HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0207.Tontodonati.92-08-27 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMP£ OYE£$ DEL'ONTARIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
~80 DUND~',$ SFqEE/' ~'E~T, SUITE 2~00~ TO~ONTO, O~T~IO ,~SG
IN THE ~TTER OF ~ ~IT~TION
Under
THE CRO~ EMP~YEES COLLECTI~ B~GAININ~ ~CT
Before
THE GRIEV~CE SETTLE~ BO~
BE~EN
OPSEU (Tontodonati)
GrZ evor
- a~d-
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Minist~ of the Solicitor General)
Employer
BEFOg: M. Gorsky Vice-Chairperson
J. ~ite Me.er
D. Montrose Me.er
FOR THE N. ~oland
GRIEVOR Counsel
Cornish, Roland
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE D. McKeo~
EMP~YER Counsel
Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart, Storie
Barristers & Solicitors
HE~ING July 23, 1992
DECISION
At the opening of the hearing, the parties filed wi'5h us an
"Statement of Agreed Facts" and stipulated that the agreement
applied only for the purposes of the case before us and was to have
no other binding effect.
STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS
1. The Class Allocation forms for Mr. Tontodonati
(dated 01/03/91), the two Cleaners 3 (dated
01/10/86), and the Cleaner 2 (incumbents), all
accurately reflect job responsibilities. The
grievor is the supervisor of 24 Cleaner 2"s and 2
Cleaner 3's.
2. There are at least 3 series of bargaining unit
classifications that perform cleaning, servicing
and maintaining of facilities in public buildings
and institutions: Cleaner; Buildings Caretaker;
Buildings Cleaner and Helper. There is also a
Management Compensation Plan classification called
OGN-11 for Building Superintendent covering persons
who supervise and coordinate maintenance and
cleaning of buildings.
3. There is only one remaining level in the Buildings
Cleaner and Helper series, the 3rd level. There
are only 2 incumbents. The grievor is one of
these.
4. The Cleaner series has 3 levels: one {1), two {2),
and three (3). The Buildings Caretaker series has
3 levels, (1) one, (2) two, and (6) six.
5. The Ontario Public Service Pay Equity Plan,
covering all employees appointed under the: Public
Service Act, represents an agreement jointly
negotiated between the Employer and the Union
(O.P.S.E.U.) .
6. Buildings Caretaker and Helper series did not
receive a pay equity adjustment and was not used as
a male comparator job class.
7. Since Cleaner 1 got a pay adjustment, Cleaner 2 and
3 were also given a pay increase. The Cleaner 3
2
top rate was placed at $634.40/week effective
January 1, 1991. Prior to that date, the Buildings
Cl~anc~ ~u ~c~c~ 3 had ~ hzgL~'~ ~'~te ~f p~v. L~.
Cleaner 3. Effective January 1, 1991, ~he pay rate
for Buildings Cleaner and Helper 3 was set a~
$619.31/week. Wage schedules with respect to the
classifications of Building Cleaner and Helper 3,
Cleaners 2 and 3 for the period January 1, !986 to
January 1, 1993, were filed as Exhibit 9. Exhibit
9 also contains an analysis comparing the pay of
the three classifications at the dates shown
'including .the weekly and hourly rates as well as
the percentage differential between them, trea[ing
the Building Cleaner and Helper 3 classification as
one hundred per cent.
Attached to this decision are the following:
1. Position specification and class allocation form with respect
to the Grievor's position, being Exhibit 2.
2. Management Compensation Plan evaluation standard with respect
to the Building Superintendent position referred to in
paragraph 2 of the "Statement of Agreed Facts".
The Employer was frank in acknowledging that it might appear
anomalous that the Grievor supervised employees who were classified
as Cleaner 3's and was paid $15.09 less a week than employees so
classified effective January 1, 1991. What was a 2.90 per cent
differential in favour of the Grievor when compared with Cleaner
3's on July 1, 1990, became a 2.43 per cent differential in favour
of the Cleaner 3's on December 31, 1990, which differential will
continue to January 1, 1993.
3
In addition, the Cleaner 2's, who between January 1, 1986 and
Grievor's wages as.a Building Cleaner and Helper 3, were shown to
be subject to a wage differential cf between 98.54% and 98.56%
compared to the Grievor from December, 1990 to January 1, 1993. .
Counsel for' the Union stated that "something happened" to
alter the historical relationship of wages between the Builder
Cleaner and Helper 3 classification and the Cleaner 3 and Cleaner
2 classifications. What counsel for the Union was referring to was
the entering into by the parties of a pay equity plan on ]February
2B, 1990. The Grievor's classification was not the comparator used
in the case of the Cleaners 2 and 3. The apparently inadvertent
result of the pay equity agreement, which was filed as Exhibit 10,
was to create what counsel for the Union referred to as "a pay
inversion." It is as a result of this altering of the historical
relationship between the classifications of Building Cleaner and
Helper 3, Cleaners 2 and 3, that the grievance was brought
requesting a reclassification and for retroactive pay and benefits.
Counsel for the Union stated that if we accepted his argument,
a D_~ order would likely be appropriate.
Counsel for the Employer raised preliminary objections to
arbitrability. We heard argument on the preliminary objecsions as
well as on the merits and indicated that we would reserve our
4
ruling on the preliminary objections and deal with them in our
decision.
There were two bases for the preliminary objection. The first
being that if there was a pay inequity, this could not furnish a
basis for reclassification. The Employer's argument was very
similar to that of the employer in Bors et al., 1283/91, 1397/91
(Barrett), where the Board stated that position, at pp.3-5:
The employer urges us to decline jurisdiction to
interfere in this situation. Pursuant to section 18(1)
of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act it is
the exclusive function of the employer to determine
classification of positions. In this unusual case the
employer has created two "paral'lel" classification
systems, but it is entitled to do so without interference
by this Board. Rates of pay are proper subjects of
collective bargaining and that is where the anomalous pay
differential in this case should be negotiated. It is
not the proper subject matter of a grievance before this
Board.~ The employer says this case is really about rates
of pay and not about classification at all. The employer
cites Rounding (GSB 18/75) as authority for the
limitation of our jurisdiction in classification
grievances. At page 3 of that award the Board said:
"In reaching this latter conclusion however,
it is important for this Board to set out precisely
what it conceives to be the scope of its
jurisdiction in assessing the merits of a claim
that an employee has been improperly classified,
In the first place it is readily apparent that the
methods and principles by which positions are to be
classified is, as a result of the most recent set
of amendments to the Crown Employees Collective
Bargaining Act, a bargainable issue between the
various employee representatives and the employer.
However, by virtue of s.i7(l~(a) fnow
of that same Act, it is manifest that having
settled on a particular classification and job
evaluation system, the actual classification of
positions is within the exclusive prerogative of
the employer. In the result and for purposes of
entertaining grievances under s.17(2){a) [now
s.tS(2)(a)] of the Act, in which an employee
5
alleges that he or she has been improperly
classified, it necessarily follows that this Board
must take as a given and can not interfere either
with the classification system agreed to and
adopted by the parties or the applzcation of that
system to the various positions within the public
service. Rather this Board's sole functic)n in the
resolution of grievances alleging an improper
classification, is to determine whether the
employer is conforming to the classification system
as it has been established an/or agreed 'to. That
is and more particularly, when faced with a claim
that a position is improperly classified, and
assumin~ those classifications conform to the
general law of this jurisdiction, this Board is
limited by the express provisions of legislation to
determine whether or .not on the system employed and
the classifications struck, the employee
question is actually performing the duties assigned
to that position or even assuming that to be the
case, whether that employee is nevertheless being
required to perform virtually the identical duties
which, the class standard notwithstanding, are
being performed by the employees whose position has
been included in some other more senior
classification. In short, it would, under the
present statutory scheme, only be in those or
analogous instances that an employee's grievance
under s.17(2)(a) would be entitled to succeed.
In the result it is simply of no relevance to
a determination that is being made under s.17(2)(a)
that this Board is, or' indeed, the grievors are,
firmly convinced that there are not sufficient
differences between two classifications to warrant
their separate identities or that the difference in
wages that are appended to each do not fairly or
accurately reflect the differences in skill and job
duties that are required in each. Rather, and
subject to such classifications conforming to the
general law of this jurisdiction, to repeat, the
former is by virtue of s.17(1)(a) of the Act within
the exclusive prerogative of management while the
latter is a matter which may properly' be the
subject of negotiation between the parties".
In the Rounding case, at p.5, the Board went on to say:
That is, from the evidence, it appears that at the source
of the grievors' complaint is the present disparity that
now exists in the wages being paid to a Seamstress 1 and
the wages being paid to a Seamstress 2. More
specifically, it would appear both from the audit report
done u~ Li~L jub d~d £~'u,,t ~-irs. Cdri~gie~s uwn Les~imony
that when, following an audit which was done on various
position~ in the service, the 9rievors' supervisor, who
is classified as a Seamstress 2, received an increase in
wages such that she received the same rate of pay as a
Tailor, these grievors, who did not receive a similar
increase felt themselves aggrieved. However from what we
have said above as to the scope of our jurisdiction and
regardless of how much sympathy we may have for their
claim, this Board is simply not competent to establish a
rate o'f pay for their work which we might believe more
accurately reflects their skills and duties unless they
are able to affirmatively prove, in the manner described
above, that they have been improperly classified.
A similar argument was raised by the employer in A~ett et
al. 5/85 etc. (Knopf). In that case, at p.19, the Board noted:
"With regard to the Union's argument based on the wage sca~es, the
Ministry stressed that wage scales ought not to be relevan~ to
determining proper classification and urged this Board to disregard
them completely."
In the Anstett case, a~ pp.21-2, the Board stated:
Let us now turn to an application of this analysis
to the facts at hand. We shall first turn to the
Grievors who are presently classified as Building
Maintenance Foremen. The Union's ~rgu~ent with regard t~
these positions is that they were wrongly classified and
should more properly be classified as Industrial Officers
3's. If we look at the maintenance trade classes and the
Class Standard of the Foreman in particular, we note that
the Class Standard contemplates the supervising of
journeymen in a wide variety of skilled maintenance
tasks. They are called upon to instruct and guide "their
subordinates as well as performing hands-on maintenance
work themselves." In many ways, this Class Standard seems
to fit quite nicely with the evidence regarding the
Foremen of the Repair Shop. However, there is a notable
and significant exception. There is no question that one
of the four functions of the Repair Shop Foreman is to
supervise, oversee, and direct work of people other than
?
skilled tradesmen, These include the supervision of
Custodial Officers from time to time and consistently the
supervision of a number of Industrial Officers. The
Class Standards of a Maintenance Foreman is simply the
supervision of "journeymen" and "subordinates".
Industrial Officers are neither journeymen nor can they
be considered insubordinates [sic~ because they are paid
at a wage scale even higher than the Repair Shop Foremen.
While it is true that wage scales are not determinative
in classification cases, the purpose of a classification
scheme is to ensure the proper internal integrity and
hierarchy of jobs. It makes no sense in any kind of a
classification scheme to have someone being supervised by
another who is in a lower wage scale. Wage scales are
supposed to reflect the reporting hierarchy. As ~aid by
Professor Swinton in Edwards and Maloney, su__~, at page
11: ".... the classifications have been designed for a
purpose ... the aim being to preserve the morale and
status concerns of those more highly qualified in a
particular field of endeavour." In the facts of the case
at hand, we have skilled Journeymen. Foremen supervising
the work of non-skilled Industriai Officers who are
classified higher than their supervisor. The fact that
a "supervisor" is paid lower than his supposive
"subordinate" indicates that there is a classification
problem. This was accepted in the Heslinga case. Hence,
we are persuaded by the Union's argument that the
Maintenance Foremen Class Standard cannot properly be
applied to the Repair Shop Foremen.
In Anstett, the Board found that the Industrial Officers who
the grievors supervised were not journeymen, " ... nor [could] they
be considered [subordinates]" because the Industrial officers were
"paid at a wage scale even higher than 'the [grievors]." It was for
this reason that the Board was persuaded that the Maintenance
Foremen Class Standard under which the particular gr%evors were
classified could not be properly applied to them. That is, their
duties and responsibilities were found not to fit the description
in the language of the class standard. .~
In dealing with the employer's objection in Bors, which is the
8
same as that of the Employer in the case before us, the Board
~L~L~d au ~.~: "in our view, %hac ilne o~ reasoning appiles ~o
'standards' cases, but not 'usage' cases, which this ~s." In the
case before us the argument of the Employer is with respect to a
'standards' case.
An examination of the Buildings Cleaner and Helper 3 class
definition indicates that while incumbents "are responsible for the
work quality of subordinates engaged in cleaning and.servicing
duties in a public building or institution," it goes on to state
"in Buildings Cleaner and Helper 3 positions they supervise up to
50 employees," not necessarily subordinates. However one regards
the term "subordinate," the class definition would cover the
supervision of Cleaner 3's, as it refers to the supervision of
employees without 'being restricted to the supervision of
"subordinates" as was the case in Anstett. In the Anstett case the
grievors did not supervise the Industrial Officers because the
latter were not "journeymen" and the Industrial Officers could not
be considered to be subordinates of the grievors as was required by
the class standard. The refernce to "subordinates" in the class
standard in Anstett was singular. In the case before us, the
Grievor satisfies the requirement that he supervises the Cleaner
3's, unlike the situation in Anstet~ where the only way in which it
was possible to regard the grievors as supervising Industrial
officers was to treat the Industrial Officers as "subordinates,"
there being no other reference ~o supervision, as there is in the
9
case before us. If the Industrial Officers were also journeymen, it
follows from Anstett that they would be treated as being s'~pervised
by the grievors even if they were not subordinate to them. It would
not matter that that the Industrial Officers were paid more than
the Grievors if the former were journeymen.
It is clear from a reading of the Anstett case that when the
Board stated, at p.22: "It makes no sense in 'any kind of
classification scheme to have someone being supervised by another
who is in a lower wage scale," it was referring to'the fact that
the Industrial Officers could not be considered to be subordinate
to the grievors who were being paid at a lower wage scale than the
Industrial Officers. The wage scale differential was nct relied
upon, standing alone, as a basis for finding a misclassification.
Nor was the statement of the Board made with reference to what the
situation would have been if the Industrial Officers .had been
journeymen, even if they were ~ot the grievors' subordinates, or if
there had been broader language, such as exists in the case before
us, indicating that the Grievor supervises employees, without an
absolute requirement that those being supervised must be
'subordinates, in the sense that they are paid less than he is.
In Anstett the Board only dealt with the argument relating to
the disparity of wage scales in order to ascertain whether the
Industrial Officer could be considered to be subordinates of the
grievors and not for the purpose of deciding whether the waqe
10
disparity, standing by itself, was relevant in determining if the
grievors were properly classified.
It was unnecessary for the decision, in Anstett, to state, as
the Board did, at p.22: "The fact that a 'supervisor' is paid lower
than his supposed 'subordinate' indicates that there is a
classification problem." It was enough to find that the Industrial
Officers could not be regarded as journeymen or as being the
grievors' subordinates, and the comments immediately above quoted,
were therefore obiter. On the facts of the case before us we find
that the Grievor's actual classification is not "at odds with
reality." In the Anstett'case, the Board found that it was. We
find that: "The difference in pay is the only real difference, and
that cannot properly be attacked in a classification grievance
under s.18(2) of the Crow~ Employees collective Bargaining Act."
But for the anomaly created as a result of the implementation
of the pay equity agreement, which is an anomaly Lin wages only,
nothing changed in the way the Grievor carried out his duties and
responsibilities, which the parties agree fit nicely within his
present classification prior to the execution of the pay equity
agreement. The Grievor in the case before us carried out, and
carries out the core responsibilities set out in the class
definition contained in the class standard of Building Cleaner and
Helper 3.
11
We would also note that the decision in the Anstett case was
very much dependant on its peculiar facts. There, the grievors
never supervised the Industrial Officers, treating the latter as
"subordinates." We are therefore left to conclude that the
misclasification existed for the length of time that the Industrial
Officers were supervised by the grievors. On the facts in the case
before us, the alleged misctassification was solely the ~esu[t of
an unintended effect o~ the pay equity agreement. The Grievor
performed exactly the same duties, and had exactly the same
responsibilities both before and after the execution of the pay
equity agreement. It was acknowledged that one day prior to the
execution of the pay equity agreement, the Grievor was properly
classified as a Buildings Cleaner and Helper 3. The following day,
he is said to be improperly classified because the Cleaner 3~s were
now being paid more than he was, and were, hence, no longer his
subordinates, although for all practical purposes his duties and
responsibilities remained the same.
If we accepted the arguments of counsel for the Union we would
be doing more than relying on the pay inversion as an aid in
determining whether the Grievor's core duties and responsibilities
fit within the class standard, as was done in Anstett. Instead, we
would be relying on the pay inversion as the determining factor in
deciding that the Grievor had been misclassified.
The Union also argued that, as in McSevne~, 960/89 (Ratushny),
12
the Grievor performed duties which transcended his assigned
General Operational Group, benchmark code OGNiL-1, was where he
would be more appropriately classified. In the McSevney case, the
grievor satisfied the burden of persuading the Board that her
significant job duties were beyond those assigned to her present
classification and were comparable to a management compensation
plan evaluation standard. There,the employer was given the option
of reclassifying the grievor under the MCP standard or of creating
an equivalent classification.
In the McSevncy case, the Board concluded, at p.3: "that the
branchmark [sic] TPH14-2 far more closely describes the Grievor's
position than does her current class standard .... " Unlike the
Board in the McSevney case, we are unable to conclude that the
benchmark before us (OGNll-1) "far more closely describes the
Grievor's position than does [his] current class standard .... "
We find that the Grievor's present classification more closely
describes his duties and responsibilities. The Building
Superintendent position (benchmark code OGNll-1), in the "Purpose
of Position" refers to ground maintenance, parking control as well
as cleaning, and the reference is to "government buildings
throughout the region." The "Major Responsibilities" portion of
the Evaluation Standards refer to their being carried out~: "In a
region covering 4 large towns with buildings having a total floor
area of about 4000 square metres and about 8 hectares of grounds,
13
including 3 parking lots .... " The description and the class
definition of the Grievor's present classification are much more
accurately covered-by the duties and responsibilities as set out in
his position specification.
As noted above, counsel for the Union indicated that this was
a case where a Be~ry order would likely be sought. Before the need
to consider the nature of an order to be made, a Grievor must first
meet the burden of demonstrating that:
{a) he is improperly classified; and
(b) ~here is no other classification in which the Grievor's
set of duties and responsibilities reasonably fall.
This proposition is well established and was recently re-stated in
McKim 2348/90, 234BA/90, at p.5. In McEim, the Board sl~ated, at
p.5:
In order to satisfy the first onus, the Grievor must
demonstrate that a substantial part of his dut~ies fall
outside the class standard~ This is well established in
the classification jurisprudence. The question is a
factual one in each case, and we are of the view that we
must look both to the nature of the work done which is
said to be outside of the class standard as well as to
the amount of time spent doing it.
We cannot find that the Union has satisfied the first onus.
We do not find that the Board in Anstett overruled Rounding.
Rather, in Anstet%, the Board found that the grievors had been
improperly classified on a class standards argument that the
grievors were not actually performing certain of the core duties
14
assigned to the position under which they were classified.
Although the finding of the Board in Anstett looked at the pay
disparity between the grievors and Industrial Officers, this was
only for the purpose of ruling on whether the Industrial Officers
were subordinates of the grievors within the language of the class
standard. The rule in Rounding has not been demonstrated to be
manifestly incorrect and we would be bound to follow it even if we
regarded it to be merely incorrect, which we do not. Accordingly,
for the above reasons, the grievance must be denied.
This is a case where the application.of the pay equity
agreement has created an apparent inequity insofar as the Grievor
is concerned. Unhappily for the Grievor, and a much as we
sympathize with him, we are not competent to remedy the unintended
effect of the pay equity agreement which has resulted in a "pay
inversion." The remedy for such an anomaly, as was noted in
Rounding, is not capable of being furnished by us. No doubt, the
realization that this is unlikely to be an isolated case will cause
the parties to consider the greater implications of pay equity
agreements.
If we had accepted the arguments of Union counsel, there is a
good chance that there would be an equally unintended result in
which other pay equity adjustments would be requested based on the
increase in the Grievor's salary, followed by further
misclassification grievances based on wage inversions. In turn, the
15
re-establishment of the historical pay differntial could likely
if successful, would give rise to further grievances based on the
"pay inversion" arguments made to us, and so on.
We would also note that counsel for the Union, in making his
arguments, emphasized that the position taken by him was not to be
taken as a criticism either by himself or the Union of the pay
equity legislation. Nor is our decision to be taken as being
critical either of the legislation or the agreements entered into
as a result of it.
Because of our decision it is unnecessary to deal with the
alternative objection to arbitrability.
16
Dated at Toronto this 27~h day of August, 1992.
M. Gorsky - Vice Chairperson
J. White - h~ember
D. Montrose - Member
.. /'., " POsition Specitlcs,",,n & Class AIIocatlon.CSC 6150
..... (Reler Io back . .arm ior completion instructions)
n[afiO ~Det, ,,celvecl Pr~loul ~eri,,1 nurnb~. New I.IHi~ n~m~r
For CSC
ute only
Cleaning Supervisor I 4 ~-~.600- 14
Position [Lite IPosition Cadre Clmss
~P'~"~"~ eame as above I 4[-7600-[4 BZOgs C~eane~ & Ee~e= 3
Solici~or General Administra~ion Divieion
Accommodation Services ~25 Lakeshore Blvd., Toro~to6950~
;o. of pieces Provider group leadershi~ 1o: ImmOlate Supe~i;0r'~ t[lll - 5upe~i~r't Potlt~on code
NO. Of ootiliont / No, al place~ Director,
[ ~J- ~~ Accommodation Services Branch 4~-7600-01
Purpose of position (wh, d~t thh papillae e~itt~l
TO supervise the cleaning and servicing of O.P.P. General Headquarters
buildings including 90 Harbour Street, 125 Lakeshore Blvd. and 128
Queen's Quay.
Qu~[es ~nd ~el~t~ t~skt [.h~t %~ employe~ require0 to do, how and why? Indi~e percen~a~ al time spent ~n each duty)
[.Supervises cleaning and servicing activities by:
- determining need for and requisitioning purchase of cleaning supplies
and equipment; maintaining related inventory control records;
- issuing supplies to two Cleaners Foreman/Woman Night, as required;
maintaining running total of supplies issued;
- training and overseeing the training of staff by two Cleaners
Foreman/Woman Night; noting and discussing work performance with
Accommodation Officer or supervisor;
- ensuring correct time worked by each employee, including absenteeism,
vacation days, etc. is entered on work sheets and forwarded to
supervisor;
- testing, demonstrating and training in the use of new cleaning
products, equipment and techniques;
- checking methods and performance of all day and night staff;
correcting and advising employees on performance, as necessary;
- resolving discipline and performance problems of day cleaners on a
regular basis and of night cleaners, occasionally when serious cases
are referred by Cleaner Foreman/Woman Night;
- referring unusual or serious discipline and performance problems to
Accommodation Officer or supervisor;
(See Overleaf)
Knowledge of effective ' '~e of cleaning materials, m~thods and equipment;
Knowledge of cleaning a ~ servicing routines. Skil. .o implement general
instructions and co-ordinate cleaning activities. Supervisory skills to
_ acciqnand ohcck th~ %,orko~.,esubord'~,n,,~ryS,,¢,al/..--Aa o (SEE ATTA~ED~,,,
m A Thomson
G. Cleat ai[o~tion Clatt tttfe lc,a,% code O~upadonel gt0up numar Ei[~tlve date
[ I Day Month Y~a~
I Suildin~s Cleaner & Helper 3 ~ 50625 GO-O2A Ol ~ 03 I
1 hays cia.tried t~i$ ~o~ilion in ~cor~a~ca wl~ %ha CIvil Se~ice Co~i~si~n Classification St~ndard~ ~Or Ihs {eliding rea~o~:
~. ~ncum~ent is a group leaderreeponsible for work quality of subordinates engaged in cleaning
and servicing duties in Ontario Provincial Police General Headquarters buildings.
~. Pos:tion involves assigning duties, training staff, inspecting work, requisitioning and
keeping records of supplies and materials; testing and demonstrating new cleaning products
and techniques and r ~commending vacation schedule.
c. Incumbent works under supervision of an administrative official. Incumbent solves routine
work problems including those referred by the Cleaners Poreman/woman Night, referring
unusual or ~erious problems to supervisor.
S,g~[~e of aught, zed e~tuator Oats Ty~ evalua~or'~ name
.~'
Instructions for completing form CSC-6150
Use lhls lo~m as Indicated below Ior all positions except those covered by the Executive Compensation Plan, Managemenl Compensation Plan or Office
Admlnlslratk)~
Classified Full and Part.time positions: F(~rm lo be completed in its enlitely except lot Ihs Funclional Code box in Section 1,
Unclassified Seasonal Positions (Group 3): Con, plate Sections I and 6 except lot the Functional Cocte box =n S~clion I, and IhS evatua-
lion rationale ia Section 6.
All other positions: Complet,on of thio Iorm in full o~ as set oul above lot Unciassilied Seasonal Pestilent, Is optional.
lnstruc',ions lot coding Position Identifier Instruclions for coding Seasonal'Work Period
Code
[aS applical31e) Code 1 2 3
Classilied Positions Seasons Winter Spring Summer Fall
I=ull.time i
and their Dec. Mm'. June Sop.
Peri.time 2
conseculive .lan. Apr, Jul. ecl.
Unclassified *Positions order. Feb. May Aug. Nov.
Group 3
a} Seasonal wo~ period 8 consecutive
weeks or mo~e but Iess than 4 months 3 Build code as follows:
b) Seasonal work period 4 conseculive · Single season, I,e., Spring Examples
months or mo~e but less than 12 months 4
t. tndicate season, w,,~e ~ S,.~m,,
Group 2 $ 2. Inserl. appli¢, code
Group 1 $ tn loll hand box. so,,~ fC ~a fTJ
._L--..A----
Other Clown 7
· Multiple seasons. I.e.. Summer, Fall. Winler
Instructions for coding $ch. Hrs. Work I. intricate seasons.
2. Inser~ code el alert
· Com~lele this box lot R.P,T. Positions only. season in lei1 hand box. w~e, t.,
· Include porlions of hours to 2 dec,mg, pieCe,. 3. Follow with codes el
NOTE: The average el the actual hours worked (less overtime) over 4 subsequenl consecutive _ s~;,,~ [?
cor~seculive weeks by R.P.T. employees assigned to a posll~on seasons.
must coincide with the Scheduled Hours O! Work Idenlif~ed tot
that position. Any change to the Scheduled Hours OI Work w~ll
require Ihs establishmen! and documenlaUon of e separate NOTE: Multiple seasons musl be consecutive Io quati~ a.s one posihon.
posit~on.
DUTIES A/~D R~ATEO TA~K$ £CQ~T'DI .41-7590-14
- making recommen,~tions to supervisor on cl~ .~ing staff's requests
for leave or vacation or appointments; granting time off and early
dismissal in emergencies and under special circumstances;
- obtaining clarification of questions concerning regulations and
procedures from supervisor and explaining these to employees;
- noting the need for repairs or servicing to buildings or contents
e.q broken windows, ~^-'- plugged drains, e~.; advisin~
appropriate Accommodation Officer;
- checking tasks p~rformed by contractors to ensure work is performed
to acceptable standard e.g. window cleaning, drapery cleaning,
waste disposal, pest control, etc.;
- checking invoices for supplies, repairs or servicing for' accuracy
before forwarding to Director's office for payment; following up
to resolve discrepancies with supplier or repair company';
- obtaining and reporting details of complaints or occurrences,
including accidents and injuries;
- providing guidance to Cleaner Foreman/Woman Night on cleaning
procedures, scheduling, supervision,etc.;
- overseeing, training and appraising the work of summer students
performing cleaning duties;
2. Performs related duties such as:
- picking up and delivering surplus furniture or arranging' for pick-
up by Ministry of Government Services, as appropriate;
- performing minor servicing or repair of equipment such as vacuums,
polishing machine, carpet cleaning machine,etc, personally or
arranging for major repairs to be done by an outside company;
- participating in internal moves;
5~ - collecting money from machines in the washrooms on a regular basis;
- arranging for pick-up and delivery of laundry;
- arranging for disposal of recycled garbage;
- arranging for drapes to be cleaned;
- replacing absent day cleaning staff personally, as needed, to
accomplish cleaning of buildings;
- as assigned.
~ILLS AN~ KNOWT~F~DGE [~ONT'D) 41-7~Q0-.~
Written and oral communication skills to prepare simple operational
reports and discuss problems or other work-related matters with
subordinate ~taff.
(~ c,.. Management Com~e~setion Plan -
~B ID~I~TION DATA
(" * contrac~rs)
To su~se ~d ~-ord~te gro~d ~n~ce. paring con~o[ ~d
cl~g ~ ~d ~d go~[~t build~qs ~roughout ~e region. To
~s~e ~a~ con=a~ors provue semite 9~cified ~ ~e ~n~ac=.
Major P~esponsib ilities:
In a region covering four larqe to~m~s with buil~gs ha~g a to~l flor
~ea of ~u= 4,000 s~e ~=~s ~d ~u= 8 hec~es of g~ds,
~clu~g 3 ~k~g ZoO, is ras~ns~le for:
~e s~e~n of s=aff engaq~ ~ cle~g, c~et~g ~d 9arking
c~[ du=ies in ~d ~d aspired build~gs;
2) ~e ~sp~t~n of ~e ~rk of c~=ractors ~o ~s~e ~a= cle~Lng,
c~g ~d m~n~ce of ~e gro~ds ~e ca~i~ out effec=~ve[y;
3)~e pr~a~on of re~s on =es=ed produ~s ~d ce~i,c~es,
fee~ ~d~ ~ice9;
4) ~c~tion~ ~ ~e selection of ne~ staff ~d merit ~creases or
~scipl~ acti~ for s~rdLqa~e s=aff.
FAC~ ~ALYS ~
~ow ledge:
WO~ =~eS a ~or~gh knowie~e of bu~d~g c~e~g practices and
p~mm; g~ kn~[~e of bull~g clean.g, gro~d ma~cenance a~
p~k~ consol t~i~es, pr~uc~ ~d e~ipmen~, work also
d~nm~a~d skill ~ ~e practica[ appiicacl~ of clean.g, care~g
a~ ~n~ce and p~k~O opera.ohs. ~ c~ication 9kills are
r~ to ~te~rec con~ac~s, ~e rec~-~cions, prep~e repot=s,
co~e~dence a~ [laise wl~h con~actors and clients.
skil9 are neces~ =o recc~end on ~e selection of 9=aff. merit
~cre~es and disclp[~ ac=ion.
Judqeme nt:
Un~r ~e q~era[ supe~isi~n of ~e Co-ord~a~r. Operations ~d
~=~ce. judg~n~ is exerc~ed ~ ~te~ret~g ~e te~ of con=ra~9
~d re~lv~g dispu=es; ~ ~di~g co~[a~=s from clients regard~g
~effici~c cie~q or ms.ten.ce work, or a~ge co e~i~ent
b~l~gs~ in apprais~q che ~rfo~ce of staf~ ~d reco~endkqg merit
~cre~e
~d/or
discip [~_~ action.
{o.,.ot.~ July [. [98[ (~owiedge Factor ~e~ per Credentialism
{~ ~.~. Management Comoensation Plan
~.., c,....,.. Evaluation Stanctards
OPERATIORAL GENERAL OPERATIONAL OGNiI,- L
Judq~.~n=: ( con t-'knued)
Judgemen= is also exercised in assessing che work of con~ractors, and
obtaininq their c~p~iance with the =erm~ of the contract~.
Accountability:
The incumben= is ~{rectly accountable for:
Io~ ~ gove~t~ied b~i~g~ ~d gro~ds ~ ~e region.
~=erial ~d F~ci~ ~e semi:y, s:orage, ~=~ce ~d repair of ~ '
all cle~g ~i~: ~d s~plies. ~so en~es liqh/s ~e
of~ ~d ~ors ~d ~d~ ~e lo~e~ afar cle~g o~ra=ions
~e~s~ ~e ~J~d =o ~for~le =~ra~es. Approves ~%~ices
for pa~= up~ ~ie~on of seduces or go~s.
Pe~o~e~ Su~~g [ C~et~g For~ ~d p~vid~g ce~ical
su~~n =o 5 ~e~ers. Moni~r~q ~d ~sess~g ~e work of
cle~g con.at.rs ~ ~e r~io~.
~e ~ of ~c~s is su~ ~a= faii~e =o supe~ise s~ff
ensue p~p~ clewing, care~g ~d ~ten~ce of g~ds ~d
~k~g Lo=s, ~c[u~g m~i=or~g of ~e c~a~ors ~uld result
co~[a~=s ~ ~er m~iscr~s, ~ge ~ ~ish~gs ~d fix:utes,
caus~g ~creased f~ci~ costs of repaira ~d
Con t~ac~s:
Ln=ernal Con~a¢~s clien= m~is~ officials ~o resolve problems ~d
E~al ~~s cl~e ~n~= wi~ senior representatives of
04,, O~ '~u4 June 1, 1978