, groundskeeping, caretaking and
unskilled manual labour. Such positions should be'
allocated to class series more specifically designed
to cover their responsibilities.
Also excluded from this series are positions
of Chief Operator (no more than one per plant
for each shift) and higher level positions
concerned chiefly with the management of the
plant.
And the standard for the WWPOI reads:
This class covers positions of employees
who, under the supervision of a Chief Operator,
carry out a variety of operating and inspectional
duties in either .a waste treatment or a water
purification facility.
These employees carry out regularly
scheduled inspections of ali equipment in
buildings, collect samples and perform routine
laboratory tests, in order to ensure the effective
operation of the facility. They perform preventive
maintenance procedures by checking machinery
and electrical equipment when required, and may
overhaul or assist in the overhaul of equipment if
necessary.
In some plants these employees may also be
required to perform some groundskeeping and
caretaking duties.
SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE
Mechanical and electrical aptitude;
familiarity with and understanding of the
operation of a variety of moderately complex
process control equipment.
4
Now we'll start with some general comments conceming this Series
and the level 1 standard in particular. ~
Firstly, the Series is intended to cover employees who operate waste
treatment.facilities. The first paragraph of the Preamble makes this clear.
Secondly, from the second paragraph of the Preamble, we see that
the Series is intended to cover a very wide range of size of facility, from
very small to "installations serving densely populated areas with 'a
relatively large and diversified staff operating on a continuous shift
system". This latter phrase is not as clear as it ought to be, Does
"relatively large and diversified" . mean simply that the staff is larger and
more diversified relative to the small installations? Or, does "relatix[ely
large and diversified" connote that.the Series covers facilities whose staff is
just "relatively" large and diversified, but the Series does not cover the
facility or facilities with the largest and most diversified staff in the
province? If the Series was intended to cover al_il the facilities in. the
province, whatever their size, the point would have been made clear if the
Preamble had read something like "This Series covers employees who do
this work, whatever the size of the facility they work in". By being more
expansive in their illustration of the size of facility involved, the drafters of
the Preamble have left a measure of ambiguity. Less is generally clearer.
In our view, in spite of the ambiguity in the second paragraph of the
Preamble, the Series was intended to cover operators in al__!1 waste treatment
facilities. We come to this conclusion because this Series appears to be the
only one which deals with waste water project 9perators. If the Series was
intended to exclude those operators in facilities with the largest and most
diversified staffs, then surely there would have been another Series to
cover these excluded employees. One must interpret the language in
classification standards in a way which best makes common sense, if such a
meaning is one of the reasonable possibilities found in the language itself.
5
Here, common sense is best served by interpreting the second paragraph of
the Preamble to mean that the Series covers employees in all waste water
treatment facilities, whatever the size and diversification of thgir staffs.
Thirdly, the Preamble, in its last two paragraphs, specifically
excludes certain types of employees. None of these exclusions applies to
the grievors.
Fourthly, the class standard for WWPO1 is very vague. In the first
paragraph, we find it covers employees who carry out "a variety of
operating and inspectional duties". Does this mean that they carry out al_II
the operating and inspectional duties in their facilities? Or do these
employees do some of the operating and inspectionat duties,' while
employees in other classifications do the other operating and inspectionai
duties--for example, mechanics or millwrights, or electronic technicians,
and so on? How gmat is the variety of operating and inspectional duties
that a WWPOi can be called upon to do? For example, one of the steps
which might be taken in waste water treamaent is to disinfect the outflow
water. At Lakeview, this is done by the introduction of chlorine, and the
grievors perform the task. What if it was decided that the outflow water
could be disinfected more effectively by a high-powered electrical charge,
involv!ng highly-specialized electrical equipment operated by people with
several years of training; or by a very delicate but high-powered laser blast
from equipment operated by laser specialists--would the people who
handle this new equipment be classified simply as WWPOI? In our view,
the answer would be "No". Employees who perform such work would
have .to be classified in a classification more suitable to the kind of
machinery with .which they are working and on which they are specially
trained--with consideration being given to the kind and level of skills and
qualifications which the employees had to possess.
6
Thus, in our view, the standard for WWPO1 does not necessarily
cover all employees who have operating and inspectional duties in a waste
water treatment facility.
Fifthly, the standard'for.WWPO_2 does not cover the employees who
do the other operating and inspectional duties. This standard says very
simply that it covers employees who "in addition to performing any or all
of the duties of a WWPO 1, also provide technical advice, assistance and
guidance to one or more working level operators." The WWPO2 does not
have a wider range of operating 'and inspectional duties than the WWPO1.
Sixthly, it is the Skills and Knowledge section of the WWP01
standard which helps us to understand the type of operating and
inspectional duties to be performed by an employee in this classification.
They do jobs which require "mechanical and electrical aptitude". They do
jobs Which require "familiarity with and understanding of the operation of
a variety of moderately complex (emphasis added) process control
equipment". If employees have significant operating and inspectional
duties which require skills and knowledge beyond these, then they are not
properly classified as WWPO1.
This defines our enquiry. Do the grievors have significant
operating and inspectional duties which require skills and
knowledge which go beyond the skills and knowledge required
for a WWPOI?
Before addressing this question directly, let us lo0k briefly at the
waste water treatment process for domestic' waste waterwa process which
has not changed in substance in many years.
To the facility comes the wash from thousands of domestic sinks,
toilets and other drains. This inflow is subjected to:
· Grit removal to remove the coarse sand and other material;
- Screening--to remove objects such as dentures, towels, etc.;
7
· Primary treatment--to settle the solid matter in the waste;
· Secondary treatment--to reduce the waste further, generally
involving activated waste; t
- Disinfecting--to destroy remaining harmful elements in the
water to be discharged;
· Discharge sending the resulting water back into a lake or
river, and final disposal of the remaining solid material.
While these steps in the process have not changed, there has been a
change over time in the equipment used to do these things (the "process
eqmpme t j, and in the mechanical, electrical and electronic equipment
used to control the process equipment itself (the "process control
equipment").
Let us give a very clear familiar example of these two types of
equipment, so that our later discussion will be readily comprehensible. If
the "process" involved'is heating your home, one could say that the
"process equipment" has evolved over time as you moved from a simple
fireplace, to a stove, to a furnace. The "process control equipment" has
evolved from the thermometer (which simply measured the temperature
achieved), to the sim.pie thermostat (which is hooked up to the furnace and
controls the on/off in order to maintain the set temperature), to the modem
electronic programmable thermostat (which enables you. to set in advance
the temperature you want on any day of the week, and at any hour, and the
device will regulate your furnace to give you the desired temperatures at
the desired times).
We move to the Lakeview plant.
Seventy million gallons of domestic sewage per day comes from
Mississauga, Toronto and Bolton. This waste water is processed 24 hours
per day, seven days per Week. Our concern is with the eighteen employees
8
who are classified as WWPOI, and work on five shifts (some with 4
WWPOls, and some with 3 WWPOls).
There are a number of parallel treatment facilities, organized in
three" ' "
sections.
Section 1 consists of a sludge thickening facility, a grit building, a
screen building, and the primary tanks for plants 1 and 2.
Section 2 consists of plants 1 and 2, except for the primary tanks for
these tWO plants.
Section 3 consists of plants 3 and 4.
On each shift, there is a WWPO1 assigned to each section. And,
when there is a fourth WWPO1 on duty, 'that employee acts as a "floater",
helping out where needed. The WWPOIs rotate through these various
responsibilities.
By 1983, the first three plants were in operation. Each plant had a
grit tank, a bar screen, a primary settling tank, an aeration tank, a final
settling rank, and a chlorine contact chamber.
In the mid-80s, the fourth plant was added. It was somewhat
different. It had a grit tank, bar screen, primary tank, aeration tank, and
two final settling tanks.
This Board of Arbitration had the opportunity to learn a great deal
about the operation of the Lakeview waste water treatment plant, through
the clear and extended description by Mr. Meacher, from our own view,
from photographs, and from the testimony of other witnesses. It is not
necessary in this award to write a textbook on the operation of the plant,
nor is it necessary for us to be too eXtensive in our descriptions. We have
reviewed the evidence put before us in great detail and we will comment on
it in sufficient particular to explain our decision concerning the grievors'
classification.
9
One of the primary changes in the treatment process which motivates
the grievors' claim for reclassification is the introduction of centrifuges
near the end of the process to turn WAS ("waste activated sludge") into
TWAS ("thickened waste activated sludge", which is later bur~ed off), and
"centrate" (the waste water returning to the plant). In other words, the
centrifuges remove water from the WAS.
The operator of the centrifuge controls two factors--the flow of
WAS into the centrifuge (by adjusting the speed of the WAS pump); and
the speed of the inner bowl of the centrifuge. The operator has to produce
centrate which meets the parameters of a solids recovery test, and
sometimes it takes some fi'.d~lling to turn the incoming WAS into the right
stuff at the other end. The object is to maximize the recovery of solids,
leaving the clearest centrate possible.
For Mr. Meacher, in particular, the introduction of 'the centrifuges
made quite a difference in his work. Before the centrifuges, he Would load
WAS onto trucks and take it out to waste .fields for spreading. BUt the
Ministry ran out of space to spread the WAS, so it became necessary to
reduce the solid matter and burn it. Now Mr. Meacher traded in his shovel
fora series Of buttons, dials, switches, gauges, and simple measuring
devices to deal with the WAS.
But this change, as fundamental as it appears, did not take him out of
the type of job described in the class standard for wWPO1. He was still
performing "operating and inspectional duties". He was still doing no
more than regularly scheduled inspection of equipment; collecting samples;
performing preventative maintenance procedures 'by checking machinery
and electrical equipment when required; and assisting in ihe overhaul of
equipment if necessary (all of which are tasks contemplated in the second
paragraph of the standard).
More importantly, in order to operate the centrifuges, he did not
have to possess skills and knowledge which went beyond what is required
10
for a WWPOl--"mechanical and electrical aptitude; familiarity with and.
understanding of the operation of a variety of moderately complex process
control equipment'!. In particular, with respect to the proc~ess control
equipment, the centrifuge's control equipment is rudimentary it measures
and gives a reading of the speed of the WAS pump and the speed of the
inner bowl; and it measures various parameters of the operation (eg. flow
of lube oil), giving an alarm or shutting down the process, if the equipment
is in danger.
For the operator, the difficulty of the operation is in the balancing of
the relationship between the speed of the WAS pump and the speed of the
inner bowl of the centrifuge'!" It takes experience to get these settings right.
And sometimes it takes quite a bit of time to get the correct outflow. But it
requires no more than "mechanical and electrical aptitude". And it
requires little training in process control equipment.
The standard encompasses both the shovel and the centrifuge. The
tools are markedly different. A broken shovel can be replaced for several
dollars. A broken centrifuge could cost $1 million to replace. Perhaps it
could be said that the employee with the shovel is at the lower end of the
range of positions covered by the standard (in terms of mental effort and
judgment required to do the job properly, and in terms of the level of
responsibility shouldered by the operator), and the employee at the control
panel of the centrifuge is at the higher end, but still both positions are
within the four comers of the standard. It may even be said that there is
some sense in having a pay scale which recognizes these differences
between the position on the end of the shovel.an~t the one at the control
panel of the centrifuge, but this Board does not have authority over pay
scales. This is a very important point we do not judge the monetary
value of work performed. Our task is simply to decide whether a
particular position fits within a given standard. And here we have no
11
difficulty in saying that the employee at the control panel of the centrifUge
is in a position which is covered by the standard for WWPO1.
Another task which is important to the grievors' clai~ is the work
they do on the "bridges" which run back and forth over the final settling
tanks, gathering the sludge and moving it to a position for collection. Over
time, Lakeview has installed one new bridge after another, each being
unique. The operator monitors the operation of the bridge by general
observation and by checking gauges, and primes the siphon if the suction is
lost on the sludge. For the newest bridges, generally the operation is
· entirely automatic and runsJ'.:6n the press of a button. The operator does not
program the computer which runs the bridge.
Again, there is nothing in this which goes beyond the WWPO1
standard. In particular, the operator does not need skills and knowledge
which go beyond the skills and knowledge required for WWPO1--
"mechanical and electrical aptitude; familiarity with and understanding of
the operation of a variety of moderately complex process control
equipment".
The greatest part of the operator's shift is spent monitoring' pumps
and le3els--is the flow correct? is the level in the vessel' correct?
With respect to the pumps, there are flow g~iuges, temperature
gauges, and the operator will perform visual inspections to ensure no leaks.
If a pump breaks down, the operator will generally re-mute the flow by
closing and opening valves.
'All of this fits squarely within the standard for WWPO 1.
On occasion, the operators will have students or new staff who
accompany them in their work, in order for these people to learn how to
,do the job. While this can be considered as a "training function, in
12
essence it does not change what the operator does in a shift. Either the new
person looks over the experienced operator's shoulder, or the operator
observes the new person doing the job, and from time to time the operator
will answer questions about the operation. And, in any event, we are not
talking about a great deal of this--a few students each summer, and
roughly 10 new full-time employees for Mr. Meacher in the period 1984 to
1990.
In like vein, as new equipment is installed, the operators are asked
for feedback on how the equipment is working. The manufacturers and
engineering consultants need this feedback to fine-tune the operation.
While this can be called "liaising with and assisting consultants, engineers,
in developing and researching new ideas", or "liaising with suppliers and
manufacturers with respect to the performance of equipment", or
"evaluating and improving operational methods and routines" (as it is
variously called in the Grievors' Statement), in essence it does not change
what the operator does in a shift. There is no more here than the operator
telling the manufacturer or consultant that a certain pump overheats, or
fails to provide the flow, or that a centrifuge does not produce centrate of
adequate clarity. Mr. Meacher gave as an example of a suggestion he had
made to a manufacturer the placement of more manual valves on an
installation. What is critical is that the operator is not the one who has any
responsibility for fixing problems. It is the manufacturer or consultant
that has to come up with the new ideas.
One of the signi~cant on-going changes in tl/te operation at Lakeview
is the introduction of more and increasingly complex pieces of process
control equipm, ent--to measure flow, pressure, levels, composition and
temperature and to control valves which affect these parameters; to control
a logical sequence of actions (a PLC, "programmable logic controller");
and to automatically protect equipment and systems (an "interlock"). In
13
many cases, the Ministry has installed the most advanced process control
equipment available on '.he market for this type of operation.
Generally, this equipment will make the operator's job tess difficult
because manual operations will be done automatically; or because
protective operations are done automatically; or because a logical sequence
of actions will 'be done by electronic control without the operator having to
do one operation after another in precise sequence, and so on.
But the operator does have something new to learn. Now the
operator needs to know the underlying waste water treatment processes,
and he must have a basic, understanding of what the process control
equipment is doing and how!~o operate the process control equipment itself.
He needs to know whether the control equipment is working properly. In
this sense, the operator's job has. become more "complex", because there is
more for the operator to know than there used to be.
The class standard for WWPO1 sPeaks of "familiarity with and
understanding, of the operation of a variety of moderately complex process
control equipment". What does "complexity" of process control equipment
mean in this context?
In our view, it must mean complexity from the operator's point
of vie¢. And one judges this complexity from the number of functions a
piece of equipment performs and the amount of training an operator needs
in order to use it.
Mr. Kevin Bradd is a certified control mechanic employed by
Novacor Chemicals in Sarnia. He has many ydars .of experience with
process control equipment. He toured the Lakeview plant with a grie'~,or
and observed the process control equipment used by the operators. In his
view, over half of this equipment is as complex as any available on the
market for these applications, given the definition of complexity that we
have adopted in the preceding paragraph.
14
However, Mr. Bradd acknowledged that the complexity of a piece of
equipment depends in-part on the application to which it is put. When
asked to compare the application of process control equipment~ in domestic
waste water treatment to the use of such equipment in the chemical
industry, he said that the chemical industry was more complex. In the
chemical industry, there are more operations to be monitored, more
parameters to be considered--the process control equipment has. a more
complex job to do and, consequently, the complexity of the equipment
from the operator's point of view is also more complex.
In the grievors' Position Specification, it says, in part, that their
Duties and Related Tasks include "inspecting and in some cases adjusting
complex automatic systems including variable speed pumping systems,
-sludge density meters, level controllersl turbidimeters, chlorine residual
analyzers checking chlorine and methane gas detection systems, cooling
water systems, hot water systems".
But to do all of this, the grievors have not had t6 move beyond a
basic mechanical and electrical aptitude. They have not had to learn
electronics. They do no significant programming of the various pieces of
electrOnic process control equipment. By and large, it is simply another
dial to read and another button to push. They must know the significance
of the reading from the dial, and they must know what to do if the
operation is going astray--but this is no different from What they had to do
when the process control equipment was less sophisticated.
Given our definition of "complexity" when referring to process
control equipment--"one judges this compl_exity from the number of
functions a piece of equipment performs and the amount of training an
operator needs in order to use it" our general sense of the evidence of
Mr. Bradd is that, given the relative .complexity of the domestic waste
water treatment process (it is less complex relative to industrial processes
generally, primarily because there are so few parameters to be monitored),
15
and the overall training necessary to operate the process control 'equipment
at Lakeview (it does not appear that this training is very extensive at all),
the process control equipment at Lakeview can be characteri, zed generally
as "moderately complex". And thus it falls within the WWPO1 standard.
Mr. Meacher' testified that the job is different now from when he
came to the Lakeview plant.in 1984--the equipment is more complex; the
operational methods are different and more complex; and there are more
different pieces of equipment.
On the other hand, Mr. T. Alkema, a Process Specialist with a
consulting firm, who has 'thirty years' experience in the waste water
technology business, and who has been regularly attached to the Lakeview
plant since 1978, involved in consultation and mining operators, testified
that the "complexity" or "difficulty" of the operator's job is no greater in a
high-tech plant than it is in a plant where operators do a great deal of
hands-on work on manually-controlled machinery and out in the grounds.
Nor has the "complexity" or "difficulty'' of the operator's job at a plant
like Lakeview changed over time with the substitution of new tools to do
the same old processes.
But it really doesn't matter whether Mr. Meacher is correct or Mr.
Alkema is correct, difference and greater "complexity" does not
necessarily involve a change of classification. The essential question is still:
Is the jol5 covered by the class standard for WWPOI? The way the class
standard is written, overall difference in duties and overall complexity are
not factor, s which matter. The grievgrs fit within the standard if their
operating and inspectional duties can be done with the skills and knowledge
required for a WWPOI? And, in our view, the grievors' jobs do fit within
this standard.
16
For'these reasons, we dismiss the. grievances.
DOne at London, Ontario, this ~Srh day of 1)ecember , 1992.
ifj.~c~h°mson, Member
A. S. Merritt, Member