Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-0222.Stewart.81-03-24IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under The CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: &Ir. Donald Stewart and The Crown in Right of Ontario .&Iinistry of Transportation & Communications . Before: LMS. C. Brent Vice-Chairman <Mrs. M. Gibb LMember Mr. R. Russel Membw For the Gtievor: iMr. N. Luczay, Classification Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union For the Employer: Mr. F. Girvan, Personnel Branch Ministry of Transportation & Communications HeKing: February IXth, 1981 i -t- This grievance concerns the griever’s claim, pursuant to section 17(2)(a) of The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, that his position has been improperly classified. The griever requests that his position be reclassified effective April 1, 1977. At all material times the griever has been classified as a Draftsman I in the Ministry of :Transportation and Communications; he seeks to be reclassified as a Draftsman II. The grievor has always been employed as a draftsman in the Ministry’s Central Region Office in Toronto. At all material times prior to the end of 1976 he was in the LMateriaIs and Testing Division and his job description (Ex. 4) lists his duties. In late 1976 and early 1977 there was a reorganization and .certain functions formerly performed at the head office were transferred to the griever in the Central Region and the name of the office in which he was employed was changed to the Geotechnical Section to reflect those changes. The grievor was assigned responsibility for all drafting regarding aggregates in addition to his former duties and assumed those new duties after a three week orientation course. The griever’s present duties are reflected in his current job description (Ex. 5). The evidence presented by the parties has ndt been of much assistance to the Board in determining this matter. The conclusions which can be drawn from the griever’s evidence are that additional duties which had been performed by a draftsman 11 at head office were transferred to him at the Central Region. The griever’s new .- -3- job description reflects these additional duties, and also differs from his old job description in that it is liberally peppered with the word “complex” in cotinection with his drafting duties. The most helpful evidence for the griever came from the employer’s witness, Mr. Dale Cunter, the Head of the Ceotechnical Section and the griever’s immediate supervisor. Mr. Gunter testified that in his opinion the grievor should be reclassified as a Draftsman II and it is apparent that he made repeated attempts to effect such a reclassification. His evidence was also that, after making inquiries abou? the level of Draftsman which performed functions identical or similar to the griever’s in the other regions, he learned that such work was performed by a Draftsman II. . Both parties relied in argument on the criteria set out in the manual entitled “Draftsman Series” (Ex. 2). It is obvious that the grievor holds a unique sort of drafting position. He does not appear to have an exact counterpart anywhere in the Ministry. It is also obvious that the particulars set out in the manual concerning either the Draftsman I or Draftsman II classifications do not really fit the sort of drafting that the grievor performs in his work. It is of some significance that the drafting functions performed by the griever are being or have been performed only by a Draftsman II insofar as the evidence indicates. It is also significant that one common theme throughout~tthe recital of the Draftsman I’s characteristic duties is that he works under “dose supervision” whereas the Draftsman II works under “general supervision”. The griever does not work -4- under close supervision”. The ,Draftsman I also performs work of “limited complexity” whereas the griever performs all drafting work from “limited complexity” to the most complex. The griever also performs minor supervisory functions in assigning drafting work to summer students and field staff and this seems to be more a function of a Draftsman 11 than of a Draftsman 1. Because of the presentations in this case, the only evidence we have of what sort of work a Draftsman II does is very scanty and comes primarily from IMr. Cunter’s inquiries and the griever’s undisputed understanding of who performed the work prior to the reorganization. In view of this and of all the evidence placed before the Board, it appears that on balance the grievor’s claim for reclassification should be upheld. Accordingly, the grievance is allowed and the griever will be reclassified as a Draftsman- II effective April 1, 1977. He is entitled to compensation at that level from April 1, 1977 and must be paid .- the difference between the two rates from April I, 1977 to the date that this award is implemented. DATED AT Toronto this 24th day of March, 1981 C. Brent (Signature) Ms. G. Brent Vice-Chairman I concur Mrs. M. Gibb Member 1 concur IT Mr. R. Russell Member