FPSLREB Decisions

Jurisdiction - Job description - Right to receive complete job description - the grievors were Regional Communications Officers with the National Parole Board - in 1999, as part of a national initiative, the Universal Classification System (UCS), the grievors and the employer were trying to finalize a revised job description which would adequately reflect the grievors' duties - there was disagreement over the initial work description and this document was further revised in April 2000 - the grievors maintained their view that this job description was still not complete and therefore the provisions of the collective agreement were not being met - the adjudicator concluded that because the job description had not yet been sent to classification at the time of the hearing and therefore a classification level and point rating allotted by factor, provided for by the collective agreement, had not yet been given to the grievors, the grievance on this point was sustained - however, with respect to remedy, the adjudicator concluded that this need not be assessed because proof had since been given that the employer had sent the job description to classification for a review - with respect to the other alleged violation of the collective agreement, an incomplete description of job content, the adjudicator stated that while classification issues may be outside his jurisdiction, because the collective agreement states that job descriptions shall be complete, the adjudicator could rule on that issue - a number of issues were raised by the grievors with respect to job content and the adjudicator dealt with them separately - with respect to the lack of consequence of error in the job description, the adjudicator determined that the fact that such an area or heading is mentioned in the classification standard is not reason, in and of itself, to say that it must be included in a job description - he therefore concluded that lack of reference to this area did not mean that the job description was incomplete - with respect to a particular section, Well-Being of Individuals, for which no narrative was provided under the heading, the adjudicator found that this was an indication of an incomplete job description - the adjudicator concluded that, as part of their duties, the grievors could designate individuals as victims if they met the established criteria; that such a designation could contribute to an individual's well-being; and, therefore, that it should have been included in that section of the job description - with respect to all other issues, the adjudicator concluded that the job description sufficiently described the grievors' work with respect to issues like dealing with media, victims and offenders - thus, the grievances were allowed in part, only with respect to the lack of narrative under the heading in section 2, Well-Being of Individuals, which was found to indicate that the job description was incomplete. Grievances allowed in part.