HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0107.Parker.83-08-04107183
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: QPSEU (Michael E. Parker)
Before:
and
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Environment)
P.M. Draper
I.J. Thomson
P. D. Camp
Vice Chairman
Member
Member
For the Grievor: L. Stevens
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
For the Employer: G.S. Feeley
Manager, Personnel Operations
Personnel Services Branch
Ministry of the Environment
Hearing: June 15,1983
Grievor
Employer
-2-
The Grievor, Michael Parker, grieves that his position is
improperly classified as Environmental Technician 3 (ET3) and that its
proper classification is Environmental Technician 4, (ET4), to which he
requests it be reclassified.
After four years at the secondary school level, during which his
studies included electronics, the Grievor completed the two-year
electronic technician course at St. Clair College. He was first employed
by the Ministry in June, 1975 under contract as a technician in the physical
laboratory at London. After a year, he was given duties related to air
quality control. He became a member of the permanent staff in 1978 at
which time his position title was Air Instrument Technician, classified ET3.
His present position title is Field Instrument Technician. His immediate
superiw is J. Alves, Senior Instrument Technician, classified ET4, who is a
group leader and a member of the bargaining unit. Alves reports to
G. Grosse, Chief, Air Quality Assessment Unit, who, in turn, reports to
C. Shank, Manager, Technical Support Section, Southwestern Region
Branch, Regional Operations Division of the Ministry. The headquarters of
the Section is at London, where the Griever works, and there are two other
Field Instrument Technicians employed in the Section, one at Windsor and
one at Sarnia.
The Position Specification and Class Allocation Form for the
Griever’s position, which was drawn up in 1976, is as follows:
. m 7n r 2.
I.
toa 4.
i
5.
6.
i
IO?
7.
\
6.
: .i
10: 9.
OpWat. mpk.x Dunltorlng lnsiruxnts lncludlng recording. testing ind ts,cw.,terlr
equlpmant In order to provlds valid sir quality and mstoorologlcal data ln.,uFF,clr
qusntlty.
ullbrotlon
Thls’lncludar the Instsllatlon and connsctlon of lnrtrumont,. 0, ,,a11 P,
and. adJustwant oF’.lnatrunnts. .
Conduct a prsvantlvo molntmancs program, naks nscosrary equipment rrpstrr snd
conduct dlagnostls snrlysls of squlphant nulfunctlonr In order that th. psr cant
OF valid data obtelnod In wlthln the gM1, of thn Air Quality A,rarrwnt &,t.
Select and oatabllsh laas taa~lox mJnltarlng sltss.
blntaln and roralr the flald statton hwrlngr and trallcrr.
Halntaln rupplles OF charts, Ink. Fuel and ullbration gases. tapes. nnd rp,,ra
prts.
Alart other spprnprl.tr Wnlrtry itnff of unurual rcsdlngs nnd provldo wp,artIng
data such .s wind dlrrctlon.
Conduct sp~clsl Invsrtlgotlons to dotormlnc rho wurc~ and rnrjnltvrfa OF afr contarl
natlon problau I.e. noblle ~urvcyl, vinyl chlorldo survey.
Log ttm Parforrmnco OF alI Inrtrwants wlthln the astlgncd dlrtrlct ard rvalusto
all data rocordcd on tap-r. charts, etc.
Conduct tours of monltorln~ ntotlons for lntorcsted partlo*, such II,, gcvcrw,a”t
and nunlclpal qfflclale, rtudonts snd toschar8.
-4-
/
iKlLLi AND KIIDULEDCE RCQUIRCD TD~PERFORlt TI(F. ""RK
~Gnoniedgs of vnrlous leglslarton such as safety rcgul.tlont;buildlng code,, olc;tilcil:
ccdcr and prrmlts. -.
Hu,t po,ts,s tha physlcal sklllr.'rcqulrod to assemble lnstrrments and tholr.,ndl~lbu,,l ':
cunponsnt,, ,smpllnD manifolds, and rccordlng end tclumtarlng equlpmant.
lnltlatlvs ts required to seek out and resolve exlstlng and pote,,tlsl problem, elroclate.,
with the nwnttorlng statlow. Instrucunts and support aqulpment.
Hurt ba able to plan and organize actlvltlas and posses, a loglcnl approach to ensure
that squlpmant Is properly maIntaInad and problsms are cfflclmtly dIrgno&d and iorracie
Must b-a able to Hark wlthln an asslgrwd dlrtrlct dlth mlnlmum rup~rvlslon from the region.
offlcs.
Hat hc able to co-ordinate and caraunlwts wltn cillbrstlon staff, co-wxkaors, lndustrls
abatumnt staff, and other povarruwat offlclalr.
Crcarlvlty Is an asset In suggortlng lnnovatlvc solutIoni to monltorlng problems.
Accurscy and prsclslon arc essontlal In operatlng and malntalnl~g'~nrtrwnsnt~, callbratlnf
inrtrumcnt~, rocordlng and sa~nlcatlng.m3nltorlng data, Intwpretlng technlcal litoratu
and report prowratlon.
Thl, Lnorledgo and sklll Is nor~lly scqulred by graduarlon from a recognlzod I,lstltuts
of tsshnoloqy or a carrrvnlty collcgo, In a course provldlng barlc and advanced knonlcdgc
?f Instruxntatlon. plus several years of rclotsd exparlcnce.
Juducncnt .--
Judgcwnt II rcqulred In npplylng the knwlsdgs and skills required to nulntoln fl.old
statton,, Instruments, recorders and telrncterlng oqulpment such that a high pcrccntago
of valid data Is,produced rcgardlesr OF advcrsltlo dus to cllmato or physlcal varac=terr.
OUE to the mlnlwm supcrvlalo. ruppfled to the lncwmbsnt imrklng along In an esslgncd
dlstrlct. Judgcment Is necrssery In racognl;Ing unusual complex problems or sltwtlonl
end taking 0pprOprtole Sctlm,. and In rocognlrlng contcntlbua Issues uhlch should hc
rorerred to a l"pcr"l,or.
The porltlon antall, full accountablllty for the accuracy. quellty and complctcncrs of th<
air quality and moteorolo,gy data collected In thn asslgncd dlstrlcti It I.3 also rcsponsl:
for the security and proper malntcnance of all flold equipment, lnstelleflons and vchlcle~
ussd.
~~ll"r~ to propJrly operaG, nulntaln or rcpolr equlp&ni'could cause damage to uwnslv~
cqulpwnt end cald result'ln the loss of sir quality nod mctearology data c%sentlsl to
lndurtrlal abstemnt actIon. air qusllty ssrcssmsnt and achlavcmcnt of the Air Quality
A>sermmt Unit goals.
Inaccurncy In tarhnlcsl sod rocordlng opcr.tlons or Itipropcr Judgcwnt could result In
crronrous data and rub,squcntly Improper air quality reports and Industrlsl abarcmcnt
actlon.
Data collected Is provldcd to Envlronmcnt Canada, the InternotIonal Joint Co;.rnl,slon,
the St,,te of tllchlgan, lndustrlrs a.nd industrial organIzatIona, and the general publlc. d'
tlmrefora nurt be of the hlplulst quality to prevent danugs to the Illnlstry'r crodlblllty
snd prestige.
i i
-5-
tontocts rcqulrod with trchnlcsl staff of Industries and lndmtrlal~ orjanl:atlons.
?llnlrty staff frm the Alr Cuellty an3 tiatcoroloplcal 5,~ctlm:.~~r!~cn1lbr~rlon grip,
the Alr Quality Lolaratory; and the lndustrlrl Abatcm~t.S~ctlon Iii tirdcr to dIscusi..
Cmtacts rbqulrod 4th the poocrel publlc nnd mu~lclral offlclslr to pnrmlt tie InstallI
tlon of mltorlng statIoni cm prlvnrc or munlclpal proparty.
Hurt-csrmunlcatm with local cwtractors and r~rvlclnp agents to fnwra that tholr murk
Is cmductad In accordrncn.wlth tha Job spcclflcatlons.
.
.+ ’ % \*
_I.
.C’ ‘\~
,. .:
,., .
; ,. ;: .’
. . . _. ,..
‘1, ...;.‘r .”
-6-
The Grievor works under direction from Alves or Grosse.
Basically, he collects air quality data from his assigned monitoring stations,
which range from simple to complex installations. He has participated in
the selection of some sites for monitoring stations. The setting up of
complex monitoring stations would involve one or more other employees of
the Section. The Grievor installs, maintains and repairs instrumentation
used to collect data. In part because he works at London, where the
Section’s repair facility is located, he has been assigned to repair
instrumentation for other units of the Section, such as Water Resources
Assessment. He has developed new instrumentation and modified existing
instrumentation. The other two field instrument technicians are also said
to do some development work. The Grievor places orders on the Toronto
supply centre for equipment that has been chosen by Grosse for use in the
Section. He is in charge of the inventory of spare parts. Evaluation of
data collected is done by Grosse. The Grievor and Alves are concerned
with instrumentation and monitoring stations. The Grievor is a member of
the Region’s Emergency Response Team and the Bruce Nuclear Power
Plant Contingency Plans Committee.
The Grievor agrees that the statement in the “Purpose of
Position“ section of the position specification quoted above is accurate and
that the “Summary of Duties and Responsibilities” section properly
describes the principal duties he regularly performs. We are satisfied, on
the evidence, that the position specification covers approximately 80 per
cent of the Griever’s work. Of the remaining 20 per cent, something over
half is development and repair work and the rest is work related to
complex monitoring stations and membership on special committees. The
Grievor does not have any supervisory responsibilities.
-7-
It is not claimed for the Grievor that any person occupying a
position classified ET4 is performing duties reasonably comparable to those
he performs. The question that remains is whether the work performed by
him over and above that called for by the position specification is of such a
nature as to bring his position within the terms of the ET4 class standard.
It is suggested on behalf of the Grievor that the ET4
classification series, which is dated April, 1975, is out of date because it
has been overtaken by technological advances made since that time and
that the resulting higher level of technical competence required of the
Grievor places his position in the ET4 dlassification. It seems to us that
the Employer’s class standards must be considered to be referable to the
state of the art, that is, to the current stage of development of their
subject matter. If it were otherwise, the standards would be in constant
change, which is surely a contradiction in terms. Altogether apart from
that consideration, there is no authority in the Board to find that any class
standard in the Employer’s classification system is obsolescent or, indeed,
to invalidate it on any ground. The Board has stated in numerous
classification cases that we must take the classification system as we find
it, our jurisdiction being limited to its interpretation and application in
particular cases.
A second branch of the Grievor’s submission relies on a decision
of this Board, Charbonneau and Skomorowski, 435/80, which, the Grievor
was frank to say, led him to file this grievance. In that case the Board
found that the two grievors, whose position title was Special Surveys
Technician, classified ET3, should properly be classified ET4. A Position
Specification and Class Allocation Form dated 1975 and applicable to both
grievors had been superseded in 1980 by a new form also applicable to both.
In the opinion of the Board a considerable evolution had taken
-8-
place between the two dates in the quality of the work the two grievors
were performing as shown by the evidence of qualitative differences
adduced.
We do not understand the decision in Charbonneau and
Skomorowski to turn on a finding that a position in which an employee
continues to perform, or primarily to perform, the tasks falling within the
relevant class standard may nevertheless be reclassified upward if the
performance of those duties requires the application of progressively more
sophisticated technology. There the tasks performed by both grievors
changed materially, as a comparison of the 1975 and 1980 specifications and
the testimony of the grievors and others demonstrated. As well, the point
was made by the Board that the Employer’s class standards are absolute
standards as they apply to the determination of classification disputes.
Here, the Grievor is carrying out substantially the same duties
and responsibilities as he was when first appointed to the position of field
instrument technician. No more than 20 per cent of his work falls outside
the applicable position specification and is in the nature of special
assignments rather than work requiring him to function as a recognized
expert in “specialized work” as that term is defined in the ET4 class
standard. Further, in our opinion, the fact that he ls working with more
.technologically advanced equipment and processes than formerly does not
mean that he is not still engaged in the environmental monitoring function
with, in the words of the ET3 class standard, “...responsibility for the
selection, operation and maintenance of specialized, complex electronic,
chemical or mechanical air...monitoring equipment in field locations
resulting in the production of validated data for use in environmental
assessment programs”.
In the result, we find that the Grievor has not satisfied the onus
of proving that his position is improperly classified ET3.
-9-
The grievance is dismissed.
DATED at Consecon, Ontario, this 4th day of August, 1983.
Giti k LyJh
P.M. Draper, Vice Chairman
I.J. Thomson, Member
3, .L@-+
P.D. Camp, Member
5: 2400
5: 2410