HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0057.Sisson.81-02-19IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearings:
OPSELI (Stephen Sisson)
- And -
Grievor
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Environment) Employer
E.B. Jolliffe, Q.C. Vice Chairman
I.J. Thomson Member
E.R. O'Kelly Member
M.A. Green, Counsel
Golden, Levinson
J. Glynn
Personnel Officer Ministry of the Environment
May 12, 1982
June 28, 1982
.--s
DEC
In February, 1981, Mr. Stephen Sisson presented the
following grievance:
-2-
ISION
I Stephen Sisson am required to perform duties~beyond the
level of Technician 2. (Environmental)
The relief sought was as follows:
Re-classification to Environmental Technician 3.
Perhaps s.s a result of the grievance a "Position
Specification and Class Allocation Form" (Exhibit 4) was signed
by the grievor's immediate supervisor, Mr. D. Sharma, on March
13, 1981, and by Regional Director D.P. Caplice on March 16.
However, the "Class Allocation," which appears to have made
about the same time or a little later, gives the "effective date"
as March 1, 1981, and it was signed by Mr. J. Glynn, a personnel
officer with the Ministry of the Environment, who also appeared
in 1982 as the Ministry's spokesman at the hearing in this case.
Exhibit 4 seems to represent the Employer's reply to the
grievance. No earlier Position Specification is in evidence.
._ -.
- 3 -
Section 18(2) of the Crown Emp,loyees Collective
Bargaining Act provides that (in addition to any other rights
of grievance under a collective agreement) an employee claiming
that his position-has been improperly classified may process
the matter as a grievance and, failing settlement, may carry
the matter to arbitration as provided in Section 19 of the Act.
The issue in this case is whether the griever's
position as Water Well Inspector in the Central Region of
Ontario is properly classified ET2 or should be classified ET3,
having regard to the applicable Class Standards. It is there-
fore necessary, before discussing the evidence, to refer to
those standards, which it is the Employer's prerogative to
determine.
The preamble to the series "Environmental Technician
.l-4" (Exhibit 3) defines the following "inclusions:"
mis series covers positions responsible for investigational,
inspectional, data collection and preliminary eval-
uative ai-d interpretive hark on matters relating to environ- mental assessment and pllution control in the natural
environment.
After explaining what is meant by the terms "Data
., -.
-4 -
Collection," "Inspection" and "Investigations," the preamble
specifies the following "Exclusions" from the series:
1. Positions requiring the analysis and testing of samples
conducted p-imarily in a lahoratoq setting.
2. Positions requiring full professional status for the
applications of scientific and engineeriq principles
found in such disciplines as engineering, biology or
chemistry.
Also important are the "Compensable Factors" specified I
by the preamble:
There are four levels in this series and the assignment of
positions'to the.rappropriate levels will be based on the consideration
of four compensable factors: knowledge, contacts, judgement and
accountability.
1. The knowledge factor describes both the formal education
and skills normally required to perform the responsibilities
of the position. The formal education is usually acquired
through attendance‘& 'a recognized educational institution
or through recognized technical associations. The skills
element of this factox refers to the'approaches, practices
and tecliniques, normally gained through experience, which
are required to adequately perform the duties.
2.
The judgement factor refers to the discretion required and
the freedom for making decisions within variable parameters.
TO be considered are such matters as the nature of
supervision received, the availability of guidance from
such sources as statutes, legislation, technical standards,
specifications, and previously established procedures and
precqdents, ~the requirement for new and innova_tive
approaches and the variety of alternative choices of action.
3. The accountability factor referstotbe scopeofXesponsibility,
decisions made and the result of errors.
-5-
4. The contacts factor refers to the significance and extent
of internal and external relationships which are a necessary
part of the work. The two elements are (a) the nature and
plrFose of the contact, and (b) the level and authority of
the prson contacted.
Turning now to the !'Class Standard" for ET2, the class-
ification allocated to Mr. Sisson',s position, it has been
defined by the Employer (as of April, 1975) as follows:
This class covers positions involving data collection and
-limited analyses,. ox routine inspectional work in the field of
environmental assessment and pollution control. This is a junior working level position or a position in which employees gain further
training and experience before advancing to .a higher level. :The
compensable factors at this level are typically reflected as follows:
1. Knowledge:'
Work required suijficient technical knowledge to
understand the principles of, and-effectively inspect
and advise on the installation and maintenance of all
hydrometric monitoring systems, and basic pollution
control systems pertainkng to such things as private
sewage disposal installations; small waste management
sites and systems, ice shelters, boats, non-complex
incinerators, etc. ' This knowledge is normally gained through graduation from a recognized institute of
technology or community college followed by
approximately two'yeaxs,of related experience.
2. Judgement:
Work is performed under general supervision with some
discretion to make technical decisions within
,established practices and precedents and to make minor
on-site recommendations. Matters that involve
deviating from established practice; however, axe
referred to senior staff. Judgement is exercised in
assembling~jdata, preparing technical reports and
making recoxrmendations, usually &consultation with
senior staff.
3. Accountability:
These positions are accountabie for.the accuracy of the
data and.infonnation collected and for the technical
quality of reports andrecommendations; The impact of
decisions and recommendations, however, is limited as
these are subject to review.
4. Contacts:
Work involves regular contacts with the general public,
contractors, project operations and technical support
staff and municipal, industrial and other agency
employees at the technical level for the purpose of
exchanging infoxmation and data..
The.ET3 level (claimed by the grievor) is defined
in greater detail, as follows:
This class covers positions involving inspections and
investigations of the full range of activities in the environmental assessment and pollution control field. In some positions, they
conduct investigations of pollution of air (stationary and mobile
sources), land or water, including noise, and plan, organize and conduct
assessment surveys and monitoring of the natural environment. Others
in the environmental monitoring function involve responsibility for the selection, operation and maintenance of specialized, complex
electronic, chemical or mechanical air, water or wastewater monitoring
equipsent in field locations resulting in the production of validated
data for use in environmental assessment proqrarrmes. In still other
positions, employees in this classification may assist professional
staff cr senior technicians in the clean up of hazardous spills, or
in conducting applied research projects or surveys to evaluate.new technology and methods, assess the natural environment! effect
corrective action inthe case of malfunctioning pollution control
-N-pn=t, or in the processing of approvals. 3-e compensable
factors at this level are typically reflected as follows:
1. Knowledge :
Work requires the technical expertise, approaches and
practices to deal effectively,with a wide variety of
-7-
environmental matters such as inspection of newly
installed or malfunctioning private sewage disposal
systems of all sizes (e.g. serving sci~cels, nursing
homes, etc.), industrial air and water pollution
control and monitoring equipment, cormaunal water and
sewage treatment projects, waste management sites and
systems, ard vehicle emissions to ensure that they comply with established practices and standards, or to
qualitatively assess the effects of @luti.ng discharges
on the surralrding environment (e.g. determine waste-
water loadirg guidelines far municipal/industrial
discharges ) . Such knowledge is normally acquired
through graduation from a recognized institute of tech-
nolcgy or community allege plus several years of
related experience.
2. Judgement:
Work is ~rformed ut-der minimum sqervision with con-
siderable functional independence. Mature judgement
is exercised in decision-making when unusual or unpre-
dictable situations arise. Matters deviating from
established practices and precedents are dealt with at
this level and only sensitive cr antentious matters
are referred to supervisors. Ii-dependent judgement is exercised in the preparation of comprehensive technical
reprts on all investigations, inspections or other pmjects, including the interpretation and analysis of
physical and field data and laboratory results, making recommendations where necessary.
3. Accountability:
These positions are account&& for the accuracy and
completeness of the data collected and of the invest-
igations or inspections conducted. Decisions involve
the nature and amount of data to be collected, actions
taken,reccmmertdationsmade, and canusuallybe based on precedent cr established practice. Errors may cause
inappropriate action and expense by the Ministry,
industry, cr private irriividuals.
4. Cmtacts:
Contacts may be with private individuals, small business
proprietors or professional, technical and oFrational
-a -
staff of industry, municipalities, their own or other
Ministries and/or the Federal Government.
The prpose of the axtacts will be to exchange or
collect information and data, give advice, make rec-
ommendations or enforce regulations. Cn occasion, it may be necessary to appar as a witness providing tech- nical evidence and/or information before public bodies
such as environmental hearings, municipal councils,
ratepayers' associations, or courts of law. In all contacts the employee is'assumad. to officially repre-
sent ths Ministry and present Ministry palicy.
The following question arises: does the evidence
adduced before this Board establish that the duties required and
performed by the. grievor correspond more closely to the ET3
standard than to the ET2 standard?
A second question must also be considered: whether the
position occupied by the griever as Well Inspector in the
Central Region is similar to that of the "Senior Regional Water
Well Inspector" in the Southwestern Region, which was class-
ified ET3, effective July 1, 1990, or that of the "Regional
Water Well Inspector," also in the Southwestern Region, which
was classified ET3, effective May 1, 1981 --- about two months
after Mr. Sisson's grievance.
- 9 -
Mr. Sisson testified in support of his grievance.
For the Employer, Mr. Glynn called Mr. Dlanraj Sharma, the
griever's immediate supervisor in recent years. There is
no reason to doubt the acceracy of information given'by the
two witnesses. On the evidence of Mr. Sisson or Mr. Sharma
--- or both of them --- as well as the documents produced, we
find the following to be the facts.
The Ministry of the Environment (hereinafter called
"Environment") was not created until 1972. Prior to'that
rime many of the Ministry!s present functions were vested in
the Ontario Water Resources Commission (hereinafter tailed
"OWRC") . For the purposes of this decision, significant
statutory requirementsare set out in Section 40 of the
Ontario Water Resources.Act, enacted in 1970:
(4) A Director may suspend or cancel a licence at
any time. "
(5) Every licensee shall; within one month after the
completion of the boring or drilling of a we.11
for water,: make a'return to a Director in the
in the prescribed form.
(6) Every person who contravenes a provision of this .section is-guilty of an offence and on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not.less than
$10.00 and not more than $100.00.
c 332, S40.
- 10 -
(1) No person shall carry on the business of boring, or drilling wells forwater unless he is the holder of a licence therefor from a Director, .
(2) Upon application thekefor in the prescribed form
and upon payment of the prescribed fee, a Director,nay issue or renew, as the case may be,
a licence to'any person to carry on the business of boring or drilling wells for water.
(3) 'Every such licence and renewal thereof expires on the 31st day of December following the date of
issue or renew,al.
We have also read and considered Ontario Regulation
648/70 (adopted under the Ontario Water Resources Act) which
in 21 sections (with numerous subsections and paragraphs)
specifies in detail the requirements for drilling, boring,
construction, maintenance, pump installation; testing of well
yield, contamination control, plugging of dry or abandoned
wells and also the maintenance by contractors of records
relating to the construction and testing of wells. We were
informed, however, that a review and probable revision of 648/70
was being undertaken in 1982. The administration and enforce-
ment of the Regulation in the Ministry's Central Region has
been the responsibility of the Water Resources Assessment
Section, and in particular its only Well Inspector, Mr. Sisson.
He is responsible to Mr. Sharma, Supervisor Water Mpnitoring
Operations, an ET4 position, who in turn reports to Mr. W.
Lammers, the Chief of Water Resources Assessment, P-RP19.
5
- 11 -
By education and experience, the grievor 'appears to
meet requirements at either the ET3 level or the ET2 level.
He graduated from Grade 12 of the Haliburton Highlands Secondary
School after taking courses in mechanics, electronics and engi-
neering . He has since taken courses in Earth Sciences at
Guelph University and a well contractors' course at the
Sandford Fleming College, Lindsay, with emphasis on geology
and geohydrology. He joined the OWRC in 1969, working for some
time in the Ottawa area with engineers and geologists concerned
with the subterranean structures through which "ground water"
moves.
Such experience was summarized in the announcement
issued on August 6, 1976, by Regional Director P;G. Cockburn,
as follows:
Mr. Steve Sisson has been appointed as a Water Well Inspector
in the Technical Support Section of the Central Region.
Steve will be involved in the water well location program ard
the mntact between the water wall mntractors ard the Ministry.
He will act as a mediator between the public and the water
well cantractors in disputes arising out of bad construction
practices or improper sanitary completion of water wells as
laid out in Section 40 of The Ontario Water Resources Act.
Steve graduated from Raliburton Bighlands Secondary School tith a diploma in Technology ard worked on the surveying of
roads ad bridges in Central Ontario. He joined the Ontario
Water Resources Commission in 1969 in the Water Resources Branch dealing with municipal supply and pollution problems. At re-organization, Steve mrked in the Ground Water Develop-
rent Section until his appointment in the Central Region.
- 12 -
The Central Region includes Halton, Peel and Simcoe
Counties on the west, extending east to ta~ke in Pe,terborough
County, and on the north the Districts of Muskoka and Victoria.
It is said to contain 40 per cent of the wells in Ontario (of
which there are thousands) and has more wells than any of the
other Regions in Ontario. Ins 1980 almost 2,500 new wells
were reported in the Central Region: in 1974 it had been close
to 4.500 (Exhibit 7).
As the. only well inspector in the Region, the griever
is of course unable to ,inspect all wells or even all of those
under construction. For all practical purposes most of his
work consists of inspecting wells about which the well-owner
has made a complaint or raised a question, diagnosing the
trouble and --- as the Director anticipated --- "mediating"
disputes between well-owners and contractors. In addition, the
grievor monitors the records and workmanship of contractors,
some of whom are of course more reliable than others.
The griever does not do laboratory work (which is
excluded from the class definition .in Exhibit 3) since water
samples are forwarded to the Ministry of Health for, analyses.
- 13 -
He can often, however, detect contamination by salt, oil,
gas or the invasion of polluted surface water, which may
occur when a well-head is not properly protected or when
construction has failed to meet the other requirements of
Regulation 648/70.
Numerous qxhibits, such as those numbered 10 to
20 inclusive, are examples of complaints investigated and
reported by the grievor. He also answered inquiries from
various sources and made suggestions for improvements in
inspection facilities, such as the identification of all
equipment used by well-drillers (Exhibit 231. It is'
apparent from the testimony of the griever that many wells
in the Region are defective or inadequate. In many cases,
this is due to improper work by the drilling contractor;.in
others it is due to improper maintenance by the owners. In
one case it became actually impossible to locate wells
becausetheyhad been covered over by a landscaping contractor.
The griever is "on the road" most of the week,
investigating complaints. Although he telephones his super-
visor or the office every day, he normally makes his rounds
five days a week, four in the winter. He consults with Mr.
- 14 -
Sharma for as much as 90 minutes weekly, or as little as
15 minutes. Mr. Sharma indicated that supervision is minimal
--- perhaps "six per cent." The grievor, said his supervisor
"works pretty independently . . . . . He usually proceeds indepen-
dently..... yes, I've gone out with him on occasion, and was
quite impressed." This arangement was probably inevitable due
to the nature of their respective duties. Mr. Sharma's field
of expertise is "surface water;" he said he had never inspected
a well himself. Another "Water Resources Technician," an ET2,
is also under his supervision.
Surface water problems and ground water problems are
very.different. As Mr. Sisson explained, no two wells are
exactly alike. Sampling a lake or river may yield represent-
ative results; but sampling ground water from one well does
not necessarily represent the quality of water in a neigh-
bouring well. Surface water is visible to the eye, but the
pattern of ground water supplies is disclosed only by geologic
surveys and drilling results. Thus great importance is attached
to the accurate completion of the "Water Well Record" (Exhibit
9) which drillers are required to give Environment.
Mr. Sharma said that the griever is "the Region's
- 15 -
contact with 150 drilling contractors;" at licencing time he
is also involved with those not yet licenced. The grievor
has contacts with laboratories and head office people such
as the Chief Water Well Inspector --- who does not do any
inspecting. Other necessary contacts are with municipal
officials, developers, engine'ers, geologists and health
inspectors. Research is sometimes required to establish the
location of older wells, and to ascertain the availability of
water supplies in an area about to be developed for rural
housing.
Exhibit 27 is the Position Specification and Class
Allocation form for the "Supervisor, Water Monitoring
Operations," the ET4 position held by Mr. Sharma. It contains
a lengthy and detailed summary of duties and responsibilities,
most of them related to surface water. Only 10 per cent is
assigned to supervision of the "water well inspection and
locating program," described as follows:
- directing staff,'cne water well inspector and one technician and simmer students, in annually locating about 4,000 wells in
the field, and inspecting of a smaller number of newly constructed
wells for compliance with Ministry regulations.
- maintaining contact with approximately 150 well contractors through the water well inspector and attendance of meetings,
- .16 -
recommending to supervisor adjustments to the water well
program to optimize staff srd resources, (e.g. replacing
of original water well records by microfilms),
- giving qecific assignments to staff in water well data compil-
ation for use by regional hydrcgeolcgists,
- acting as mediator in resolving disputes between well driller
and ~11 owner on problems with new wells,
- advising well owners cn treatment and rehabilitation of wells
and dissemination of groutiwater information to the public
and other agencies,
- meeting with Head Office and District Staff on discussions re-
lating to changes in program.
The above description tends to confirm the impression
given by the testimony of both witnesses that supervision of
the Water Well Inspector is minimal.
As for the reference to
mediation, it is clear that responsibility in such matters
really rests with the griever, although Mr. Sharma sees the
correspondence received or sent by Mr. Sisson. On one occasion
at least the grievor has been subpoenaed as a witness in a dis-
pute which had been taken to the Supreme Court, Exhibit 21.
The ET3 standard, quoted earlier in this decision, states that
"on occasion, it may be necessary to appear as a witness pro-
viding technical evidence and/or information before..... courts
of law." No such reference appears in.the ET2 standard.
- 17 -
This brings us to a comparison of the class standards
with the actual duties and responsibilities required of the
grievor.
The ET2 standard states: "This is a junior working
level position or a position in which employees gain further
training and experience before advancing to a higher level."
We do not think this statement, vague though it may be, fairly
reflects the position of the only Water Well Inspector in the
Central Region.
The ET2 standard also states that "work is performed
under general supervision." We think Mr. Sisson's role is
better described by the following words in the ET3 standard:
"Work is performed under minimum supervision with considerable
functional independence." That is the clear meaning of Mr.
Sharma's testimony, which has already been quoted.
Although Mr. Sharma's Position Specification, Exhibit
27, quoted above, said that he maintains contact "through the
water well inspector" with 150 well contractors, Mr. Sharma's
own testimony is rather different. He said that the griever
"is the Region's contact ‘with 150 drilling contractors" and
- 16 -
others. We do not think such functions would be appropriate
to "a junior working level position," particularly when it
invo~lves the explanation and enforcement of the rather complex
requirements of the~ontario Water Resources Act and Regulation
64%/70.
Even Exhibit 4, the Specification for Mr. Sisson's
ET2 position, does not seem to us to correspond with the ET2
standard. As for the Class Allocation (signed by Mr. Glynn)
it gives the following reasons for an ET2 allocation:
Judgementrquired in making recommendations and providing
advice to well drillers and owners.
Position is accountable for completeness and accuracy of
collected data and water well inspection.
Work performed under general supervision.
We have no fault to find with the first and second
paragraphs above.. The third paragraph is contrary to the
evidence. As already indicated, we find that supervision was
not general but minimal. "General" is the term used~ in the
ET2 standard; "minimal" appears in the ET3 standard.
Comparison of the standards' applicable criteria
- 19 -
with the Position Specification (Exhibit 4) appears to confirm
our view that the position should be classified ET3 rather than
ET2. Signed by Mr.,Sharma and Regional Director Caplice, it
was as follows:
Knowledge and Skills
Position requires a working knowledge of water well construction and
pump installation to provide specialized advice and to hold the respect
of those in the water well contracting business. In addition, the incumbent must be familiar with hydrcgeological principles and be
capable of titeqreting chemical and bacteriological analyses of
hell water samples. Furthermore, a thorough knowledge in Provincial
legislation and regulations pertaining to water well completion is essential.
Because of day-to-day contact with the general public and water well
contractors, the incumbent must communicate well orally and in
writing. Skills to advise and educate drillers to properly complete water wall records. Ut be conversant with municipal boundary
charges, have knowledge of original surveys and recent municipal
charqes to ensure accurate location description of water wells.
Knowledge to advise the public in the proper disinfection of water
wells to ensure potable supply.
Juigement
Plans and carries cut water wsll Lnspecticn and location program in
the field to achieve maximum productivity. Must use initiative to
inspect wells at random based on the reputation of the drillers in the Region for conformity with Ministry regulations; Resolves prob-
lems due to impromr well construction ard advises owner or well
driller on action to be taken. Must exercise judgement in advising driller and o-r in the venting or sealing off of water wells encountering natural gas when called in to advise on safety conditions.
Improperly vented wells in gas-producing areas can create a safety hazard to both property and prsons.
- 20 -
As the position involves the initiation ard participation in court
actions against inccmptent water well contractors, confidence in
jtigement is essential. Also the incurLent is relied upon to
povide opinion as to the comptence and qualifications of appli-
cants for water well contracting licences.
Although the advise of supriors is available at the Regional
Office ti mark is reviewed, output is accepted as technically
accurate.
Accountability
Position is accountable for the,accuracy of well locations on top-
ographic maps ard for tha completeness and accuracy of the hell
record data after field inspection or contact with the wall driller.
The position is al.50 accazntsble for the inspection of water wells
to ensure completeness according to Ministry regulations 'and approved sanitary practices. Incorrect advice regarding solution of water supply poblems auld result in unnecessary expse to a hell owner.
Errors in the completion of the Water Well Record mislead profes-
sionals seeking hydrcqeological information from the wall log - often
the only meaningful information available in most areas.
Gntacts
Position recplires daily wntaCt with menkers of the plblic, water wall drillers, contractors and clerks of registration offices.
Close working relationship with colleagues and Head Office staff in the electronic data processing of well record data.
Regional wntact'is maintained with the 150 ‘(approximately) water wall
contractors working in the Central Reqion to ensure proper construction practices ard accurate and rsqular ccmpletion of water wall records.
As mentioned earlier, the grievor is the only well
inspector in the Central Region. In the years between 1973 and
1980 inclusive (Exhibit 7) wells drilled in the Central Region
- 21 -
were consistently almost double the number drilled in the South-
western Region. Nevertheless, the latter has two well inspectors,
both classified ET3, having their headquarters at London. The
only explanation given for,the disparity was that there are
"more problems" in the Southwestern Region, perhaps due to
shortages of ground water.
In evidence is Exhibit 23A, the Position Specification
and Class Allocation Form for the position of "Senior Regional
Water Well Inspector" at London. The reasons given for the
ET3 allocation, effective July 1, 1980, were as follows:
Position involves the inspection of new and existing water wells for
such matters as proper construction, repair, maintenance pump
installation or plugging.
Conducts investigations into acd makes reconunendations for the
resolution of non-complex pollution and quality interference
complaints.
Works urder minimum supervisicn and exercises mature judgement in such matters as arbitrating between water well contractors and the
public, making recommendations regarding water wall contractors' licenses ard the initiation of legal procedures, and giving
technical advice on water well problems.
The reasons given could have been given also for an
ET3 classification of the griever's position. We have scrut-
inized Exhibit 23A as a whole. Although it is somewhat longer
- 22 -
and fuller than Exhibit 4, we find no substantial difference
between the duties and responsibilities described and those
described in Exhibit 4, the griever's Position Specification,
It was of course written by different people in a different
Region.
Exhibit 24 is also in evidence, being the Position
Specification and Class Allocation of the "Regional Water Well
Inspector" also located at London. The following reasons were
given for the ET3 allocation to this Inspector, effective May
1, 1981:
Position involves the inspction of newly constructed water wells and application of appropriate regulations to ensure proper sani-
tary wall construction and pump installation.
Incumbent tiertakes field investigations, recommerdinq remedial measures where faulty well construction is identified.
Position is accountable for tl-e accuracy and completeness of
inspectico reports and of the investigations and inspections
conducted.
On reading and considering the whole of Exhibit 24,
we are unable to discern zany significant difference between
what is described therein and the duties and responsibilities
of the Water Well Inspector in the Central Region, Mr. Sisson.
- 23 -
The real difference, if any, appears to be that there are
almost twice as many wells being drilled in the Central Region.
We have no other comment to make on the disparity.
It has repeatedly been held by this Board that in
deciding a classification grievance we are limited to an assess-
ment of what the grievor does against (1) the relevant class
standards and/or (2) the duties performed by another employee
in .a more senior classification. Early examples of this rule
are Lynch 4.4/77 and Pretty 64/77. More recently the approach
has been explained in Beals and Cain 30/79 and in Wing 484/81,
On confronting the issue in this case we conclude
(11 that the griever's position was improperly classified when
measured against the ET2 and ET3 standards, (2) that it was also
improperly classified when measured against the duties and
responsibilities of two ET3 water well inspectors at London,
and (3) that the griever's position would be properly classified
ET3.
The grievor has occupied his position since 1976,
but we do not think the reclassification can be made effective
- 24 -
prior to the date of his grievance.
The decision of this Board is that the griever's
position should be reclassified ET3, effective on the date of
his grievance, which was February 19, 1981.
Dated at Torontd this 14tbday of
February, 1983
EBJ:sol
5:2420
&ffg+?/!i$?/fi, /
E.B.Jolliffe,QC Vice-Chairman
' '&
- ,/“-------