HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0648.Solda.82-06-18IN 'Xl3 XATTER OF BY SRElITRATION
GPSEU.(Pierre 3alda)
- And -
Eefore: R.L. Verity, Q.C. Vice Chairman
H. Siwon X e&h e i-
ii. Prestc1: “-~-'.~r At',‘:" .
- 2 -
:,,
:,.I
,::
.
..i
In this Grievance, Pierre Solda alleges that he is
improperly classified as Technician 1 Municipal Engineering,
and seeks re-classification to Service Supervisor II retroactive
to. May lst, 1381.
The Grievor is presently employed with the Mmistry
of the Environment, having .commenced employment initially with
the Ministry of Transporation and Communications in 1972. In
1976, as ,a result of a competition, he obtained his present
classification as Technician 1 Municipal Engineering.. Six of
the..-Grievor.‘s -.fel~lbw Employees within the’~,ProjeCt Co-ord&iat~‘oti.?
,.Y,~ , . Branch of the Ministry sought re-classificataon ;o the ‘Servicers
Supervisor II classification in 1981, and were success.ful in that
regard at the second stage of~their Grievance procedure in April
.
I. ‘..
.’
of 1981. The Grievor immediately sought re-classification following
that result. Ke was denied re-classification partially on the basis
that his discipline was in Civil Engineering and differed from the
c<; ,: six re-classified Employees whose disciplines were electrical and
mechanical.
The class standards for the two classifications in question
were introduced as Exhibits 7 and 8. Exhibit 7 reads:
“TECHNICIAN 1, MJNICIPAL ENGINEERIXG
CL.ASS DEFINITION :
This class covers positions of employees, who under
the direction of the senior engineer or his assistant,
ensure that a11 quality standards and building specifications
.- - 3-
,I
( \
i_.
;,
:~.
related to municipal construction projects are maintained
during the construction of roads, bridges and culverts,
etc. They ensure that all work is performed according
to design standards, all materials used and supplied are
accounted for, all earth and granular materials meet
specifications and are properly placed and compacted, .a11
asphal~t and concrete mixes are in the prcper consistency
and correctly used, all form work reinforcements and
structures are located and positioned correctly. They
perform quality tests on materials at the site when
possible, or take samples for laboratory examination.
They provide technical guidance to municipal personnel
concerning acceptable methods, specifications and
standards , and maintain a liaison with contractors and
consultant representatives to resolve problems and
initiate infraction reports as required-~ They conduct
a final inspection of projects to ensure physical
dimensions, appearance and quality are acceptable and
prepare. various. charts and reports. inconnection wi+ ,::. : .;I :,. . .
‘. prel~i.minary~~an~d final .inspections foq; supe.rvisor. ,,The
above duties constitute their main function. Howe-vek,
:, .: :I ‘.
a.small percentage of time is spent performing duties in the office reviewing construction p,lans: es.timating
material quantities, calculating construction costs,
maintaining plan files and processing correspondence, etc.
S~KILLS AND KNOWLEDGE~ REQUIRED:
Knowledge of inspection or survey and construction
practices.
‘QUAL IF I CAT I ONS :
1. Grade 10 education preferably Grade
education and experience.
12, or equivalent
2. At least five years’ experience in construction
practices and governmental quality standards and
regulations. Preferably two years’ experience
as a Highway Construction Inspector 1 or one year
as a Technician 1, Construction.
3. Good judgment, tact and the ability to communicate
effectively.”
.
- 4-
Exhibit S reads:
“SERVICES SUPERVISOR 2
This class covers positions of employees who are
responsible for ensuring the technical implementation
and execution of projects concerned with the installation,
maintenance and improvement of either electrical or
mechanical systems and equipment in Government-owned
buildings in an assigned region of the Ministry of Government
Services. These employees operate either as regional
co-ordinators of minor capital;:5maintenance, and improve-
ment projects in all, but the largest region of the
Ministry,or as regional inspectors of major capita.1
projects .,
._,, _~. ..~ ~,>~, ._,, _~. ..~ ~,?~, I I ,:. .~ . . . . . ,:. .~ . . . . .
-..‘This’:‘~clas.s also covers the pos~i.tions.~‘of the seniors. I’ -..‘This’:‘~clas.s also covers the pos~i.tions.~‘of the seniors. I’ . . .: I’. ‘.;. .: I’. ‘.;.
electrical or mechanical inspectors i’n’distticts in ,the electrical or mechanical inspectors i’n’distticts in ,the .~ .~
Central Region where the Manager position. is classified Central Region where the Manager position. is classified
at the Buildings Manager 5 level., at the Buildings Manager 5 level.,
As regional co-ordinators, they provide technical
advice to di’strict electrical or mechanical supervisors
and staff. They personally prepare instructions, estimates
and contract documents on the larger more complex projects.
When necessary, they conduct inspections of large complex
contracts and carry out investigations of the more difficult
problems, providing advice and’guidance to district staff.
They are responsible for the implementation, operation,
updating and co-ordination of the Preventive Maintenance
Program covering electrical or mechanical equipment in
Government buildings, arranging contract maintenance Mhere
required. They work closely with district electrical or
mech,anical supervisors in the preparation of annual budget
es tiniates .
As regional inspectors, they are responsible for
ensuring that electrical or mechanical systems and equipment
for major capital projects are installed in accordance with
designs and specifications. They inspect work in progress,
reporting on any deficiencies,,interference, site problems.
and other conditions. They instruct contractors in Government
procedures and co-operate with them in resolving problems.
They estimate labour and material costs to ensure the
validity of progress billings and change orders. They
conduct final inspection of completed icork to ensure the
proper functioning of the installation. I
I
- 5:
!
i-
SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE :
Skill in an appropriate electrical or mechanical
trade ; supervisory, instructional and administrative
ability; ability to estimate costs and prepare work
assignments from plans and specifications; thorough
knowledge of statutes, regulations and by-laws governing
electrical or mechanical installations.”
Two Position Specification and Class Allocation Forms
were introduced into evidence (Exhibits 5 and 6) to illustrate
I--
k.. job .descriptions within~ the two different classifications. The
Grievor’s Supervisor, Mr. Roger Crawford, prepared Exhibit 5
in 1976 which purported to be a job description of the.:.Grievor’s
present ppsition. Mr. Crawford.?zook~ no p~art in the prepara?ion”~ I_., “*f ’ .::
of the Position Specification and Class Allocation Eorm for the
technical specialists position.
.: ; ‘,
Extensive evidence was presented at the ,Hearing illustrating
the present responsibilities of the Grievor in relation to the Class
Standards and the Position Specifications. It is clear from the
evidence that the Grievor is a competent and conscientious Employee
with considerable responsibi~lity in his present position. The
Grievor works primarily without supervision. The Grievor’s direct
supervisor, Roger Crawford who is Special Activities Engineer for
the Project Co-ordination Branch, ~testified that he rarely attended a
job site with Mr. Solda and that the Grievor “knew his work”.
Essentially, the Grievbr’s job is to provide technic31 expertise in
Ministry Capital Works Projects. The Grievor in his evidence
described his job time allocation as 10% in pre-construction 3ctivitJ7,
.
::;
:;;.
..,
- 6-
29% in the construction phase, 45% in inspections, 20% in the
maintenance period following construction and 5%. in the balance
of related tasks.
The evidence indicates that the Grievor is the sole
incumbent in his present position. Prior to 1976 there were two
individuals who held that position. Mr., Solda also has the
c responsibility for the training of University students for periods
of three to four months pursuant to the provis,ions of The Occupational
Health and Sa,fety~ Act, 1978. ..~ -.~. ,, .~., It, is the Griever’s’ respops.ibii;ity,,,,t.o ., .: _ ;. ;~; teach each, student current englneering”p~ractices; .j.’ ~ .
In this Grievance, Article 5.1.2 of the Parties’ Collective
Agreement is the relevant section, and gives to this Board very
limited authority. Article 5.1.2 reads as follows:
I “In the case of any grievance filed under the
above section, the authoritv of the Grievance
Settlement Board shall be limited to:
(a) confirming that the grievor is properly
classified in an existing classification, or
(b) finding that. the grievor would be properly
classified in the job classification which
he claimed in his grievance.”
No useful purpose would be served in reviewing the
evidence in detail - suffice it to say that each witness was
credible and forthright in the presentation of evidence. In
addition to the Grievor’s evidence, John Blair testified as to
his responsibilities in the position of Technical Specialists
- r ,
. . .
i,:, .
- 7-
in his testimony provided a useful insight into the responsibilities
of each position in the Project Co-ordination Branch.
Arbitral precedents in classification disputes before the
Grievance ,Settlement, Board are .numerous. Vice-Chairman Draper stated
in Beals and Cain and Ministry of Community and Social. Services
30/79 at page 12:
~-. -...
I
“It is well established that in position classification
cases, the Board must direct its inquiry to.the question,
first, whether or not the work actually performed, by
2,: the ..employee-~ is that .5et out. in’ an appropriate ‘cl~ass-.‘: .: ‘:
standard ‘and,.. second, whether”hr not.;he is p~er.forming
work substantially similar to th’at being performed by
the employee whose position has been placed in another
classification. In the first instance the employee’s
work is measured against that of an employee in a
position that has been differently classified. The
purpose is to establish either that the employeris
conforming to its classification standards or that the
employer has, in effect, modified those standards .‘I
See also Rounding et ‘al’ and Southwestern Regional Centre
an’d Ministry of C~ommunity and Social Services, 18/75 (Beatty);
Lynch and Minis’tzy’of Health, 43/77 (Adams); and Charbonneau et al
and Ministry oft the Environment, 435/50 (Gorsky) .
On the evidences, we are satisfied that the Grievor is
essentially performing duties substantially similar to the higher
classification of Service Supervisor II. It is our view that the
evidence indicated a marked similarity in the duties, responsibilities
and education requirements between the grievors position (Exhibit 5)
an.d that of the technical specialists (Exhibit 6) and the Class
‘.
-a- .>
that there were certain differences in the percentage of time
spen’t in field work as opposed to inside work, both classifications
are involved with water and sewage tr.eatment plants and their
re.lated sys terns. The difficulty in this matter is that while
six fellow Employees were re-classified to the higher classification
in April of 1981, the Grievor was not similarly re-classified.
Although it is true that there are other differences, involved,
the most striking difference is the differing engineering disciplines.
The Grievor’s discipline is in Civil Engineering, whereas the Class
Standards of Service Supervisor II refers in its terminology ,to the ,_
Electrical or ‘tiechanical discipiines:‘~’
-: .::
;~A~otherj.differe~n~ce’~.; ii th’ai’! ’ ~“;
the Grievor’s responsibilities are not limited to regional respon-
sibilities but are on a provincial wide basis. Nevertheless, in
spite of those differences Paragraph 4 of Exhibit 8 appears to be
the more accurate reflection of the Grievor’s present job
responsibilities. The Griever’s duties in the technical areas
even though in a different discipline to the duties of the
Technical Specialist (general equipment) require a semi professional
technical background greater than the skill and education found in
the Technician, Municipal Engineering classification (Exhibit 7).
In addition, it should be noted that Mr. Crawford, the
Grievor’s immediate supervisor is a Civil Engineer. His evidence
is clear that he supervises the technical specialists who work in
the electrical and mechanical areas as well as the Grievor who is
in the civil engineering discipline.
;, . . *
-9 -
It is the Board’s opinion that the Xfinistry has failed
to establish any significant difference, other than as outlined
above between the work performed by the Grievor and John Blair
who is presently classified Services Supervisor II. In our view’,
the evidence clearly suppor,ts the Griever’s claim that he IS
presently improperly. classified. Accordingly, this Grievance is
-upheld and Mr. Solda shall be re-classified to the classification
of Services Supervisor’11 retroactive to Ma.y lst, 1981, with the
appropriate compensation. The Board shall retain jurisdiction in
the event that there are any difficulties regarding the interpretation ,’
or implementation of this Award. -~~; _.,.. . in .-~ 1’. . :. .,~
DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this lathday of June, A.D.,
1982.
. . VERITY, Q.C. -- VICE-CHAIFWW y
H. SIMON .- - MEMBER
K. PRESTON -- !~lEI\IBER