The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-0200.Cote et al.83-08-24Before: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD OPSEU (Ghislaine Cote, et al) Grievors - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) J.W. Samuels Vice Chairman S.D. Kaufman Member D.B. Middleton Member For the Grievors: J.A.Ryder, Q.C., Counsel Gowling & Henderson For the Employer: R.F. Rey Regional Personnel Officer (O.H.I.P.) Ministry of Health August 9, 1983 Hearing: -2- There are nine grievances involved here from the nine non-probationary video display terminal operators in the Ministry's OHIP office in Sudbury. They allege a violation of Article 18.5 of the Collective Agreement, which provides: After each hour of continuous operation of a VDT, a VDT operator shall be relieved of such duties for a period of ten (10) minutes. The evidence before this Board is absolutely clear that there has been no direct violation of this provision. Upon the inception of this provision in the Collective Agreement, the Ministry established a work schedule which would permit these VDT operators to have their ten-minute relief period from the terminals every hour, and it appears that this schedule is observed. The Union's case is that the productivity system in the office puts pressure on the operators to work during this relief period, and this means that the Ministry is violating the provision indirectly. In fact, the evidence does not support the Union in this suggestion, and therefore the Union must fail on this ground as well. Having said this, we could end our award here. Indeed, the Ministry raised a preliminary objection to our jurisdiction on the ground that the grievances disclosed no breach of the Collective Agreement. Our finding would support this preliminary objection. However, in our view, it would be desirable for us to explain something of the origin of the Article in qUeStiOn, and the productivity system. Article 18.5 was awarded by the Board of Arbitration chaired by H. D. Brown, dated July 25, 1982, which dealt with various outstanding items in dispute betweenthe parties in their Collective Agreement. In its discussion -3- of Article 18, the Board made it clear that it was not dealing with the whole issue of health and safety in the use of VDT's, but confined itself to awarding language in three specific areas--rest periods, eye care, and pregnant employees. In particular, the Board did not say that there should be less overall exposure to VDT's. In a supplemental award, issued in December 1982, the same Board clarified the matter of rest periods by making clear that these periods were not time off work, but merely time away from the VDT's. Following the July award, the Ministry instituted a work schedule .for the VDT operators which allowed a ten-minute relief period after every 55 minutes of operation. This new schedule used the old coffee and lunch breaks to provide three of the rest periods, and offered three new ten-minute breaks per day. For many years, the Ministry has monitored the productivity of the VDT operators. Before the introduction of Article 18.5, this system contemplated a work week in which there were 2025 minutes available for work (7.25 hours per day, less 30 minutes per day for two coffee breaks.) In each day, it was expected that an operator would spend 85% of this time actually keying.in material into the terminal, and 15% in other activities (8% doing "housekeeping" work, such as getting files, and 7% attending to personal needs). This meant that it was expected that an operator would spend 1725 minutes per week actually keying in information. The system then contemplated an average of 15,000 keystrokes per hour, which would mean 431,250 keystrokes expected in a week. The machine would keep track -4- of each operator's actual keystrokes, and a comparison of the actual performance with the standard set would give a measure of the employee's productivity. While the expected standard was 15,000 keystrokes per hour in a week consisting of 1725 minutes! the "minimum acceptable ,level" of performance was 11,400 key- strokes per hour over this weekly period. As long as an employee maintained this "minimum acceptable level", there would be no employment consequences (discipline, denial of merit increases). However, if the actual weekly operating time was less than the expected 1725 minutes, an employee's supervisor may suggest ways for the employee to become more productive. After the introduction of Article 18.5, and the new work schedule, the Ministry continued to expect keying in time of 1725 minutes per week.at the rate of 15,000 keystrokes per hour. And there remained the same "minimum acceptable level" of performance. With the introduction of the additional 30 minutes per day in relief periods, the time available for work was 1825 minutes per week, rather than 2025 minutes. This was broken down into 92% operating time (1725 minutes), and 8% "housekeeping" time (150 minutes). The Ministry decided that the previously allowed 7% (150 minutes) for personal needs was no longer required because the operators could attend to these needs in the newly scheduled extra 150 minutes per week of relief periods. Apparently, in the Sudbury office (one of nine in the Province), itwas not made clear at the outset of the introduction of Article 18.5 that the expected work output would remain the same. Early weekly productivity reports given to the operators continued to break down the time available for work into the 85% operating time - (giving 1594 minutes per week) and 15% for other matters. This gave the Sudbury operators the impression that the introduction of Article 18.5 meant a reduction of overall operating time. When this was corrected, and Sudbury was brought into -5- line with the other offices ---back to an expected 1725 minutes per week of operating' time ---the grievors were of the view that the Ministry had circumvented Article 18.5 by increasing the percentage of available work time devoted to operating from 85% to 92%. This Board accepts the evidence of Mr. W. Josiah, Manager of the Control and Evaluation Section, Operations Branch, that, in fact, this move from 85% to 92% did not circumvent Article 18.5, but merely allowed time for the operator's personal needs in the extra relief periods. There was no longer any need for an additional allowance of 30 minutes per day out of the time available for work. Furthermore, while Mrs. M. Ethier, President of the local Union and the sole witness for the Union, testified that the Ministry's move from 85% to 92% meant a significant drop in the calculated productivity levels of the Sudbury operators, this testimony does not appear to be correct. Mr. Josiah pointed out that his employees at head office in Toronto had taken the raw data on production and calculated the~productivity levels of the Sudbury operators using the expected.1725 minutes per week in operating time, and found that the average productivity increased significantly in the first three months after the introduction of the new work schedule over the previous three months. In other words. though the expected total operating time remained the same, the Sudbury operators on average were in fact doing more keystrokes per week after the introduction of the new schedule. In sum, this Board finds no breach of Article 18.5. And, incidentally, we note that the early productivity figures indicate that the introduction of --- 5 I -6- the new work schedule seems to have increased productivity in the Sudbury office. For these reasons, the grievances are dismissed. Done at London, Ontario, this 24ft day of v .W. Sam, Vice Chairman S.D. Kaufman, Member P TohCti, J-5 p. /yik&dd& D.B. Middleton. Member 5:20dO 8 : 3700 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. -7- EXHIBITS Brown award Collective Agreement Supplemental Award Step 1 reply Step 2 reply Letter of July 14, 1983 Original Quota System - Example A Quota System - Example B Idem - EmnpleC