Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-0037.Irwin.79-05-10IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under The CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before Between: THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Mr. J. R. Irwin And The Crown in Right of Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services Before: Professor M., Eberts Vice-Chairman Mrs. M. Gibb Member Mr. H. Weisbach Member For the Grievor: Mr. W. Lokay Classification Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union 1901 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario For the Employer: Mr. J. Benedict Manager, Compensation & Staff Relations Human Resources Management Ministry of Correctional Services 2001 Eglinton Ave. E. Scarborough, Ontario Hearing: March 23rd, 1979 Suite 2100 180 Dundas St. W. Toronto, Ontario -2- Mr. Irwin is a Laundry Officer at Burtch Correctional Institution. His position is classified as an Industrial Officer 1, and in this grievance he contends that it should be classified as Industrial Officer 2. There are two bases on which this claim is put. One is an assessment of this position vis-\a-vis the relevant class standards. The other is a comparison between the job Mr: Irwin now holds with the one he did immediately prior to his transfer to the laundry. Although it may be more usual for a grievor to support an argument for re- classification by comparing his or her work with that done by other employees performing the same duties (but with higher classifications) this Board can see no objection in principle to making the comparison between jobs held one after another by the grievor. In some cases, like the present, this type of comparison is the only one possible. And although we have previously stressed, in Cooper V. Ministry of Government services, 47/77, that the absolute standards in the class definitions are of paramount importance in classification cases, none- theless we have not excluded a more relativistic or comparison-oriented approach. Often, the best picture of the grievor's work can be ,obtained by evaluating it against both measures: the class definitions and other jobs. Until the tailor shop at Burtch was closed in October 1976, Mr. Irwin worked as i, ts assistant manager. For the four or five years prior to the closing , this position was classified as an Industrial ._~~ -~ -3- Officer 2; for the three years before that, until Mr. Irwin gained skill and knowledge of the tailoring trade, it had been classified as Industrial Officer 1. The tailor shop manager, to whom Mr. Irwin reported, was classified as an Industrial Officer 3. The tailor shop was a separate entity, located in a separate building at Burtch. The activities of the tailor shop were, basically, twofold. It made new institutional clothing, like inmate clothing and kitchen uniforms, for Burtch and other Ontario institutions, as well as various kinds of "white goods" like pillow cases, towels, and dish cloths, etc. There were thirty-two heavy industrial sewing machines of different types - i.e. straight sewers, bind stitchers, ~surgers, button machines. Another aspect of the tailor shop operation was repair and alteration of inmate and staff clothing for Burtch: about 20-X% of Mr. Irwin's time was spent in this activity, which involved operations like measuring and fitting officers' uniforms, putting new collars cuffs zippers and pockets in inmate uniforms and so on. Mr. Irwin would instruct inmates on the safe operation of the heavy machines. He would keep custody and control of the inmates, of whom there were usually 14 or 15 in the tailor shop, and would supervise the production flow of their work. These latter two responsibilities.were shared with the manager. He also assisted in . ---‘z -4- the repairs and maintenance of machinery. Mr. Irwin did not do any ordering when he was in'the tailor shop, except in the absence of the manager. Some of Mr. Irwin's duties as an Industrial Officer 2 in the tailor shop called for skills he had developed earlier as a correctional officer, namely those relating to inmate supervision. He also developed special skills related to the sewing trade: how to operate the in- dustrial sewing machines, what to look for when the machines break down, and how to instruct the inmates in clothing construction. Moreoever, the skills required to alter and repair official clothing were also learned by Mr. Irwin as part of this job. When the tailor shop was disbanded in September 1976, Mr. Irwin was transferred to the laundry operation at Burtch, and his classification was dropped to Industrial Officer 1, as of December 1 1976. Before the phasing out of the tailor shop, there was one sewing machine in the laundry operation, where an inmate did minor repairs. Mr. Irwin was consulted about the set-up of a sewing shop for the laundry, and the operation was going by February 1977. This new sewing shop is located in a corner area of the laundry room, about 10' x 12' enclosed by a steel mesh barrier to which Mr. Irwin has the key. It has five heavy sewing machines chosen by Mr. Irwin from the equipment in the old tailor shop. Mr. Irwin spends -5- about ZO-25% of his time in the sewing shop, usually on afternoons when laundry operations are light. During his time in the sewing shop, Mr. Irwin does work extremely similar to that performed in the repair and alteration operation of the old tailor shop: measuring and fitting staff clothing, repairs to this and to inmate uniforms, and care of the clothing inmates arrived in when admitted to Burtch. The kind and variety of clothing are similar to those worked on in the tailor shop; moreover, Mr. Irwin testified that he is solely responsible for machine repairs in this new shop, that he is the one who orders machine parts and who estimates and orders sewing supplies for the shop, and that he keeps records of discarded clothing and of material ordered and used. As to this sewing operation, he reports to the senior assistant superintendent at Burtch, not for technical but only administrative supervision. From February 1977 to February 1978, he repaired 1400 garments and the volume is going up all the time. Mr. Irwin does not supervise any inmates in this sewing shop operation. He does, however, supervise from 10 to 15 inmates in the laundry aspect of his new job, and also instructs and demonstrates the functions of the machines there. When Mr. Campbell, the supervisor of the laundry, is absent on his annual vacation or on account of illness, Mr. Irwin assumes complete responsibility for inmate supervision and scheduling, activities which he shares with Mr. Campbell and for which he is responsible to him during Mr. Campbell's presence. Also -6- during Mr. Campbell's absence, Mr. Irwin estimates and procures materials for the laundry. The laundry processes about one-half ton of laundry per day, for Burtch and other correctional institutions. Mr. Campbell, the officer in charge, is classified as an Industrial Officer 2. The substance of Mr. Irwin's complaint is that the repair and alteration aspect of his job has stayed the same in relative volume but actually increased in responsibility in his new position, while his supervision and interaction with inmates has at least stayed the same as it was in his old position, but that his classification is now lower. We have no hesitation in finding that Mr. Irwin is a skilled and vigorous employee who has made a sizeable contribution to the development of a useful sewing facility. We are not, however, able to accede to the arguments for reclassification. The class standards at issue are as follows:* INDUSTRIAL OFFICER 1 CLASS DEFINITION: Employees in positions allocated to this class instruct and direct en assigned group of inmates in the processing in volume of various products, food, clothing and maintenance supplies at reformatories and industrial farms. These duties do not require skills to the level of the designated trades. They share responsibility with their supervisors, *The Qualifications part of the Standards have been omitted here as they did not form part of the issues and'argument before the Board. . ;. - 7 - and with any custodial officers assigned, for the security and work performance of inmate helpers. They ensure the observance of safety precautions, demonstrate methods, and assist in maintaining quality control and in meeting production schedules. They submit reports on any irregularities and make recommendations for changes in routine or for disciplinary action. They ensure the proper use of equipment and direct and assist in necessary repairs. In most positions they participate in all operations supervised in order to demon- strate and maintain reasonable work standards. INDUSTRIAL OFFICER 2 CLASS DEFINITION: Employees in positions allocated to this class are engaged in the supervision of work and instruction of inmates in various industries at reformatories and industrial farms. In some positions, they are in charge of a small industrial operation such as the Shoe Shop at Mimic0 or the Braille Print Shop at Millbrook. In these positions they are responsible for estimating and procurement of materials. In other positions, they assist in the management of a production operation not requiring skills of any of the designated trades such as the Woollen Mill at Guelph or the Marker Plant at Millbrook. In many of these positions, they require specialized processing knowledges and skills and are responsible to the manager for particular controls or skilled operations. They train inmates in the required processes to which they are assigned, allocate duties and check quality and quantity of production. They are responsible for the servicing, proper use and adherence to safety precautions in the operation of the equipment. They have responsibility for production schedules, work standards, shop maintenance and security arrangements in their area. They may perform the moi-e complex work as required or any of the work in order to demonstrate procedure or to expedite production as needed. -a- The employee did not deny that he performed many of the items specified for an Industrial Officer 1 classification. He argued, however, that his position is not exactly mirrored in either the class 1 or class 2 description; and, further, that classification should proceed not on the basis of the lowest skill or standard used in the job but on the basis of the highest, so that Industrial Officer 2 would be the more appropriate designation. He states that there are four aspects to his present job which take it beyond Industrial Officer 1 and into Industrial Officer 2. He claimed to act as a senior industrial officer for "a significant part" of his annual working time, during Mr. Campbell's absence. There was no clarity in the evidence concerning the number of days Mr. Campbell was absent, because the grievor and the employer were apparently using different starting points for the twelve month periods in respect of which they put forward statistics. Given the other circumstances of this case, we cannot see how it would help Mr. Irwin that he had filled in even during the forty-five days he put forth. Similarly, the fact that he is prepared willing and able to substitute for Mr. Campbell whenever called on cannot be the decisive factor here, It was also argued that Mr. Irwin shares responsibility for the laundry operation, bringing him substantially within the second para- graph of the class definition insofar as the laundry work is concerned. Moreover, he argues, he has in effect sole responsibility for the . . -9- sewing shop, and does his own repair work there. Although the class definition for Industrial Officer 2 is not perfectly applicable, Mr. Irwin contends that his overall skill and responsibility, as well as the combined work of the laundry and sewing operations, bring him within the definition. We agree that there is probably a lot of shared responsibility between Mr..-Campbell and Mr. Irwin, and Mr. Irwin does do the extra application of skill involved in the sewing shop, but we think that the scale of the operation in laundry simply militates against the Industrial Officer 2 classification for Mr. Irwin. The two essential elements of the class definition are, in our view, either that the person be "in charge of a small industrial operation" or assisting "in the management of a production operation". It was this second branch that was relevant to Mr. Irwin's classification while he was assistant manager of the tailor shop. We agree with the employer that the sewing shop of which Mr. Irwin has de facto charge is not a small industrial operation. -- No items are produced there, no inmates are supervised, and the work there is done on a low priority basis when the laundry is not busy. It does not occupy a separate establishment, and there are no production schedules or estimating and procuring activities to speak of. Accordingly, Mr. Irwin must rely on the second branch of the essential test for Industrial Officer 2 if he is to succeed. - 10 - We find that the grievance fails in this regard as well. It is hard to think of the laundry as a "production operation"; it is more along the lines of a service operation. Mr. Irwin does not,.in the words of the class definition use "specialized processing knowledge" in his laundry operation, and although sewing may be within the category of special knowledge, it is not applied to 'processing' in the sewing shop mending and altering in the way that it was applied to processing in the production aspects of the tailor shop. In short, it appears as if Mr. Irwin's work is more appropriately described by the Industrial Officer 1 category. It would clearly be so if he did his work in the laundry without doing the sewing shop, and in our view the addition of the sewing shop aspect does not sufficiently transform the job so as to bring it into Industrial Officer 2. This is somewhat unfortunate, for Mr. Irwin seems to be underutilized in his present position, given his previous satisfactory performance in the higher category and his energy and skill. This Board does not have the jurisdiction to deal with this sort of problem, and we are unwilling to use our somewhat limited jurisdiction in classification grievances so broadly as to enter this field. Thus, while dismissing this grievance, we would urge the Ministry to do all it can to find the grievor a position with a higher and more appropriate classification, working with the - 11 - grievor to find some mutually agreeable solution. Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 10th day of May, 1979 9 Mary Eberts Vice Chairman I concur Mary Gibb Member I concur Henry Weisbach Member