The Union grieved that unclassified Correctional Officers 1 (CO1) should be paid at the Correctional Officer 2 wage rate because they were performing the full range of duties of the Correction 2 classification.
The Employer did not dispute the claim that the grievors were performing the full range of duties of the CO2 position. In the Employer’s written submission it was stated:
In fact, the Employer acknowledges that the majority of unclassified correctional officers in the Ministry of Correctional Services (“Ministry”) who had completed the required training were performing the duties of the CO2 classification. The parties are not in dispute that, at the time the grievances were filed, the Ministry had in place an
Underfill Removal Policy that regarded the CO1 classification as the underfill appointment and the CO2 classification the full working level, as described in the class standards of the correctional officer series. In accordance with the Underfill Removal Policy, unclassified correctional officers did not progress to the CO2
classification, because the mandatory requirements for underfill removal were appointment to the classified service, and one year of full-time classified service. Therefore, at the time that the grievances were filed, all unclassified correctional officers employed by the Ministry were at the CO1 classification.
The Union conceded that classification grievances are inarbitrable. However, the grievors were unclassified staff and therefore cannot be reclassified unless they moved from the unclassified to the classified service. The Union did not seek classified status, it being understood the members would remain unclassified irrespective of the result in this
The GSB held that the issue before it was not classification but “what is the equivalent civil service classification and resulting appropriate rate of pay for these grievors”.
The GSB noted:
These grievors are not asking to have their classification changed or modified. They merely grieve that they have not received wages at the appropriate rate of equivalent civil service classification. I disagree with the Employer that a finding of arbitrability contravenes Section 52 of CECBA. I am not being asked to amend a classification
system, create or amend a new classification, classify an employee or change an employee’s classification. I am being asked to determine if the wage rate of CO2 is the appropriate civil service equivalent for these grievors.
Given the employer’s admission that these unclassified grievors were doing CO2 work, the GSB ordered they be paid accordingly.