Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0012.Heslinga et al.90-09-25Eh4P‘o”Es DE LA CO”RONNE DE “ONTARIO CQMMISSION DE REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Wader THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before . TRE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD POR TEE ' GRIEVOR FOR TEE EMPLOYER REARING OPSED (Heslinga et al) Grievor - aad - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) - and : Employer B. Kirkwood Vice-Chairperson F. Taylor Member D. Clark Member N. Coleman Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors J. Benedict Manager Staff Relations and Compensation Ministry of Correctional Services October 16, 23, 1989 March 26, 1990 DECISION In 1984, the grievor, Mr. Reijnen was a Maintenance Foreman and the grievor, Mr. Heslinga was an Agricultural Operations Officer. Mr. Reijnen and Mr. Heslinga launched their.grievances in September~ 1984, claiming that they were improperly classified. Mr. Reijnen retired in September, 1987 and his position was filled by Mr. Heslinga. In September, 1988, Mr. Heslinga then grieved his classification as a Maintenance Foreman. The grievor, Mr. Burkhart replaced Mr. Heslinga as the Agricultural Operations Officer and grieved the classification of his position on September 30, 1988. Mr. Heslinga retired in May 1989 and Mr. Burkhardt filled his position as a Maintenance Foreman and retains the position to date. The grievers who held the position of Agricultural Operations Officer are seeking reclassification of their There are three grievors and four grievances before USI each of which disputes the grievor's job classification for the period during which the grievor held the position of Property(or Grounds) and Maintenance Foreman (Maintenance Foreman standard) referred to in this decision as a _ "Maintenance Foreman," or as Agricultural Operations Officer, (Agricultural Worker 3 standard), referred to in this decision as an "Agricultural Operations Officer", at the Guelph Correctional Centre, referred to in this decision as the G.C.C. -.‘. -‘: Page2 ,:c ,i Page3 position to an Industrial Officer 2, and the grievors who held the position of Maintenance Foremen are seeking reclassification of their position to an Industrial Officer 3. The duties and responsibilities of the positions did not change in the period covering these grievances. The G.C.C. has approximately 500 acres of property, including 150 acres of landscaping, 50 acres of vegetable gardens and two greenhouses. The maintenance of the landscaping, the vegetable gardens and the greenhouses are the responsibility of the Maintenance Foreman, the Agricultural Operations Officer and the Greenhouse Officer. The Union's counsel submitted that the Agricultural Operations Officer's prime responsibility is to operate the vegetable garden relying on inmate labour, under the control of crew bosses or gang bosses who are either Correctional Officers or Industrial Officers. These duties and responsibilities were the same or were substantially similar to those of the Greenhouse Officer who had been reclassified to the higher position of Industrial Officer 2 by the Grievance Settlement Board in QESEV (raKnsMPT and W Servxe.sL G.S.B. #0004/85, 22/85 etc. (G. Brent) (Townsend). He submitted that the Agricultural Operations Officers ought to be treated in a similar manner and ought to be reclassified to the position of an Industrial Officer 2. The Union's counsel submitted that the duties and responsibilities described. in the Position Specification of the Maintenance Foreman are generally accurate; however, those duties and responsibilities do not fit the Maintenance Foreman class standard. He submitted that the duties and responsibilities of the Maintenance Foreman are agricultural ) :\: Page4 in nature and not maintenance in nature, which is the main focus of the class standard of the Maintenance Foreman. The Union's counsel submitted that although the work of the Maintenance Foreman is largely agricultural, the duties and responsibilities of the Maintenance Foreman do not correspond to any classification in the Agricultural Worker Series. The Ministry's representative agreed with the Union's counsel that the Maintenance Foreman should not be considered as an Agricultural Worker ,4. The Union's counsel submitted.that the Industrial Officer 3 classification is the "best fit" for the Maintenance Foreman position, as it would be consistent with the Townsend (supra) decision that an Industrial Officer 2 be supervised by the next highest category, the Industrial Officer 3. Furthermore, that class' standard takes into account the responsibilities that the Maintenance Foreman has for landscaping and his supervisory responsibility over the Greenhouse Officer and the Agricultural Operations Officer who perform agricultural work in an industrial setting. The Ministry's represen~tative submitted that on the basis of aEsEy IPzu&z) and me Crown rn IQ&t of Ont& * ‘ G.S.E. #107/83 (P.M.Draper) and trv of witv and Sorti Servings G.S.B. #10/75 (D.M. Beatty) decisions, the Board must take the classification system as it exists and the onus is on the Union to show that the employer has changed or misapplied the classification system. The Ministry's representative argued on the basis of the OPSEU and Hewn in mt of OntarlO of Rev- , I '. G.S.B. #393/81 (R.L.Verity) decision that the onus is also on the Union to prove that the grievors have the core duties of the higher classification, and not that there is merely an overlap in some of the duties or responsibilities. Page5 The Ministry's representative submitted that the Agricultural Officer's position was properly classified and that the core duties are properly described in the job standard. He submitted' that the job standards of the Agricultural Worker 3 standard and the Maintenance Foreman, which were created twenty-five. years ago, were intended to encompass non-industrial agricultural work, while the Industrial Officer series applies only to industrial work. The Ministry's representative submitted that the Board erred in its reclassification of the Greenhouse Officer position to an Industrial Officer 2, and submitted that' a similar error should not occur in this arbitration. The Ministry's representative submitted that~ the. position of Maintenance Foreman is properly classified. He submitted that the Maintenance Foreman works on the grounds of the G.C.C. which is to be considered as part of the "provincial government buildings" as referred to in the standard.,~ His job is' atypical, but is contemplated by the description which indicates that this ,classification covers a. "wide range of skilled maintenance tasks..."He is .responsible for the Greenhouse Officer. and the Agricultural Officer, which he submitted fell within the categories of skilled trades and journeymen, as referred to as subordinates to the Maintenance Foreman. It was the Ministry's position that the Union was attempting to improve the grievers' income by seeking reclassification of their positions as the Union failed to increase the.the grievors' Custodial Responsibility Allowance at the bargaining table. The Ministry's representative submitted that the grievors are peace officers and some inmate contact must be Page6 expected, given the environment. The grievors are compensated for their custodial duties by a Custodial Responsibility Allowance, which is not a classification matter, but is a compensation matter subject to collective bargaining. He submitted that the grievors are properly classified and the Union should not be allowed to do through the arbitration proceedings that which they failed.to do in negotiations. The onus is upon the Union to prove that the grievors are improperly classified. The Union must show that the core duties which the grievors perform fit more closely into another classification or that there are other employees who perform substantially the same work as the grievers,. but who are classified in a higher position. The basis of these principles are clearly stated in in &aJs and Cain of Communitv. Servw G.S.B. #30/79 (P. Draper) at page 11: It'may be assumed that among the objectives of the employer's classification. system are the achievement of uniformity in policy and consistence in practice throughout the public service, and equitable treatment of individual employees. It follows that it is an abuse of the system and unfair to employees where the positions of employees who are performing substantially sim.ilar work are placed in different classifications. By intervening where that condition is found to exist the Board, rather than frustrating the intent or undermine the operation of the classification system, is preserving the legitimacy and the credibility of that system. The- Board continues at page 12 to review the applicable tests: 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 the the employee is that set out in the appropriate class standard and, second, whether or not he is performing work substantially similar to that performed by an ,~ ‘$i Page7 employee whose position has been placed in another classification. In the first instance the employee's work is measured against the class standards and in the second it is measured against that of an employee in a position that has been differently classified. The purpose is to establish that the employer is conforming to its classification standards or that the employer has in effect, modified those standards. We must first examine the duties which were performed by the grievors when they held their respective positions and compare them to the class standards. The evidence showed that the Maintenance Foreman, the Agricultural Operations Officer and the Greenhouse Officer form a unit. The unit is managed by the Maintenance Foreman who is responsible for all aspects of the greenhouse and vegetable garden operation, and he has direct responsibility for the landscaping work, at the G;C.C;. As stated earlier, the Agricultural Operations Officer is responsible for the vegetable garden and the Greenhouse Officer oversees the greenhouse operations. The evidence of the grievors confirmed that the Job Specification of the Agricultural Operations Officer is an accurate description of the job with the exception that the Agricultural Operations Officer has not had maintenance staff assigned to him and nor did he manage or direct maintenance staff in any way. Therefore, the job of the Agricultural Operations Officer is best described in setting out the relevant portions of the Position Specification as follows: 2. Purpose of position ( why does this position exist?) Page8 To perform a variety of agricultural duties required for the cultivation of crops, garden vegetables, etc. at the Guelph Correctional Centre. To supervise a regional storage operation for the storing and distributing of produce grown at the Guelph Correctional Centre and other local institutions. To supervise inmates and assigned correctional/maintenance staff. 3. Duties and related tasks (what is the employee required to do, how, and why? Indicate percentage of time 'spent on such duty. 1.60% Performs a vuietv of -al da - scheduling the preparation of land, determining types of crops with supervisor, supervising planting, cultivation, fertilizing, spraying and harvesting; * - determining work priorities and scheduling work ,assignments of correctional/maintenance staff and inmates; - regularly reviewing conditions of crops and taking corrective action in problem areas; - preparing requisitions for supplies, seeds, equipment, fertilizer, etc. and submitting to supervisor; - performing minor maintenance on equipment; - reviewing work of assigned staff and' inmates, advising them, of procedures and techniques, ensuring proper safety precautions are taken; - liaising with greenhouse officer re future requirements, transplanting, etc.; - operating tractors, cultivators, sprayers, etc. and instructing inmate helpers in the use of same: - maintaining production and supply records re agricultural .operation for review by supervisor; - assisting supervisor in the preparation of annual budgets. r..Le stocine_and dlstrlbutlon of oroduce Correctional centre and - liaising with Guelph Correctional Centre storekeeper, supervisor and designated i’ I Page9 officials of other local institutions regarding the storage and distribution of produce a Guelph Correctional Centre root cellar operation; - maintaining records regarding storage, distribution and condition of produce; - supervising the careful loading and unloading of produces; - ensuring that produce is regularly and carefully rotated and checked for damage, rot etc.; - snow ploughing and sanding of roads around property; - other duties as assigned and as required. Note: Incumbent is responsible in both functions for the supervision, assessment, training, safety and disciplining of assigned inmates for majority of .working time. Salary note Kl (CRA) applicable. The next consideration is whether the Union has been able to prove that the the standard of the Agricultural Worker 3, does not. properly describe the Agricultural Operations Officer's job. The Agricultural Worker 3 standard states: '~CLASS DEFINITION; This class covers positions of employees who are held fully responsible for the complete operation of an assigned section of agricultural work at a provincial government building or industrial farm. They may supervise up to three subordinate agricultural workers. At an experimental station or farm, employees at this level are group leaders of two or more agricultural subordinates. This work is performed under the general direction of a professional, administrative or agricultural supervisor. In some positions, these employees plan and direct the landscaping and gardening operation at a provincial government building. They select varieties of trees, shrubs, flowers and vegetables. They requisition quantities of seeds, fertilizer, chemicals and implements. They train, supervise and discipline and assigned subordinates. In most Page 10 of the positions in this work area, they direct the operation of a greenhouse and hot and cold frames, supervising temperature, humidity and ventilation controls and providing flowers for institutional. use. In other positions, these employees supervise a unit of agricultural work at an institutional farm s~uch as the landscaping and/or gardening operation or the management of poultry and/or livestock. In most positions, as supervising gardeners, they direct the operation of a greenhouse and hot and cold frames to provide floral and/or vegetable requirements for the, institution. As supervisors in charge of livestock or poultry, at an institutional farm, they plan and schedule the.feedinq, cleaning and tending of their herds and flocks. In these positions, they conduct the breeding programme, cull poor producers, select brood stock and direct the slaughtering of poultry and farm animals. They diagnose ailments, administer medications or refer problems to a veterinarian. In some positions, they also direct t,he separating, bottling, storage and distribution of milk. In all these positions, they plan and estimate production requirements and requisition supplies subject to the approval of ~their supervisor. They schedule activities of their subordinates and direct them in the care and .'maintenpnce of the assigned area. At an experimental station or farm, these employees provide group leader direction to two or more agricultural subordinates~. They organise and direct the activities of these employees in the cultivation of. crops and care of livestock for experiment.al purposes. They provide technical advice and check the completeness and accuracy of the work. They caution' their staff but disciplinary problems are normally referred to their supervisor. QUALIFICATIONS; w: - Refer to Preamble. The Agricultural Operations Officer does have full responsibility for the "complete operation of ,an assigned . . Page11 section of agricultural work at a provincial government building or institutional farm." as set out in the first paragraph of the job standard. The G.C.C.'cannot be considered a "provincial government buildinq*'as suggested by the Ministry's repr,esentative, as it includes more than one building and has extensive acreage as its grounds. However, the G.C.C.falls within the category of a medium sized institutional farm as defined.in the preamble to the series as it is a farm which has between 100 to 200 acres under cultivation or landscaping and it is used to provide food for the inmates in the institution. As the qrievors are not Agricultural Operations Officers at an experimental station or farm, .nor a provincial building as they are defined by the preamble, the paragraph that .applies to the qrievors' positions as Agricultural Workers 3 is the fourth paragraph of the standard as follows: In other positions, these employees supervise a unit of agricultural work at an institutional farm such as the landscaping and/or gardening operation or the management of poultry and/or livestock. In most positions, as supervising gardeners, they direct the operation of a greenhouse and hot and cold frames to provide floral and/or vegetable requirements for the institution. The qrievors are responsible for the agricultural work at the G.C.C.. They do not do all the work themselves, but supervise Industrial or Correctional Officers who in turn direct the inmates in the labour, and the Agricultural Operations Officers sometimes supervise inmates directly in the work. The first paragraph of the class standard states that the Agricultural Worker 3 "may supervise up to three subordinate agricultural workers". -Neither the Industrial Officers nor the Correctional Officers fall within this . . Page 12 category and the inmates are also specifically excluded in the preamble to the Agricultural Worker series, as subordinates. As in the Townsend (supra) decision, which we must consider as there has been no appeal of the decision, this Board finds that "supervision" requires the direction of subordinates, which by the definition in the preamble to the series specifically excludes the persons who the Agricultural Operations Officer directs. AS supervision of the agricultural work is a core function of the Agricultural worker 3 standard, we therefore.find that the Agricultural Operations Officers position does not fit the Agricultural Worker 3 job standard in the Agricultural Worker series. Therefore, we must consider whether the Greenhouse Officer performs a job similar to the Agricultural. Operations Officer as submitted by the Union. We accept Mr Townsend's evidence as an accurate reflection of his job as a Greenhouse.Officer. In reviewing his evidence and the evidence of the grievors we find that there are substantial similarities,in the job functions of a Greenhouse Officer and an Agricultural Operations Officer. First, the nature of both their operations are similar in nature and can be likened to a commercial venture. The greenhouse operation is comprised of a small greenhouse and a large greenhouse, and which produces flowers and vegetable starters for the gardens, and for other institutions. The vegetable gardens use 25 acres for planting vegetables, while 25 acres are left fallow, and the remaining 100 acres are landscaped. The purpose of the vegetable gardens is to produce sufficient produce for this institution and for other institutions who have placed orders with the Page 13 Agricultural Officer. The difference between the two operations is that the greenhouse is an indoor operation, and the vegetable garden is an outdoor operation. This type of commercial venture requires planning produce for sale, planting seeds and producing the flowers or vegetables for sale on the open market. In the Townsend (swra) decision, the Board ~found that the greenhouse operation was similar to a commercial venture. 'The operation of the vegetable gardens has the same requirements. The evidence of Mr: Heslinqa, who had worked on both a commercial farm and at the G.C.C., testified that the operations at the G.C.C. were similar to a commercial operation. The distinction between a commercial operation and the operation at the G.C.C. is that the commercial operation sells to the open market and this operation's market is limited to this institution and other similar institutions. .-Secondly, the Greenhouse Officer and the Agricultural Operations Officer have similar responsibilities. The Greenhouse Officer is in charge of the amount produced. He discusses what is to be produced with the Maintenance Foreman. T he Agricultural Operations Officer's job is similar; however, he discusses the vegetables to be produced with a,>qreater number of people as he discusses the crops in discussions with the Maintenance Foreman, the Kitchen and Maintenance Supervisor and with Karl Grottenthaler, the Assistant Superintendent in Services and Industry, who makes the final decision. Both the Greenhouse Officer and the Agricultural Operations Officer work twelve months off the year on matters . . . Page 14 related to the plants. The Greenhouse Officer is responsible for planting the seeds and handling them through to their distribution as starter plants. Similarly, the Agricultural Operations Officer is responsible for the planting the seeds or seedlings, caring for them, harvesting the crops, and grading, storing and distributing the produce. The Greenhouse Officer records the seeds purchased, the sowing dates and the number of flats produced. In the same way, the Agricultural Operations Officer maintains records and ledgers on the vegetables produced, maintains a record of the inventory at alltimes and a record of the quantity produced and distributed. Thirdly, the involvement of the Greenhouse Officer and the Agricultural Operations Officer with the inmates is the substantially similar. The .qreenhouses are tended by the Greenhouse Officer, with the assistance of a gang boss and a gang of inmates which may vary in number from four to ten people.. The Agricultural Operations Officer is involved with the outside grounds and has under his command a gang boss who may be an Industrial Officer or Correctional Officer and at least one gang of inmates which may number from four to twelve depending upon the season and the duties required at the time. The Greenhouse Officer and the Agricultural Operations Office; supervise inmates approximately 80% of the time including instructing them. This is an ongoing task which requires an extensive amount of time, in both cases, as the gang of inmates are not the same throughout a season and will often change day by day. Page 15 Both officers are required to write accident/injury reports, and reports on the inmates job habits for parole reports. Fourthly, the relationship between the Greenhouse Officer and the Agricultural Operations Officer with the Industrial Officers or the Correctional Officers is the same. Extensive time is both spentby the Greenhouse Officer and the Agricultural Operations Officer in training the Industrial or Correctional Officers and the inmates under their command, as often the Industrial Officers and the Correctional Officers do not have training in agriculture and accordingly, have to be trained before they are able to supervise the inmate gangs. In addition, there are many jobs which' the Greenhouse Officer and his gang and the Agricultural Officer and his gang do together. They frequently work as a unit under the direction of the Maintenance Foreman. The teams work as.a unit, planting and harvesting the vegetables, mowing grass and watering it, and raking leaves. As a unit, each team performs the same functions. As the Greenhouse Officer, the Agricultural Operations Officers, and the Maintenance Foreman work in a correctional institution, they are all subject to standing orders of the institution, and work together to insure a positive attitude on the part of the inmates who ass&t them and to develop positive work habits in the inmates. In summary, there are little differences in the responsibilities and job functions of the Greenhouse Officer. The difference between the jobs lies in whether the jobs are focused towards the inside, in the greenhouses, or outside on the land. i Page 16 As stated in QESEY (K. Wallace and L. m and me Crown in R-t. of Ow(wtrv of T-lf?~ G.S.B.#274/84 (M.R.Gorsky) at p. 3 and 4, quoting Be Atk&$. and m (1983) G.S.B. #603/91 (Draper): In its decision over the years, the board has come to accept that this test is satisfied upon a showing that the Grievors are performing substantially similar work to that assigned to a job in the higher classification. In the Piffard case, the arbitrators said further at p. 55;"... we accept the measure of 'substantial similarity' as whether the work of the grievors 'is the same in its distinctive and essential elements as that being performed by employees in the classification sought. By applying these principles, we find that grievor-s,. as Agricultural Operations Officers were performing similar functions as the Greenhouse Officer who was classified in a higher position of Industrial Officer 2. Therefore, we find that the grievors are to be classified as Industrial Officer 2s for the relevant times during which they held the position of Agricultural Operations Officer. The Board finds that upon hearing the evidence of the grievors with respect to the duties and.responsibilities which they had as Maintenance Foremen, that the Position Specification describes the position of Property and Maintenance Foreman, for the most part, accurately. The Position Specification for a Maintenance Foreman states as follows: 2. Purpose of position 1 why does this position exist?) To be responsible for the general maintenance of the institutional property (500 acres involving Page 17 landscaping (150 acres), horticulture and institution vegetable garden, Provide group leadership to support staff and supervising assigned inmate helpers. 3. Duties and related tasks (what is the employee .required to do, how, and why? Indicate percentage of time spent on such duty. 6 I . . 1. 70% S- of the lnstltutlonal i2n=r+v (500 -a (l5.Q planning, developing and directing maintenance programs; selecting trees, plants and shrubs for nursery production and landscaping; maintaining park like -setting of property byensuring the mowing of grass, etc.; determining the layout of gardens estimating and approving designs submitted by the greenhouse officer; requisitioning materials and equipment e.g. tractors, ploughs, snow removal equipment, seeding equipment, fertiliser spreaders, grass cutting equipment as well as greenhouse supplies e,g. hand tools, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, ensuring good working order of all equipment; maintaining waterways, implement shed; ensuring sufficient manpower to assist the sanitation officer in collecting and disposing of the institutions industrial waste and garbage; keeping records of .projects completed, materials used, etc.; managing the production and storage of vegetables; liaising with clients~ re leases of institution's surplus land e.g. private farmers, Ministry of Agriculture and Food; 2. 120%) Prods arom to DroDertv f. 3 CO's and inmate b - assigning and checking work, providing information to supervisor in order to appraise work performance; - providing training and instruction, counselling when problems arise; - arranging vacation schedules etc.; Page 18 - supervising inmate tractor drivers in the operation of tractors and repair of farm machinery; - correctional supervision of assigned inmate helpers. 3~. 110%) PerformsiDs such - co-ordinating provision of tractors and trailers for other maintenance staff such as carpenters,, plumber, etc. to move equipment within the compound; - liaising with outside contractors, e.g. contractor building roads on the property; - such other duties as necessary and assigned. 4. The incumbent is responsible for the correctional supervision of.inmate helpers. (Salary note K-l - C.R.A. applicable) There are some duties which the Maintenance Foreman did not do. He did not liaise with clients :on leases of institution surplus ,lands nor spend 10% of his time on co- ordinating .the provision of tractors, trailers, liaising without outside contractors for building new roads etc.. He did not' requisition materials and equipment directly, although he did requisition materials and equipment through another 'department. The grievors recognised that as Maintenance Foremen, they had responsibility for the waterways, although no actual work had been required in the maintenance. In addition, the work in nursery production was only in its incipient phase and had not taken a great deal of time. The Position Specification stated that the Maintenance Foreman provided leadership to three Correctional Officers. In fact, both Correctional Officers and Industrial Officers were used, but the Industrial Officers were used more frequently. We find that the ~Maintenance Foreman provided leadership and training to up to three people which included Correctional Officers and Industrial Officers, and also trained and supervised inmate helpers. When considering the totality of the duties and responsibilities of the grievors and having compared them to the Position Specification, we find that only an insignificant amount of work which is contemplated in the job description was not done by the Maintenance Foreman. The Board must now compare the Maintenance Foreman's job with the standard of the Maintenance Foreman. The Maintenance Foreman falls under'the class of standard of the Maintenance Foreman/Forewoman position which states: This class covers positions where the employee is a skilled tradesman or qualified Maintenance Mechanic, supervising at least two employees at the Journeyman. level in the performance of a wide variety of skilled maintenance tasks in a Government building, institution, field station or their establishment, including associated equipment and services or in the field. The employee in these positions usually reports to the official in charge of maintenance and is responsible for the discipline and general conduct of the employees under his supervision as well as for the adequacy of their work. They instruct, guide, check and inspect the work performed by their subordinates; assist the unskilled or semi-skilled to understand. the requirements of the tasks assigned and the methods of obtaining acceptable results. They may, themselves, perform some of the maintenance work as required although in some positions, most of the work involves the supervision of a large group of maintenance staff including skilled tradesmen or Maintenance Mechanics. They may, in the addition, supervise patient, resident, tminee or inmate helpers. In a few positions, the work may involve some design and development work or may consist of specialised work such as the construction of publicity displays. 1. Elementary school education with a sound knowledge of hand tools and power equipment. Page20 2. Acceptable experience in general maintenance work including painting, carpentry, plumbing, glazing, welding, etc. 3. Supervisory ability; ability to lay out and organize work from moderately complicated blueprints and 'specifications; ability to perform a variety of maintenance tasks; tact; good judgement; good physical condition. The Board does not find that the duties and responsibilities of the'Maintenance Foreman .fit the class standard of a Maintenance,Foreman. Maintenance in its broadest sense suggests that the existing standards are preserved or are kept in good order. Ensuring that the landscaping is done and meets an acceptable standard meets the broadest descriptfon. However, we do not find that the class .standard, although broad, covers maintenance in this sense. The qualifications for the position help define the job. The qualifications required for t~h'e job, include painting,.~carpentry, plumbing, glazing, welding etc.. There was no evidence that any of the grievors nor any of those who worked under them were qualified OK were selected to do these functions on the basis of these qualifications. On the other hand, the agricultural background, which is necessary for the Maintenance Foreman's job in this setting is not included. In the event that the Maintenance Foreman was to need, or to ObSeKVe that these skills were KeqUiKed to fix equipment or buildings, the role of the Maintenance Foreman was the same as any other employee at the G.C.C., which is to advise the appropriate department of any maintenance problem. The Maintenance Foremen was not responsible for repair. The. only "maintenance" of equipment that was required was the daily oiling of the machinery. This task is not sufficient Page21 . . to bring the Maintenance Foreman into the standard of the Maintenance Foreman. The meaning of the word "maintenance" is narrowed to apply to work requiring the use of the skilled trades. The Maintenance Foreman in this standard is to be qualified as a "skilled tradesman or qualified maintenance mechanic, supervising at least two employees at the JOUKneyman level...". We find that maintenance means that trades such as plumbing, welding etc.are to be used in the course of the job. As neither the Greenhouse Officer and the Agricultural Officer used these skills, but relied on their agricultural knowledge, they are not skilled tradesmen as contemplated by the Maintenance foreman standard. The supervision and training of others are all an adjunct to these types of duties. The Maintenance Foreman supervises instructs Industrial Officers, Correctional Officers and inmates, but not in maintenanc,e which is the foundation upon which the Maintenance Foreman class standard is based. The Ma'intenance ~Foremen as described in the standard may do some maintenance work, but most of the work "involves the supervision of a large group of maintenance staff including skilled tradesmen' or Maintenance Mechanics." The Maintenance Foremen never supervised, any maintenance staff at the G.C.C. Therefore, as the .grievors did not perform any of the core functions of the Maintenance Foreman standard, we find that the grievors were improperly classified as Maintenance Foreman. The. Union submitted that the Industrial Officer 3 is the best fit for the Maintenance Foreman position. The Industrial Officer 3 standard states: Employees in positions allocated to this class manage a small to medium or relatively complex production operations such as the Tailor Shop at Rideau Industrial Far, the Tailor shop at Millbrook, or the Upholstery Shop at Guelph, or the Tailor Shop at Burwash. OR They assist in management of the larger or more complex production .operations such as the Brick and Tile Mill at Mimico, the Machine Shop, or the Tailor Shop at Guelph. As managers, they are responsible for estimating and procurement of materials, for discussing costs with. superiors and for making recommendations on new product~s to be processed. They make recommendations to a superior on staff personnel matters. As assistants to managers, they have the responsibility of quantity an,d quality of production and for security of inmates. They personally perform work requiring technical skill, experience and knowledge comparable to journeyman standing in a trade. These employees train groups of inmates in good work habits and technical skills, control the quality of production and assign inmates to various tasks in accordance with their capabilities. They prepare daily reports on inmates' industry and conduct. They may take over any position in the production routine in order to investigate and corrects complaints or to demonstrate proper work procedures. The Maintenance Foreman is responsible for the overall operation of the greenhouse, the gardens and the landscaping. It is a relatively cdmplex operation in that each aspect operates independently, as well as working as a unit when production or operations require more manpower. The element of production is satisfied by the production of seedlings on a relatively large scale in the greenhouse operation and the production of various vegetables Page23 are required in sufficient quantities to satisfy the needs of. the G.C.C.. Also involved in the production operation is the sorting and grading of the produce and and the constant watch for spoilage. By considering other settings where Industrial Officers are found, they assist the Board in determining how the Ministry has interpreted the meaning of "industrial". Other Industrial Officer .3 positions are found in the Textile shop, Jobbing Shop, and Laundry, In the Textile Shop they are involved in the production of shirts, pants, and security garments for the institutions and in .Laundry, they make pillows. The nature of the operations -do 'not connote manufacturing, but require the production of numerous articles. Therefore, we find that the Ministry has interpreted the Industrial Officer series standard in a broad way so as not to be limited to manufacturing. These working environments have similar features. Each has an Industrial Officer who supervises other Industrial Officers and direct the performance of labour by the use of relatively large numbers of inmates. Each unit has the Ministry as its customer. The farm at the G.C.C. is similar. It uses teams of inmates, usually under the direction of Industrial Officers, although sometimes Correctional Officers are used, to produce a number of articles, which fin this case are plants or vegetables. Therefore, we find that the farming and landscaping operations at the G.C.C. is in an industrial setting, as interpreted by the Ministry in its application of industrial to other settings. 1 Page24 ' When comparing the other paragraphs of the standard to the Position Specification of the Maintenance Foreman and after hearing the evidence of the grievors, we find that all the functions of the Maintenance Foreman position are found in the Industrial Officer 3 standard, with the exception that reports on the inmates are not made.daily, but are made from time to time, as required. The class standards are drafted broadly so as to cover many positions in varying environments. We do not find that the lack of necessity of making reports on a daily basis sufficient to find that the Maintenance Eoreman does not meet this standard. We agree with the Ministry that the matter of the Custodial Responsibility Allowance is not a classification matter. It presupposes that the employees are. properly classified and then compensates the employee if the qualifications set out in Appendix 8 are met. However, in this case we find that the qrievors were improperly classified and that we orde't that the Agricultural Operations Officers be reclassified to the position of Industrial Officer 2s and the Maintenance Foreman be reclassified to the position of Industrial Officers 3 at the relevant times and they be compensated accordingly. In resolving the matter of compensation to the qrievors, as Industrial Officers, they were not entitled to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance and therefore all payments of the Custodial Responsibility Allowance during the relevant times must be deducted from any monies due to the grievors as Industrial Officers 2 or 3, as the case may be. In the event that parties are unable to resolve the compensation issue within six months of this decision, we , will remain seized, provided that a request is made to the Grievance Settlement Board to have the matter settled within six months of this decision. Dated at Toronto, this 25th day ofseptember 1990. (kg _, / B.A. Kirkwood, Vicechairperson h___ ;.j 2 :5 'W . ,. a~& ./ ,,.' F. Taylor, . . Member l I DISSENT " iDISSENT ATTACHED) D. Clark, 'a: : Member D I S S E N ‘l- G.S.B. iti396188, i4i7/aa OPSEU (K. Heslinga, J. Heijnen, B. Burkhart) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) I frei I must dissent in part. kith respect to the Agricultural Operations Officer, the class standard requires the employee to "supervise up to three subordinate agricultural workers". The Industrial Officers, Correctional Officers and inmates cannot, according to the preamble, be considered as subordinates. This Board concluded t~hat, asin the Townsend case, supervision of agricultural work is a core function of the Agricultural Worker 3 and in this case the Agricultural Operations Officer's position does not fit the' job standard. The Board then considered whether or not the Agricultural Operations Officer performed a job similar to that of the Greenhouse Officer (Industrial Officer 2). The Board concluded that there were little differences in responsibilities and job functions between the two positions. Following the rationale'of Townsend, the. Board reclassified the Agricultural Operations Officer to an 1,ndustrial Officer 2. Although, I feel, as did the late Mr. Middleton in dissenting in the Townsend case, that undue weight is being given to the supervision aspect, I feel bound by the u.case to agree r;ith this reclassification; Had this case been heard prior to the Townsend case, I uould have likely put forth a position that the Agricultural Operations Officer should remain in the Agricultural k’orker class series based on the facts of this'case. Concerning the Position of Maintenance Foreman, I do not dispute the finding of this Board that the duties and responsibilities do not fit the class standard. I am not convinced however, that this position should be an Industrial Officer 3. Accordingly, I rjould have ordered the Ministry to create a new classification within the Agricultural Worker class series which reflects both the nature of supervision and the maintenance requirements of a farming and landscaping operation. . A%.& Don M. Clark, Yember