Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-0019.WageDispute.94-07-28.~' - ..~ ONTA'RIO EMPLO Y~-S DE LA COURONNE ' I CROWN EMPL 0 YEES DE L'ON TA BIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSlO. N DE ' / l SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREE, T WEST, SUITE 21001 TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G IZ8 TELEPHONE/TE~-C~PHONE: (4 16) 326- 1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G IZ8 FACSli',/IILE/T~L~cCOPiE T/0019/92 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT ~ Before ~THE LABOUR RELATIONS TRIBUNAL Between: Wage Dispute For New. Classification - Transportation System Elec. Tech. OPSEU Applicant - and - Management Board'of Cabinet (Ministry of Transportation) · ~ Respondent BEFORE: K. Burkett Vice-Chairperson L. Robbins Member F. Collict Member FOR THE H. Law UNION: Negotiator Ontario Public~Service Employees Union FOR THE B. Doherty EMPLOYER: Employee Relations. Officer Management Board Secretariat HEARING: February 18~' 1994 AWARD 1. This-dispute, which is in respect of the wage rate to be paid for the classification of Transportation Sygtems EleCtronic TechniCian (TSET), arises under Article 5.8.1 of the coIlective agreement. The TSET class standard,, effective June 10, 1991, covers all Ministry of Transportation employees performing 'electrical work on the Freeway Management Traffic System (PTMS) in~ the Ministry's .District 4 (Burlington) and DiStrict 6 (Toronto). It is agreed that the award also has aPplication 'to an employee (Mr. 'B. Dunning) in DiStrict 2 (London). There is no dispute that .we are properly constituted under Sections 10 and 11 of the Crown Emplbyees .Collective Bargaining Act to establish salary rates .for the TSET classification. 2. In an.award of the Grievance' Settlement Board dated January- 25, 1991 .'Arbitrator Watters found that the four incumbents·· performing the work· in question were improperly classified as Maintenance Electricians and that that Classification .did not ·constitute an appropriate fit. Accordingly, the employer was ordered to develop a more appropriate classification. The result of that order is the TSET classification. A subsequent dispute arose between the parties with respeCt to the~ appropriate wage rate for 'that classification. It is the' determination of that wage rate which · is the subject matter Of these proceedings. 3. It is useful at this juncture %o summarize the findings of arbitrator·Watters. He found as follows: _ Highway lighting systems have becOme more sophisticated and complex, ie. variable lighting· requiring Programming. - Traffic signals are now more sophisticated and complex, i.e. 'a traffic actuated-computer oPerated·system·is in use since 1987 where the timing is determined by the extent of traffic flow, requiring specific training in Programmable controllers. '- The Freeway Traffic Management System (F.T.M.S.) (in use in Burlington Skyway~ area since early i980's) involves a highly sophisticated advisory system which monitors and maintains the flow of traffic. - Typical duties related to F.T.M.S. include the installation, repair and replacement of: cameras, television monitors, 'communication pedestals, amplifiers, joysticks, computer keyboards, loop d~tectors, changeable message signs, blank-out signs, ~ariable lighting, photocells, photo sensors, fibre optics, satellite compartments, and micro,processors. - These ·changes have led to the use of more Complex .and sophisticated testing devices-and tools i.e. including spectrum analyzer, prOtOcol analyzer, oscilloscope and cathodic protection process~ - Traffic has increased on the 400 series highways and has impacted on the Safety Procedures. utilized by the grievor. - The grievor is Called upon to inspect electrical work performed by external contractors to ~ensure it is in conformity with Ministry standards. To reiterate, the Board found that the requirements of the job exceeded those contained in the Maintenance -Electrician ·class standard especially in respect of the requirement to understand and be able to 'repair micro processors and' programming computerized electrical systems. 4. The Union, citing the complexity of the work, the FMTS, the required knowledge base, the level of~independence and the responsibility for others, argues that at the very least the incumbents of this classification should be paid ~commensurate with journeymen electricians in the broader public service. Specific reference is made. to the rates for journeymen electricians at Ontario Hydro, Toronto Hydro, Go Transit and the Toronto Transit Commission, for which job documents Were provided. ~-The Union also points to private sector· ~ourneymen electrician rates with similar job content. The Union submits that on a "blend" of private and public sector rates of those -performing specialized electrical and electronic work an hourly rate of $ 22.86, an increase of 25%, is appropriate. 5. The Employer, While conceding~ that the TSET. classification is stronger than either the maintenance electrician or the electronics technician classification in terms of skilled electronics/electrical work re FTMS, {echnological changes affecting electrical technology (ie. micro processors) and the monitoring of contractor's Work, argues that there arq significant similarities with the Electronic Technician classification. Whereas it is conceded that there are similarities with~ the Maintenance Electrician Foreman position (ie. inspection of external contractors), the Employer submi%s that the 'Foreman position is at'-"a much higher level" because' of~ the requirement to supervise journeyman. The. Foreman is paid 11.04% more than the journeyman ~maintenance electrician. The Employer takes the position that in order to maintain an appropriate differential vis-a-vis the Maintenance Electrician Foreman the most that should be awarded is a 6%~ increase to the TSET position. 6. We have-considered .the submissions of' the' respective parties and~, in our view,· they both miss the mark. The magnitude · and consistency of the differential, as between the maintenance electrician · and the various Public sector journeymen electricians, suggests the existence of a more generalized shortfall; a shortfall more..proPerly addressed in collective bargaining 'than in ad hoc classification adjustments. Having said this the evidence establishes the need for a Significant differential as. between the TSET classification and- the maintenance electrician~ based upon the complexity of the job. In determining 'the magnitude of' this differential we have been drawn to the idea that the complexity' of the job, which requires the incumbents to possess ,a t'echnical expertise that supersedes that of the Maintenance Electrician · Foreman,. is offset 'by the supervisory responsibilities 'of the Foreman. Whereas 'the TSET incumbents 'train apprentices they ~do not supervlse in the way that a FOreman supervises journeymen.. 7. In awarding parity between the Maintenance Electrician -- / Foreman classificatiOn.and the TSET classification we are of the view that there should~ be' a greater differential .between the Electronics Technician classification and the-TSET classification than that suggested by-the employer. Not only is the ~TSET classification, stronger by reason of the ·technology and '.the monitoring of contracto~ work, as acknowledged by t~e employer, but also by reason of-the requirement for certification as an electrician with an electronics endorsement, and also by reason of the 'requirement to work independently.· FOr the reasons given, however, we are not of"·the view that this should result in a rate '.that supercedes that of the foreman. 8, Having regard to all of the foregoing it is 'our, award that the salary rate for Transportation SYStems. Electronic Technician be increased by 11.04% across the board in order to bring this' classification to parity with the.' Maintenance Electrician Foreman classification effective June 10, 1991. I Concur "Fred Collict" Fred Collict - Employer Nominee I Concur "Larry Robbins Larry Robbins - Union Nominee