The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-0310.Stiles.81-07-06IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under The ; CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Mr. R. E. Stiles Before: For the Grievor: Grievor - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Environment) Employer Prof. P. G. Barton Vice Chairman Prof. F. Collom Member Mr. 2. R. O'Kelly Member Mr. S. T. Goudge, Counsel Cameron, Brewin & Scott For the Employer: Mr. G. S. Feeley, Manager Personnel Operations Ministry of the Environment Hearing: June 5, 1981 . -2- Since 1970 Robert Stiles'has been employed in the District Office of the Ministry of the Environment, Ottawa, Ontario. He is one of two environmental technicians classified as ET-3, and in this grievance filed January 4, 1980, he asks ~to be classified as ET-4.~ It was agreed at the hearing that we had-jurisdication to deal with the matter. The District Office in Ottawa is divided into two parts a Municipal and Pr.ivate Abatement part and 'an Industrial Abatement part.Each part is in charge of a District Officer, a Mr. Clarke being in charge of the Industrial Abatement Section. Mr. Clarkesupervises the two ET-3s, one being the grievor. As the name would suggest the Industrial Abatement Section is involved in all aspects of industrial pollution. The work done in the section is of a highly technical nature requiring a high degree of skill and training and competence, as well as an ability to deal effectively with the public. A considerable amount of the time is spent investigating the sources of industrial pollution and in preparing technical reports, and much time is spent in advising the Municipal and Planning Abatement Section, municipalities, and industries.. Up until 1979 there were two engineers at the ,Ottawa office. The junior engineer a Mr. David Grump help to run the office and helped the two ET-3s in the Industrial Abatement Section in the conduct of their surveys and in the preparation of their reports. Unfortunately, in 1979 he left the office and was not replaced. The result of this was that the work that he had done was picked up by the District Officer and by the two ET-3s. Insofar -3- as the technical aspects of the job were concerned the ET-3s became much more independent than they had been before and could only look on a very occasional basis to the senior engineer remaining for help. Insofar as administration of the office , was concerned District Officer Clarke picked up much of the load but some of it fell on the shouldersof the grievor. In particular if the District Officer was away as he was about 25% of the time, it became the function of the grievor to look after the day to day running of the office, respond to technical inquiries from the Municipal and Planning Section, and handle the flow of incoming calls for advice. Because of these added responsibilities the District 'Officer decided that a position of Senior Environmental Officer ET-4.should be created. This was to recognize the fact that the grievor was involved in doing duties additional to those done by his colleague the other ET-3. Shortly after this grievance was filed, probably around the beginning of February 1980, the Regional Officer indicated to Mr. Clarke that he did not wish to create a position of ET-4 in the District Office in Ottawa and that Mr. Clarke should. instruct the grievor not to carry on with the additional duties. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for the Ministry, Mr. Stiles is a particularly conscientious officer and since February 1980 has continued to look after the day-to-day running of the office in the absence of Mr. Clarke. We were unable to see any evidence that Mr. Clarke has specifically instructed. him not to do this. -4- I The drafted position specifications for ET-4, Senior Environmental Officer in the Ottawa District differ from the drafted position specificatiorefor ET-3 in some minor aspects. In particular it is to be the duty of the ET-4 to: (1) provide technical advice on noise problems: (2) assume responsibility for direction of the District; in the absence of the District Office?=; (3) maintain the District contengency plan and (4.1 'training new inspectors. The Staffing Standards Manual indicates that the additional skills or experience required are two years more . experience, a wider contact, and the ability to do independent work. 'It appears that in the drafting of these position specifications ,' Mr. Clarke did attempt to write~in some aspects of what the grievor did when Mr. Grump .left. In fact the provision of technical advice, on noise problems is already a. function of an ET-3, no one is now maintaining the District contingency plans, (because of instruction from Mr. Clarke) and there have been no new inspectors appointed to be trained. In the result the only difference between the functions of the present ET-3 and the functions performed by the grievor is that he continues to look after the District office during the absence of the District Officer. \ A look at the class standards for ET-4 which are applied province-wide shows that the major difference between an ET-3 and an ET-4 contemplated by the Ministry is that an ET-4 is either to be a recognized expert in a field or to have advanced~ responsibilities -5- in the area of supervision. We feel that the class standard at least contemplates that an ET-4 operate at a considerably higher level of independence and contacts than that hresently shown to-exist in the case of the grievor. To some extent we are not sure that the drafted class specification for ET-4 for the Ottawa office reflect this. As emphasized by Mr~. Goudge in his able argument, the "law" that we are to apply is relatively straightforward and uncomplicated we could allow the grievance if we found that the grievor was doing the job described as an ET-4 or in the alternative the same result could be achieved if he was doing the same job as other people who are presently described as ET-4s. On the latter point although we do have some evidence concerning the type of work done by the ET-4s in Cornwall and Kingston, that evidence seems fairly inconclusive and indeed seems to show that these persons have been delegated specific functions in addition to the functions carried out by the ET-3s in those Districts. Thus the basic question here is whether or not the activities Of the grievor are sufficiently within the higher classification of ET-4 that we can say with certainty that he has brought himself within that classification. This matter is c'omplicated by the fact that his immediate supervisor Mr. Clarke was specif- ically-instructed not to allow him to do the work done by a person ,in that category. I Although the matter is not completely free from doubt', we have decided unanimously that the grievor has not brought -6- himself within the higher classification. We are concerned that he seems to have continued to conscientiously carry out the functions which his supervisor was told he should not carry out and can see that he might feel somewhat hard done by by this Award. We hope that the Regional Officer will recognize the fact that somebody has to take over the duties of supervision during the absence of the District-officer and that he might take a second look at the problem. With respect to the time between the leaving of Mr. Crump and February 1, 1980, Mr. Feeley very graciously pointed out that,as 'far as Mr. Clarke and the grievor were concerned the grievor was in fact functioning at a higher level. We are not sure that we totally agree with this characterization partly because it would be somewhat inconsistent withy our Award for us to do so, but Mr. Feeley did graciously acknowledge that it would be fair if the grievor were given a partial recognition of the extra work he did by an Award which ordered the payment of the difference between the then existing ET-3 and ET-4 salary to.the grievor for the period from the time that Mr. Crump left to February the lst, 1980. We agree with his submission which Mr. Goudge naturally enough did not oppose, and so order. In the event that there should be difficulty in the calculation of this matter we retain jurisdiction over it. 9----f ’ - 7 - DATED AT London, Ontario this 6 Ju~ly, 1981 \ Vice-Chairman F. CollOm Member 2 .“./” : -./-~ .,F ,__ .,C~ , ,.) ‘. 4’: , 1, concur/&&se& / .->-,E. R. O'xe.L&+- Member ,,.~I.' * I