Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-0591.Cassir.82-11-035Sl/SO I IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN ERPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before TRE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: For the Grievor: For the Employer: Hearing: OLBEU (J. Cassir) Grievor - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer R.L. Verity, Q.C. Vice Chairman H. Simon Member A.G. Stapleton Member G. Beaulieu, Counsel Union Consulting Services J. Baker, Counsel Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart & Storie October 25, 1982 d a. -2- AWARD This is a ClassificationGrievance in which John Cassir seeks reclassification to a Yarehouseperson Grade 3 from his present classification as a Warehouseperson Grade 2. The Grfevor cornminced employment with the L.C.G.O. on May 30th, 1977 at which time he was classified as a Warehouse- , person Grade 2. In spite of his classification, both Parties agree that his job is technically 'that of a "X@chman".with limited maintenance responsibilities. The Grievor presently works on either one of two shifts -- namely 3:00 p.m. to~ll:OO p.m. or 1l:OO p.m. to 7:00 a.m. In practice, the Grfevor commences both shifts and leaves both shifts one-half hour earlier than as stated above. On the afternoon shift he is required to man the inquiry desk where he answers the telephone and responds to public inquiries from 2:30 to 5:00 p.m. Essentially, he patrols the head office building and warehouse office for security purposes using a punch-clock in the process; guides third parties entering the building after hours to their desired locations; receives and delivers switches lights.on and off; Jocks and un 1 escorts deliverymen to the cafeteria dur 4 mail from the warehouse; ocks doors; and ng the early morning hours. In addition, he .is required to polish interior bronze doors, railings and elevator doors i'n the main lobby of the head office. i -3- Mrs. Gai 1 Chapman, a job analyst for the L.C.B.O. testified that she prepared classification guidelines in ' conjunction with personnel from the'price, Waterhouse firm after having received position identificat . ,ion questionnaires from each employee. These classification guidelines were submitted in evidence as Exhibits 7 and 8 as follows: "L.C.B.O. & L.L.B:O. CLASSIFICATION'GUIDE February 1; 1978 EVALUATION CLASSIFICATION .' CRITERIA- UAREHOUSEPERSON GRADE 2 SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITY LEVEL This covers positions at the entrance and training level involved with strpightforward assignments pertalning to the operations, maintenance. and appearance of a Warehouse bottling and blending premises. Generally these positions are not required to operate rideable equipment. TYPICAL DUTIES. Duties may include: assisting with the assembly of store orders in case loads, on pallets and delivering to appropriate checker; 7oading and unloading liquor box cars and placing the cases on pallets; and other straightforward duties pertaining to warehouse operations. Other duties may include: cleaning designated locations with the use of a machine for sweeping, vacuuming and scrubbing; performing the regular duties of an operator on the bottling line; performing maintenance tasks under supervision; and perform- ing duties of a security guard/night watchpers,on or other similar functions such as working the enquiry desk; operating afreight elevator. DECISION MAKING/ COWPLEXITY CONTACTS , SUPERVISION GIVEN SUPERVISION RECEIVED ENTRANCE QUALIFICATIONS EVALUATiON CRITERIA - I J , t I ( L No .decision called for', tasks will be of routine nature with ample precedent or clearly defined procedures as guidance. Contacts are limited to members ~of the work unit. Requests for specific information or assistance are referred to the appropriate person. None. May provide general i~nformation to other junior staff performing similar tasks. Work is performed under close supervision. Rssignments are scheduled over a short time frame. Detailed,instructions are provided and ongoing guidance and direction is readily available. Completion of eight years of elementary schooling, Jr equivalent. For designated positions. requires a mechanical aptitude. Previous work experience is not required." * "L.C.B.O. 8 1.1.8.0. QUALIFICATIONS GUIDE SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITY LEVEL 1 - February 1. 1978 CLASSIFICATIONS WAREHOUSEPERSON GRADE 3 This covers positions at the working level in- volved with straightforward assignments pertaining to the operations. support services, maintenance, and appe,arance of a Warehouse or bottling and blending premises. Generally required to operate rideable equipment. These duties may extend to the Head Office premises. - 5 - TYPICAL DUTIES Duties may include: checking, transporting pallet loads,using a fork truck or assembling store orders and delivering to appropriate checker; loading and unloading liquor box cars and placfng the cases on pallets; and other duties pertaining to warehouse operations. Other du.ties may include: performing the regular duties of an operator for the bottling line or blending tanks. Providing general labour in the laboratories or offices; maintaining and repair- ing equipment under supervision; examining and repacking of damaged,cases; and performing all the duties of a chauffeur or driver. DECISION Few decisions called for and-these rill be of MAKING/ routine nature with ample precedent or clearly COMPLEXITY defined procedures as guidance. CONTACTS Contacts are generally limited toomembers of the work unit; contacts with other work units may be for information or assistance. May be required to provide service to the,public management of other departments. .SUPERVISION GIVEN None. May be. required to assist with the training of junfor employees. SUPERVISION RECEIVED Work is per~formed under supervision. Established ;t-ic;t;:es and instructions cover most aspects of Guidance and clarification is readily available, but each assignment is generally completed independently due to familiarity with operations gained through repetitive experience. ENTRANCE QUALIFICATIONS ', Completion of eight years of elementary schooling or equivalent. For designated positions requires a mechanical aptitude. A minimum of one years' experience as a Warehouseperson Grade 2 or equivalent related experience." I -6- Mrs. Chapman's evidence was to .the effect that these guidelines. were drafted to facilitate the classification of all jobs in the bargaining unit. She testified that the Grievor had a book of instructions at his disposal that outlined all procedures that must be followed. Mrs. Chapman felt that the Grievor was properly classified as a Warehouse- person Grade 2 in view of his Tack of decf.sion making, and the fact that "for the most part it was a very routine job". Mrs. Chapman also testffied that as the Grievor was not , performing the majority of the duties of a Warehouseperson Grade 3 classificationrand that his request for reclassification to the higher level was unjustifiable. However. she candidly admitted that the classificatfon guidelines were written for the majority of employees and that the Grievor's job functions were atypical o.f either classification. Evidence was presented which established that L.C.B.O. employees, Joe MacKinnon, Sam Goldberg, Frank Gaudet. and Frank Courtney were presently classified Grade 3. The job functions of these empl in testimony by several of the witnesses. as Warehousepersons oyees.were described Arbitral precedent of this Board in classification cases is now well established by such Awards as Beals and Cain 39/79 (Draw-1 (Beatty); Whee_ - 7- Cynch, 43/7.7 (Adams); Rounding, lB/75 er, 166/78 (Swinton), and more recently in Stapley and Ministry of Industry and Trade, 231/82 (Ianni). . Vice-Chairman Draper in the leading decision of Eeals and Cain (supra) states at page 12 of his Award as follows: "It is well settled that in position classification cases the board must direct its inquiry to the questions, first, whether or not the work actually performed by the employee is that set ' out in an appropriate class standard and, second,.whether or not he is performing 'work substantially similar to that betng performed by an employee whose position has been placed in another classification. In the first instance the employee's work is measured against class standards and in the second, it is measured against that of an employee in a position that has been di,fferently classified. The purpose is to establish either that the employer is con- forming to its classification standards or that, in effect, the employer has modified those standards." Of particular relevance to the instant Grievance is the rationale of'vice-Chairman J. W. Samuels in Woodcock and VanAlstine and L.C.B.O.. 564/81 and 565/81 where the Vice-Chairman states at page 2: -8- "This case is perhaps the worst example of the problems which face this Board in classification matters. In fact, as we shall see, the class standards for Clerks 3 and 4 bear hardly any resemblance what- soever to the jobs done by the grievors. or anyone In the multigraph <side of their department, However, there are no class standards which do fit their jobs. Hence,. we are asked to take an orange in one hand. and a Delicious apple and a Spy apple in the. other hand, and to say which apple the orange most closely resembles." In the instant Grievance, neither classification guide of Warehouseperson Grade 2 or Warehouseperson Grade 3 bears much resemblance to the job presently being performed by the Grievor. It is fair to say that the Grievor's job is atypical of either classificati, on guideline. The difficulty is that there is apparently no classification that is approoriate. to the Grievor's job function. The task of this Board is to ascertain which of these two inapplicable classifications is more appropriate. Having considered all of the evidence, we find that . the Grievor's job fits more closely within the classification of Warehouseperson Grade 3. and therefore the Grievor is improperly classified. -9- Ye ffnd that the Grfevor has completed the ., entrance and training level requirement contemplated by the Warehouseperson Grade 2 classification, and is not at the "working level" as described in the summary of responsibility level in the Grade 3 classification. Under the heading of "Decision Raking Complexity", Grade 3 appe'ars more applicable to the Grfevor. Undoubtedly, there is a li.mited decision making complexity to the Griever's job. Under the heading of 'Contacts", the Boarifinds that his present contacts exceed the Grade 3 requirements. Under the heading of "Supervision Given" and "Supervision Received", it is our view that the Grievor fits more appropriately into the higher classification. There is little doubt.that the requirements for both Grades 2 and 3 are relatively straightforward assignments, and we have no reservation that the Grievor's present duties fit more appropriately at the higher level. In the result, it is this Board's Award that the Grievor shall forthwith be reclassified to the Warehouseperson Grade 3 level, and in addition that he shall be compensated for 1 cs - 10, - all lost wages retroactive to the date of the filing of his Grievance. We retafn jurisdiction in the e,vent there are any difficulties between the Parties in establishing the appropriate compensation. Hopefully some thought will be . given in the future to the development of a new class standard which would more accurately reflect the Grievor's present job functions. DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 3rd day of November, A.D., 1982. R.L. Verity, Q.C Vice Chairman .H. Simon Member A. . y 5 : 2440