Grievance Case Summary - G-206

This grievance involved a position classification. The grievor worked as a translator in a division. A classification committee met to review the classification of his position. After a review of the member's position and the classification standard, the classification committee recommended that the classification of the grievor's position remain at the same level. This recommendation was accepted.

The member filed a grievance against this decision. He requested that his position be reclassified upward or, at the very least, that he be paid a supplement by the RCMP in recognition of the superior requirements of his position, namely the obligation that he translate in both directions: from English to French and from French to English. The member indicated that at RCMP Headquarters, as at the Secretary of State, the staffing policy was such that translators were hired to translate only in one direction: from English to French or from French to English. However, translators in the RCMP divisions were required to translate in both directions. The member also advanced further arguments related to the link between his position and the position of the member in-charge of the Translation Branch. He asserted that he worked autonomously and that his work required little or no revision. According to the grievor, he should be classified at the same level as that of the member in-charge of the Translation Branch.

The majority of a grievance advisory board ("the GAB") recommended that the grievance be denied. The majority took the view that regardless of the frequency of the interventions of the member in-charge of the Translation Branch in relation to the grievor, the latter's work description recognized that he was the Branch manager's subordinate, which warranted assignment of a higher classification to the supervisor. With regard to the grievor's allegation that the failure to recognize his obligation to translate in both directions was unfair, the GAB majority concluded that this aspect of the duties was simply not among the factors determining the position level. The dissenting member of the GAB concluded that the grievance was well-founded; as a remedy for the grievance, he suggested the possibility of granting the grievor a pay supplement to recognize the requirement to translate in both directions.

The level I adjudicator concluded that the increased difficulty involved in translating in both directions was irrelevant to the determination of the classification level. The adjudicator also concluded that the classification level of the member in-charge of the classification branch was based not only on his supervisory functions, but also on the nature of the position and the quality of work required. The level I adjudicator found that the classification committee had applied the classification standard in accordance with the prescribed procedures and that the grievor had not shown that there was any factual or procedural error in the classification committee's decision.

The grievance was referred to the External Review Committee. On January 28, 1998, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee recognized that the obligation to translate in both directions requires knowledge and skills greater than those required for translation in one direction. However, it concluded that the requirement to translate in both directions is not recognized by the standard as a element distinguishing among the levels in the standard. The Committee was therefore unable to accept the grievor's argument that, on the basis of the standard, the obligation to translate in both directions should lead to the upward reclassification of his position. The Committee also concluded that the applicable salary provisions do not provide for a pay supplement for translation in both directions.

With respect to the factors relating to supervision and autonomy, the Committee concluded that there were differences between the nature of the grievor's work and the nature of the work of an incumbent of a position at a higher level, as described in the classification standard. Admittedly, these differences are not necessarily large, and there are also aspects of the grievor's work that are similar to the work of a higher level. However, the fact that a position includes some requirements similar to a position at a higher level (or lower level) is not unusual. The qualitative differences between positions are often a matter of degree. On the other hand, the classification levels, as such, are discrete. In the last resort, the relevant question was to determine whether a factual or procedural error had occurred in the classification review of the grievor's position. With regard to the factors relating to supervision and autonomy, the Committee concluded that there had been no such error.

However, a strong point in the grievor's favour remained: the classification committee had apparently not considered the question of relativity. In the previous matter of G-193, the External Review Committee had concluded that a study of relativity is normally a necessary stage in a classification exercise. The Committee felt that the lack of such a study in the present case was equivalent to a material procedural error. It therefore recommended that the grievance be allowed on this last point and that the classification matter be referred to a classification committee for a thorough review of relativity.

The External Review Committee made an additional comment that lack of recognition of translation in both directions--in the classification standard or in the provisions concerning pay supplements--was unfair. However, since these policies are dictated by Treasury Board, correction of this situation cannot be achieved by way of a formal remedy in a grievance against the RCMP. However, it is still possible--and the Committee so suggested--for the RCMP to approach Treasury Board to investigate whether it would be possible to make improvements to the standard or to the pay supplements.

On July 16, 1998, the Commissioner rendered his decision. The Commissioner agreed with the Committee and upheld the grievance, ordering that a new classification committee conduct a thorough review of relativity.