. .TORONTO RIGHTS 95-021

Hunter, 1. Evaluation of Jobs Nov 27/95

IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING BEFORE A REFEREE

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN EVALUATION OF CERTAIN JOBS IN DISPUTE:

BETWEEN:

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE ASSOCIATION(hereinafter called the Association)

- and -

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE(hereinafter called the Commission)

REFEREE

Professor Ian A. Hunter

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE ASSOCIATION: Mr. Roger Aveling, Counsel

FOR THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSOF POLICE: Mr. Barry Brown, Counsel

..

1

DECISION

( 1) Introduction

By mutual agreement of the parties I have been appointed as

Referee to hear and determine the proper evaluation of a number of

positions. To do so I have been provided with a current copy of

the Job Evaluation Manual (Exhibit 1) as well as Job Descriptions

for each position in dispute. I have also been given an

opportunity to examine the position if required, and/or to speak to

the incumbent(s).

I was also Referee for a number of previous positions in what

the parties called "Pay Equity Two Factor Review". In that

connection I met with counsel for both parties and a Protocol for

such job evaluation disputes was agreed to. The Protocol, by

mutual consent, applies also to the current positions I am

reviewing.

(2 ) Protocol

1. Subject to paragraph 2, below, where the Board and theAssociation fail to agree on the rating of a job underany factor or factors, the dispute shall be resolved inthe following manner:

(a) The Board and the Association shall sendwritten submissions and relevant supportingdocumentation ("submissions") to the Refereein support of the~r respective positions.

(b)

(c)

(d)

At the time established for sendingsubmissions to the Referee, the Parties shallexchange their written submissions and eachshall have the right to make a written replywith relevant supporting documentation, ifany, ("reply") to the submissions of theother, which replies shall also be sent to theReferee.

The time for making written submissionsandreplies shall be agreed upon by the partiesand the Referee and, failing agreement, thewishes of the Referee will determine thematter.

The Referee shall render a decision as soon aspracticable after receiving the replies of theparties.

Notwithstanding the process detailed in paragraph 1,above, the following procedure may be utilized eitherupon agreement between the Board and the Association orupon the order of the Referee which order shall be madeonly where the Referee determines that a dispute cannotbe resolved on the basis of the written submissions andreplies sent to him under paragraph 1, above:

2.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

The Referee shall convene a hearing at a timeand place convenient to the parties.

If the Referee has not already been providedwith written submissions and replies underparagraph 1, above, the parties shall providethe Referee with brief written submissions andsupporting documentation, if any, no less thanten days prior to the hearing date.Submissions shall be exchanged by the partiesat the time they are provided to the Referee.

At the hearing, one legal counselor otherdesignated spokesperson may represent eachside and, in addition, each Party may have upto three (3) representatives in attendance atthe hearing as of right. By mutual agreement,either party may have observers present.

Following opening statements by the parties'counselor spokespersons, each party shall berestricted to calling one witness only forexamination, cross-examination and re-examination.

2

3

(e) Following the evidence of the parties'respective witnesses, the Referee may questionany of the Board or Association representa-tives present, as well as their counselorspokespersons.

Following the Referee's questions, if any,each party shall be afforded the opportunityto put forward arguments in support of itsposition.

(f)

(g) The Referee shall render a decision as soon as

practicable after the completion of thehearing.

3. Decisions of the Referee shall be deemed to bearbitration decisions under the Collective Agreement andthe Police Act and shall be enforceable as such. TheReferee shall have all the powers of an Arbitrator underthe Collective Agreement and the Police Act and, inaddition, shall have the right to visit and observe thejob in progress and to interview such persons as he maydeem necessary in order to assist in the job evaluation.

4. The Referee's jurisdiction shall be limited todetermining the evaluation in dispute and he shall begoverned by the current job evaluation plan, itsapplication to the factor or factors in dispute and itsapplication to other jobs in the same bargaining unit.

(3 ) positions in Dispute

This Award deals with the following positions:

Senior A.C.E. System Operator;

Computer Operator;

Maintenance Attendant;

Senior Parking Enforcement Operator.

4

I took a view of these positions, and spoke with incumbents on

December 13, 1994.

For reasons beyond the control of all parties, the written

briefs and rebuttals, were not received by me until November, 1995.

I have now had an opportunity to review the written briefs, and

rebuttals, and my decision is as follows.

( 4)Decision

(a) Senior A.C.E. System Operator

This position is in unit "A".

Several factors are in dispute.

(1) Complexity

The Board has rated this factor 2.5. The

Association submits that Complexity should be

rated 3.

The relevant factor definitions are these:

ComplexityLevel 3 "Work is generallystandardized. Employee has some choice ofaction within limits defined by standard oraccepted practice. Employee may makedecisions on quality and accuracy." .

5

ComplexityLevel 2 "Work is repetitiveprocedurized. Employee follows clearlyprescribed standard practices which arestraightforward and readily understood.Employeemay make minor operatingdecisionsonsequence and correctness (rather than onaccuracy and quality)."

On December 13, 1994 I spoke with Ms. Julie

Chollet who had been the sole incumbent in

this position since July, 1994.

Ms. Chollet related that the work is not so

repetitive or standardized as to be

"straightforward and readily understood". She

gave examples to buttress that conclusion.

Her duties included maintenance of the system,

monitoring, reporting errors, and advising her

Manager on enhancementsand upgrades to the

system. I was satisfied from her statements

that she "makes decisions on quality and

accuracy" . The Board's brief suggested that

such judgement was called for only because

"the [system] start-up was not smooth" and

that with "the system in place" the judgement

required was quite different. However this

was not my conclusion from Ms. Chollet's

evidence.

(2 )

6

Ms. Chollet indicated that the position had

both a troubleshooting and training component.

Both of those functions involve decision-

making; such decisions, in my view, transcend

"minor operating decisions on sequence and

correctness".

I am persuaded that Complexity is properly

rated 3.

Education

The Board has rated this factor Level 3. The

Association submits 3.5 is the correct rating.

The factor definitions for Levels 3 and 4 are

as follows:

Education Level 4 "Equivalent to collegegraduation (not university). Formalizedandrecognized advanced specialized trainingbeyond high school, e.g. accounting, business,technology. Full apprenticeship in high skilltrades, e.g. pattern making, instrumentmaking."

Education Level 3 "Equivalent to fullsecondary school. Some degree ofspecialization - stenographic, bookkeeping,laboratory. Use and understanding ofcomplicated charts and drawings. Use ofmathematical formulae, tables, equations.Standard trades apprenticeship, e.g. automechanic electrician."

(3 )

7

The incumbent stated that what was required

was" something beyond Grade 12". She said

that most of the training necessary (eg. in

the UNIX Operating System) was provided "on

the job". The UNIX program training was full-

time for two weeks.

The Association brief contends that the job

requires level courses"several college to

familiarize withincumbent softwarethe

programs being used". There was no evidence

to support that, and indeed the incumbent's

evidence contradicted that.

The Board's classification( 3)

allows for

"full" secondary school: I interpret this to

be broad enough to include some specialized

training (eg. UNIX) beyond Grade 12.

Based ~n the incumbent's evidence, I find that

Education is properly rated Level 3.

Experience

This factor measures the length of time (in

months required toor years) learn, .under .

(4 )

8

instruction the essentialor guidance,

techniques and skills called for by the job.

The Board has rated this factor 3.5: "About 9

months" . The Association submits 4: "About 1

year" .

Ms. Chollet indicated that "6 months to a

year" is after a person has therequired

necessary educational UNIXbackground and

training.

Keeping in mind (a) that the Manual defines

education as "the fastest, structured on-the-

job learning time with all non-learning period

removed" and (b) the incumbent's evidence, I

find that the Board's rating (3.5), of "about

9 months" is correct.

Initiative

The Board has rated this factor 2.5. The

Association submits it is properly 3.

The factor measures the degree of independent

action required in the position. It also

9

considers ingenuity, creative imagination, and

original thought.

Ms. Chollet stated that she trains property

clerks, firearms clerks, and "anyone with

queries about the system". At one point she

said she received "very little" supervision,

at another point "occasional" supervision.

She said that there would be little point in

referring an unusual problem to her

supervisor; she knows as much, or more, about

the system as her supervisor. Problems that

she could not solve would probably be referred

to the vendor.

The Board's brief submits that it would be

anomalous to have the incumbent's rating on

Initiative the same as her supervisor's (i.e.

Group Leader - Public Property). But given

the evidence before me, that is the reality:

the Grievor works under only occasional

supervision. She proceeds on her own for the

majority of her job duties. Performance of

her work transcends "standard practice or

established procedure". Her referrals are

likely to ~e to the system vendor, rather than

(5 )

10

her supervisor, because she knows as much, or

more, about the system as her supervisor.

I hold that Initiative is properly rated 3.

Result of Errors

The Board has rated this factor Level 2.

The Association contends for Level 3.

The factor definitions are as follows:

Result of Errors Level 3 "Errors affectthe work of others to a limited degree. Notusually damaging to the organization. Maycause inaccuracies in reports and recordswhich affect activities based upon them.Usually discovered before results becomeserious. May cause damage to expensiveequipment and apparatus. May delay succeedingand related operations. May causeembarrassment in business, public or e~ployeerelations. May result in serious injuries toothers."

Result of Errors Level 2 "Errorsprobablydetected in work unit in which they occur.May require work of others to trace and makenecessary corrections. May be real cash lossof about one week's pay, e.g. petty cash,scrapped units or material. May result inaccident to others, e.g. broken bones, damagedeyes".

(6)

11

Ms. Chollet said that a "serious error could

mean that the Property Department would have

to cease working". She said that the system

might "go down" or "crash" four (4) or five

(5) times a year. The average downtime might

be three ( 3) hours. The errors would be

detected within the unit.

I asked Ms. Chollet for examples where errors

would lead to serious consequences. She gave

none.

Errors would, to behowever, requiredbe

traced and rectified.

The evidence clearly supported the Board's

rating of 2.

Contacts

The Board has rated this factor 2.5.

The Association contends for a 3 rating.

The factor definitions are as follows:

12

Contacts Level 3 "Contacts which areimportant or frequent but of "non-selling"nature. Requires appropriatetact to discussproblems, submit reports, makerecommendations. Required to coordinateeffort or supervise others in closely relatedwork. Frequent contacts outside theorganization which require tact and courtesy. "

Contacts Level 2 "Contacts of routinenature beyond immediateassociates. Requiredto secure, present or discuss ideas or datapertinent to assignment. Little or noresponsibility for securing cooperation orapproval of action or decision. Contacts maybe outside organization".

Ms. Chollet said that her most frequent

contacts are with (a) users of the system;

and (b) vendors.

The Board's rating (2.5) is generous enough to

recognize such contacts.

The Association's proposed rating would

require some evidence of (a) appropriate tact

and courtesy required; (b) submitting

reports; and (c) supervising others. There

was no such evidence.

There was evidence that the incumbent "makes

recommendations" (eg. on new software) but

that alone is not sufficient to elevate the

positionto Level 3.

13

I hold that Contacts is properly rated 2.5.

Accordingly on the six job factors in dispute for the

Senior A.C.E. System Operator my decision is as follows:

3

3

Complexity

Education

Initiative

3.5

3

Experience

Contacts

2

2.5

Result of Errors

(b) Computer Operator

Four factors are in dispute with respect to this position:

Education

Experience

Initiative

Result of Errors

Since factor level definitions for each of these disputed

factors have previously been set out (cf. Senior A.C.E.

System Operator (supra» I shall not repeat them here.

Rather for each factor I shall indicate the position

taken by each side, my decision, and the reasons for that

decision.

Computer Operator' is a Headquarters position. There are

six incumbents. On December 13, 1994 I had the(6 )

opportunity interview Eduardo Villarruel;to Mr.

Supervisor, Mr. Grant McNeil, was also present.

( 1)Education

Board 3.5

Association 4

The incumbent, Mr. Villarruel has a three year

Computer Analyst Seneca CollegeProgrammer

diploma. That alone is not determinative,

since it is the level of formalized knowledge

necessary to fulfil the position which I must

consider, incumbent's particularnot any

qualifications.

In answer to my question Mr. Villarruel said

that, minimum, one must understandat

computers and different operating systems. In

his view minimum requirementthe is a

14

a

(2 )

15

community diploma in computercollege

operations.

The evidence supported Level 4clearly a

rating. The position requires formal and

recognized advanced specialized training (on

computer) beyond high school. did notI

understand McNeil, Supervisor, totheMr.

dispute this.

Education 4

Experience

Board (About 9 months)

(About 1 year)

3.5

Association 4

Mr. Villarruel is in the best position to aay

what experience the position requires; he said

"six to seven months on the job to be able to

perform the job competently". Nothing in the

Association's -inclinebrief would me to

disregard this clear evidence. Consequently,

I hold that 3.5 is the correct rating.

Experience 3.5

( 3)

( 4)

Initiative

Board 2

Association 2.5

16

The incumbent stated that he would refer any

unusual problem to the Lead Computer Operator.

On a daily basis, he is left "mostly on my

own", but did indicatehe

standard A Leadprocedures.

working with him, or on call.

breakdowns comparativelyare

incumbent does not generally

decision-making function (eg. to discontinue a

program) .

that there are

Operator is

Problems or

rare. The

exercise a

I am satisfied that 2 is the correct rating.

Initiative

Result of Errors

Board 2

Association 3

2

17

The incumbent stated that errors are detected

internally, and may require others to correct

them. He may be asked (a) to locate a

problem, and (b) to fix it if he can. He

said: "Any problem created by our own error

would be corrected within a day".

There was no evidence that errors might cause

"embarrassment in business, public or employee

relations".

I drew two strong conclusions.from what Mr.

Villarruel said on this topic: (a) errors

are detected within the work unit; (b) they

are infrequent and corrected relatively

quickly.

I conclude that 2 is the correct rating.

Result of Errors 2

Accordingly on the four job factors in dispute for the

Computer Operator position, my decision is as follows:

Education 4

Experience 3.5

18

Initiative 2

Result of Errors 2

(c) Maintenance Attendant

Five factors are in dispute with respect to this position:

Experience

Initiative

Contacts

Physical Demands

Working Conditions

Since the last two factors have not previously been in

dispute in this Award, I shall give factor definitions

for these (infra); factor definitions for the first three

have previously been given (cf. Senior A.C.E. System

Operator (supra)).

There is one incumbent (Victor pugliesi) in this position

(formerly called Handyman); the position is located at

the Emergency Task Force headquarters on Lesmill Avenue

in Don Mills. I had the opportunity to meet with Mr.

pugliesi in Don Mills on December 13, 1994.

( 1)

19

Experience

Board 1.5

Association 3

The job description for this unique position

describes the Duties and Responsibilities in

this way:

1. Assembles and maintains wooden doorframes, sets and targets required bythe E.T.F. for display or trainingpurposes.

2. Transports and sets up equipment inremote locations (eg. lights,portable generators).

3. Performs minor repairswindows, fences, etc.

to doors,

4. Using templates and withspecifications provided by E.T.F.personnel, assembles wooden cabinetsand frames for use in E.T.F.vehicles.

5. Assists E. T. F. personnel in cleaningand/or decontaminating structuresafter operations.

6. Operates Force vehicles to and fromservice and other facilities.

7. Performs typical duties inherent tothe job.

The Board's rating (about one and one-half

months experience) treats this job as almost

20

an entry-level position requiring little

practical experience. Based upon what I heard

and saw on December 13, 1994 this is simply

wrong. The incumbent must (a) drive and

maintain very specialized equipment (eg. bomb

disposal vehicle, crane truck, mobile command

vehicle, etc.); (b) he must exercise the kind

of knowledge and skills normally expected of a

skilled tradesman (eg. carpenter, electrician,

welder) for a number of set-ups for E. T.F.

training; (c) after the use of a set-up he

must be able to make skilled repairs (eg.

drywall, wiring, replacing windows). From

what I observed this is a truly unique one-of-

a-kind position. Staff Superintendent King,

Mr. pugliesi's supervisor, estimated that it

would take a year to acquire basic competence

in the position.

I have instructed myself that (as the Manual

requires) I am to consider the "fastest

structured on-the-job learning time", and I

have reminded myself that this will be "an

artificially compressed time period". Even

so, I find that the Board's rating (1.5)

seriously underrates the Experience required

(2 )

21

in this position; have no hesitation inI

accepting the Association's submission that at

least six months is required.

Experience 3

Initiative

Board 2

Association 2.5

This factor measures, essentially, the degree

of independent action required and the amount

of supervision.

The evidence of both Mr. pugliesi and his

supervisor was that "eighty percent of the

time his own, withouthe works on

supervision".

Initiative also considers" ingenuity, creative

imagination and original thought" required in

the job. Here the job ranks less highly; the

incumbent receives specified tasks which he

carries out with some originality but without

(3 )

22

the creativity or originality that a Level 3

would entail.

Balancing these considerations, I hold that

the correct rating is greater than 2 but less

than 3: i.e. 2.5.

Initiative 2.5

Contacts

Board 1.5

Association 2

The evidence before me was that Mr. pugliesi's

primary contacts are with co-workers (i.e.

members These contactsof the E.F.T.) .

require "ordinary courtesy" and would suggest

a Levell rating.

However Mr. pugliesi said that, about once a

month, he is called out to repair damage to a

private home (eg. following a police raid).

Such infrequent but regular contact with the

general public (who may be in a less than

friendly frame of mind towards the police).

(4 )

23

lifts this factor above Level 1. The Board

rating (1.5) recognizes this fact.

Contacts 1.5

Physical Demands

This factor measures the degree and severity

of exertion associated with the position. It

should reflect intensity and severity of the

physical effort or visual attention required,

as well as continuity and frequency of that

effort.

The Board has rated this factor 2:

"Considerable standing/movingbut little or no heavyeffort. May require close degree of visual attention,manual dexterityand/ormentalconcentrationin which fewinterruptions are permitted... May involve awkwardpositions or positions which cannot be varied for severalhours at a time, either of which cause strain orfatigue."

The Association has rated this factor 3:

"Constant moving, standing or considerableeffort. May require very high degree ofvisual attention. May require lifting orpulling of heavy or awkward objects. Mayrequire heavy physicaleffort."

( 5 )

24

The incumbent told me that heavy lifting is

sometimes involved (eg. of plywood sheets or

2x4's), that usually receivesbut he

assistance from a task force member. Some of

the lifting is awkward and, by himself, he

frequently has to lift and move objects of

fifteen to twenty pounds.

My conclusion Physical Demandsthatwas

exceeded the Board's current rating (2) but

that the rating proposed by the Association

( 3) was excessive; accordingly I hold that

Physical Demands is correctly rated 2.5.

Physical Demands 2.5

Workinq Conditions

This factor measures the "disagreeableness" of

the job employee'senvironment from the

standpoint, and also health hazards.

The Board proposes: "Minor disadvantages ...some exposure to heat, cold, noise ... etc."

(2) .

~"

25

The Association proposes: "Noticeably

disagreeable exposure to severe

disagreeable conditions ... frequent exposure

to verbal or physical abuse ... significant

chance of minor injuries ... " (3).

On average twice a month, Mr. pugliesi must

decontaminate sites after use of tear gas.

On the road in the specialized E.F.T. vehicle

the incumbent is exposed to all manner of

weather conditions, including heat, cold,

snow, etc.

In the shop he works regularly with

electricity, solvents, welding equipment, etc.

He is also working in an area where firearms

are frequently discharged. From my

observation I would consider the incumbent's

work area at least as disagreeable as

have been graded 3 by the

3

Accordingly, on the five factors in dispute for the

Maintenance Attendant my decision is as follows:

Experience 3

Initiative 2.5

Contacts 1.5

Physical Demands

Working Conditions

2.5

3

(d) Senior parkinq Enforcement Operator

Three factors are in dispute:

Result of Errors

Physical Demands

Working Conditions

While I did not see any incumbent actually performing

this function on December 13, 1994 I was provided with a

job description which Dutiesenumerates and

Responsibilities as follows:

1. Oversees the activities of Parking EnforcementOfficers and ensures that Parking EnforcementOfficers perform their duties according toprocedures.

2. Prepares parade sheets and time schedules forParking Enforcement Officers.

26

"

27

3. inspectsduty and

Parking Enforcementassigns officers to

Parades andOfficers forduties.

4. Responsible for the punctuality, deportmentand evaluation of Parking EnforcementOfficers.

5. Enforces parking by-laws by issuing tags forvehicles for various parking violations.

6. Attends to parking complaints received frompublic and takes appropriate action.

7. Attends minor traffic court to give evidenceregarding disputed parking tags.

8. 'Tows vehicles according to Force procedures.

9. Performs typical duties inherent to the job.

( 1) Result of Errors

Board 2.5

Association 3

The Association's submission argues for a 3

rating based solely ."overseeing" theon

functions of the Parking Enforcement Officers.

I do not find this argument persuasive.

Result of Errors 2.5

(2 )

(3 )

28

Physical Demands

Board 1.5

2Association

The Association's submits that incumbent must

be in a vehicle for extended periods of time.

This administrativeis so, but because of

responsibilities at the station, less so than

for Parking areOfficers (whoEnforcement

rated 2). I am satisfied that the Board's

rating is correct.

Physical Demands 1.5

Workinq Conditions

Board 3

Association 4

Parking Enforcement Officers receive a rating

of 3 on this factor primarily because of the

amount of exposure they have to (a) inclement

weather and (b) verbal or physical abuse.

Since the Senior Parking Enforcement Officer

has less both, itto would beexposure

" ,

29

anomalous if the incumbent's rating was

higher.

Working Conditions 3

Accordingly for the three factors in dispute for the

Senior Parking Enforcement Officer positions, my decision

is as follows:

Result of Errors 2.5

Physical Demands 2.5

Working Conditions 3

The opportunity to meet incumbents, and to see them at work,

is vitally important to this type of classification arbitration.

I appreciate the opportunity both parties afforded me to do that,

and I also appreciated the assistance from their helpful written

briefs.

. .

Dated at the City of London this ~1~day of

30

do ()137ft~e<., 1995.

LLu~-