Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0019.Petrucella et al.82-11-12IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: OLBEU (J. Petrucella, J. Robinson & P. Blotsky) and Crievors The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) ’ Employer P. Draper Vice Chairman H. Simon Member A.C. Stapleton LMember For the Grievor: E. Beaulieu, Counsel Union Consulting Services For the Employer: R.J. Drmaj, Counsel Hicks, IMorley, Hamilton, Stewart & Storie Hearing: September 23, 1982 -2- The respective Grievors, G. Petrucella; J. Robinson and P. Blotsky, grieve that they have been appraised contrary to the governing principles and standards and that the appraisals conducted by the Employer should have led to the re-classification of their jobs. The grievances have apparently been treated throughout by the parties as classification cases and were argued as such before the Board. Accordingly, we conclude that the issue submitted to us for determination is whether or not the Grievers’ jobs are improperly classified Warehouseperson Grade 2 (“W2”) and should be re-classified Warehouseperson Grade 3 elW39. J. Robinson has been employed by the LCBO as a W2 at its Head Office Warehouse premises in Toronto since April 1974. When first employed he performed general manual cleaning duties but for some six or seven years he has worked full time operating a power sweeper-scrubber in the warehouse. Apart from annual negotiated increases, he received one salary increase in 1976 when he was transferred from probationary to permanent status. At each annual salary/promotion appraisal interview with his general foreman since 1976 he has been told that he is at the maximum salary for his classification. P. Blotsky has been employed by the LCBO since September 1969 as a W2. He performs general manual cleaning duties, washing floors, sweeping, dusting and disposing of waste in offices, locker rooms, lunch rooms and public areas of the Head Office Warehouse premises. His experience at annual salary/promotion appraisal interviews has been the same as that of Robinson. -3- -- G. Petruceila has been employed by the LCBO as a W2 since October 1975. He performs general manual cleaning duties in offices, lunch rooms and public areas of the Head Office Warehouse premises similar to those performed by Blotsky. His experience at annual salary/promotion appraisal interviews. has bean the same as that of Robinson and Blotrky. R. Iacobucci, subpoenaed to testify for the Grievofs, has been employed by the LCBO for about six years. He started at Bellefield Warehouse as a W2 doing general manual cleaning duties and later operated a power sweeper-scrubber first at Bellefield and then at Kipling Warehouse where he was transferred when Bellefield was closed about four years ago. His job was re-classified to W3, whether shortly before or after his transfer is not clear from the evidence. After having operated a power sweeper-scrubber at Kipling for about four years his job was re-classified as a W4 in July 1982 and now operates a fork-lift truck. B. Merry, subpoenaed to testify for the Grievors, has been employed by the LCBO for about four years at its London Warehouse, beginning as a W2. His present classification is W3 and as such he operates a power sweeper-scrubber for a majority of his time but also drives a delivery truck and assembles cases on skids. In early 1982 he agreed to take on general manual cleaning duties that had bean performed by an employee who retired. -I- G. Dube, subpoenaed to testify for the Grievors, started in 1965 as a temporary employee serving customers at a LCBO store m Cornwall and continued in that capacity until 1970. In that year he was transferred to, the Ottawa Warehouse, given permanent status and classified as a W3, the classification he now holds. He performs general manual cleaning &ties in washrooms, locker rooms, lunch rooms and offices of the warehouse premises. G. Chapman is Senior lob Analyst with the LCBO. The Classification Guides for W2 and W3 (appended to this decision) are dated February 1, 1978, and were prepared by her, working in conjunction with a firm of consultants. They are derived from individual job descriptions for employees in W2 and W3 classifications. In her opinion the job descriptions for the Grievors (which are not available to us) confirm that their proper classification is W2. She concedes that the job descriptions of two of the Grievers, Blotsky and Petrucella, appear to be almost identical to that of Dube and that the job description of the third Grievor, Robinson, appears to be almost identical to that of Iacobucci when he was a W3. Since the adoption of the Classification Guides, jobs that are “over-classified” are not re-classified until a change of incumbents takes place. We accept that, as stated in McCourt, 198178, “the essence of the Board’s enquiry is to determine whether the Employer conformed to its own classification standard”. We take from the numerous Board decisions in classification cases that the Employer modifies (or fails to conform to) its classification standards by either: r-- - -5- 1. Not placing a job in the proper class, or 2. Permanently assigning an employee to perform work substantiaIIy similar to that beiog performed in a higher class. In either case, the employee is improperly classified. The family of duties encompassed in both the W2 and W3 classifications may be said to be of an unskilled or, at most, a semi-skilled nature and the responsibilities to be minimal. It is therefore to be expected that the duties and responsibilities as described in the Classification Guides for the two classes are not mutually exclusive or even substantially different; that there is no single, distinctive duty, or core function, that may be said to differentiate one class from the other; and that the Classification Guides are couched in general terms. In such circumstances documented standards afford little assistance to Grievors attempting to show that they are improperly included ln one class and should be re-classified to another, specified class. In the present case we are not satisfied, on the evidence of the work performed by the Grievors measured against the Employer% class standards, that they are improperly classified W2 and would properly be classified W3. At this point the Grievers have shown that the W3 classification is potentially proper, but not that the W2 classification is improper. We then proceed to the second branch of the Board’s inquiry. To deal first with the grievances of Petrucella and Blotsky, the case put for them is that the work they have been performing for 13 and -6- seven years respectively is identical to that Dube has been performing for 12 years. That claim is fully supported by the evidence. The question is whether or not, in the circumstances, the comparison is valid. As stated in Dalrymple, 79177, ” . ..evidence of others in a higher classification doing substantially the same work as the grievor is only important when it is seen to reflect the actual practice of the employer”. The Board has also expressed in Charbameau and Skomorowskl, 435/80, and Garrard, 521181, views to the effect that Employer practices unrelated to class standards cannot subvert those standards. That argument is one that cuts both ways. We believe that it is not an unreasonable extension of those views to conclude that in the resolution of classification issues the Employer’s practices are relevant only to the extent that they derive from class standards. The entry of Dube directly from a temporary appointment that had provided no related experience into the Warehouseperson series at the Grade 3 level rather than at the normal entry level, Grade 2 (there is no Grade 1) was, on its face, patently irregular. In effect, we are asked to sanction promotions within a classification series taking as our precedent a single, aberrant appointment to that series. In light of the circumstances of Dube’s appointment we are of the opinion that the evidence of the work he performs cannot be regarded as of sufficient evidential value to support the re-classification sought by the two Grievors. Accordingly, we find that the Grievers, Petrucella and Blotsky, have failed to discharge the onus of proving that their jobs are improperly classified. Their grievances are dismissed. -7- Turning to the grievance of Robinson, it must first be noted that his job has remained classified as a W2 despite a significant change in his duties. In addition, the Employer re-classified Iacobucci’s job from W2 to W3 while both he and Robinson were performing the identical type of work: the full-time operation of a power sweeper-scrubber in a warehouse. The re-classification of Iacobucci’s job from W2 to W3, taken together with the failure or refusal to re-classify Robinson’s job similarly, clearly represents a modification, in practice, of the Employer’s classification standards. That is, the standards were applied differently to one job than to the other. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the decision to re-classify Iacobuccl’s job was not taken in the normal course or does not represent an application of the Employer’s classification standards. We would not be prepared, in any and all circumstances, to act on evidence of a single modification of the Employer’s classification standards. However, we consider that the evidence of the modification here, the re-classification of the job of one employee but not that of another doing identical work, is of sufficient evidential value to support the re-classification sought by the Grievor. We find that the Grievor, Robinson, having established that the work he performs is identical to that performed by an employee whose job has been classified W3, is improperly classified. -8- It is therefore ordered that the Grievor, Robinson, be re-classified Warehouseperson Grade 3 with effect from December 5, 1980. We remain seized of the case in order to deal with the matter of compensation should the parties fail to agree on that question. DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 12th day of November, 1982. - P. Draper Vice Chairman \ H. Simon Member A.G. Stapleton Member 5:2400 5:2410 APPENDICES APPENDIX I -9- L.C.B.O. dr, L.L.B.O. CLASSIFICATION GUIDE EVALUATION CRITERIA SUMMARY OF RESPONS- IBILITY LEVEL TYPICAL DUTIES DECISION [MAKING/ COMPLEXITY CONTACTS SUPERVISION GIVEN SUPERVISION RECEIVED ENTRANCE QUALIFICA- TIONS February 1, 1978 CLASSIFICATION WAREHOUSEPERSON GRADE 2 This covers positions at the entrance and training level involved with straightforward assignments pertaining to the operations, maintenance, and appearance of a Warehouse bottling and blending premises. Generally these positions are not required to operate rideable equipment. Duties may include: assisting with the assembly of store orders in case loads on pallets and delivering to appropriate checker; loading and unloading liquor box cars and placing the cases on pallets; and other straight- forward 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 performing duties of a security guard/ night watchperson or other similar functions such as working the enquiry desk; operating a freight elevator. No decisions 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 information to other junior staff performing similar tasks. Work is performed under close supervision. Assignments 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 or equivalent. For designated positions requires a mechanical aptitude. Previous work experience is not required. -lO- L.C.B.O. & L.L.B.O. CLASSIFICATION GUIDE EVALUATION CRITERIA SUMMARY OF RESPONS- IBILITY LEVEL TYPICAL DUTIES DECISION MAKING/ COMPLEXITY CONTACTS SUPERVISION GIVEN SUPERVISION RECEIVED ENTRANCE QUALIFICA- TIONS AF’PERDIX II February 1, 1978 CLASSIFICATION WAREHOUSEPERSON GRADE 3 This covers positions at the working level involved with straightforward assignments pertaining to the operations, support services, maintenance, and appearance of a Ware- house or bottling and blendiig premises. Generally required to operate rideable equipment. These duties may extend to the Head Office premises. 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 placing the cases on pallets; and other duties pertaining to warehouse operations. Other duties 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 repairing equipment under supervision; examining and repacking of damaged cases; and perform- ing all the duties of a chauffeur or driver. Few decisions called for and these will be of routine nature with ample precedent or clearly defined pro- cedures as guidance. Contacts are generally limited to members of the work unit; contacts with other work units may be for informa- tion or assistance. May be required to provide service to the public management of other departments. None. May be required to assist with the training of junior employees. Work is performed under supervision. Established procedures and instructions cover most aspects of the work. Guidance and classification is readily available, but each assignment is generally completed independently due to familiarity with operations gained through repetitive experience. Completion of eight years of elementary schooling or equivalent. For designated positions requires a mechanical aptitude. A minimum of one year’s experience as a Warehouseperson Grade 2 or equivalent related experience.