FPSLREB Decisions

I. Individual grievances referred to adjudication

1  Joseph Belliveau and Esther Sinnesael (“the grievors”) were at all material times employees of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food (“the employer”). At the time they filed their grievances, both grievors worked as CR-04s at the employer’s Delhi, Ontario, location.

2 On June 10, 2005, the grievors each filed a grievance that alleged that the employer violated article 54 of their collective agreement, specifically that the employer failed to provide them with a complete and current job description.

3 The grievance was denied at the first two levels of the grievance process. However, it was partially allowed at the third level, at which time an addendum was added (“the addendum”). Unsatisfied with the changes, the grievors referred the matter to adjudication.

II. Summary of the evidence

4 Four documents were introduced on consent: the job descriptions of both grievors, an organizational chart and a document entitled, “Model Work Description Finance and Procurement Assistant, Decision Number, 35017, Classification CR-05” (“the CR-05 job description”).

5 The job descriptions of the grievors, save the signature page, were identical.

6 The employer operates 21 research facilities across the country, one of which is the Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Centre (“SCPFRC”), located in southwestern Ontario, which itself consists of three locations, London, Vineland and Delhi. At the time the grievances were filed, the SCPFRC employed roughly 130 full-time personnel.

7 The grievors were employed on the Assets Team, a division of the SCPFRC. At the time the grievances were filed, the Assets Team had 24 members. Mr. Belliveau was identified in the organizational structure as an accounts and procurement clerk, while Ms. Sinnesael was identified as an administrative support clerk. At the time the grievances were filed, both grievors reported to Eldon Ashby, an administrative officer, located in Delhi. Mr. Ashby retired in 2008, and upon his retirement, the grievors reported to Ruth Loewen, an administrative officer located in Vineland. Mr. Ashby and Ms. Loewen both reported to Richard Leduc, who was the integrated services manager for the Assets Team, located in London. Mr. Leduc retired in June of 2010.

8 John Porter was a member of the Assets Team as a CR-05 finance clerk, located in the London office. The exact date that Mr. Porter ceased being a member of the Assets Team is unclear; however, there appears to be consensus that he passed away sometime in 2009.

9 The Assets Team’s function was to provide support services to the scientists and researchers in the SCPFRC. This support included many different activities in such areas as financial management, facilities management, fleet services, stores, human resources and purchasing. The Assets Team was responsible for seeing to every need of the researchers and scientists to carry out their work. This included, but was not limited to, paying for all operational facilities and resources, including the purchasing of new equipment, the repair of equipment, the arranging for the building or renovation of facilities, and human resources. It could be as simple as purchasing pens and paper and paying the monthly utilities or more complex activities such as coordinating the construction of a new building or purchasing an expensive piece of equipment.

10 Mr. Belliveau joined the public service in May 1982 as a CR-03 finance and procurement clerk. He became a CR-04 in 1984. He has been with the SCPFRC his entire career. Mr. Belliveau described his job at the Delhi location, which is a research farm. He was primarily responsible for accounts payable and accounts receivable as well as petty cash and the safekeeping and distribution of paycheques. He did not carry out any human resources tasks. Mr. Belliveau relocated to the London office in July 2012.

11 Ms. Sinnesael joined the public service in November 1984 and was initially an OCE-3 typist. She worked for a time in IT support, and in 2000, she came to work in Delhi as a CR-04 on a full-time basis, providing clerical support for the London site. She described her work as taking care of purchases and payments. Ms. Sinnesael retired in December 2012.

12 Mr. Belliveau described how accounts receivable and accounts payable were dealt with. He described the computerized financial management systems that were used, including the “Trade Accounts Receivable Project” as well as “SATURN.”

13 Mr. Belliveau also described how he was involved in the purchasing process for the SCPFRC. Purchases could be carried out by purchase order (“PO”), standing order, or a professional service contract. Depending on the item being purchased, different forms or documents had to be filled out, coded in a particular manner, and inputted electronically into the financial management computer programs.

14 It is clear from the evidence that the most significant amount of work carried out by the grievors in their jobs related to their participation in the financial processing of purchases.

15 The process for purchasing was described by both Mr. Belliveau and Mr. Leduc. I was provided with different examples of types of purchases. All purchases and payments would require financial record keeping, both paper and electronic. The type of purchase would dictate the type and extent of documentation. While the grievors would process the documentation for the invoices and payments, the cheque would come from the Department of Public Works and Government Services (“PWGSC”).

16 Mr. Belliveau explained how over the years the ordering and invoicing, shipping and receiving, and payment systems became more technical and computerized. He described how originally only a handful of codes were used to process financial transactions and that, by the time the grievances were filed, there were in the range of 60 to 70 different codes that could be applied, depending on the transaction.

17 Mr. Belliveau testified that, in or about 1999-2000, the financial information computer system SATURN came into being, and he was sent on a week of training to learn how to operate within it. He described the SATURN system as one that he uses every day in his job.

18 Ms. Sinnesael also provided evidence about the SATURN system and how she used it and another system, named “Enterprise.” She described both systems and explained how both provided similar information about financial transactions and how they were used to generate different financial reports.

19 The SCPFRC has a budget, the specifics of which I was not provided. Suffice it to say that a number of different persons and groups within the SCPFRC are responsible for different portions of the overall budget and have the authority to spend the money they are allotted. The ability to purchase is dependent on the need, the authority and the amount of a given budget. Mr. Leduc testified that, in addition to him, those with a budget and spending authority at the SCPFRC included the facilities managers and researchers (scientists and technicians).

20 It was clear from the evidence that parts of the budget were allocated to certain regular fixed costs, such as utilities and maintenance services. Such regular payments had to be accounted for in the financial records system, and invoices and payments were still processed.

21 If someone with a budget determined that a purchase was to be made, that person was responsible for determining the specifications for the purchase. Depending on the type of purchase, the specifications could be subject to consultations with other people, groups or departments, including subject matter experts. At the end of the day, the person with the budget was responsible for how it was spent. Depending on the value and / or type of item being purchased, certain rules or guidelines might have had to be followed.

22 Both Mr. Belliveau and Mr. Leduc gave examples of types of purchase transactions. It is clear from the evidence that the grievors played a role in the purchase transaction process.

23 An example of a complex purchase was described by Mr. Leduc. He explained how the request would be made, how specifications would be determined by the researcher or researchers, and how the process would be managed, including the initial tendering for the product and the drafting and execution of an agreement of purchase and sale. Researchers (who needed the equipment) would specify the requirements and needs; Mr. Leduc and Mr. Ashby would put together the essential parts of the written contract. The grievors would populate the appropriate documentation and input that information into the electronic financial management systems. This would include inputting some of the contract information into template documentation as well as coding. It would also include the receipt of invoices and the eventual processing for payment.

24 According to Mr. Leduc, the person who would be responsible to ensure that a purchased product or service met the specifications when delivered was the person who ordered it.

25 The grievors did not have delegated authority under either section 32 or 34 of the Financial Administration Act R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11 (“the FAA”).

26 Both Mr. Belliveau and Mr. Leduc described a situation that was referred to as the “blueberries” incident. Mr. Belliveau described it as a difficult problem that required resolution in contracting and procurement. A researcher had reached an agreement to pay a farmer for the right to test a product on some crops located on the farmer’s land. Unfortunately, the test product found its way onto other parts of the farmer’s land (not included as part of the test area) and contaminated a crop of blueberries. The solution was for the SCPFRC to purchase the contaminated blueberries. Mr. Belliveau described his role in creating a PO for the blueberries. He did not advise me of when the incident took place.

27 Mr. Leduc also recalled the blueberries incident. He stated that it was not uncommon at one time (his recollection was that it was before 2004) for researchers to enter into loose agreements with land owners to permit them to carry out work on land not owned by the SCPFRC. In some instances, including the one involving the blueberries, the spraying of product would occur, and the wind or rain, or both would cause the contamination of other lands and crops, thus leading to potential liability against the Crown. Mr. Leduc did not dispute that the blueberries situation arose or that Mr. Belliveau played a role in its resolution. However, he described it as a much larger and complex issue, which required the Assets Team to enter into appropriate land leases or rental contracts with land owners and farmers to protect the SCPFRC and the Crown from liability. He stated that, as of 2004, he was responsible for all land lease and rental contracts with respect to research carried out on properties owned by persons other than the SCPFRC.

28 Mr. Belliveau testified about travel claims that he was required to process and about how some of them were quite complex, as a single trip could encompass travel to several different countries, which often made processing the claims difficult, depending on the places travelled to and the expenses claimed. Allowances, per diems and exchange rates could all be different. Mr. Belliveau stated that the grievors tried to turn around such claims as quickly as possible so that travelers were not out of pocket.

29 Mr. Belliveau stated that the extensive number of codes made carrying out the grievors’ tasks more time consuming. He stated that, when filling out the documentation for a purchase, researchers, scientists or technicians would be required to use a variety of different codes, and as such, he would be required to inform them or correct them to ensure the coding was correct for the purchase to proceed.

30 Mr. Belliveau testified that he and Ms. Sinnesael were the first points of contact for shipping and receiving goods in Delhi, which could include dangerous goods. Both were required to take training for handling dangerous goods, and both were required to take refresher courses. Mr. Belliveau stated that, given the operations of the SCPFRC, it was not uncommon for there to be an array of chemicals that were often shipped to and sometimes out of the different locations. He stated that it was important not only for the safety of the persons within the unit who would handle the package but also for those receiving outgoing shipments. Labelling was particularly crucial for the safety of those handling outbound shipments.

31 Mr. Belliveau confirmed in cross-examination and Mr. Leduc stated in his evidence that all employees received dangerous goods training and were required to take refresher courses every two years. In cross-examination, Mr. Belliveau testified that he never requested or received a payment under article 64 of the collective agreement, which states as follows:

An employee certified pursuant to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and who is assigned the responsibility for packaging and labeling of Dangerous Goods for shipping in accordance with the above Act, shall receive a daily allowance of three dollars and fifty cents ($3.50) for each day they are required to package and label Dangerous Goods for shipping, to a maximum of seventy-five dollars ($75) in a month, for each month where the employee maintains such certification.

32 Mr. Belliveau provided an example of his handling of a dangerous goods shipment. However, it was very recent, after he had transferred to London, and occurred when the individual who usually handled the dangerous goods shipments was away on leave over Christmas.

33 Researchers would often hire students who would be paid out of a researcher’s budget. That payment was identified as a stipend. I was provided with evidence about how the grievors processed the payments of stipends.

34 Journal vouchers were explained to me as documents used to account for the transfer of expenditures from one line of coding to another in the financial records. One of their uses was when an error was discovered, requiring a transfer.

35 Another example of the use of journal vouchers was with respect to the purchase of equipment or material that required pooling budget monies. This type of purchase would create issues in accounting for the asset. Mr. Belliveau provided an example of a purchase of an expensive piece of equipment in which several different researchers are interested. However, no one researcher has the budget to cover the purchase; thus, allocations from several different budgets would be pooled to finance it. He described that, even though a number of different codes would be required to process the transaction, the accounting system requires only one line of code. The grievors would use journal vouchers to properly account for the transaction in the system.

36 I was provided evidence by Mr. Belliveau as to how the grievors were required to interact with other departments as well as organizations outside the government. One example was having to contact suppliers to obtain quotes for different products being purchased, while another was about obtaining extensions to pay invoices.

37 Both Mr. Belliveau and Ms. Sinnesael testified that it was not uncommon for errors to occur in the financial record keeping, which would have to be corrected. They described to me the different ways the errors could come into being and how the grievors would be required to make the corrections. There was a dispute in the evidence with respect to their authority to independently correct errors. Mr. Belliveau testified that, if he found an error, he would often correct it and sometimes notify the party that made the error, and sometimes not. Mr. Leduc testified that Mr. Belliveau was required to look for errors and identify them but was not to correct them unless authorized.

38 The grievors explained to me how they were required to verify compliance. It was explained to me as well how they were required to verify each other’s work, to ensure accuracy and to reduce the likelihood of error. This was in addition to their work ensuring that documentation contained the proper information, including the use of proper codes, before it was inputted into the financial management system.

39 The grievors testified that they were required to produce several reports and verify that the information they contained was accurate and correct.

40 Mr. Belliveau testified about a particular type of error in which there would be a PO for a particular good or service at one price and an invoice would be presented for payment at a different amount. His example involved a repair authorized at a particular cost estimate. During the course of the repair, it was noticed that other work needed to be done, which was carried out. When the invoice was presented for payment, either there were insufficient funds in the budget to pay for the work or the person authorizing the contractor to do the work did not have the authority to make the change. Mr. Belliveau explained to me the role the grievors would play in ensuring that the appropriate authority was obtained and that the correct payment was made and accounted for.

41 Mr. Belliveau explained to me that the grievors were required to be familiar with the FAA and other legislation and guidelines, including those set by the employer as well as by the PWGSC. They were required to be familiar with several trade agreements. They were also required to know general accounting principles and to know how to operate computer software, specifically financial programs.

42 Mr. Belliveau stated that, in 1999-2000, he participated in the working group that was developing the SATURN program. He also stated that he participated in a one-day session in Guelph when reorganization was being discussed for the SCPFRC.

43 Both grievors testified about how they had used their own initiative to come up with a form to make certain aspects of the purchase process easier. The form developed by the grievors was adapted so that it could be used electronically and is still being used by the employer to this day. Both grievors also testified about a second form that Ms. Sinnesael developed for processing MasterCard payments.

44 Ms. Sinnesael testified about how on a particular occasion in 2009 she discovered and reported a conflict of interest situation to her supervisor.

45 Mr. Belliveau admitted in cross-examination that the following duties, not found in his job description, were added by the addendum:

• the picking up of mail;
• the receiving and distribution of cheques;
• the processing of acquisition card payments;
• the telephone visitor reception;
• journal voucher transactions; and
• funds commitments.

46 The grievors had no supervisory role with respect to any other employees.

47 There was evidence that, when Mr. Porter was away on leave, his tasks were divided up and assigned to others on the Assets Team, with some of the work going to the grievors. The grievors testified that, when they carried out tasks that were normally associated with Mr. Porter’s position, they claimed acting pay; however, they were not granted the acting pay and did not file grievances.

48 The CR-05 job description was not identified by either of the grievors; nor was it signed by anyone. It was put to Mr. Leduc, who testified that it did not apply to any position on the Assets Team and that it was not the job description of Mr. Porter.

49 Mr. Porter’s CR-05 finance clerk job description was not put into evidence.

50 Two documents were put to Mr. Leduc in cross-examination and not entered into evidence as exhibits as they were not identified by him and they were not introduced through any other witness. I marked them for identification purposes only as questions on their content were put to Mr. Leduc.

III. Summary of the arguments

A. For the grievors

51 The grievors’ position was that, in 2004 and 2005, and Mr. Belliveau, through to today, they continue to do the work that is more accurately described in the “Key Activities” portion of the CR-05 job description. They ask that I order that the employer delete the “Key Activities” portion of their job descriptions and replace it with the wording found in the “Key Activities” portion of the CR-05 job description.

52 It is the position of the grievors that they were not required to have duties assigned to them by the employer for those duties to be set out in their job descriptions. If they carry out those duties, then those duties should be reflected in their job descriptions.

53 The grievors stated that their job descriptions were inadequate as written and as compared to the CR-05 job description. They contended that, as written, their job descriptions minimize the work that they do. The grievors stated that, when one reads the “Key Activities” portion of their job descriptions, the use of the word “or” is disjunctive and suggests that it is designed for an incumbent that performs only one of the different activities listed in that section. It is the grievors’ position that they perform all the listed tasks.

54 The grievors stated that their job descriptions fail to recognize the need for them to have education and knowledge of general accounting and bookkeeping.

55 The grievors’ position is that their job descriptions do not properly recognize the work they carry out processing requisitions and providing advice, options and courses of action with respect to purchasing transactions, as enumerated in the criteria in the CR-05 job description. They also stated that the work they do reviewing and verifying financial transactions as well as investigating and clarifying discrepancies and determining procedural requirements is not reflected in their job descriptions but is in the CR-05 job description.

56 According to the grievors, the complexity of their work is not captured by the wording of their job descriptions, which fail to identify the following:

• that they have responsibility for contacts;
• that they are required to deal with other employees in other departments and agencies for the purpose of giving or obtaining information;
• that they are required to provide advice and guidance to people in the SCPFRC when those people require advice on purchasing and contracts;
• that they are required to interpret many different policies and procedures, laws and regulations, including Treasury Board guidelines and the North American Free Trade Agreement; and
• that they are required to provide information and advice that requires them to have a well-developed knowledge of central agencies and of departmental financial and procurement policies.

57 The testimony of the grievors was that they worked independently and that they exercised initiative in organizing their work. They routinely dealt with other people in other offices. They were required to solve problems that would require them to establish or adapt procedures. Examples of their problem solving and initiatives included the blueberry purchase when land was not leased, as well as the creation of both the MasterCard purchase document and the electronic requisition form, which they stated are being used throughout the SCPFRC.

58 The grievors stated that it is clear that the CR-05 job description is better suited to describing their work, given the ease at which they interfaced with Mr. Porter, who was the CR-05 on the Assets Team and who worked in many of the same areas as they did.

59 The grievors’ work influenced the timeliness and integrity of the services provided to the SCPFRC, and the consequences of an error in doing their jobs could have resulted in liability to the SCPFRC. They were also required to identify important matters, such as conflicts of interest.

60 The grievors relied on Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board (Department of Human Resources and Skills Development), 2012 PSLRB 86; Carter v. Treasury Board (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), 2011 PSLRB 89; Jennings and Myers v. Treasury Board (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), 2011 PSLRB 20; and Dervin v. Treasury Board (Department of National Defence), 2009 PSLRB 50.

B. For the employer

61 It is the employer’s position that I can take into account only evidence from before 2005, as that is when the grievances were filed. I must disregard evidence as to what the grievors were doing up to and including the present day. Wherever there are discrepancies in the evidence, they must favour the employer.

62 The employer stated that what the grievors are really asking me to do is reclassify them, which is clear from the way the evidence was led and the relief that has been requested.

63 A job description is about the position. Section 7 of the Financial Administration Act RSC, 1985 c. F-11 (“the FAA”) gives the employer the exclusive mandate to assign duties and to classify positions. If the employer does not assign the work, then the employee is not required to carry it out. On that point, the employer relied on Batiot et al. v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency 2005 PSLRB 114, and Taylor v. Treasury Board (Revenue Canada - Customs & Excise) PSSRB File No. 166-02-20396 (19901221).

64 In Batiot, the Board held that, if employees choose to do work that is not in their work descriptions and that they are not required to do, they are doing so on a voluntary basis. The employer is entitled to manage the workplace and determine who carries out what tasks. In Taylor, the Public Service Staff Relations Board held that, if the grievors carried out certain tasks and it was expected or required that they would carry out those tasks, and those tasks were omitted from the job description, then the job description would be considered incomplete. However, if there was no obligation placed on an employee to carry out a task and that task was carried out, it was done voluntarily and as such is not part of the job and should not be included in the job description.

65 It is the position of the employer that the tasks carried out by the grievors in contacting suppliers or other outside organizations (be it other departments or NGOs) were done voluntarily and as such need not be included in their job descriptions.

66 The employer disagreed with the grievors’ interpretation of the use of the word “or” in the first paragraph of the “Key Activities” portion of their job descriptions. The word “or” can be either conjunctive or disjunctive, depending on the context. In support of its position, the employer referred me to Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, Fifth Edition, at 81-84 (“Sullivan”); Leach v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission, [1991] 3 F.C. 560 (T.D.); Churchill v. Hullet (Township) (1905), 11 O.L.R. 284 (ON Div. Ct.); and McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd. (Re), [1993] O.O.H.S.A.D. No. 11 (QL).

67 The employer stated that, in the context of the first paragraph of the “Key Activities” portion of the grievors’ job descriptions, the word “or” should be read conjunctively, and to read it disjunctively as suggested by the grievors would lead to an absurdity.

68 The employer’s position was that the grievors’ job descriptions, as amended, were both complete and current at the time, and as such, the grievances should be dismissed.

69 The employer also relied upon Hughes v. Treasury Board of Canada (Natural Resources Canada), 2000 PSSRB 69; Jaremy v. Treasury Board (Revenu Canada - Customs, Excise and Taxation), 2000 PSSRB 59; Barnes v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, 2003 PSSRB 13; Dervin; and Fedun v. Treasury Board (Revenue Canada - Taxation), PSSRB File Nos. 166-02-28728 to 28288 (19980611).

C. Grievors’ reply

70 The grievors stated that, although Mr. Leduc might not have intended for them to carry out certain tasks, he was not in Delhi but in London, and the grievors’ immediate supervisor, Mr. Ashby, could have assigned the tasks. Hence, there is no evidence that the grievors were not instructed to do the work that they stated they carried out.

71 With respect to the employer’s argument about the proper interpretation of the word “or,” the Sullivan text and the cases all address the interpretation of the word in statutes or regulations. A job description is at issue, and as such, the ordinary and usual meaning of the word “or” should be applied.

72 The grievors stated that, although many of the duties that they enumerated are covered in their job descriptions, they contend that their job descriptions do not adequately cover the complexity of the work, which is better described by the CR-05 job description.

73 The grievors stated that they were required to undergo a significant amount of training to achieve the level of proficiency required for them to work with and in the SATURN system.

IV. Reasons

74 On August 31, 2004 and September 1, 2004, Ms. Sinnesael and Mr. Belliveau respectively confirmed the receipt and review of their job descriptions, which were identified as “CR-04 Full Working Level (Processing Services Stream) 00066.” Their job descriptions were identical. On September 26, 2007, at the final level of the grievance process, their grievances were partially allowed, providing that the addendum was prepared and added to the job descriptions. On November 7, 2007, the addendum was presented to the grievors.

75 The sole issue before me is whether the job descriptions of the grievors, with the addendum of November 2007, were a complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of their positions. The relevant section of the collective agreement is article 54, which states as follows in clause 54.01:

54.01 Upon written request, an employee shall be provided with a complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of his or her position, including the classification level and, where applicable, the point rating allotted by factor to his or her position, and an organization chart depicting the position’s place in the organization.

76 The grievors bore the onus of proving that their job descriptions were not complete and current.

77 In Hughes, at paragraph 26, the adjudicator stated, “[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.” This principle is also followed in Jaremy and Barnes.

78 In Jennings and Myers, at paragraph 52, this Board stated as follows:

[52] … The parties and the arbitral authorities on which they rely agree that a work description must contain enough information to accurately reflect what the employee does. It must not omit a “…reference to a particular duty or responsibility which the employee is otherwise required to perform”; see Taylor v. Treasury Board (Revenue Canada - Customs & Excise), PSSRB File No. 166-02-20396 (19901221). A job description that contains broad and generic descriptions is acceptable as long as it satisfies that fundamental requirement…

79 The question is not whether the wording in a different or draft job description better describes the grievors’ work but whether the job descriptions that the grievors were provided meet the requirements as set out in the collective agreement and the jurisprudence.

80 The employer argued that much of the evidence presented by the grievors was not relevant, as it was not with respect to the time frame of the grievance, June 2005. The grievors’ job descriptions were given to them in September of 2004; after some exchanges with the employer, they filed grievances in June 2005. During the course of the grievance process, the employer, in November 2007, partially allowed their grievances by adding the addendum. Given that the wording of article 54 of the collective agreement states that, “[u]pon written request, an employee shall be provided with a complete and current statement of duties and responsibilities …,” before embarking on a determination as to whether the tasks set out in the job descriptions are complete, it is incumbent on me to address the meaning of the word “current.”

81 “Current” is not defined in the collective agreement; it is defined by the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Second Edition, as “belonging to the present time; happening now.”

82 The word “current,” as well as the phrases “belonging to the present time” and “happening now,” are fluid and can mean many different things, depending on the words and phrases they modify or that modify them. They can mean right at this exact moment in time or the current hour, the current day or the current week, or even the current month or current year.

83 Article 54 states “Upon written request … a complete and current …” It is clear that the word “current” is meant to be read in conjunction with the time of a written request. This begs the question as to whether there was a written request by the grievors and, if so, when was it made? I was not provided with any evidence as to why the job descriptions of the grievors were provided to them when they were. Suffice it to say that they were produced to the grievors in or about late August of 2004, and both grievors acknowledged their receipt in writing, Ms. Sinnesael on August 31, 2004, and Mr. Belliveau on September 1, 2004.

84 With their acknowledgement of the receipt of the job descriptions, the grievors also provided the employer with an attachment indicating that they did not agree that the job descriptions provided to them were complete and current. This started a dialogue between the parties in an attempt to resolve their dispute, which culminated in the filing of the grievances on June 5, 2005. As I apply the wording of article 54 of the collective agreement to the facts surrounding the delivery of the job descriptions, it appears to me that the initial written rejection of the job descriptions by the grievors (August 31 and September 1, 2004) and their grievances were both written requests by them for current and complete job descriptions. As such, the time frame that could be considered as current for the purposes of these grievances is that encompassing the period of September 1, 2004 to June 6, 2005.

85 Much of what was submitted to me by the grievors was not that the job descriptions they were given did not contain tasks that they carried out but that those descriptions did not capture the complexity of the work or minimized their work. While this sounds much like a classification exercise, there is room for amending a work description to address issues such as the levels of complexity in a task, if that is a determinative factor of a particular position; however, there still must be evidence to support the finding that the job description does not adequately depict the work being carried out. For me to be in a position to find that the wording describing the tasks contained in the job descriptions is inadequate, there must be evidence of what the different levels of work are, and against what standard those levels are measured.

86 While the grievors described in some instances in detail what their tasks were and why they were important, this does not equate to establishing that the tasks were either not set out in their job descriptions or were not set out adequately. I did not hear any evidence that would establish that the tasks they were carrying out were such that they were more complex than described or that they required more detail.

87 One example was the attendance by Mr. Belliveau for SATURN training. I had described for me the extent of time that he spent on the training back in 1999-2000 and why SATURN was important and how it was used by the grievors in their jobs. However, that training was a one-time event. It was not a task normally required by the employer to be carried out by the grievors.

88 Another example was the evidence with respect to the dangerous goods training. While the grievors described for me the importance of the training and that they may be required to, at some point, handle dangerous goods, the only time it ever occurred was on one occasion in December 2012. And, in that instance, Mr. Belliveau was filling in for the person who normally carried out the task. Again, it is not a task that is normally requested of the grievors by the employer and required of them to carry out.

89 In one of their submissions, the grievors suggested that their job descriptions were inadequate because of how easily they interfaced with Mr. Porter, who was classified CR-05. His job description was not entered into evidence. I heard limited evidence as to what he did. From the evidence I did hear, Mr. Porter’s work was different from the grievors, although at times there might have been some overlap. The grievors testified and Mr. Leduc confirmed that, when Mr. Porter was on leave, some of the tasks that he was required to carry out in his position were assigned to the grievors. The grievors confirmed that they did claim acting pay for doing that work, which was denied by the employer and not grieved by them. Mr. Leduc also testified that, although the grievors did carry out some of the tasks normally carried out by Mr. Porter (when he was on leave), other tasks that Mr. Porter would normally carry out were done by others on the Assets Team, including Mr. Ashby, Ms. Loewen and him. That does not satisfy me that the grievors’ job descriptions were not current or complete.

90 The grievors described for me how they simplified procedures by creating a form to assist in purchase transactions and how Ms. Sinnesael created a form to assist with MasterCard payments. I was certainly impressed with both the dedication and diligence that the grievors had with respect to their work and the initiative shown in creating the forms. However, the forms were not something that either of the grievors was requested to create; nor were they something that the grievors did on a regular basis. As such, they are not something that should be included in their job descriptions.

91 The grievors also submitted that their work involved giving advice. There was no evidence provided that the grievors gave advice, as opposed to information and options. In addition, no evidence was provided that established how this would contrast to the provision of information and options, which is in the grievors’ work descriptions.

92 From the evidence presented at the hearing, the grievors’ job descriptions encompassed and accurately described the work that they carried out. While the descriptions do not list specifically each and every type of task or process that they were required to carry out, their job descriptions meet the test set out in the jurisprudence and cover the work they described for me in their evidence.

93 The grievors placed considerable weight on the Key Activities portion of the work description.  They submitted that the word “or” should be read in the disjunctive and not the conjunctive.  The first paragraph of that description follows:

Providing information and options to clients to assist in their compliance with or to understand financial, or human resource, or procurement or administrative processing requirements and to resolve problems of routine to moderate difficulty involving, for example, inaccurate coding, guideline non-compliance, inadequate/unclear support information.

94 With respect to the use of the word “or” as it is used in the “Profile / Client Service Results” and “Key Activities” sections of their job descriptions, it was incumbent on the grievors to prove to me that its use was not accurate or appropriate and that it was confusing. The word “or” can both be conjunctive or disjunctive. Professor Sullivan, in her text, states the following:

…

“and” / “or”, Courts often declare that “and” is conjunctive and “or” is disjunctive, but to avoid absurdity they must sometimes read “and” as if it said “or”— or vice versa.

…

In International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-306 v. Miramichi Forest Products Ltd., …. Hughes J.A. wrote:

While the natural meaning of “or”….is to mark an alternative or present a choice, thereby implying an election is to be made to do one of two things, the word will not be so construed where it would result in an absurdity or which the clear intent of the section in which it is found would be defeated….

He relied on Clergue v. HH Vivian & Co. as authority for this proposition. Although Clergue dealt with the interpretation of a contract, the following passage is often cited in statutory interpretation cases:

In order to give effect to the intention of the parties the word “or” should be here read as “and”.

…

95 While a job description is not a statute nor a contract, I do find that Professor Sullivan’s reasoning makes good common sense. The word “or” can be both conjunctive and disjunctive. Does the use of it in the grievors' job descriptions lead to an absurdity? If it is read in the conjunctive, there is no absurdity. As I read the “Profile / Client Service Results,” “Key Activities” and “Knowledge and Skill” criteria sections of their job descriptions and the context of the word “or” in them, I understood that the task that the grievors were required to carry out was dependent on the issue being presented to them by the client. The client could have required them to carry out one particular task or another; however, it was dependent on the situation and the client’s need. The grievors were required to have the knowledge and ability to answer questions in all those areas identified but might have been required at any given time only to answer questions or provide services in one area. It would be absurd to read that they had to have knowledge in all the different areas to answer questions or carry out all tasks, but only carry out one task.

96 For all of the above reasons, I make the following order:

V. Order

97 The grievances are dismissed.

June 13, 2013.

John G. Jaworski,
adjudicator