Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-0026.Leworthy.81-07-0626/80 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under The CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Mr. J. Leworthy and Grievor. The Crown in Right of Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications Employer. Before: Professor R. J. Roberts -Vice-Chairman Mr. I. S. MacGregor -Member Mr. P. Warrian -Member For the Grievor: Mr. N. Luczay Grievance Classification Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union .~ For the Employee: Mr. J. Henderson Head~PersonneT Services (Central Region) Ministry of Transportation and Communications Hearinq: June 16, 1981 -2- . AWARD ----- ._ This arbitration involves ,a classification grievance. The grievor, Mr. J. Leworthy, claimed that his job was improperly classified as a Clerk 2, Supply, when it,ought to have been classified as a Clerk 3, Supply. In support of this contention of the grefvor, the Union submitted that the duties 'of the grievor fit within the Class Standard of the Clerk Supply Series for Clerk 3, SUPPlY. Alternatively, the Union contended that the core duties of the grievor were identical to those of another employee of the Ministry who was classified at the relevant time as a Clerk 3, SUPPlY. It was contended on behalf of the Crown that the Union had not discharged its burden of proving either of these conten- tions, based upon principles set forth in the relevant j&is- prudence. Upon due consideration of the evidence and the conten- tions of the parties, we conclude that the grievance must be dis- missed.' Our reasons for reaching this conclusion will become more apparent from what follows: The facts as we find them are as follows. The grievor is employed inthe stockroom of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications at 1927 Kipling Avenue, Toronto, Ontario. This stockroom is a large structure which houses within it, inter u, electrical, material, and sign stock. The grievor handles the sign stock. In connection with this function, the grievor has a small office at one end of the building. This end of the - 3~- . building also houses all of the sign stock which is stored at that location, along with some material stock and some bulk materials. It was also indicated at the hearing that on occasion, this end of the building is used as a receiving area for various forms of stock which are kept there. .A partition divides this end of the building frcm the'rest. A large door in this partition permits easy access from one side to the other. The grievor's office is at the opposite end of the building from the office of his immediate supervisor, Mr. P. Wilson. Testimony indicated that the distance from one office to the other is.approximately 100 feet. It seems that the grievor knows his duties well.and performs them with a minimum of direct supervision. In a Posi- tion Specification which both sides agreed was accurate; the grievor's duties were summarized as follows: 1. Under general supervision of Material Stockkeeper issues and receives a variety of Sign stock C$300,000 inventory) by: - receiving requests (SBS 14 material request or OB-16 - Sign Shop RIE) from Sign Shop Supervisor, Patrolmen, etc.: - processing requests by supplying from stock or making up Sign Production Order for necessary signs not in stock: - making'up Production Orders (08-E) for stock items and non-stock items; - preparing shipment for delivery; - issuing raw materials to sign shop and Road crews and obtaining initials or signature Receiver: - receiving items for stock or direct purchases, checking quantities received against packing slip and purchase order and examining for quantity, quality, suitability and if required, preparing discrepancy report for Supervisor's action: . -4- - signing packing slips signifying receipt; - marking stock items with correct identifi- cation, number, location, code and placing in correct location to facilitate easy re- trieval and prevent deterioration and damage - examining sign material returned from field and determining whether such is acceptable as stock, to be scrapped or reclaimed. 2. Performs a variety of other related duties such as:- - assisting with annual physical inventory ie. counting stock and recording on inventory card; - filing stock records ie. requisitions, requests and purchase orders in records room; 20% - counting stock (as part of perpetual inventory) and comparing to visi-record cards; checking within owi~ area to attempt to resolve discrep- ancies and passing unresolved discrepancies to supervisor for further action; - ensuring that supply truck driver takes proper material for proper location; The grievor testified that he believes the most import- ant part of the job is making up,,Production Orders. Apparently this is the form which is used in order to,obtain a new sign from the sign shop. The grievor receives requisitions or requests from patrols indicating that new signs are needed at various points on the'highways of the region of Ontario for which his sign shop is responsible. In response to these requests or requisitions, the grievor "pulls" from the sign stock the appropriate size of plywood for the sign, and.writes up on a Production Order the details of the sign that should be made from this stock. The Production Order and raw stock then go to the sign shop. The sign shop makes up the sign and places on the Production Order the costing to.be allocated to that particular job. The grievor .then takes the : I -5- completed,sign and sends it to the appropriate location. The grievor further.testified that while there are standard supplies of common signs maintained on hand in order to avoid issuing Production Orders for everything, there are many jobs for which a standard supply cannot economically be kept. He further testified that when it comes to making up production Orders for the latter, i-t often becomes incumbent upon him to supply missing details from his own knowledge and sources, particularly with respect to requests from patrols. Very often, it seems, these requests are incomplete. They may omit the sire ' or shape of the sign which requires replacement. As a result, the grfevor must refer to a manual for the size, color, etc., for the sign. Where the manual does not supply the answer, the ' grievor must rely upon his own knowledge from having performed the job over a number of years or consult the personnel at the sign shop in order to arrive at the proper specifications. The grievor stressed in his testimony that the Clerk 2's in the mechanical or electrical stockrooms do not make up Production Orders and do not require the specialized knowledge that he must utilize in executing the aforementioned duties. Other evidence introduced at the hearing-indicated that while the grievor does perform these functions, he is not solely reponsible for the area in which the sign stock'is located. The grievor does not possess a key to the area and is not responsible for the security of it. It also was indicated that the main i, ” - 6 - . records regarding the stock are not kept in the ,grievor's office, but rather are kept in a room called the "posting" rbom, which is. located at the end of the building near the office of Mr. Wilson, the griever's supervisor. The Board also heard evidence from a Mr. Gilroy, who was, at the relevant time, a Clerk 3, Supply regarding sign stock at another location belonging to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Mr. Gilroy indicated that .the sign shop stockroom in which he worked was four miles away from the main stockroom where his supervisor was located. In this position, he supervised one other person, who was classi- fied as a Clerk 2, and in the summertime a student. Mr. Gilroy testified that in addition to performing the functions re Pro- duction Orders, etc. which the grievor testified were part of his job, he also was responsible for the security of the stock- room in addition to that of the fenced stockyard immediately adjacent thereto. In this regard, he possessed the key to the premises. He testified that had there been a theft, he would' have been the first in line for assuming responsibility for it. Mr. Gilroy also testified that he kept the records for the stockroom and was responsible for the automatic ordering of supplies when the records indicated that he was getting low. He also indicated that he was responsible for the annual inven- tory of the sign stock. Finally, Mr. Gilroy indicated that on occasion his Clerk 2 would get involved in making up Production Orders. -7- At the hearing, there appeared to be little dispute between the parties as to the principles of law that apply to a case such as the one at hand. As to the Class Standard for the Clerk Supply Series, both parties appear to agree that un- der settled law, a positionought to be accorded the classifi- cation in which the duties to be performed in that position meet the compensable factors differentiating that classifica- .tion from the one immediately below it. The parties, however, differed markedly in their application of the Class Standard for Clerk 3, Supply to the facts of the case. The Union contended that the responsibilities of the ,grievor fit his position within the second paragraph of the Class Standard for the Clerk 3,. Supply position. This paragraph reads as follows: This class also covers the positions of employees who, under the general supervision of a higher level supply clerk are in sole charge of subsidiary special- ized technical or trade stockrooms. They requisition supplies: ensure the careful checking,-of incoming stock; the shipment of stock against authorized requisitions and the security of the stockroom: The responsibility for these stockrooms is a full time occupation often including the repair and adjustment of technical equipment. The contention of the Union appeared to be that becauie the grievor performed most of the "essential" functions listed in this paragraph the grievor's position ought to be classified as a Clerk 3, Supply. We agree with the Employer, however, that in order to fit within this paragraph the position of the grievor must -0- . involve all of the compensable features required by it and that the one compensable feature that is not accorded the position of the grievor is that the grievor be "in sole charge", with responsibility for "security of the stockroom". Nowhere does the evidence indicate that on a balance of prob- abilities, the grievor has this kind of responsibility. Accordingly, we conclude that the grievor and the Union have not met their burden of proof upon this issue. Turning to the alternative argument of the grievor, that he performed the same duties as another supply clerk who was, at the relevant time, classified as a Clerk 3,,we reach a similar conclusion. In order to succeed on such an argument, it was necessary for tbe grievor to show that the core of his duties were identical to the core of duties performed by the higher classified clerk. This he has failed to do. Noteworthy among the core duties differentiating the grievor from Mr. Gilroy, were the facts that Mr. Gilrcy was responsible for a building which was four miles distant from the building in which, his supervisor was located; he had fuil responsibility for security: and,'M.r. Gilroy had superior responsibility for recordkeeping, ordering and inventory associated with this function. The grievance is dismissed. - 9 - Dated at.San Diego, California,.this 6th day of July, 1981. Professor R. J. Roberts I concur Mr. I. S. MacGregor I dissent ' Mr. P,. Warrian