Date: 20220804

Files: 566-02-14646 to 14648

 

Citation: 2022 FPSLREB 66

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

Before a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board

Between

 

Sandra Labrecque, Molly Macphee, and Marianne Saxton

Grievors

 

and

 

Treasury Board

(Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

 

Employer

Indexed as

Labrecque v. Treasury Board (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

In the matter of individual grievances referred to adjudication

Before: Amélie Lavictoire, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board

For the Grievors: Pamela Sihota, Public Service Alliance of Canada

For the Employer: Adam C. Feldman, counsel

Heard via videoconference,

May 3 and 4, 2022.

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. Individual grievances referred to adjudication

[1] Sandra Labrecque, Molly MacPhee, and Marianne Saxton (“the grievors”) are former employees of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The Treasury Board (“the respondent”) was their employer.

[2] In the fall of 2015, they filed individual grievances about the work description for the integrated and organized crime support assistant position, which was classified at level 4 of the Clerical and Regulatory (CR) group. All the grievors occupied positions in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

[3] The grievors submitted that their generic work description did not adequately reflect unique aspects of their work as administrative support staff supporting an integrated drug unit composed of RCMP members and officers of the Saskatoon Police Service (SPS). The grievors initially took the position that 13 elements of complexity and knowledge were either not reflected or inadequately reflected in the skills portion of the work description. During the hearing, they conceded that 7 of those elements were adequately reflected in the job description. Accordingly, these reasons address only the 6 elements that remain in dispute.

[4] To the extent that the knowledge and complexity elements in dispute are requirements of the position at issue, I am satisfied that they are adequately captured by the generic work description. The level of specificity that the grievors seek to have reflected in the work description is not appropriate or justified in the circumstances.

II. Summary of the evidence

[5] None of the grievors currently occupies the integrated and organized crime support assistant position, which is also referred to as an administrative support clerk position. Two of the grievors have retired, and the third is no longer employed by the RCMP. Ms. Saxton was the only witness who testified on behalf of the grievors.

[6] At issue is the work description that was in effect from January 14, 2013, to November 30, 2016.

[7] The grievors provided administrative support to the Saskatoon Integrated Drug Unit (SIDU). However, they did not all work at the same location. Ms. Labrecque and Ms. Saxton worked in a building housing the SPS. They interacted with members of that police force on a daily basis. Ms. MacPhee worked in an RCMP building and did not routinely engage with SPS members. A fourth individual shared the same work description but worked in Regina, Saskatchewan. She did not deal with the SPS.

[8] In early 2015, an administrative support position review (ASPR) was initiated. One of its objectives was to provide a generic work description for the integrated and organized crime support assistants in Saskatchewan (“F” Division). The review coincided with the amalgamation of several RCMP units that dealt with several federal policing aspects of organized crime, including proceeds of crime, border integrity, and drug enforcement. The units were amalgamated into a single larger unit called Integrated Organized Crime North (IOCN). This change also impacted support staff, including administrative support clerks such as the grievors. According to a former staff sergeant of the SIDU and supervisor, Keith Dalton, a new generic job description was required to account for different work locations, allow interchanging administrative support clerks between IOCN units, and facilitate movement within the RCMP generally.

[9] In March 2015, and as part of the ASPR, the grievors participated in fact-finding interviews conducted by Ms. Daria Semotiuk, an accredited classification specialist working for the RCMP. Several verbal and email exchanges followed, through which Ms. Semotiuk obtained information with respect to the grievors’ duties and responsibilities. She obtained samples of their work, and the grievors provided examples of tasks and duties specific to their roles with the SIDU. A fact-finding report was shared with the grievors and management. The grievors provided feedback on that report.

[10] Ms. Semotiuk prepared a draft work description and shared it with the grievors, for their comments. They signed it. According to Ms. Saxton, the grievors felt that the draft work description was adequate yet lacking in detail. Ms. Saxton testified that she signed it even though she thought it was lacking because she thought that it would lead to her job being reclassified to the CR-5 group and level.

[11] According to Ms. Semotiuk, upon the review of the proposed work description, the ASPR Committee raised questions about a discrepancy between the levels of complexity reflected in that document and in the fact-finding report. The Committee asked Ms. Semotiuk to obtain examples to support the level of complexity described in the proposed work description. Although the grievors provided examples, the ASPR Committee was not satisfied that the level of complexity reflected in the draft work description was justified. It asked that the section of the description with respect to complexity be reworded, which Ms. Semotiuk did. The Committee and management accepted the new wording as reflective of the work required of all the incumbents, regardless of their work locations. The work description was finalized, signed by management, and provided to the grievors.

[12] The grievors refused to sign the final job description when it was provided to them. According to Ms. Saxton, the changes that had been made rendered the description of their duties inadequate. She took issue with the removal of statements with respect to the independence of their work and their ability to adapt methods and procedures to meet the needs of the SIDU without consulting their supervisor. According to her, the grievors routinely adapted methods and procedures of their own accord and did not consult their supervisor or others before doing so.

[13] Dissatisfied with the content of the final work description, the grievors filed individual grievances.

[14] During the grievance process, they identified 13 items that they argued should have been included in the work description. According to Ms. Semotiuk, only 1 of those 13 items had been communicated to her in part during the earlier ASPR process.

[15] As previously mentioned, only 6 of those 13 items are still in dispute. Of those 6, 4 relate to portions of the work description that addressed knowledge, and 2 relate to portions that addressed complexity.

A. Knowledge

[16] The first column in the following table includes 4 knowledge-related elements that the grievors submit were missing from the work description and should have been included for it to accurately reflect their work. The second column includes the statements in the work description that the respondent argues adequately reflect each knowledge-related element to the extent that they are requirements of the position. Some duplication exists insofar as the respondent argues that two or more elements that the grievors raised are captured by the same statement in the work description:

Knowledge elements that the grievors identify as missing from the work description	Excerpts from the work description that the employer submits reflect each of those elements
1. Knowledge of specialized terminology (drug jargon, street language) is required when gathering information from informants and when transcribing tape interviews.	... Familiarity with the policing environment and investigative processes in order to provide operational support services to Investigators.
2. Must have a clear understanding of the terms and conditions of the Agreement between the RCMP and Saskatoon Police Service which forms the Integrated Organized Crime North.	... Knowledge of the mandate, organization, culture, policies and processes of the department and other police agencies in order to understand business priorities, initiate contacts and comply with policy requirements in carrying out work. [And] ... Knowledge of techniques and practices related to information management, general office administration, financial administration, procurement, court liaison and transcription is required in the provision of operational support services.
3. Knowledge of Saskatoon Police Service Human Resources procedures to meet the requirements for RCMP employees to have access to the Police Service building and offices and for access to the Saskatoon Police Service computer system. [Public service] employees complete the necessary paperwork and liaise with SPS Human Resources, SPS Identification, Asset Management and Information Management. ...	... Knowledge of the mandate, organization, culture, policies and processes of the department and other police agencies in order to understand business priorities, initiate contacts and comply with policy requirements in carrying out work. [And] ... Familiarity with various partner, client and stakeholder organizations (e.g. external police agencies, Provincial Court Services, Court Registry, Crown Counsel, Solicitor General of Canada etc.) in order to exchange information.
7. Knowledge of the procedures, documents and contacts necessary to obtain Supernumerary Special Constable Status and a [Human Resources Management Information System] number for Saskatoon City Police Officers working in this unit. Prepares the Security Agreement for the Saskatoon Chief of Police’s Signature.	... Knowledge of the mandate, organization, culture, policies and processes of the department and other police agencies in order to understand business priorities, initiate contacts and comply with policy requirements in carrying out work. ...

 

 

[17] The first contested knowledge element relates to the knowledge of specialized drug terminology. During her testimony, Ms. Saxton took the position that this knowledge was required when gathering information from members of the public calling the SIDU and when transcribing taped interviews. She indicated that she had to know the street language that the callers used, specifically the street names for drugs and code words indicative of methods by which drugs are transported, so that she could relay the information received to an SIDU member. She also testified that knowledge of this terminology was required to transcribe taped interviews. According to her, without that knowledge, the transcript would be inaccurate as it would contain numerous references to words marked as “inaudible”. She indicated that no one reviewed the transcripts that she prepared.

[18] Mr. Dalton and Craig Toffoli, who was then a sergeant whose duties included reviewing the grievors’ work, testified that drug terminology knowledge was not a requirement of the job. Although it was likely that learning some of the terminology would occur with time and experience, knowledge of the terminology was not required to respond to telephone calls or to prepare transcripts. That type of knowledge took training and several years to develop. SIDU investigators, not administrative support clerks, required drug terminology knowledge.

[19] According to Mr. Toffoli, the incumbents in the position were not required to understand the terminology used by a caller or spoken in the context of a taped police interview. They were required only to write down what they had heard and to relay the information or a transcript to an investigator. If the terminology used in an interview was unknown to them, they could simply mark it as “inaudible”.

[20] Investigators were responsible for reviewing and correcting transcripts and for following up on information provided by callers. Moreover, if transcripts were required in the context of complex investigations requiring specialized terminological knowledge, Mr. Toffoli indicated that the SIDU would have called upon a specialized team of transcriptionists, not the grievors.

[21] Both witnesses testified that the work description’s reference to “[f]amiliarity with the policing environment and investigative processes ...” was a more appropriate reflection of the knowledge required to answer telephone calls and transcribe taped interviews. According to Mr. Toffoli, if the work description included a requirement related to knowledge of specialized drug terminology, it would make it very difficult to recruit candidates from outside the RCMP and to transfer administrative support clerks between RCMP units. According to him, one of the grievors, Ms. MacPhee, likely could not have been hired had knowledge of that specialized terminology been a job requirement as she did not have experience in a policing environment before she joined the SIDU.

[22] A second element of knowledge that the grievors argue should have been included in their work description is an understanding of the terms and conditions of the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the RCMP and the SPS that established the SIDU. In addition to setting out the SIDU’s composition and command structure, the MOA covers topics such as cost and resource sharing and providing administrative support to the SIDU as well as administrative issues such as paper and electronic file management and granting access cards, keys, and computer codes. On the issue of administrative support to the SIDU, the MOA merely states that public servants will provide administrative support to SIDU personnel.

[23] In her testimony, Ms. Saxton indicated that she had to be familiar with the MOA because much of it pertained to her duties. She provided several examples of situations in which she relied on her knowledge of the MOA. She referred to a cost-sharing provision in the MOA and added that she was required to prepare cost-sharing reports after ordering office supplies for the SIDU. She testified that she relied on her knowledge of the MOA’s provisions on file storage and management to refuse inappropriate requests for access to files and to clarify who had responsibility for the possession and safeguarding of files when the SIDU was disbanded. She also pointed to a provision that specified the number of parking spots provided to RCMP members and added that she would refer to the agreement to insist that a parking spot be made available for a member, when appropriate. She also indicated that the MOA contained a provision with respect to identification and access cards. Her role was to complete the paperwork to request access cards for SPS officers joining the SIDU, and on a few occasions, she relied on the MOA’s wording to insist that an SPS member return his or her access card upon leaving the SIDU.

[24] Mr. Dalton testified that the knowledge required to fulfil the clerical duties and responsibilities of the position was basic knowledge of the mandate, policies, and procedures of the RCMP and the SPS, to know the basic division of responsibilities, the general rules to follow, and the persons to contact. The grievors had to know the day-to-day functions and roles of each police force.

[25] Mr. Dalton and Mr. Toffoli testified that administrative support clerks did not have to know the MOA’s details. It was an agreement between the police forces, and the staff sergeant was responsible for answering questions and resolving disagreements with respect to the MOA. According to Mr. Toffoli, the administrative support clerk’s role did not include informing the SPS executive about their roles and responsibilities under the MOA’s terms. The authority to enforce the MOA or to resolve related disagreements did not rest with the grievors.

[26] Mr. Toffoli testified that none of the grievors’ clerical tasks was directly associated with the MOA or required a knowledge of its terms. Their duties did include ordering supplies and preparing cost-sharing reports to be sent to the finance branch, but they were not responsible for recouping funds from the SPS. They maintained files, completed paperwork to request identification cards and access codes, and occasionally responded to a parking complaint, but they were not required or expected to enforce the MOA or to resolve disagreements with respect to it.

[27] Mr. Dalton testified that he felt that the work description should not specifically name the SPS. It would be impractical to refer to a specific agreement or a specific regional police force in a generic job description meant to apply to other locations. Mr. Toffoli added that including a specific reference to knowledge of the MOA would prevent recruiting individuals from outside the SIDU and the SPS. It would be unlikely to find a candidate with that knowledge at the time of recruitment.

[28] A third element of knowledge at issue is knowledge of SPS human resources procedures. According to Ms. Saxton, a working knowledge of those procedures was required to prepare the paperwork to ensure that SIDU members, whether from the RCMP or the SPS, had all relevant accesses to the building and to computer systems. She testified that this knowledge was also required to liaise with others, to ensure that all appropriate accesses were in place.

[29] Mr. Dalton testified that the position that the grievors occupied required knowledge of the steps to take to ensure that SIDU members had all required accesses. It also required familiarity with the partner agency, in this case the SPS, to develop a network of contacts that could be called upon to provide additional information if and when needed. However, the position did not require detailed knowledge of the other police service’s human resources procedures. He expressed his belief that the references in the work description to knowledge of the policies and processes of an external police agency — in this case, the SPS — and familiarity with external police agencies, to exchange information, adequately reflected the knowledge required for the position.

[30] Ms. Saxton testified with respect to a final knowledge element at issue, which was knowledge of the procedures, documents, and contacts necessary to obtain a special designation required for an SPS member to be granted access to RCMP computer systems. According to her, when SPS officers came to work at the SIDU, she was required to complete documentation for them, request that they complete a lengthy security form, and follow the SPS procedures that required preparing a letter for signature by the Saskatoon chief of police before reaching out to RCMP contacts to obtain the officers’ access to the RCMP’s electronic file-management system.

[31] Mr. Dalton recognized that the grievors would have completed clerical tasks of the type described by Ms. Saxton. However, according to him, the position required that incumbents have only high-level knowledge of the process to follow and the clerical tasks to be accomplished to ensure that they respected the process and knew whom to contact to ensure that the process of obtaining the special designation moved forward. He testified to his belief that the reference to “[f]amiliarity” with the department’s policies and processes in the work description adequately reflected the level and nature of knowledge required for the position.

B. Complexity

[32] The grievors also identified two elements of complexity that they submit were missing from their work description. The following table includes the elements allegedly absent from the work description (first column) as well as the statements in the work description that the respondent argues adequately reflected each of those elements (second column), as applicable:

Elements of complexity that the grievors identified as missing from the work description	Excerpts from the work description that the employer submits reflect each of those elements
3. Ability to remain calm when dealing with the public who complain, are stressed, angry, aggressive, hostile, suicidal, etc. ...	[Not applicable]
5. Judgement and care need to be exercised as a resource and liaison person between RCMP and Saskatoon City Police personnel concerning administrative and operational procedures in place at the unit.	... There is an ongoing requirement to make contacts with external personnel such as: · Legal professionals, court staff, and law enforcement personnel from other police departments in order to exchange information and discuss work processes .... ...

 

[33] With respect to the first element, Ms. Saxton testified that she would receive calls from angry or hostile individuals who felt that they had been treated unfairly as well as from people who were very distressed. According to her, it was important to remain calm and to listen without reacting to the caller’s emotions. She described this aspect of her work as stressful but recognized that when working with the RCMP, stressful situations are to be expected.

[34] Both Mr. Dalton and Mr. Toffoli testified that an ability to remain calm is a human behaviour and that human behaviours are not included in work descriptions. Their evidence in this respect was uncontested. They testified that remaining calm is a behaviour expected of all employees, particularly at the RCMP, where interacting with hostile people was described as “coming with the territory”. Mr. Dalton further testified that given the nature of the calls that the SIDU received, it would have been rare for the grievors to interact with an angry person by phone, and if they did, they were authorized to hang up if the caller became hostile. He added that the grievors did not have face-to-face interactions with the public. In contrast, individuals working in similar positions in RCMP detachments would have had frequent face-to-face interactions with hostile individuals, yet they had similar work descriptions and the same classification as the grievors.

[35] The last element of complexity at issue is the required judgment and care when acting as a resource and liaison person between RCMP and SPS personnel with respect to administrative and operational procedures in the SIDU. Ms. Saxton testified that occasionally, tensions arose between the SPS and the RCMP that required her to be sensitive and careful in her interactions involving each entity. For example, she described an incident in which she was involved in discussions about a redistribution of files between the RCMP and the SPS that would have led to a significant increase in the workload of SPS personnel and would have created resistance by SPS staff. She indicated that she had to be sensitive in discussions with SPS management and staff that were aimed at clarifying responsibility for files.

[36] Mr. Dalton testified that judgment and care were always required of an incumbent in the position at issue and that the description of complexity in the work description was sufficient to capture the job’s true requirements. According to him, if any of the grievors acted as a “liaison person” between the SPS and the RCMP, it was not in an official capacity; nor did they have decision-making authority. The role would have been limited to taking calls and messages and passing those to others in positions of authority. The position did not require them to take on a more active or involved role.

[37] Lastly, Ms. Semotiuk testified with respect to work-description review processes generally and to guiding principles used when preparing generic work descriptions. According to her, the objective when developing a generic work description is to set out the primary purpose of a position, not the details. She testified that the level of detail proposed by the grievors, for example specifically naming the SPS or including a requirement to know terminology specific to drug enforcement, is not generally recommended as it does not allow management the required flexibility to recruit, assign work, and reassign employees between units or regions. According to her, too much specificity can also result in the need to update a work description frequently.

III. Summary of the arguments

A. For the grievors

[38] The grievors submit that the respondent failed to provide them with a complete and current statement of duties as required by article 55 of their collective agreement (the collective agreement for the Program and Administrative Services group between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada; expiry date: June 20, 2018 (“the collective agreement”)). The work description does not adequately reflect the duties that the grievors were required to perform; see Jennings v. Treasury Board (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), 2011 PSLRB 20.

[39] Although the work description review process gave the grievors an opportunity to provide input, the description that resulted from that process was too generic and did not reflect their duties as part of an integrated unit, notably duties that required them to work closely with SPS members. The fact that they provided administrative support to two different and separate police forces was a unique and important component of their job and was not reflected in the work description. With the exception of a knowledge component requiring a “[f]amiliarity” with stakeholder organizations such as external police agencies, the grievors submit that the work description did not refer to integration. The work that they performed in the SIDU required more than “[f]amiliarity” with the SPS’s policies and procedures.

[40] Three knowledge elements required to perform the grievors’ duties were not in the work description. Knowledge of specialized terminology was required when speaking with external callers to the SIDU, and the level of knowledge required went beyond what could be expected from being familiar with a policing environment.

[41] Furthermore, the work description did not reflect the level of knowledge of the MOA required of employees who, on a daily basis, were required to rely on the division of roles and responsibilities set out in the MOA. The grievors referred to Ms. Saxton’s testimony, when she explained how her knowledge of the MOA helped her resolve disagreements between the RCMP and the SPS with respect to managing files, addressing parking-related complaints, and respecting the established process for departing SIDU members to return access cards. Although the grievors did not enforce the MOA, they submit that nonetheless, their duties required knowledge of its terms, to allow them to ensure that they acted according to them.

[42] The grievors submit that the work description was also inadequate insofar as it did not require knowledge of the SPS’s human resources policies and procedures. They argue that the term “[f]amiliarity” in the work description was vague and that it did not sufficiently reflect the knowledge required to complete the process to obtain special designations.

[43] The grievors argue that two elements of complexity were missing from the work description: the ability to remain calm, and the judgment and care required to act as a liaison person. With respect to the first one, the grievors submit that although remaining calm can be expected in most work environments, it was particularly important in the challenging work environment in which they worked. Interactions with hostile and emotional callers were stressful and created emotional strain. The fact that interactions were by telephone rather than in person did not diminish the level of mental effort required to deal with such situations.

[44] The grievors relied on Ms. Saxton’s testimony about a situation of conflict between RCMP and SPS personnel in support of their argument that the work description was lacking because it did not include a requirement for judgment and care when working as a resource or liaison person between the policing agencies. Specifically, they relied on her testimony about a tense situation in which she acted as a liaison between the agencies to resolve a file-management issue.

[45] The grievors submit that the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) should find that the respondent breached article 55 of the collective agreement and that it should issue a declaration to the effect that the work description is missing 6 key elements.

B. For the respondent

[46] The respondent submits that the work-description review process that led to the contested generic work description included consultations aimed at confirming the nature and complexity of the grievors’ duties and responsibilities. It provided the grievors the opportunity to provide examples of their work as well as to make comments and suggestions on a draft work description. They signed the draft work description, finding it adequate. Ultimately, the employer concluded that some changes were required to the final version. The work description that resulted adequately reflects the work performed.

[47] The respondent argues that a work description need not contain a detailed listing of all activities performed under a specific duty; nor should it describe at length how the activities are performed; see Hughes v. Treasury Board of Canada (Natural Resources Canada), 2000 PSSRB 69. The grievors want unnecessary descriptive explanations and examples added to their work description with the hope that those changes will lead to a reclassification. Those additions are not required; nor are they appropriate in a generic work description applicable to incumbents working in different locations and with differing levels of involvement with other policing agencies.

[48] The work description accurately reflected what the incumbents did. The Board’s role is not to modify or correct the wording of a work description when the wording is sufficient to describe the responsibilities and the duties being performed; see Jennings. The respondent argues that the level of specificity that the grievors request would hinder its ability to ensure the interchangeability of the administrative support clerks and to recruit candidates.

[49] In addition, the respondent submits that the evidence provided by Mr. Dalton and Mr. Toffoli demonstrated that the elements that the grievors' claim were missing from their work description were either not expected or required of an incumbent or were not reflective of the grievors’ true duties and responsibilities. The level of initiative and knowledge expected of an incumbent in the position was not what the grievors proposed.

[50] The respondent points out that the grievors did not present evidence with respect to the work conducted by Mses. Labrecque, MacPhee, and a fourth individual, who occupied a similar position in another city. It argues that there is no evidence on which the Board can conclude that there was sufficient overlap between the duties and responsibilities of Ms. Saxton, as she described them, and those of the other incumbents to allow it to conclude that Ms. Saxton’s testimony reflected the daily reality of all the incumbents, particularly those whose positions did not involve working with the SPS.

[51] Lastly, the respondent argues that the grievors approved a draft work description that was identical to the final description, with two exceptions. However, in the grievance process, they raised a number of elements that, according to them, were missing from the work description and that rendered it lacking. The respondent submits that since the grievors approved the draft work description, they should not be allowed to raise a list of issues before the Board in an attempt to obtain a higher classification.

IV. Reasons

[52] The collective agreement at issue imposes on the respondent a duty to provide an employee a complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities of his or her position. The grievors allege that the work description provided to them inadequately reflected the complexity of the tasks that they were required to accomplish and the knowledge required to complete their duties as employees providing administrative support to two different police services.

[53] The parties presented evidence that painted different – but not contradictory - pictures of the knowledge and complexity required of an incumbent of the position at issue. The grievors chose not to cross-examine Mr. Dalton and Mr. Toffoli, leaving their evidence unchallenged and the Board to decide which of the pictures presented to it reflects the true nature and scope of the duties performed.

[54] My role as an adjudicator is to determine whether the work description constituted a complete statement of duties and responsibilities. I must do so in light of the evidence presented to me. The grievors had the burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

[55] The oft-cited decision Jennings summarizes a series of key principles relevant to adjudicating work-description grievances. Most important is the guiding principle according to which a work description need contain only enough information to accurately reflect what the employee does. It need not include a detailed list of the activities performed under a specific duty; nor must it provide a detailed description of how those activities are to be accomplished; see Jennings, at para. 52, Hughes, at para. 26, and Jaremy v. Treasury Board (Revenu Canada - Customs, Excise & Taxation), 2000 PSSRB 59 at para. 24.

[56] It is important to note that work descriptions can be generic. As explained in Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board (Department of Employment and Social Development), 2016 PSLREB 24, generic work descriptions are commonly used in the public service, particularly when the same job can be found, with a few variants, from one office to the next, as in this case. Four employees working in three different locations in two different cities shared the work description at issue.

[57] A work description that contains broad and generic descriptions is acceptable if it accurately reflects what the employee does or is required to do. It must not omit a reference to a particular duty or responsibility that the employee is otherwise required to perform; see Taylor v. Treasury Board (Revenue Canada - Customs & Excise), PSSRB File No. 166-02-20396 (19901221), [1990] C.P.S.S.R.B. No. 223 (QL). Although it would be undesirable to require the employer to list each task that must be performed and to describe how each activity must be performed, nonetheless, a generic work description must describe the full range of duties and responsibilities assigned to the position, even if they are described in general terms; see Public Service Alliance of Canada, at para. 67.

[58] To be successful, the grievors had to discharge their burden of proof. They had to demonstrate that the generic work description that the respondent provided to them did not contain enough information to accurately reflect the work that they performed. They failed to discharge that burden.

[59] The grievors placed much emphasis on the fact that providing administrative support to an integrated unit, composed of two police services, was a unique and important component of their work. Yet, the only evidence they presented was that of Ms. Saxton. They provided no evidence with respect to the duties and responsibilities of the two other grievors or of the individual who occupied a similar position in another city, even though it was undisputed that at least two of the four incumbents did not routinely interact with the SPS, if at all. This raises a significant degree of uncertainty with respect to the integrated nature of the work of half of the incumbents.

[60] Accordingly, I am left with only the respondent’s evidence with respect to the duties and responsibilities of three of the four incumbents. That evidence paints a picture in which the knowledge and complexity elements of the generic work description accurately reflected the duties and responsibilities of the positions occupied by all the grievors, as well as the additional incumbent.

[61] That evidence also illustrates that the additions that the grievors requested, which specifically reference the SPS, SPS policies and procedures, and the MOA — if the Board accepts them as necessary — would result in a work description that would no longer accurately reflect the duties of the incumbents who did not routinely interact with SPS members. The grievors did not challenge the description that the respondent’s witnesses provided of the differences in the incumbents’ duties or of the consequences that would flow from including the elements that they seek to have reflected in the work description.

[62] Because the grievors did not cross-examine Mr. Dalton and Mr. Toffoli, and because few if any contradictions existed between their evidence and that of Ms. Saxton, the respondent’s evidence remains unchallenged and uncontradicted. The resulting evidentiary record is largely composed of Mr. Dalton and Mr. Toffoli’s description of the grievors’ duties and responsibilities, to which Ms. Saxton’s evidence adds isolated examples of situations in which she went above and beyond what was asked or required of her as an administrative support clerk.

[63] In light of this evidentiary record, I will review the 6 elements that are said to be missing from the generic work description, allegedly making it an inadequate reflection of the full range of duties and responsibilities assigned to the position.

A. Knowledge

[64] According to the respondent, the following statements in the work description adequately reflect — in generic terms — the 4 knowledge elements that the grievors allege are absent:

· Knowledge of the mandate, organization, culture, policies and processes of the RCMP and other police agencies in order to understand priorities, initiate contacts and comply with policy requirements in carrying out duties;

 

· Knowledge of techniques and practices required in the provision of operational support services, including information management, general office administration, financial administration, procurement and transcription;

 

· Familiarity with the policing environment and investigative processes, in order to provide operational support to investigators; and

 

· Familiarity with stakeholder organizations such as external police agencies in order to exchange information.

 

[65] Ms. Saxton testified about the knowledge that she possessed of specialized drug terminology, the MOA, SPS human resources procedures to follow to obtain building and computer access for SIDU members, and the process to follow to obtain a special designation for SPS members joining the SIDU. The respondent’s witnesses did not deny that she possessed that knowledge; nor did they suggest that she exaggerated in her description of the knowledge that she possessed.

[66] I accept that Ms. Saxton possessed that knowledge. I also accept that she believes that that knowledge should be a requirement to ensure that the job is done well. However, acquiring knowledge and believing that it should be a requirement of a position does not make it so. For knowledge elements to be required, it must be demonstrated that duties and responsibilities cannot be done without them. The grievors failed to establish that the three knowledge elements that they identified were required to fulfil the duties and responsibilities of the position.

[67] As previously mentioned, the testimonies of Mr. Dalton and Mr. Toffoli paint a different picture of the duties and responsibilities of an integrated and organized crime support assistant than that provided by Ms. Saxton. That picture includes a greater focus on executing clerical tasks, such as taking notes of information provided by callers, and preparing verbatim transcripts for investigators to review or action. It also includes executing different administrative tasks that were well established or part of long-standing work processes; for example, preparing cost-sharing reports, responding to parking complaints, and obtaining building or computer access for SIDU members or special designations for SPS members.

[68] I accept the testimonies of Mr. Dalton and Mr. Toffoli to the effect that knowledge of specialized drug terminology, the MOA, and SPS and RCMP processes and policies was not required or expected of an integrated and organized crime support assistant. Although it could be acquired over time by someone like Ms. Saxton and could prove useful, nothing indicates that it was a requirement of the job. Similarly, the fact that Ms. Saxton was able to provide examples of incidents in which she used the knowledge that she had acquired over time similarly does not make that knowledge a requirement.

[69] The grievors were administrative support clerks. They required knowledge of the policies, processes, mandates, and cultures of the RCMP and the SPS to ensure that they respected those policies and processes, knew the steps to follow, and understood the environment in which they operated. They required some knowledge of the policing environment generally and of the SPS to execute administrative tasks such as taking messages, preparing transcripts, and reaching out to contact persons when performing administrative tasks aimed at obtaining building and computer access for SIDU members.

[70] The fact that the generic work description does not expressly refer to the SIDU, the SPS, or the MOA does not render it inadequate. It contains sufficient references to the external police agencies and the processes and policies of both the RCMP and “other police agencies” or “external police agencies” to allow an incumbent to know the knowledge required while executing the duties and responsibilities specific to an integrated unit.

[71] I am of the opinion that the work description accurately reflects the knowledge elements required. Although the grievors are dissatisfied with the fact that it does not specifically reference the SPS, the MOA, or the SPS’s human resource procedures, such a degree of specificity is neither required nor appropriate in the circumstances.

B. Complexity

[72] Similarly, the picture painted by Mr. Dalton and Mr. Toffoli with respect to the complexity of the grievors’ duties leads me to conclude that the work description accurately reflects the position’s requirements.

[73] Two elements of complexity are at issue.

[74] The grievors described the first as the ability to remain calm when dealing with stressed, angry, aggressive, or suicidal people. The evidence they presented pertained only to phone interactions with hostile individuals and only to Ms. Saxton’s experience.

[75] All the respondent’s witnesses testified that it would be highly unusual to include a human behaviour in a work description, such as the ability to remain calm. The grievors did not present evidence to the contrary. However, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary for me to decide whether human behaviours such as the ability to remain calm can or should be included in work descriptions.

[76] The main argument in support of the grievors’ argument with respect to this element of complexity is that taking calls from angry people was stressful and required effort to remain calm. Again, the descriptions of the position’s duties and responsibilities offered by Ms. Saxton, for the grievors, and Mr. Dalton and Mr. Toffoli, for the respondent, differ with respect to the frequency of such interactions and the nature of the grievors’ involvement in them.

[77] My assessment of the evidence leads me to favour the description provided by the respondent’s witnesses. Such interactions were not frequent, and when they occurred, the grievors could end them. To the extent that such interactions occurred, I am of the opinion that the need to deal with any stress that would have resulted from them is adequately captured by a combination of the work description’s references to working conditions that require dealing with multiple demands and conflicting priorities, to requirements to make contact with the general public to respond to or direct inquiries, and to key activities that include responding to inquiries and complaints in person or by telephone.

[78] The final element of complexity at issue pertained to the judgment and care that the grievors submit they were required to exercise when acting as resource and liaison persons between RCMP and SPS personnel with respect to operational or administrative procedures. According to Ms. Saxton’s testimony, tensions existed within the SIDU. Once, she acted as an unofficial intermediary between personnel from both police entities. In that exchange, she testified that she was required to use judgment and care in the context of discussions about file management. No other examples were provided.

[79] No evidence was provided with respect to the extent or frequency with which the other grievors or incumbents might have been required to demonstrate judgment and care in similar circumstances. Seeing as two of those incumbents, Ms. MacPhee and a fourth individual, did not interact with SPS members, it would be highly unlikely that this element of complexity could be said to apply to their duties and responsibilities. They could not have been required or expected to act as liaison persons between the two police forces.

[80] Mr. Dalton testified that in any situation in which the grievors might have acted as a liaison between the police services, their role would have been clerical in nature and likely limited to taking and relaying calls and messages. His evidence was not contradicted or challenged. In light of the paucity of the evidence provided by the grievors on this issue, Mr. Dalton’s testimony deals a fatal blow to the grievors’ argument with respect to this element of complexity.

[81] I believe that the statement in the work description pertaining to the ongoing requirement to make contacts with personnel in other police departments, to exchange information and discuss work processes, adequately reflected the grievors’ duties and responsibilities if and when they acted as liaison persons between police services.

[82] As previously mentioned, a generic work description must reflect the reality of the work to be performed. It must describe the full range of duties and responsibilities assigned to the position, even if only in general terms.

[83] The work description at issue accurately reflected what the grievors were required to do. Although the duties and responsibilities were not expressed in the language and degree of specificity that the grievors would have liked, nonetheless, it was an accurate reflection of the work that they were required to perform. It reflected the unique aspects of their work as administrative support staff supporting the SIDU. The failure to mention the SPS by name or to refer to specific policies and procedures of that police force did not render the generic work description inadequate. It contained a sufficient number of statements that adequately reflected the knowledge required and the complexity involved in working in such an environment.

[84] During her testimony, Ms. Saxton recognized that she was hopeful that were her work description modified, potentially, her position could have been reclassified. The respondent suggested that the grievors were “fishing for a reclassification” and that the Board should find that they were estopped from challenging a work description that they had agreed to in its draft form, to discourage “litigious opportunism”. I will make no such finding.

[85] The jurisprudence of the Board and the Federal Court of Appeal has long recognized that the only way individual employees can access the classification process is by means of a revised job description that accurately describes the duties and responsibilities of their positions; see Aphantitis v. Treasury Board (Department of Justice), 2014 PSLRB 85 at para. 3, and Currie v. Canada (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency), 2006 FCA 194 at para. 28.

[86] Furthermore, although the grievors signed the draft work description, Ms. Saxton testified to the effect that she felt that it was adequate, although lacking in detail. The respondent subsequently modified it and removed statements about the incumbents’ independence in performing their duties.

[87] Considering the nature of the change made to the final work description, under the circumstances, the grievors should not be barred from challenging the final work description; nor can I conclude that their behaviour could or should be characterized as litigious opportunism.

[88] On the whole, the grievors failed to demonstrate that they were not provided with a current and complete statement of duties.

[89] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order:

(The Order appears on the next page)

V. Order

[90] The grievances are denied.

August 4, 2022.

Amélie Lavictoire,

a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board