Grievance Case Summary - G-336

A classification committee recommended that several positions classified in the ETEC group be reclassified to the CP group because the primary responsibilities of those positions pertained to "the application of computer systems knowledge and skills to the management, administration or support of government programs and activities". However, it was recommended the positions occupied by the Grievors remain within the ETEC group because their primary responsibilities pertained to the "design, construction, installation, inspection, maintenance and repair of electronic and associated equipment". In their Level I submissions, the Grievors requested "Equitable treatment for remaining ETECs. Equal pay for equal work or, reclassify all remaining ETECs to the CP category at the same levels and with the same effective date as Informatics". The Level I adjudicator ruled that the matter could not be the subject of a grievance because there was an alternate form of redress available through the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Classification Redress Process for Members), SOR/2001-248 (the "CSO"). The basis for that conclusion was a finding that the purpose of the grievance was to have the ETEC positions reclassified and described the nature of the matter at issue as a "classification dispute". At Level II, the Grievors argued that the recourse provided by the CSO was not available to them because a classification review committee had already examined the matter. Furthermore, the redress which they were seeking was the "equitable treatment for the remaining ETECs" which "is a different and separate issue from grieving the classification of one's position".

The fact that the decision not to reclassify the Grievors' positions was based upon the report of a classification committee did not have the effect of depriving them of the opportunity to avail themselves of the recourse established by the CSO. Although one may question what is the likelihood that a second committee would come to a different conclusion than that reached by the first committee, s. 5(4) of the CSO provides that "No person shall serve on a committee if (a) they took part in the decision, act or omission that is the subject of the request for review; or (b) they will be placed in any other conflict of interest by being on the committee". Furthermore, the Grievors can object to the composition of the new committee if they consider that any member selected for that committee has a conflict of interest [s. 7(1)] and they can make written submissions to the committee [s.9(1)]. As for the Grievors' contention that they are merely seeking "equitable treatment" and not the reclassification of their positions as such, it is clear from their Level I grievance presentation that what they mean by "equitable treatment" consists in financial compensation, which is a matter that can only be addressed by Treasury Board and not through the grievance process.

The Commissioner should find that he does not have jurisdiction to hear the grievance.

The Commissioner's decision, as summarized by his office, is as follows:

The Commissioner agreed with the ERC's analysis and finding that the CSO (Classification Redress Process for Members) is the appropriate mechanism for dealing with this matter. He found he did not have jurisdiction to hear the grievance.