FPSLREB Decisions

The Grievance

[1]   In his grievance, Mr. Hughes alleges that his employer has failed to provide him with a complete and current statement of duties and the appropriate position rating form as is required by article 20 of the Applied Science and Engineering Collective Agreement between the Treasury Board and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) (Codes 201 to 206, 210, 211, 218, 222, 224 and 230, expiry date September 30, 1999).

Background

[2]   Mr. Hughes has been working for Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary (GSCC) for 24 years. GSCC is a division of Natural Resources Canada.

[3]   The grievor testified that he has held his present position of Senior Advisor - Hydrocarbon Program since June 1991. At that time the position classification was SE–REM–2. The position has, following an office reorganization in 1995, been reclassified at the PC–4 level to reflect the fact that the grievor no longer has managerial responsibilities. Although the office reorganization took place in 1995, the employer did not get around to reclassifying the grievor's position until late 1998.

[4]   In December 1998, Grant Mossop, Director, GSCC, wrote to the grievor to advise him that the department had undertaken "a major project to re-engineer the job classification system" (Exhibit G–2). In this new system of job classification the employer decided to use broad-banded work descriptions which were pre-classified using existing classification standards.

[5]   Exhibit G–2 provides the grievor with broad-banded work description (BBWD) 00518 which is a somewhat generic job description for a Physical Science Expert, level PC–4. Mr. Hughes was also given with his new BBWD a rationale and work objectives (Exhibits G–2A and G–2B). Given the reduction in classification level, the grievor was provided with salary protection at the SE–REM–2 level.

[6]   The grievor was not satisfied that the BBWD properly described in sufficient detail the functions of his position. Given the move to a Universal Classification Standard (UCS), Mr. Hughes decided to present the grievance which has now been referred to adjudication.

[7]   At the first level of the grievance process, Mr. Hughes was provided with a Classification Action and Position Record (Exhibit G-3) which states that the grievor's position title is Senior Adviser, Hydrocarbon Program and his classification level is PC–4.

[8]   Throughout the grievance process the employer maintained that BBWD 00518 encompassed the full range of the grievor's material duties and responsibilities.

[9]   In February of this year, the grievor was advised by the employer that BBWD 00518 would be used for UCS purposes. Mr. Hughes was asked for comments on the accuracy and completeness of the work description. In his reply to the employer's request, Mr. Hughes produced a first draft of a work description which he felt better reflected the duties of his position (Exhibit G–6).

[10]   Lewis Burpee is presently employed by the PIPSC as a classification advisor and classification grievance officer. Prior to joining the PIPSC, Mr. Burpee worked in the field of classification with various departments since 1978.

[11]   Mr. Burpee explained that a valid job description is essential to permit the proper classification of a position. Mr. Burpee was asked by the PIPSC to look at the work description prepared by the grievor (Exhibit G–6) to see if it could be improved. Exhibit G–10, a work description for a Senior Advisor, Hydrocarbon Program is the result of that exercise.

[12]   Mr. Burpee believes that BBWD 00518 is so general that it would be difficult for him to properly classify the position using the existing Physical Science classification standard.

[13]   Grant Mossop had been with the GSCC since 1991. He testified as to the organizational changes at the GSCC since his arrival. In 1998 the department established a new classification plan which required a review of all work descriptions and classification levels. The GSCC management worked for a year, using the new system to evaluate all positions and assign a BBWD to each employee.

[14]   Kirk Osadetz is the head of the Energy and Environment sub-section of the GSCC in which the grievor works. Mr. Osadetz has done hydrocarbon work as a PC-3 and PC-4 and knows the work being performed by the grievor well. He is Mr. Hughes' immediate supervisor.

[15]   Mr. Osadetz testified that the job description prepared jointly by Mr. Burpee and Mr. Hughes contains unassigned duties, misinterpretations and exaggerations. He further believes that BBWD 00518 (Exhibit G-2) is a complete and comprehensive job description of the grievor's position. Mr. Osadetz recognized however that BBWD 00518 was somewhat cursory in the details of the accomplishments of the position or the manner in which they are actually carried out.

[16]   During his testimony Mr. Osadetz proceeded to a systematic and detailed critique of Exhibit G–10. It was during this detailed examination of Exhibit G–10 that Mr. Bart agreed that Exhibit G–10 was not perfect. He then stated that it had been tendered as an example of what could be done to provide more detail in a job description.

Arguments

For the grievor

[17]   In dispute in this case in the adequacy of BBWD 00518. The grievor feels that the job description given by the employer does not provide enough detail or accuracy to constitute a current and complete work description as is required by article 20 of the collective agreement.

[18]   A statement of duties need not list all the minute details of a position but must contain enough information to accurately reflect what is being done by the incumbent. A job description must also truly reflect the work that is being performed by the employee. In support of this position, Mr. Bart referred to Carleton and Treasury Board (Board file 166-2-13847), Littlewood and Treasury Board (Board file 166-2-16044) and Taylor and Treasury Board (Board file 166-2-20396).

[19]   In Breckenridge and The Library of Parliament (Board file 466-6-225 to 233, 241 to 245) the Board recognized the many purposes which a job description serves. A job description can be used for classification purposes but in order to do so it must contain sufficient information to permit classification using an appropriate standard. With respect to the grievor's position, Mr. Burpee has indicated that the Physical Science, in order to be properly applied, requires greater detail.

[20]   In its attempt to reduce the number of job descriptions in its department, the employer cannot deprive the grievor of his entitlement to a complete and accurate job description.

For the employer

[21]   The employer has sole authority under section 7 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act to assign duties and classify positions. Mr. Hughes' position has been properly classified by individuals in the department who know and understand the grievor's work.

[22]   Classification is not at issue here. The only matter to be decided is whether the employer has met its obligations under article 20 of the collective agreement. The principles enunciated in Jaremy et al and Treasury Board (2000 PSSRB 59) should be followed in this case.

[23]   The Taylor (supra) and Fedum and Treasury Board (Board files 166-2-28278 to 28288) decisions show that the Board has accepted generic job descriptions. The Carleton decision (supra) referred to by the grievor's representative highlights the pitfalls of a job description which is too detailed.

[24]   Mr. Osadetz, the grievor's supervisor has clearly testified that BBWD 00518 contains all the main functions of the grievor's position. We can only conclude therefore that it fully meets the requirements of article 20 of the collective agreement.

Reasons for Decision

[25]   I must say at the outset that I was particularly impressed with the detailed and knowledgeable evidence presented by Mr. Osadetz. His analysis of BBWD 00518 as it relates to the grievor's position as well as his reasoned critique of Exhibit G–10 have convinced me that Mr. Hughes' grievance must be denied.

[26]   In my view BBWD 00518 adequately and sufficiently describes in general terms the full range of duties and responsibilities attributed by the employer to the grievor's position. A job description need not contain a detailed listing of all activities performed under a specific duty. Nor should it necessarily list at length the manner in which those activities are accomplished.

[27]   Given the very persuasive evidence of Mr. Osadetz and the fact that the onus of proof to show a violation of the collective agreement lies with the grievor, I must conclude that the employer has in fact provided Mr. Hughes with a complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of his position.

[28]   Accordingly this grievance is denied.

Yvon Tarte,
Chairperson.

OTTAWA, July 25, 2000.