Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-0253.Crozier.93-04-27 ONTARIO ~, EMPLOYES DE LA COORONNE CROWN EMP~,,., tEES DE L'ONTARIO SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS '180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONE/T~-L[CPHONE: (416) 326-1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST. BUREAU2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G 1Z8 FACSIMILE/TC~L~COPIE ; (416) 326-1396 253/92 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE B~RGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Crozier) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario .... (MinistrY of Natural Resources) Employer BEFORE: W. Kaplan Vice-Chairperson S. Urbain Member M. O"Toole Member FOR THE M. Webb UNION Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE B. Christen EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely' Barristers & Solicitors. HEARING March 24, 1993 Introduction ' By a grievance dated February 25, 1992., Harold Crozier, a Mechanic 2 employed by the Ministry of Naturail Resources grieves that he is improperly classified and seeks a Berry Order. The case proceeded:to a hearing in Toronto at which time evidence and argument were heard. In brief, the union argued that the grievor's class standard failed to.,capture and describe a number of his core administrative functions, and there being no other class standard that did so, a Berry Order was required. 'Union counsel initially toOk the position that sinCe the' grievor was not supervised by a Mechanic Foreman or a line official as required by the Class standard that his class standard did not apply. T~his point was not, however, raised in final argument.: ,..The employer took the position that all of the grievor's administrative functions were clerical in nature, were 'incidental to his main duties, and were contemplated by the class standard. It is useful to set out the class standard in dispute in this case, the ~lass standard of the Mechanic Foreman position, as well-as 'sections of the grievor's position specification. The Mechanic 2 class standard provides: This class covers the positions of highly skilled mechanics or bodymen performing complex, work on gasoline and/or diesel powered equipment. These employees receive the more difficult assignments requiring a high degree of initiative and judgment.in deciding what repairs are necessary..These employees 'may supervise the work of one 'or two qualified mechanics performing more routine repair or maintenance work. In other positions these employees specialize in major electrical, transmission or complex heavy machinery overhauls or large bodywork projects. In some pOsitions they supervise a small bo:dy shop, a section of a large shop, or a small night shift. Supervision is exercised by a Mechanic Foreman or a line official. While these employees in non-supervisory positions may perfOrm any or all of 'the duties charaCteristic of a Mechanic 1, their positions also inclUde one or more of the following functions as a regular and important assigned responsibility~ of the job. - complete overhaul of gas and/or diesel ' engines - diagnosis of difficult problem areas - estimating the .costs of repairs for major.projects. - modifying equipment according to specifications - acting as recognized assistant of shop Foreman in a large ..shop - - rebuilding extensively damaged vehicles or.equipment involving the replacing or repairing of connecting body parts - specializing in auto-electric systems, automatic' transmissions or specialized Hydraulic systems. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Preferably grade 10 education; possession of Department of Labour Motor Vehicle Repairers License Class A or B. Successful completion of. the Civil Service Commission authorized departmental examinations where applicable, and departmental permit and Dep~rtment of Transport Chauffeurs License for road testing purposes where required. 2. At'least two years' experience as a licensed Motor Vehicle repairer; preferably in the same Department. 3. Manual .dexterity; initiative, ingenuity; ability to lead other mechanics; tact; 9ood jud§ement; §ood iphysical condition. Revised January 1966 ~ The class standard for'the Mechanic Foreman position p~rovides: This is skilled mechanical! and supervisory work in repairing and maintaining complex gasoline a'nd ~ diesel-powered equipment. These employees are in charge of a shop, with up to fifteen mechanics and apprentices on staff; they are responsible for" equipment repair and maintenance in a district garage or repair shop; in some positions they may 'proVide technical guidance and conduct periodic review of repair work in division repair shops within the district. They supervise a group of subordinate mechanics, auxiliary mechanical maintenance staff, and operators and drivers.i " Supervision is received from a senior mechanic or from a departmental supervisor. CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES: Repair and maintain cars, trucks, tractors, b°at motors, fire fighting equipment, pumps, compressors and' other 'similar equipment and machinery. Supervise the work of subordinate staff; assign duties; check work .performance; keep required records;. requisition supplies. Instruct and train subordinate staff. Perform other related duties as required. qUALIFICATIONS: 1. Possession of a Ministry of Colleges and Universities Mechanic's Licence. 2. At least two years of experience-in the repair and maintenance of a variety of mechanical equipment.. 3. Supervisory ability; ability to undertake and supervise a variety of mechanical rePair and maintenance tasks; personal suitability. .. March, 1 961 The grievor's position specification, titled "Senior Mechanic/Fleet Manager" which was revised in December 1991 provides in part: Duties and Related Tasks 60°/6 1'. Assigns and supervises, when required, repairs and maintenance of all motorized equipment by:' - ensuring that resources and workload are distributed in order that equipment is inspected and maintained as per standard equipment maintenance cycle. - ensuring that road tests are.conducted as required. - determining the repair/maintenance work that will be performed by outside agencies based.on cost: effectiveness and fleet facilitY capability.. - ensuring that any mechanical-problems or trends are · brought forward to supervisors attention in order that future acquisitions can avoid similar problems. - ensuring that mechanical workers have an updated list of items to be' checked for routine standard inspections (including safety gear). - ensuring that the supervisor is informed" in a timely fashion of any equipment abuse or damage, so.that · corrective action can be taken. - ensuring that required parts are available,' carrying out price enquiries for nonstock items and arrangin, g for purchase and delivery in the most cost' effective manner. setting minimum and maximum stock levels suitable for current fleet maintenance needs. - supervising the work of seasonal staff and others and inspects work' carried out by outside repair agencies. - carrying out inspections and the necessary maintenance repairs as per 10,000 km and 20,000 km checks lists, i.e. lubrication of engine and. chassis,: lights,~ body hardware and safety ear, etc. - testing, adjusting, and repairing components, i.e., steering, clutch, brakes, engine, emission controls, electrical systems, hydraulic controls on traCtors. - carrying out major repairs, i.e. rebuild engines, transmissions, front ends, rear axles, drivelines,. transfer cases and front axles. -recording details of inspection and maintenance on .prescribed forms. - recommending t° supervisor units to be replaced and examining new units to determine if in order and that all accessories have been installed. - recOmmending particular models for various job types based on experience. - recording of vehicles e.g. rental numbers, accident reports, repair costs etc. - checking rented vehicles prior to returning:to suppliers to determine condition e.g. body, mechanical damage, discussing with suppliers any damage e.g. real damage or normal wear and tear and recommending repairs to supervisor. - ensures that.workers take precautions to protect the Health & Safety of themselves and others bylcomplying with such act, codes, policies, procedures or :accepted practices as may be appropriate. -'ensuring hazards are identified and workers are advised of the known hazards and. required, p~ecautions. act in accordance with IRS as outlined in the Occupational Health and Safety Act 20% 2, .Performs duties as budget control officer for all automotive supplies by performing tasks such as: - purchasing all parts, supplies and tires for~ all. mechanical equipment. - processing the services of outside repair 'facilities carefully considering price and quality of workmanship. --verifying invoices for price and quantities Ordered and received. - maintaining a bulk supply of small items and accessories and an inventory of'same. maintaining records of costs of repairs and .~ maintenance of :all vehicles. : 5% 3. Inspects, maintains, and repairs .other meChanical equipment by: - carrying out inspections, and the necessary maintenance and repairs as per standard procedures for that item e.9. engine revolutions, compression, timing etc.: - testing, adjusting and. repairing electrical Systems, carburation, recoil, starters. - carrying out major repa~irs, i.e. rebuild engines, etc. -'recording details of inspection, maintenance and repairs on prescribed form. 5% 4. Performs other duties such as: .-constructing sPecial equipment as requested using arc and acetylene welding equipment i.e. trailer hitches, canoe racks, C.O.. emergency' light packages. - assigned. The Evidence Mr: Crozier testified and he was, in fact,'.the only witness to give evidence in-these proceedings. He has worked for the Ministry since September 1977, and works in Pembroke. His present job is titled Senior Mechanic/Fleet Manager, and he is responsible .for maintaining the Ministry's fleet in the-Pembroke District. That fleet consists of 39 vehicles including half-ton trucks and four 'wheel drive 'trucks,. dump trucks and tractors. When the grievor began work in 1977 there was one other Mechanic 2 working in the Pembroke District and one Foreman Mechanic. The Foreman Mechanic was Mr.. Barclay Buttle. Mr. Buttle retired in March 1990. The other mechanic retired some time prior to Mr. Buttle. The. grievor testified that Mr. Buttle did very' little mechanical work; he was primarily Concerned with supervising the two Mechanic 2's, and administering the garage. When Mr.. Buttle retired, the grievor was the only mechanic remaining and he testified that his job .changed significantly af,ter Mr. Buttle left. The grievor testified that he assumed all of Mr. Buttle's suPervisory duties including the purchase of all parts and supplies, budget' control officer responsibilities, responsibility for determining repair and maintenance work to be performed by outside agencies, responsibility for prioritizing vehicles dues for replacement and recommending vehicles for purchase, arranging for purchase and delivery of materials and serVices in the most cOst effectiVe manner, setting 'minimum and maximum stock levels suitable for current fleet maintenance, verifying invoices, maintaining records of cost of repairs and maintenance, and recording details of insPection, maintenance and repairs on prescribed fOrms and filing them in the proper place. The grie~0r testified that he spent approximately.35% of each day working on .these different administrative tasks, and 'he testified in some detail about a nUmber of them. The grievor also told the Board that he did none of these jobs prior to Mr. Buttle's retirement excePt oh an acting basis when Mr. Buttle was absent on vaca,tion or otherwise,~ and only when specifically authorized by Mr. Buttle or by some other member of management to temporarily, assume some of Mr. Buttle?s ,responsibilities. The grievor testified that he is resl~onsible .for all .purchasing in the garage, of both stock items and special items needed for Particular repairs. IntroduCed into evidence were some documents setting out the grievor's Purchasing authority. Suffice it to say that the grievor :has been designated the Budget Control Officer and has been given complete discretion to purchase necessary items with a value up to $300. To purchase items. costing between $301 and' $5,000 the grievor must obtain quotations. An even more formalized process is in place to purchase goods and services costing more than $5000. This purchasing function also involves identifying supPliers, arranging for quotations, determining costs, arranging for delivery, checking products on delivery, and invoicing. Introduced into evidence was a document listing some of the products and services purchased by the grievor. While this document was dated after, the grievance was filed, the employer agreed that it was representative of the type of purchasing the grievor was engaged in. The doCument indicates that the grievor must deal with a wide variety of suppliers t° obtain the goods and services required t° run the garage. The grievor testified that he has a budget of approximately $300,000. This is not, however, a typical budget in the sense that the money spent is subsequently charged back to client groups. The figure does represent a target'Which the grievor attempts to meet while maintaining the fleet. While he does some maintenance work himself, since Mr. Buttle,s retirement the grievor has not been able to do as much because he has had to assume these new administrative responsibilities. In the result, he .must 'now send many vehicles out for service, and he testified about the selection of different garages and the subsequent monitoring of the repair work. The grievor also testified that he-is involved ~in selecting new vehicle types for 'purChase. He makes recommendations to his supervisor based, on his experience with existing Ministry vehicles.. This recommendation is forwarded to the District Leadership Committee. If the recommendation is approved then the grievor would submit a 'request to pUrchase which would be forwarded to the District Manager for approval because the cost would b'e in' excess of the grievor's spending limits. The grievor also sets stock levels, and 'he told'the Board about his responsibiiity for maintaining the stock room. He must ensure that adequate stock levels are maintained for anticipated vehicle repairs and servicing. In maintaining stock levels, the grievor attempts to take advantage of bulk purchasing savings. The grievor also maintains records for all vehicles, and' these records consist of work orders indicating service performed, cost of parts and cost of labour. The grievor maintains these records for work that he himself. performs, as well as for work performed by outside garages. In the case of work performed 'by outside garages, the record keeping function will also involve keeping records of warranties on new parts. At the end of each month, the grievor totals up 'the cost of the work performed and compiles the ~figures in a summary report which is sent to TorOnto and entered into the Fleet Management Information System.' 'In due course, the grievor receives a printout indicating the maintenance cost per vehicle. Prior to Mr. Buttle's departure the grievor would fill out .service. forms on the vehicles he actually worked on, but did none of these' additional tasks. The grievor told the Board that he and his :supervisor, IVlr. Arnie Plummer, worked.together on drafting a new position sPecification in 1991. Mr. Plummer's title is the District Administrative SupervisOr. He supervises a number of people, and does not work on the shop floor.. The new position' 'specification was introduced into evidence and the relevant parts of it have been Set out above. He told the Board that he and Mr. Plummer agreed that he. spent about 35% of his time on administrative tasks, The grievor also .testified that he raised concerns about his classification with Mr. Plummer just prior to Mr. Buttle's retirement..In particular, the grievor was concerned about taking on Mr. Buttle's administrative responsibilities; and he testified that discussed this .matter with Mr. Plummer. He testified that he told Mr. Plummer that he felt that he should receive additional compensation for taking on these extra tasks. Mr. Plummer told him to wait. until the new District Manager arrived because the Acting District Manager Would not likely make any decisions about this matter. The grievor also testified that Mr, Plummer. advised him that.the · Foreman Mechanic position remained in the complement.and it would be dealt with by the new District Manager.. The grievor testified that he felt comfortable leaving hiS concerns on this basis 'and that the new District Manager, Mr. Ray Bonnenberg, arrived in the late summer or early fall of 1991. At that time, the grievor was advised that the Mechanic Foreman position would not be filled..The grievor again approached Mr. Plummer about his additional duties, a new job specification was' prepared by Mr. Plummer in consultation with the grievor, and it was sent to the regional office. The grievor was later advised that he was properly classified and after learning of this the instant grievance was filed. In cross-examination,~ the grievor testified about his educational background and experience. He first studied mechanics at Renfrew Collegiate, then became an apprentice and worked as a 'mechanic for seven years before joining the Ministry. He testified that as a mechanic he had to fill out work orders, but he distinguished that work from the administrative work he has performed since Mr. Buttle retired and noted that' he would just indicate the work performed, cost of parts and hours, · and would then pass the form on to a supervisor. 'The grievor testified that if'he needed a part prior to Mir. Buttle's departUre he would go and get it in'the stock room, but if it was not available, he would tell Mr. Buttle who was'responsible for ordering it. The grievor insisted that he would only order pa~ts when specifically authorized by Mr. Buttle to do so such as when Mr. Bu,ttle was away on holiday. He' agreed that that he did some paper work during the time Mr. Buttle Was employed, such as filling, out his. time sheets and the service records of vehicles he personally worked on. With respect to his assumption of the duties of the budget control officer, the grievor 'agreed that his purchasing powers were somewhat circumscribed by 'amount and that he is generally required, in the case. of. bids, to accept the lowest one. In deciding where to send a vehicle fOr repairs, the grievor relies on his experience as a mechanic. Likewise, the grievor-knows the reasonable cost range for parts and repairs because of his experience. He agreed that he generally does 'not review' the work upon the vehicles return'unless he hears a Complaint.from.the Client group. The grievor was asked some questions about his new Position specification and he agreed that Mr. Plummer showed it' to him before finalizing it. He also testified that he believed that it accurately reflected his duties and responsibilities, and that he and Mr. Plummer agreed about the.assignment of percentages. The grievor.agreed that' while he recommends particular vehicles, for acquisition, that recommendation was. not necessarily followed. He was also' asked sOme questions about his budget, and he agreed that the amount at issue was the amount spent on repairs and that this. amount was recovered 'from the various clients by journal entry. It was not, accordingly, a budget amount that he had to meet through the exercise of discretion about what purchases to make and what purchases not to make. The grievor alsO agreed that insofar as the Fleet iVlanagement Information -System was concerned, his role was limited to' providing the monthly calculations of maintenance costs. The grievor did tes:tify, however, that the information which he subsequently received on kilometer costs was Useful to' him in making recommendations 'about vehicle replacement. In re-examination, the grievor testified that he ' exercises as much authority as did Mr. Buttle as Budget Control Officer. He also testified that Mr. Buttle .made'the same sort of recommendations about vehicle.rePlacement as he does. The evidence having concluded the case proceeded, to argument. Union ArgUment Union counsel argued that the'evidence established .that the grievor assumed additional 'administrative duties upon. Mr..Buttle'.s retirement, and that these duties were not'encOmpassed in his 'class standard. Counsel argued that while the: standard 'indicated that the griev0r may be responsible for supervising a small shop, that term was intended to refer to the supervision of People, not the performance of significant administrative functions occupying, on the uncontradicted evidence of the grievor, 35% of his time. Union co:unsel referred to a dictionary defintion of the word "supervise" in support of this submission. Counsel argued that the Mechanic 2 class standard is designed to cover a person performing mechanics duties, not a person situated like the grievor who performs those duties, but who also performs significant administrative duties for a substantial part of each day. Counsel argued that these administrative duties were of a highly responsible nature. In counsel's view, the performance of these administrative duties took the grievor out Of the class standard, and counsel argued, in line with the Board's general classification jurisprudence, that there~ was a substantial difference between the duties being performed by the grievor and the job described in the class standard. Moreover, counsel also argued that the grievor's addil~ional duties and responsibilities were of a quality, quantity and character so as to constitdte a substantial difference justifying a Berry -Order. Counsel urged the Board to uphold the grievance and to.grant the grievor 'retroactivity to March 1.990 when Mr. Buttle retired and when the grievor first brought his concerns to the' attention of management. In support of the proposition that a grievor shoul'd not be penalized f'.or patience, counsel cited the Sabo 777/86 (Dissanayake) award; Employer Argument Employer counsel argued that the administrative duties' performed by the grievor .were covered by his class s,tandard and were, in any event, merely incidental to the performance of' his core mechanic functions. Referring to the class standard, counsel pointed out that Mechanic 2"s are required to demonstrate a high degree of initiative and judgement 'in deciding What repairs are necessary. Moreover, Mechanic 2's are also required to diagnose problem areas and estimate the cost of. repairs for major projects. It is. only at that point that the mechanic will know what parts are required. Counsel argued that the evidence established that the'actual ordering of parts and services was incidental both before' and after Mr. Buttle's retirement. Counsel noted that the grievor performed these tasks on an acting basis when Mr. Buttle was away,-and suggested that these 'duties. · were not of as high an order as was suggested by .the union. Counsel noted that as BUdget Control Officer, the grievor had very little discretion, and could in faCt Only sperid up to $300 without engaging ina highly regulated purchasing process.. This fact also illustrated, in counSel's view, the incidental and relatively minor nature of these administrative functions. 'The maintaining of parts in the stOck room was, counsel argued, absolutelY essential to. the~performance of a mechanic's work, and could' not be described as a duty of such scope and responsibility to take the grievor out of his class standard. Counsel also pointed out that' prior to Mr. Buttle's departurel the grievor had to fill out forms on the' vehicles he was working on. I~ow that he is the only mechanic in the garage,, it only made sense for .him to have all of this responSibility~ .. In counsel's view, supe~rvision must be interpreted so as to include the actual supervision of people, whiCh the grievor did not~directly .do, as well as the general .running of a garage or shop,.which the .gdevor did do. And when that work was examined, counsel argued, it:was:generally clerical in nature not administrative and not involving the exercise, of discretion. The compilation of monthly rePair bills illustrated this point, and counsel pointed out that it was someone else who interpreted the data and provided cost figures... Counsel argued that all of the administrative 'tasks performed by the grievor, were straightforward and, one way or another, . were normally performed by mechanics from the first day On the job. In support of his Submission that the' grieVance should be denied, counsel cited a number'of well-known Board cases dealing, with cl. assification including Aird et al 1349/87 (Slone) for the prOposition that "the addition of new duties may take a job. out of' its original classification, but only where those duties are'of such a kind or occur in such a ~degree as to amount to a different job altogether" (at 8). Counsel argued that the additional duties in this case, insofar as they were not covered in the class standard, failed to meet this requirement, and that the union'.hadl failed to discharge its onus of establishing that they di~l. COunsel cited Dumond ·1822/90 (Kaplan) for the proposition that the percentage of' time! spent on the additional duties was not determinative. What mattered Was whether.' or not there was a' substantial difference between the duties described and the duties being performed. In. counsel's view, the union also failed to meet that substantial difference, test. . Counsel also cited Booth 192/90. (Low) and Evans 1 531/90 (Samuels) and argued that the grievor's, mechanics work was of a greater complexity and required greater responsibility than did his administrative work, and suggested that this was a further reason t° deny the grievance. In counsel's submission, the grievor'had very liittle responsibility and authority as Budget Control Officer as his purchasing decisions were very circUmscribed. COunsel described the position as a parts .ordering job. It did not involve managing a budget in the conventional sense requiring the exercise of discretion and significant responsibility. In contrast, counsel' 'argued that the grievor's mechanical duties and responsibilities indicated that he exercised significant responsibility and discretion, and that these key elements we'~e recognized in his class standard. Counsel also argued that it was irrelevant that some of the grievor's administrative duties Were.. Previously performed by Mr. Buttle because the. union was making a standards argument and not a usage.one. Counsel further argued that there were a number of key differences between the' grievor and Mr. Buttle, and one of these was that Mr. Buttle was responsible for supervising two Mechanics. while the grievor did not supervise anyone. Counsel submitted that there was no evidence before the Board of what other relevant duties Mr. Buttle performed. With respect to retroactivity, should the grievance prove successful, counsel argued ~hat the effective date of retroactivity should be September · 1991 when the' new District ,Manager arrived and when the grievor effectively brought his concerns to the attention of management. Counsel, however, urged the Board not to get to that point, but tO dismiss the grievance. Decision ' Having carefully considered the eVidence and arguments of the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this grievance must be upheld. It is our vieW. that the grievor's Budget Control Officer duties are of a quality, quantity and character so as to constitute a substantial difference justifying a Berry order. While percentages are not determinative, the uncontradicted evidence is that the griev0r performs administrative functions for at approximatelY. '35% of 'his time. Having heard all of the evidence, and having carefully examined the gdevor's position 'specificatiOn, we .are-satisfied that all of his administ~rative functions other than those of B:udget Control-Officer can be described as incidental to his Mechanic 2 position and' are not sufficient t° juStify a Berry order. Indeed,' these other duties including "ensuring .that required parts are .available~ carrying out price enquiries for nonstock items and arranging for purchase and delivery in the most 'cost effective manner", "setting minimum and maximum stock levels suitable for current fleet maintenance needs", "recommending particular .models for various job types bases on exPerience", and '"recording details, of inspection, maintenance and repair on prescribed forms'' are unquestionably part and parcel of ithe Mechanic 2 -function' and need not be specifically enumerated .in the'class standard. It would be hard to imagine how a mechanic c°uld effectively operate without, : i for instance, ""r, ecording details of inspection,, maintenance and repair on prescribed forms." Having found that, however, we can~not' reach the same conclusion with respect to'the ~Budgeti'Control Officer part of the grievo?'s duties. While there is .some repetition in this-part of his position specification? Considered as a 'whole the-grievor is required as Budgetl Control Officer to assume effective financial responsibility for the provision of goods and serVices totaling-approximately $30:0,000 annuallY... While this is .not a budget in the conventional' sense, and while'the grievor' must follow established procedUres in ordering parts and repairs, there is no denying the fact'that in going about this. work the grievor is asSuming significant responsibility in excess of that provided for in his class standard. The evidence is uncontradicted that the grievor spends, approximately 35% of his time on administrative funCtions. The evidence is also uncontradicted, and the grievor agreed, that he spent 20% of his time as Budget Control Officer. Given our finding that some of the grievor's administrative "functions are necessarily inCidental to his Mechanic's dUties there is no conflict in these figures. It is the time spent as Budget Control Officer that changes the nature of the grievor's job and thereby warrants the granting of a Berry Order. In reaching this decision it is noteworthy, in our view, .that the position specification for the Mechanic Foreman's position, which was also introduced into evidence, allocates 25% to the following duties: Performs duties of purchasing agent for automotive supplies by performing tasks such as: - purchasing and issuing purchase orders for all parts and tires. procuring the services of outside repair facilities carefully considering price and quality of workmanship and issues purchase orders. - verifying invoices for price and quantities Ordered and received. - maintaining a bulk suplgly of small items and accessories and an inventory of same. The similarity in this description to the description of Budget Control Officer in the grievor's position sl~ecification is self-evident. It is also noteworthy, in our view, that the grievor's prior position specification, which was also introduced into evidence, makes no mention of administrative duties of any kind, and is, in fact, focused entirely on the performance of mechanical duties, more narrowly defined. Both of these position specifications are, of course, consistent with the .grievor's evidence and with the'changes he described in his job after Mr. Buttle retired. With respect to retroactiVity, we cannot g~ant retroactiVitY to the time of Mr. BUttle'S retirement. While the evidence is unContradicted that the grievor mentioned his concerns about the assUmption of new duties at that time, he did no more than that, and. did not raise the matter again for more than one year. In September 1991 he brought his concerns to the attention of management, and his position sl~ecification was redrafted asa result. It Was then considered by managemen,t and the decision mede to deny his request for additional compensation. The grievor then filed his grievance. Management counsel submitted, shoUld the grievance, be successful, that retroactivity be limited-to September 1991, and we agree that this is the effective date at 'Which the grievor .brought his concerns to'the attention of the employer. " Accordingly', and for the foregoing reasons, the grievance is upheld and the employer is directed to create a new classification for the grievor that encompasses 'his Budget Control Officer functions' as set out in the position classification and as described in evidence. The new 'clasSification shall be retroaCtive to September 1, 1991. We remain seized with respect to the implementation of this award. DATED at Toronto this 27r. hday of April, 1993. ~William Kaplan Vice-Chairperson -5'T. Urbaln Member . M. O'Toole Member