Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0186.Burski and Freedman.81-09-23Between: IN THE i?ATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under The CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAIMING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCZ SETTLEMENT BOARD Mr. J. G. Burski and Mr. G. I. Freedman Grievers - And - The Crown in Right of Ontaric (Ministry of Government Services) Employer Prof. D. G. Barton Vice Charnan Mr. R. Russell Member Mr. D. Middleton Member For t'ne Griever: Hf. N. LUCZay, Griev+nce/Classification officer, Ontario Pub:ic Servi,ze Employees Gnicz For the Employer: MS . E. Kulman, Senior Personnel Administratcr Ministry of Government Services Hearing: June 25, 198:; -2- AWARD J. G. Burski works as a Mechanical Inspector, Queen's Park Regional Office, Ministry of Government Services. G. I. ?~l~k?.2~ works as an Electrical Inspector, Queen's Park Regional Office, Ministry of Government Services. Both grievors are classified as Services Officer I (SO11 and have been in that classification since December 2, 1980 when they were put into the bargaining unit. Cn December 19, 1980 they both filed grievances alleging that they were improperly classified. We have endeavored to understand the evidence and carefully consider the issues and arguments that are reasonably open and in the result have unanimously decided to dismiss the grievances. The parties were able to.agree on some issues and filed Exhibits 8 and 9 - Descriptions of Duties, dated January 13, 1981 to cover the positions occupied by the grievors. The class standard relevant to SO1 is the 1972 Class Standard of SSl which was filed as Exhibit 4. In their grievances the grievors asked to be classified as Services Supervisor II (S.SII) and the relevant Class Standard of 1972 was filed as a part of Exhibit 4. We have not found the resolution of the matter to be any easier because of the absence of up-to-date job specifications to cover the grievors positions. It appears that in the Ministry there has been, in the last few years, considerable reorganization of duties and as sometimes occurs the creation of up-to-date job specifications has fallen by the wayside. - 3 - The grievors are primarily involved in repair and improvement of existing buildings owned by the government in the' Queen's Park Region. The repair and maintenance work is largely done by private contractors working according to specificaticns in tenders and it is one of the major functions of the grievors to make sure that this work is done according to the tender and that it is done properly. Both the grievors appear to be very competent in their field and as most provincial civil secants, are guite dedicated to their work. There are two Xechanical Inspectors and two Electrical Inspectors in the region, the other two persons not involved in this matter being more recently hired and doing more evening work. Both the grievors report to Richard Aikins who used to be an SsZtand is now an OM16. He is a Mechanical Supervisor and supervises the grievors as'well as eight persons in the Mechanical Shop. In additions it is his duty to do .a11 final inspections on projects before the government ccnsiders them to be adequately completed. As stated above the grievors are both actively involved in inspections of ongoing capital projects. A distincticn is made in the government service between major capital projects and minor capital projects. ?rojects costing over S400,000.00(a ascent figure)lare classified as major and the responsibility for ongoing supervision of these rests with Inspectors sent out frcm head office. It was a comparison between these persons from head-office and the work done by the grievors that the led the grievors to feel that they were improperly classified, since these Inspectors frcm head office are classified as SSII's. Although the relevant Mechanical -4- and Electrical Inspectors from head office were not called, job classifications were filed as Exhibits 10 and 11 to give us some indication of what they, did. In addition their former Supervisor Mr. Harris testified as to what these persons did. His.evidence was that the head office inspectors are involved in major capital projects and go out from head office to all areas of the province inspecting these projects. They are also called in or sent in by head office to inspect minor capital projects of extreme complexity, They are also involved in the construction of new buildings.all around Ontario. Our jurisdiction is found in titicle 5 of the relevant agreement. This well known provision allows an employee who claims to be improperly classified to challenge the classification. By virtue of Article 5.1.2 our jurisdiction is limnited to either confirming that the grievor is properly classified or finding that the grievor would be properly classified in a job classification which he claims in the grievance. We do not apparently have jurisdiction to deal with matters of monetary compensation should we allow grievances nor do we have jurisdiction to put the grievers into a classification which they do not claim. The many decided cases on the issue of how we should approach our function seem to be unanimous in their conclusion that the burden of proof in such matters is on the grievors. They also suggest that there are two ways in which the grievors may succeed. In the first place the grievers may show that comparing what they do with job specificsticns for the classification that they are in and the classification in which they claim to be, it can be shown that they are doing an identical job function to that of the higher classification. ":le second way in which a grievance may succeed is by ignoring the job specifications and comparing what is done by grievors to what is done by other people who are classified in the higher classifications In this case we will first address the first way in which a grievance may succeed. Our first problem is that th,e ~duties carried out by the grievors, set out in an agreed list (Exhibits 8 and 9) do not seem to fit very comfortably within the class standard of SSl, the relevant standard. The relevant standard shows that there are five areas of work done. 1. Inspection of work done by contract. 2. Supervision and assignment of work to foreman and labourers. 3. Supervising preventative maintenance programs. 4. Preparing annual budget estimates. 5. Preparing budget estimates for the total of operation and maintenance program. Of these five the grievors are involved in number one and involved in a small way in number four, annual budget estimates. Thus the present class standard which is said to coverwhat they do does %t seem to us to do so. The second question is whether or not the.work they are doing seems to fit within the class standard of SSZ. This class standard number 19342 seems to involve duties which are substantially more complex and involve much more responsibility than those carried out by the qrievors. In particular the standard seems to contem;iate that SSII's be involved in a certain amount of coordination of projects or be involved as regional inspectors of ma;or'sapi:al - 6 - projects. They are also stated to be responsible for preveztati-:o (sic) maintenance programs, something which the grievers do not do. They also work with District Electrical or llechanical Superviscrs such as Mr. Aikins in the preparation of annual budget estimates. It can not be said that the qrievors do this in any substantial way. Thus it appears to us that the first way in which a grievance may succeed is not one that applies in this case. The second way in which a grievance may succeed is if the qrievors can show that somebody else who is classified in a higher classification is working at identical or nearly identical work as the qrievor. The difficulty. with this line of approach is that there are not a very large number of SSl's or SSII's in each district or head office and the only comparison that was made by the qrievors was with the comparable persons at head office. This comparison was largely a paper comparison comgarinq what the qrievors do as described in Exhibits 8 and 9 with the job soecifisatlc:z of the head office positions. This approach might have had scme chance of success were it not for the evidence of LW. Harris who testified as to what the persons at head office actually do. it is clear to us from his evidence that distinction between minor and major captial projects is very significant and that the head office inspectors do involve themselves substantially more in major capital projects. In addition the head cffice.inspectcrs travel thronqhcut the province in their duties and seem to have ccnside:ably more responsibility than that exercised by the grievers. Thus we -7- cannot say that the qrievors have proved that they are doing the same or close to the same job as somebody classified in the classifjcation in which they wish to be. Accordingly as indicated the grievance is dismissed. DATED AT London, Ontario 23 September, 1981 Vice-chairman R. Russell Member D. By. Middleton Member ~ 1