FPSLREB Decisions

Heard at Sherbrooke, Québec,
April 8 and 9, 2015.
(PSLREB Translation)

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. Group grievances referred to adjudication

1        On October 26, 2006, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“the Alliance”) filed a grievance (PSLREB File No. 567-02-48) on behalf of 416 grievors. Those grievors were then working in different offices of the Department of Human Resources and Social Development on December 12, 2013 (S.C. 2013, c. 40, s. 224; “the department” or “the employer”) as client service officers (referred to before then as “citizen service officers”) in positions classified PM-01. That grievance alleged that the employer failed its obligation to provide those grievors with a complete and current statement of their duties and responsibilities, thus contravening article 54 of the collective agreement between the Treasury Board and the Alliance for the Program and Administrative Services Group bargaining unit, which expired on June 20, 2007 (“the collective agreement”). As a corrective measure, all the grievors involved in that grievance asked that the employer provide them with a complete and current statement of their duties, in accordance with the collective agreement’s provisions. The employer granted an extension to the time limits applicable to that grievance process to September 16, 2010. The grievance was referred to adjudication on August 27, 2010.

2        At the same time, the Alliance filed two other similar grievances against the employer. The first (PSLREB File No. 567-02-99) was filed on behalf of five grievors. The second (PSLREB File No. 567-02-100) was filed on behalf of 15 grievors. Those two group grievances were referred to adjudication on June 1, 2012.

3        On November 1, 2014, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act (S.C. 2013, c. 40, s. 365) was proclaimed into force (SI/2014-84), creating the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the new Board”) to replace the former Public Service Labour Relations Board (“the former Board”) as well as the former Public Service Staffing Tribunal. On the same day, the consequential and transitional amendments contained in sections 366 to 466 of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2 (S.C. 2013, c. 40) also came into force (SI/2014-84). Pursuant to section 393 of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, a proceeding commenced under the Public Service Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2) before November 1, 2014, is to be taken up and continue under and in conformity with the Public Service Labour Relations Act as it is amended by sections 365 to 470 of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2.

4        The parties were not available for a hearing before April 8, 2015.

5        The three grievances were grouped and heard together.The parties agreed that the dispute was only about the client service officers’ job description, bearing job number 2NA00723 and issued in November 2013. The parties also agreed that that task description was similar to the one that applied in 2006 and that the dispute being debated before me today is the same as the one they debated in the process applicable to each grievance in this decision. The parties also agreed that any changes made to the job description would be applied retroactively to September 15, 2006. All the other issues in dispute raised in the three grievances, including a workplace security issue, were withdrawn at the beginning of the hearing.

6        The only collective agreement provision disputed in this case was clause 54.01, which states the following:

...

Article 54
statement Of duties

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.

7        Initially, the Alliance proposed eight changes to the client service officers’ job description. However, two were withdrawn at the beginning of the hearing. Therefore, this decision is about six changes that the Alliance proposed making to the job description.

II. Summary of the evidence

8        As indicated, the Alliance proposed six changes to the client service officers’ job description so that it could comply with clause 54.01 of the collective agreement. In support of its proposals, the Alliance adduced five relevant documents and called the following four client service officers: Huguette Breton, Richard Gélineau, Marie Lafrance, and René Huacuja. The employer called Steve Muckle, a departmental service manager who supervises 33 employees, most of whom are client service officers from six different departmental service centres in the Quebec Region.

A. First change

9        The first change that the Alliance proposed was in the seventh paragraph of the section entitled “[translation] Main Activities”. The existing text reads as follows:

[Translation]

...

Receive, conduct an initial review, and send supporting requests and documentation on behalf of the Department and explain to clients where and how they can track the status of their requests.

...

10        The Alliance’s proposed text reads as follows:

...

Receive, conduct a complete review, and, depending on the service offering, immediately process or send the supporting document or request on behalf of the Department and explain to clients where and how they can track the status of their requests.

...

[The proposed additions are underlined; the proposed deletions are in line-through.]

11        The oral evidence about that first change established the following. Mr. Gélineau testified that client service officers sometimes directly process certain client requests. The only example that he gave in support of that assertion was that client service officers are authorized to immediately process social insurance number applications. In cross-examination, he conceded that in the majority of cases, the client service officer only skims through the documents to be submitted by a client and acts more like an intermediary. Passport applications were cited as an example. Mr. Gélineau conceded that when a client submits a defective passport application and wants his or her application sent and treated as it was submitted, the client service officer must send or forward the document on behalf of the department as he or she is not responsible for processing the document in question.

12        According to Mr. Muckle’s testimony, most of the time the client service officer conducts only an initial review of a client’s applications or documents and almost never performs the immediate or final processing of applications. He also referred to passport applications, for which a full review of the client’s documents and the final application processing are performed by a Passport Canada employee rather than by a departmental client service officer.

13        Mr. Muckle added that although it is rare for a client service officer to be asked to perform a full review or to immediately process a client’s document or application, according to him, paragraph 5 of the same section adequately and sufficiently describes that occasional responsibility and reads as follows:

[Translation]

...

Review, verify, and authenticate clients’ identities and relevant documents; receive and process service fees and other payments; and process and produce certificates, licences, and similar documents for other service offerings within the limits of the established guidelines.

...

14        According to Mr. Muckle, the occasional nature of the task at issue and the fact that the desired addition is already provided for in paragraph 5 of the section in question do not justify the requested change.

B. Second change

15        The Alliance’s proposed second change is about the second paragraph of the section entitled “[translation] Skills - Position Requirements”. The existing text reads as follows:

[Translation]

...

2.   Knowledge of the relevant sections of the laws, regulations, and policies specific to the range of services of the Department and its partners, to provide information, offer advice on clients’ eligibility requirements, and to return clients’ files using the appropriate methods.

...

16        The Alliance’s proposed text reads as follows:

...

2.  Knowledge of a vast quantity of diverse laws, regulations, and policies related to the range of services of the Department and its partners, to provide information, offer advice on clients’ eligibility requirements, and to return clients’ files using the appropriate methods.

...

[The proposed additions are underlined.]

17        The oral evidence about that second change established the following: Ms. Lafrance first testified that a client service officer has to be familiar with a significant number of laws, regulations, and policies related to the department’s different service offerings. She specifically referred me to seven different laws, three regulations, and a policy. However, during cross-examination, she conceded that the client service officer was not required to know all the sections of those laws or regulations. She specified that the officer had to know five or six sections of each law but did not specify which ones. She added that the client service officer also had to know certain sections that deal with clients’ appeal rights, without specifying the number of sections or specifically which ones. According to her, that knowledge is made possible through the many online courses that the department offers.

18        Mr. Muckle confirmed what Ms. Breton conceded to in her cross-examination, which was that client service officers do not need to know a vast quantity of laws, regulations, or polices but that they must be familiar with the contents of some sections of the laws or regulations found on the Service Canada website.

C. Third change

19        The Alliance’s third proposed change is in the fifth paragraph of the section entitled “[translation] Skills - Position Requirements”. The existing text reads as follows:

[Translation]

...

5.   The knowledge mentioned earlier, coupled with analysis, problem solving, client service, verification, and computer skills to answer questions from diverse client groups about the wide range of services offered by the Department ....

...

20        The Alliance’s proposed text reads as follows:

[Translation]

...

5.   The knowledge mentioned earlier, coupled with analysis, problem solving, client service, verification, and computer skills to answer questions from diverse client groups about the wide range of services offered by the Department and its continually changing partners ....

...

[The proposed additions are underlined.]

21        The oral evidence about that third change established the following. Mr. Gélineau testified that the department’s service offerings change constantly and that client service officers must familiarize themselves with the changes to those services as some may be discontinued and others added. Mr. Gélineau also indicated that client service officers must also familiarize themselves with changes to the work tools associated with those services, particularly the new computerized systems, online files, and websites.

22        As for the addition of the term “partners” in that paragraph, Mr. Gélineau referred me to certain sections of the job description, which refer to the department and its partners. I noted that the job description refers to the department’s partners not less than 10 times.

D. Fourth change

23        The Alliance’s fourth proposed change affects the tenth paragraph of the section entitled “[translation] Skills - Position Requirements”. The existing text reads as follows:

...

[Translation]

10.  Knowledge and skill in the use of production office software and related systems, such as departmental databases, email, Internet and intranet, word processing, data processing applications, document imaging and other technologies.

...

24        The Alliance’s proposed text reads as follows:

[Translation]

...

10.  Knowledge and skill in the use of a wide variety of production office software and related systems, such as departmental databases, email, Internet and intranet, word processing, data processing applications, document imaging and other technologies.

...

[The proposed additions are underlined.]

25        The oral evidence about that fourth change established the following. Ms. Lafrance testified that client service officers must be familiar with and capable of using more than 30 different computer systems or programs as part of their work. She went over 17 of those programs and described the steps required to access each one as well as the information they provide. Ms. Lafrance acknowledged that some of those computerized programs are more recent and did not exist in 2006 and that others are no longer used.

E. Fifth change

26        The Alliance’s fifth proposed change was about the third paragraph of the section entitled “[translation] Effort - Position Requirements”. The existing text reads as follows:

[Translation]

...

3.   Provide services to several clients using different approved procedures while understanding service limits; manage time while satisfying the need to meet clients’ service expectations according to the Department’s service standards; deal with clients who have received a negative decision; determine and resolve clients’ service issues by conducting research and by studying several procedures and processes to select the best measure to take; recognize clients who require a deeper level of intervention.

...

27        The Alliance’s proposed text reads as follows:

                   [Translation]

...

3.   Provide services to several clients using different approved procedures while understanding service limits; manage time while satisfying the need to meet clients’ service expectations according to the Department’s service standards; deal with clients who have received a negative decision that may result in threatening and intimidating behaviours; determine and resolve clients’ service issues by conducting research and by studying several procedures and processes to select the best measure to take; recognize clients who require a deeper level of intervention.

...

[The proposed additions are underlined.]

28        The oral evidence about that fifth change established the following. Ms. Breton indicated that a client who received a negative decision about an application for any type of benefit or service may go to a departmental service centre and express his or her discontent to a client service officer by speaking quickly and abruptly, by raising his or her voice, or even by crying. She added that in some cases, clients go as far as using abusive language with the client service officers or banging on the counters. Ms. Breton also alluded to certain events that occurred at the department’s service centres, but she did not specify when, where, and the number of times they occurred. She explained that there are several types of negative decisions, including a client’s ineligibility for a benefit or allowance, an end to a benefit payment, or a change to a law, which may affect a type of benefit or allowance. She added that when a client goes to at a departmental service centre and the processing officer who communicated the negative decision is not available to explain the reasons for that decision, the client service officer must do it.

29        According to Ms. Breton, it is difficult to deal with clients who display threatening and intimidating behaviour, especially at the department’s regional service centres, which sometimes have only two employees. In those centres, a client service officer may be alone with such a client, for example during his or her colleague’s lunch or normal break. She described that situation as stressful.

30        Ms. Breton also testified that in 2009, the client service officers asked the department to provide them with training to help them deal with clients who displayed aggressive behaviour towards them. According to her, the department agreed to that request and to this day offers that training to client service officers. It covers among other things clients’ expectations, communication skills, and stress management and teaches how to deal with clients who are in distress or who exhibit difficult behaviour.

31        Finally, Ms. Breton confirmed that for emergencies, a panic button connected directly to a nearby police department is available in all departmental service centres.

32        In cross-examination, Ms. Breton conceded that any inappropriate behaviour on the part of a client could result in a security incident report and that she completed such a report only once between 2006 and 2008; she dealt with more than 1000 clients during that period. The incident in question involved a client who arrived in a hospital gown at the departmental service centre where Ms. Breton was working and who demanded that he be given his benefit payment.

33        On that point, Mr. Muckle indicated that a large majority of communications between client service officers and clients are done by telephone and that the department does not render only negative decisions. According to him, clients displaying aggressive, threatening, or intimidating behaviour were and still are the exception. In support of that assertion, he indicated that some departmental service centres, which receive close to 37 000 visitors yearly, never report more than 3 to 4 behaviours of that type per year. He added that although those are isolated cases, it is nevertheless appropriate to provide client service officers with that type of training to properly equip them for the rare occasions on which they must deal with such behaviour.

F. Sixth change

34        The Alliance’s proposed sixth change is about an additional paragraph that it would like to add to the section entitled “[translation] Effort - Position Requirements”. Its proposed additional text, which would become the eighth paragraph in that section, reads as follows:

[Translation]

8. Obtain the required accreditations.

[The proposed addition is underlined.]

35        The oral evidence about that sixth change established the following. Ms. Breton testified that client service officers have to take close to 100 mandatory training courses as part of their work, including many updates. Most of those courses are offered and must be completed online through a site called the “[translation] Online Learning Campus”. Exams are often administered after the training courses and are subject to a pass mark established by the employer. In the event of a failure, the client service officer must retake each training course until the pass mark has been obtained. She referred me to the Online Learning Campus, which contains more than 100 training programs, but she did not specify which are mandatory, which ones were subject to an exam, and which ones she has personally taken throughout her long departmental career.

36        According to Ms. Breton, using the term “[translation] accreditations” is appropriate in the circumstances, for two reasons. First, in many cases, officers are required to take the training, to write the exam, and to obtain the pass mark established by the employer before they can access certain departmental systems. Second, the department issues certificates of achievement that refer to its “[translation] accreditation program” (Exhibit P-5).

37        Mr. Muckle testified that the term “[translation] accreditations” was not appropriate and that it was instead an issue of training to ensure that client service officers are able to meet the requirements of paragraph 3 of the section entitled, “[translation] Skills - Position Requirements”, which reads as follows:

                   [Translation]

3. Knowledge of the Department’s service offerings (particularly the content, purpose, and connectivity of programs and services), delivery techniques (such as using the Department’s and its partners’ navigation and self-service tools), and of the accountability obligations, to provide quality services and to document the results.

38        Mr. Muckle specified that if a client service officer does not have enough knowledge about a service the department offers or if the department offers a new service, the officer will be trained on the service offering in question.

III. Summary of the arguments

A. For the Alliance

39        The Alliance pointed out that the employer failed to meet its obligation to provide to the grievors involved in these grievances a complete and current statement of their duties and responsibilities and that thus it contravened article 54 of the collective agreement. According to it, each grievor had the right to ask that the proposed changes be added to the job description so that it would accurately reflect the tasks and duties that the grievors regularly performed as part of their work.

40        As for the merits of the Alliance’s first proposed change, it submitted that client service officers do not act exclusively as intermediaries and that the decision-making level conferred on them when they issue a social insurance number must be recognized and included in their job description.

41        As for the merits of the Alliance’s second proposed change, it submitted that the significant number of laws, regulations, and policies that a client service officer must know justifies adding the terms “[translation] vast quantity” and “[translation] diverse” to the clause in question.

42        As for the merits of the Alliance’s third proposed change, its representative submitted that the change in question goes beyond the usual technological changes and instead covers the changes that the department made to its service offerings.

43        As for the merits of the Alliance’s fourth proposed change, it submitted that the large number of software applications that a client service officer must know and the notable distinctions between each application justify the addition of the term “[translation] wide variety”. It also maintained that the addition of the term “[translation] several” would not be sufficient in the circumstances and would not do justice to the imposing number involved in this case.

44        As for the merits of the Alliance’s fifth proposed change, it submitted that the fact that a policy exists about how to deal with aggressive clients and that the department felt that it would be a good idea to implement and provide training on that subject are indications that it is an important element of a client service officer’s work.

45        As for the merits of the Alliance’s sixth proposed change, it submitted that the proposed language accurately reflects that used by the employer in its workplaces and its documents, such as certificates of achievement or certification, which it regularly issues to its employees after training sessions. It also maintained that the mandatory nature of that responsibility, i.e., the obligation to take training courses and to pass the related exams, is a testament to its importance.

46        The Alliance concluded by submitting that the proposed changes accurately reflect the client service officers’ employment status, i.e., their activities, functions, and responsibilities.

B. For the employer

47        According to the employer, the grievors involved in these group grievances received a complete and current job description, and the Alliance’s proposed additions are either already included elsewhere in the job description or simply do not need to be included.

48        As for the Alliance’s first proposed change, the employer submitted that paragraphs 5 and 7 of the section entitled “[translation] Main Activities” already contain the essential points of that addition. According to it, the evidence demonstrated that in the majority of cases, client service officers perform only an initial review of applications or documents and that they rarely perform immediate or final application processing. Processing social insurance number applications was the only example cited in support of such a change, and that situation is already provided for, adequately and sufficiently, in paragraph 5 of that section.

49        As for the Alliance’s proposed second change, according to the employer, it only adds unnecessary terms that do not need to be included in the job description as the plural is already used throughout the paragraph in question.

50        As for the Alliance’s proposed third change, the employer submitted that several references to the department’s partners were already included in the job description under the section entitled “[translation] Main Activities” and that it was not necessary to add that reference to every mention of the department. It added that it is obvious that the department’s service offerings change from one year to the next, and that that is to be expected. According to it, stating that reality adds nothing useful to that type of exercise.

51        As for the Alliance’s proposed fourth change, the employer indicated that according to it, it once again adds unnecessary terms that do not need to be included in the job description as the plural is already used throughout the paragraph in question.

52        As for the Alliance’s fifth proposed change, the employer maintained that although an exceptional event could justify providing preventive training, it does not necessarily justify including it in the job description. Including that change in the job description would result in adding non-exhaustive lists of events of that type and would needlessly lengthen the document.

53        As for the Alliance’s proposed sixth change, the employer stated that its opinion was that the term “[translation] accreditations” was inappropriate in the circumstances and that it was a training issue, which is neither a task nor a responsibility. Instead, according to the employer, it is a condition of employment that does not need to be reproduced in the grievors’ job description. That training is necessary so that they can carry out the tasks and responsibilities listed in their job description.

54        In support of its arguments, the employer referred me to Carter v. Treasury Board (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), 2011 PSLRB 89, Kerswill v. Treasury Board (Natural Resources Canada), 2000 PSSRB 91, Hughes v. Treasury Board of Canada (Natural Resources Canada), 2000 PSSRB 69, and Jaremy v. Treasury Board (Revenu [sic] Canada - Customs, Excise and Taxation), 2000 PSSRB 59.

IV. Reasons

55        The Alliance alleged that the employer contravened the collective agreement by not providing the grievors involved in these three grievances with a complete and current statement of their duties and responsibilities. According to the Alliance, the generic client service officer position job description, bearing number 2NA00743, does not exactly reflect the work that the grievors have performed since 2006.

56        For its part, the employer submitted that each item that the Alliance wishes to add to the client service officer position job description is already in that document or simply does not need to be included.

57        Many of the principles that must be considered when deciding this type of case are set out in paragraph 52 of Jennings and Myers v. Treasury Board (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), 2011 PSLRB 20, as follows:

52 What is a complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of an employee? 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. In Hughes v. Treasury Board of Canada (Natural Resources Canada), 2000 PSSRB 69, at para 26, the adjudicator wrote the following: “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.” See also Currie et al. v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2008 PSLRB 69, at para 164; Jaremy et al. v. Treasury Board (Revenue Canada - Customs, Excise & Taxation), 2000 PSSRB 59, at para 24; and Barnes et al. v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, 2003 PSSRB 13. The employer is not required to use any particular form of wording to describe the duties and responsibilities of an employee and “...it is not the adjudicator’s role to correct the wording or the expressions that are used,” so long as they broadly describe the responsibilities and the duties being performed (see Jarvis et al. v. Treasury Board (Industry Canada), 2001 PSSRB 84, at para 95; and see Barnes, at para 24.

58        To be successful, the Alliance had to discharge its burden of proof. Therefore, it had to demonstrate that the job description did not contain enough information to exactly reflect the work of the grievors involved in these three grievances and that it did not fully describe the responsibilities and duties that they perform. Since it failed to discharge that burden by presenting convincing evidence, the grievances must be dismissed.

59        On several occasions, adjudicators have reviewed the obligations imposed by provisions similar to clause 54.01 of the collective agreement. Although that clause provides that an employee has the right to receive a complete and current statement of his or her duties and responsibilities, it does not mean that the statement of duties must necessarily include all the details of an employee’s work, the conditions of that work, and the skills required to perform it. That assertion is even more true if the work in question is performed only occasionally. The job description may be written in general terms, and the terms used need not reflect in detail the employee’s work. Furthermore, my role is not to suggest the ideal wording but instead to determine whether the wording meets the collective agreement’s requirements. Thus, it is possible for the employer to fulfil the requirements set out in clause 54.01 of the collective agreement by using a generic job description that will apply to a relatively large number of employees as long as it reflects the duties and responsibilities of the employees it covers.

60        Therefore, my role consists of determining whether the client service officers’ job description bearing job number 2NA0073 constitutes a complete and current statement in light of the evidence presented to me. In my opinion, for the following reasons, that is so in this case.

61        The first change that the Alliance proposed is not necessary since the contents of paragraphs 5 and 7 of the relevant section adequately reflect the work that the grievors at issue perform. I subscribe to the employer’s argument that the Alliance’s proposed changes are implicitly included in those paragraphs and that the fact that a client service officer occasionally performs a full review of an application for a social insurance number does not justify such an addition.

62        According to the evidence that I have about the Alliance’s second proposed change, I find that adding the terms “[translation] vast quantity” and “[translation] diverse” would not reflect the reality of the required knowledge and are intended, at the very most, to polish the existing text. The fact that the text is written in the plural implies that several laws, regulations, and policies are involved.

63        For the Alliance’s proposed third change, I do not see any need to refer to the change to the department’s service offerings or to those of its partners in the text located in the fifth paragraph of the section entitled “[translation] Skills - Position Requirements”. A priori, I note that I was not presented with any evidence demonstrating a constant change to the department’s service offerings, and even if that had been the case, such a finding need not be reflected in a job description. It is obvious that most of the time, the activities listed in a job description change somewhat. As for the reference to the department’s partners, it is already mentioned later in the same paragraph. In addition, the job description already refers to the department’s partners not less than 10 times, which explains my reluctance to add the term an eleventh time.

64        The fourth change that the Alliance proposed is also of no use. The addition of the term “[translation] wide variety” is again intended to polish the existing text. The fact that the existing text is written in the plural and that at least eight examples of software or related systems are listed in it implies that a large variety of software is involved.

65        As for the Alliance’s proposed fifth change, the evidence presented at the hearing was not sufficiently convincing to justify that addition to the job description. The fact that 3 or 4 clients out of 37 000 yearly may display threatening and intimidating behaviour and specifically the only example that Ms. Breton gave during her testimony do not justify, in my opinion, such an addition. In addition, the existing text already states that one of the requirements of the position consists of serving clients who have received a negative decision.

66        The last element that the Alliance wanted to include in the job description is the addition of a new paragraph under the heading “[translation] “Effort - Position Requirements”, which reads as follows: “[translation] Obtain the required accreditations”. I feel that such an addition is not justified and has no place in a job description. First, I am not convinced that it is useful or wise to wrongly use a term, namely, “[translation] accreditations”, simply because it reflects one party’s use in the workplace or in some of its documents. Second, this is about a training issue that in my opinion does not need to be mentioned in the grievors’ job description. After all, that training is offered to ensure that they meet the requirements of the positions they hold.

67        The issue in this decision is determining whether the generic job description for client service officer positions is a complete and current statement of their duties. Generic job descriptions are commonly used in the public service, particularly when the same job is performed nationally and it can be found, with a few variants, from one office to the next. Nevertheless, they must reflect the reality of the employment situation because of the numerous aspects of employees’ rights and obligations related to their job descriptions. As implied in Hughes, it would be undesirable to require the employer to list each activity that must be performed for each task and to describe, at length and in depth, how each activity must be performed. Given that the job description uses rather broad terms to describe the full range of duties and responsibilities assigned to the position and provides an account of the reality of the employee’s employment situation, there is no problem. In this case, I am convinced that that is so. After carefully reviewing the evidence, including the exhibits filed at the hearing, I have no difficulty concluding that the grievors involved in these grievances received a complete and current statement of their duties.

68        Overall, the Alliance did not present any evidence to me demonstrating that using terms other than those already used in the job description was justified. I share the employer’s position according to which the terms that appear in the job description of the grievors involved in these grievances are adequate and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities assigned to them and expected of them. The changes that the Alliance wishes to make to the grievors’ job description are either already included in the current job description or were not retained as being duties that they must perform or that have a place in such a document.

69        Therefore, the Alliance did not discharge the burden of determining on a balance of probabilities that the job description of the grievors involved in the three group grievances does not constitute a complete and current statement of their duties and responsibilities. I am simply unable to find in light of the evidence before me that the job description fails to mention a particular duty or responsibility that the grievors involved in these three grievances must fulfil or that some of those duties or responsibilities are listed under the wrong section or subtitle.

70        I find that during the relevant period, the employer indeed provided the grievors involved in these group grievances with a complete and current statement of their duties and responsibilities.

71        For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order:

V. Order

72        The grievances are denied.

73        I order PSLREB File Nos. 567-02-48, 567-02-99, and 567-02-100 closed.

March 22, 2016.

PSLREB Translation