Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0600.Pajevic.87-10-20IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD OPSEU (Dusan Pajevic) Between: Griever - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation & Communication) Employer P. Knopf J. McManus H. Roberts Vice&hairman Member Member ,Before: For the Griever: A. Millard Counsel Barrister & Solicitor October 6 and 7, 1986 R. Wells COUllSt?l Gowling & Henderson March 11 and July 14, 1987 For the Employer: K.B. Cribbie Senior Staff Relations Officer Staff Relations Office Ministry of Transportation and Communications October 6 and 7, 1986 and March 11 and July 14, 1987 Hearings: DECISI(lN This is a job classification case. The grievor is presently classified as a Technician 3 - Road Design. He seeks an order that will either reclassify him to the position of Technician 4 or that will require the Ministry to reassess his work and devise a more appropriate classification that would reflect his job duties and responsibilities. The Board heard four days of evidence and argument on this case. Much of the evidence dealt with the complexities of road design per se. - But with few exceptions, there was little in dispute over relevant facts. Simplified to the extreme, the grievor's work is involved with the preparation and planning of construction and repair of highways. The class standards for the two positions in question are very important. TECHNICIAN 3, ROAD DESIGN __.- This class covers the positions of employees who are.working supervisors of a group (3-S) subordinates in the preparation of highway designs, contract drawings and documents and quantity estimates under the general direction of a design section supervisor. They supervise the preparation of working drawings and the drafting of detailed contract drawings, using engineering survey plans and profiles of existing conditions, functional planning reports, field inspection reports, soils .reports, and drainage studies and precipitation statistics. They supervise and direct the computation of estimated quantities by manual or electronic computation procedures. They personally undertake routine design according to established procedures and methods .and review minor design work prepared by subordinates referring the more complex problems to superiors. i / 'i \ 2- They check in detail the work of their subordinates in the preparation of contract documents and quantity estimates to ensure completeness and accuracy and provide instructions and guidance as required. They prepare draft provisions and special standards to fit peculiar need of projects. They assist the design section supervisors in providing on-the-job training for subordinate staff. This class also-covers the position of employees who are responsible for the initiation, preparation and distribution of property requests in the region and for the liaison between the Departnent, commercial owners and utility companies in which capacity they give technical direction, and information regarding the highway design, location and estimates to responsible personnel concerned. This class also covers the position of an employee who is responsible for ensuring that expressway projects prepared by consultantsare completed in accordance with established department design policies including - estimating and drafting procedures, contract document preparation, items specifications and standards. They are also responsible for the initiation, preparation and distribution of property requests and for the liaison with‘utility companies on expressway projects. TECHNICIAN 4, ROAD DESIGN This class covers the position of employees who, as design section supervisors, provide administrative and technical leadership. They assign work to, direct, and supervise 3-5 design groups in the preparation of contract documents and quality estimates for highway construction project. They check routine designs of subordinates and personally undertake the more complex design work by adjusting highway geometries, designing surface and storm sewer drainage systems, interpreting and assigning specifications and preparing special provisions. They provide liaison with other departmental branches and outside authorities performing parallel work. They review final contract documents and quantity estimates prepared by subordinates in order to detect improbabilities, omissions or deviations from established methods checking in detail suspect data. They answer queries from district construction staff and others - 3 - pertaining to design, specifications and special provisions. With a minimum of engineering direction, they supervise the complete development of highway contract documents from engineers' design reports, soils and foundation reports, E.C.C. reports, photogrammetric information and design criteria by applying design technology, methodology, procedures and standards. They participate in the Departmental Training Programme for road design staff by ensuring that all employees receive adequate on-the-job training and by lecturing at training schools and setting and marking examinations. This class also covers the position of the employee who is resposible for i&iliarizi2lg,himself with the complexities of design and estimating involved in expressway projects in the Central Region and for ensuring that all expressway projects prepared by consultants are completed in accordance with established department design policies including estimating and drafting s procedures, contract document preparation, items, specifications and standards. Re is also responsible for the initiation, preparation and distribution of property requests and for the liaison with utility companies on expressway projects. - Technician.3 was.also the class of people referred to as "detail design" who worked from the preliminary drawings to devise the detail contract designs actually utilized on a project. These standards were last revised 'in 1957. At that time, there was also a class of "Draftsman" which dealt exclusively with the preliminary design aspect of preparing initial drawings for highway repair and construction. In 1972, the two positions were amalgamated into one classification and the title of Technician 3, Road Design was attached to the position that then resulted. The class standards cited above continued to be applied and were then also.applied ~'to the draftsman class which came under the Technician -'Road Design umbrella. At the time of the grievance, the grievor was a *l'Whi&ian~.in the Freeway Detail Design Group of the Ministry. This department deals with major highways and traffic issues of major importance. The general object of the grievor's section is to create and produce contract plans for freeways so that a contractor can take these plans and construct or rehabilitate a major highway. There is also a "Kings Highway" Design Group which operates separately and, according to the grievor, deals with less complex issues on minor roadways. At all relevant times, the grievor and his department were involved in the planning for major construction in the area of Highway 410 and Steeles Avenue in Brampton. A private consulting firm had been hired to prepare a proposal for the construction. That proposal was then reviewed by the grievor'.s department initially at the "preydesign" stage. The function of the grievor's department was to take the proposal and produce from it a "de.tail design" for the project that would be suitable to put out for tender for the contractor to do the construction. __I -- Mr. Pajevic's counsel took him in detai job specification form (Exhibit 6). In the mai agreed that he did everything outlined therein to detail design work. He balked at admitting 1 through his n, Mr. Pajevic that related that he referred "unusual problems to supervisors" because he claimed to solve 90% of those problems himself. Further, the grievor claimed that the job specification was deficient in that it failed to recognize the field inspections that he actually performed with technical staff without the presence of any managerial staff. Also, he claimed it failed to credit the independent involvement he had with internal and external agencies to co-ordinate a project design. Re cited an.. example of this to be employees in the Regional Muncipality, i .: - 5 - consultants, utilites, structural. and engineering departments. The grievor also complained that he personally created most of the engineering road design for the project with very little input from his production manager or production supervisor. He also claimed that the job specification failed to recognize that he checked technical components of design and felt responsible for the work that he did. A great deal of the grievor's testimony was based on the claim that he ~received little or no supervision from his designated supervisor at all relevant times because that person, Doug Gray, had had little freeway design experience and only provided limited leadership. Further, Mr. Gray was absent for extensive periods and another Techician 3 was temporarily assigned to carry out the supervisory function. Be that as it may, Mr. Pajevic admitted to not turning to his fellow Tecnician 3 for any supervisory assistance. In any event, the regular organizational structure of the department is important and is reproduced below: Area Manager W. Roters Sr. Pr0jec.t Manager J. Klowak ! Project Managers 2 Production Supervisor D. Gray Senior Technicians D. Pajevic N. Bruce N. Proscow I Technicians 6 (. . -6- The grievor gave extensive evidence of the tremendous amount of work and responsibility he felt he carried for the Highway 410 and Steeles project. He claimed that most of the design work was done by him with some assistance from the Senior Project Manager but with very little input or involvement from the Production Supervisor. Mr. Pajevic explained that he prepared a draft detailed design for his technical staff and had revised the alignment of a right of way which had been prepared -by the outside contractors. Mr. Pajevic claims that the Technician 3 job standard does not adequately recognize the pre-design work that he was called upon to do. Further, he claims that it does not adequately reflect the distinction that exists between the superior skills required of,him in the Freeway Planning Group as opposed to the Technican 3's in the Kings Highway Group who are not required to perform the pre-design function. With regard to the Technician 4 job standards, Mr. Pajevic admitted that he did not perform "administrative or technicial leadership" functions as specified in the job standards. He also admitted he did not act as a "Design Section Supervisor". However, he stressed that he is more capable than those who actually fill those supervisory roles. While he did have supervisory responsibility over one design group, he never had the responsibility for three to five design groups that the design section supervisor oversees. The grievor seeks to explain this away by saying one freeway design project is equal to three to five Kings Highway projects in terms of the number of dollars and the number of technicians involved. The grievor claims to have done all the other aspects of the Technician 4 job standards except for the "initiation , preparation and distribution of property requirements" which he claims are not even done by the Technician 4. - 7 - What seems to have prompted the grievance is Mr. Pajevic's belief that at all relevant times his production supervisor and senior project manager were absent a large amount of the time due to understaffing and other commitments. This left Mr. Pajevic feeling he was "overburdened" with work and that he had taken over a significant portion of their responsibilities. Further, Mr. Pajevic did not consider that Mr. Gray had sufficient experience or expertise in freeway projects to be of any assistance in any event. Mr. Pajevic admitted there were other men available for consultation, including his fellow Technician 3 who was temporarily promoted, but he did not consult them for various reasons which he stated. Management's case was presented initially through Mr. J. Klowak, who was the Senior Project Manager for the Highway 410 and Steeles project. He spent nine monthseon the project at the same time as the grievor. Mr. Klowak credited the grievor with doing useful revisions to the consultant's work and thus. improving the predesign plan. Mr. Klowak also credited Mr. Pajevic with designing a better alternative to __- the construction staging proposals which had been prepared by the consultant. But Mr. Klowak's testimony stressed that his function was la,rgely to delegate work that needed to be done and that the grievor had simply received such delegations and fulfilled them very well. Mr. Klowak conceded that he would not have expected "any senior technician" to have revised so much from the consultant's work. But Mr. Klowak would have expected that from a "good senior technician". Mr. Klowak hastened to acknowledge that Mr. Pajevic was indeed a good senior technician. There is some dispute over the importance and' ! significance of a department manual outlining the job activities and responsibilities in the Detail Design Group I *’ -8 - (Exhibit 7). The grievor reviewed each item dealing with the relevant time and claimed to have performed most of the work outlined in the manual. The manual breaks down each aspect of the job involved in highway construction and rehabilitation. It also contains a column entitled “By” and a chart to designate the Manager, Project Manager or the Design Unit Supervisor. The grievor explained that because he performed most of these jobs that seemed to be labelled for upper level positions, he ought to be reclassified up to a higher postion. But Bill Lankinen, an experienced Senior Project Manager in Central Region Planning and Design, explained that the designation of a position in the manual meant who has ultimate responsibility for the work. It is not meant to indicate who actually does the work. In other words, work could be delegated to anyone as long as the designated person took responsibility'for the performance of .the delegated work. This was collaborated by Doug Gray. the - is,the Production Supervisor in charge of the Highway 410 and Steeles Project. He admitted that he was absent for two to two and a half months while the grievor was working on that project. On Mr. Gray's recommendation, Mr. Nick Prosow, Senior Technician 3, took over Mr. Gray's duties. But Mr; Pajevic could‘~&t see fit for himself to consult his fellow Senior Technician whenconsultation was required. Mr. Gray conceded that the Highway 410 and Steeles project "could be considered complex" and that the grievor was able to identify problems and suggest revisions to two aspects of the project that were acceptable to the Ministry. The Argument On behalf of the grievor, it was submitted that he is improperly classified and should be reclassified as a Technician 4. It was argued that the class standard is out of date because of the long passage.of time and the reorganization of the department, thus it should not be : . -cJ- considered to fit the grievor. It was further argued that the Technician 4 classification is a “better fit” for the job functions performed by the grievor. The complexi ties of the work performed by Mr. Pajevic were stressed and his personal undertaking of several complex design matters was said to put his work within the category of a Technician 4. In the alternative, it was argued that because of the sugervisor’s absence and the heavy workload upon the grievor, he actually performed much of the supervisor’s joS at the time of the grievance. Thus, he should be reclassified to another position that better reflected his duties at the relevant times. Counsel for the Ministry stressed that while the class standards are old, they are drafted to be general in nature and cover a wide variety of duties. Counsel urged the Board to read the standards as a whole and look at.the grievor's duties overall. It was said that if this was done, we would see that he still fits better within the Technician 3 application. Counsel further stressed that the grievor did not undertake nor did he claim to have undertaken the level or degree of supervisory responsibility~ that is contemplated by the Technician 4 position. The Decision As has been well estdblished by this Board, in a job classification case the onus is upon the grievor to convince the Board that he or she is improperly classified; In order to resolve the issue, the Board must look at the job the ’ grievor was actually doing at the relevant times and determine whether the'job standards and job specification adequately reflect the degrees of responsibility and skill ’ that were required of the grievor to perform his job. : ’ ’ - 10 - The Board has been thoroughly convinced by Mr. Pajevic that he undertook heavy responsibilities and difficult tasks in his work at or around the time of the grievance. The Department seems to have been short of the amount of staff that it would have felt comfortable with. The regular supervisory staff were absent in some periods. Mr. Pajevic was involved in a complex project at Highway 410 and Steeles Avenue. He was able to draw upon his considerable skills to make many valuable contributions to the project. We are convinced that much of his work can and should be considered as "complex design work" of the kind contemplated in the Technician 4 job standards. Indeed, it is probably his successful performance of this work, .together with his heavy case workload , which inspired this grievance. But in examining the Technician 4 and Technician 3 job standards, we do not conclude that the key distinction between the two is the degree of complexity of the design work done by the person in question. The essence of the Technician 4 position is a supervisory role providing both administrative and technical leadership to 3-5 design groups. Further, the Technician 4 bears responsibility for many items set out in the manual that he does not need to perform personally. On the other hand, the Technician 3's are "working supervisors" of a group of 3-5 people, all of whom work under the Design Section Supervisor. The Technician 3's supervise drawings, rather than provide the technical and administrative leadership required of the Technician 4. Thus, the critical distinction between the two positions is the leadership responsibility rather than the degree 'of complexity of the design work they actually perform. By Mr. Pajevic's own admission, he did not perform the supervisory work contemplated by the Technician 4~ job standard, both in terms of the types of leadership and the number of employees involved. The grievor admits he does everything contemplated by the Technician 3 job specification except for a few items which are now done by senior project managers. His quarrel with the Technician 3 job specification is that it does not go far enough to cover all the axtra.work he actually performed especially in the area of "pre-design". But on the whole of the evidence, we conclude that the'grievor's work as at the time of the grievance can and should be considered to best fall within the ambit of the Technician 3 postion. We do conclude that the Technician 3 job specification does adequately and fairly cover the actual work the grievor performed. It is true that the precise wording of the document does not recognize a distinction between "predesign" work or that of the technicians working on the Kings Highways. Nor does the job specification acknowledge that technicians working on Kings Highways may have less complex issues to face than those doing freeway work. But job specifications do not have to be so narrow and are deliberately.de_siyned to be fluid and flexible enough to cover a number of employees in different positions over a number of years. Nor are we convinced by the evidence taken as a whole that the nature of the project necessarily dictates its complexity. Surely a Kings Highway project could involve immense complexity whereas some freeway work may be quite routine. Therefore, while we were very impressed with the skills of Mr. Pajevic and we recognize the significant contribution he made to the Highway 410 and,Steeles project, we are not convinced that he has been improperly classified. By way of obiter dicta, we wish to add that the reorganization of the department in 1972 well after the job speciEications had been written may well have contributed to * i c . ’ - 12 - Mr. Pajevic's perceptions of him being improperly classified because he sees himself classed,in a position with others with whom he would not have been.paired in the past. Thus, the Ministry would be well advised to revise the job standards to allay the legitimate misperceptions that give rise to cases such as this. However, in conclusion, on the whole of the evidence we must determine that the grievance should be dismissed. DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 20th day of OAO~SX 1387. I J. McManus - Member - 4fy+tdz H. Roberts- Member