HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0378.Reeves.83-12-07IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: OPSEU (Ted C. Reeves)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Environment)
Employer
Before: R. J. Delisle Vice Chairman
F. D. Collom Member
F. T. Collict Member
For the Grievor: P. A. Sheppard
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
For the Employer: G. S. Feeley
Manager, Personnel Operations
Human Resources and Personnel Development Branch
Ministry of the Environment
Hearing: November 24. 1983
i\ r - .>
- 2-
The grievor complains that he is improperly
classified. Presently classified as an Environmental Tech-
nician 3, he claims that his position deserves to be classi-
fied Environmental Technician 4. He maintains that his
existing position specification better fits the latter
classification. In the alternative, he maintains that his
duties correspond to-those performed by another, a biologist's
assistant in the Southwest Region who has a classification of
Environmental Technician 4; this correspondence is maintained
though the area of expertise, biology, differs from his ex-
pertise, hydrology.
The grievor began employment with the Ontario Water
Resources Commission in 1966. In the beginning his task was
to collect hydrological data. Over the years his responsi-
bilities changed from the mere collection of data, to analyzing
the same for use by others in making assessments, to the present
time when it falls to him to interpret the data, apply judgment
. to the same, and devise ways of dealing with environmental
problems. Over the past eight years his job has evolved from
collecting data to doing surface water assessments and making
recommendations to provide future direction. To determine the
appropriate treatment the grievor must consider hydrological,
biological and geological conditions. While the position has
grown much more complex, responsible and demanding of expertise
-3 -
its classification has remained the same since 1975.
We are agreed that it would serve no point going
through the evidence in detail to justify our decision that
the griever's position deserves to-be reclassified to
Environmental Technician 4. In the clearest presentation of
a classification grievance to then Grievance Se~ttlement Board
that we have witnessed, the grievor has clearly discharged
his onus of persuading us that the job has grown out of its
earlier class. The current position specification obviously
fits the higher classification. We are also persuaded that
his duties directly correspond to those performed by the
Environmental Technician 4 in the Southwest Region. On both
bases the grievance deserves to succeed. The current position
description was first drafted on February 6, 1981, no explan-
ation is forthcoming for the delay in its classification,
and accordingly the griever's claim for full retroactivity of
this award to that date is also granted. The Board will retain
jurisdiction in case there is any dispute over quantum.
Dated at Kingston, Ontario, this 7th day of December, 1983.
'~,~J/elisle, Vice-Chairman
v F. Collom, hlember
F.T. Collict, Member