Jamie Saunders v. Niagara Regional Police Association, 2013 ONCPC 1162

OCPC-ST-#13-02

2013 ONCPC 1162

ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER S.116

OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15, AS AMENDED, BY JAMIE SAUNDERS TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE SENIOR OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION

DECISION

Panel: David C. Gavsie, Associate Chair

Zahra Dhanani, Member

Dates: June 19, July 9, July 10, August 20 and August 21,

2013

Hearing Location: At St. Catharines, Ontario, except for August 21 in

Toronto

Ontario Civilian Police Commission

250 Dundas Street West, Suite 605

Toronto, ON M7A 2T3

Tel: 416-314-3004

Fax: 416-314-0198

Website: www.ocpc.ca

Appearances

Andrew Wray – Counsel for the Applicant

Barrie Chercover – Counsel for the Niagara Regional Police

Association

Application

1. Jamie Saunders (sometimes “Mr. Saunders” or the “Applicant”) is a civilian member of the Niagara Regional Police Service (the “Service” or the “NRPS”) and a member of the Niagara Regional Police Association (the “NRPA”).

2. Mr. Saunders has filed an application (the “Application”) with the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (the “Commission”)

to be classified as a “senior officer” of the Service pursuant to s.116 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 15, as amended (the “Act”).

3. The Commission asked the following if they wished to be parties regarding the Application:

a) the Service;

b) the NRPA;

c) the Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services

Board (the “Board”); and

d) the Senior Officers Association of the Service (the

“SOA”).

4. Only the NRPA became a party and in doing so, opposed the

Application.

Decision

5. For the reasons that follow, the Commission grants the Application and Orders that Jamie Saunders be classified as a senior officer of the Service.

Exhibits

6. The following exhibits were tendered during the hearing:

a) Exhibit 1 – letter dated September 6, 2012 from counsel to the Board to the Commission stating that the Board would not be a party at the hearing of the Application;

b) Exhibit 2 – letter dated September 7, 2012 from the Chief of the Service to the Commission indicating that the Service would not be a party at the hearing of the Application;

c) Exhibit 3 – e-mail dated September 5, 2012 from Insp. Lorne Lillico to the Commission indicating that the SOA would not be a party at the hearing of the Application;

d) Exhibit 4 – the Applicant’s Book of Documents;

e) Exhibit 5 – the NRPA’s Book of Documents;

f) Exhibit 6 – Interest Arbitration Award of William A.

Marcotte dated May 29, 2012 (the “Marcotte

Award”);

g) Exhibit 7 – draft job description for the Service’s

Video Unit Manager dated March 3, 2011;

h) Exhibit 8 – Arbitration Award of Kevin Burkett dated

April 28, 2011 (the “Burkett Award”);

i) Exhibit 8A – page 15 of Appendix 2 to the Burkett

Award;

j) Exhibit 9 – e-mail messages among Service employees affected by red-circling;

k) Exhibit 10 – e-mail messages re: temporary employee Zac Labute;

l) Exhibit 11 – list of cost centres of the Service and program managers; and

m) Exhibit 12 – job descriptions of civilian managers of the Service.

Applicant’s Evidence

1. Jamie Saunders

A. Direct Examination

7. Through Mr. Saunders, the Applicant’s Book of Documents (Ex. 4) was placed in evidence. Tab 3G of Ex. 4 sets out the Applicant’s reasons why he considers he should be classified as a member of the SOA following the relevant factors set out by the Commission in its decision in Dryden Police Association and the Dryden Police Services Board, (November 17, 1998, OCCPS).

8. Mr. Saunders reviewed his employment history with the Service beginning in the summer of 1982 as a summer co- op student. He commenced working full-time in May of 1983 as a video technician. The then audio/visual unit of the Service was overseen by a constable. In 1984, the Service made the supervisory function of the unit a civilian-occupied position. Mr. Saunders applied for the position and was successful.

9. By 1996, the audio/visual unit (the “Video Unit”) was in video production primarily for training members of the Service. There was some production for the public. The unit was known as a leader in the Province for its work.

10. Mr. Saunders explained that funding for the unit was tight.

Other police services in the Golden Horseshoe shared costs of production of some videos with the Service. The then

Chief of the Service proposed that the Service take the lead

in producing videos for others. This resulted in the creation of the Video Training Alliance (the name was subsequently changed to its current one, the Ontario Police Video Training Alliance (“OPTVA”)). Mr. Saunders initiated the OPTVA and created the map by which the OPTVA would go forward.

11. Mr. Saunders’ job title was Video Unit Manager in early

12. His job description on January 1, 1999 is set out in Ex

4, tab 1A. At that time, OPTVA had 57 members. Currently, there are 95 members, 10 of which are outside Ontario.

12. Mr. Saunders, in addition to being the Video Unit Manager of the Service, is also the Executive Director of OPTVA. OPTVA has a constitution – see Ex. 4, tab 2C – enacted in December, 2010. There is a Board of Directors but OPTVA functions under the direction of the Chief of the Service (see article 2.01 of the Constitution). Mr. Saunders stated he has been its “constant” since its formation and leads every

aspect of OPTVA.

13. Pursuant to the Service’s General Order 067.05 (Ex. 4, tab

3G), specifically s. 3.15(d), Mr. Saunders reports to the

Superintendent of Executive Services.

14. Mr. Saunders testified that a draft job description dated March 3, 2011 (Ex. 7) was sent to him by human resources requesting his comments. This was done as part of the

Service’s civilian job description updating project. This was a draft. In fact, Mr. Saunders stated the draft has not been finalized.

15. General Order 067.06 (Ex. 4, tab 5I) sets out the organizational structure of the Service clarifying the chain of command split into operations and non-operational branches. On the diagram which is part of that General Order, the Video Unit is shown reporting to the

Superintendent of Executive Services who in turn, reports to the Chief.

16. The Video Unit employs Mr. Saunders as manager, three full time producers, one part-time producer and shares an administrative assistant with the training unit. All employees are civilians.

17. Mr. Saunders stated that the Service employs nine civilian managers, but only he is not a member of the SOA.

18. Mr. Saunders said that his interest in becoming a member of the SOA started when he had a discussion with Supt. Bob Wright who took over supervision of the Video Unit on October 31, 2010. Supt. Wright asked him why he was not

in the SOA and he could not answer. But the seed was planted.

19. From that point, Mr. Saunders looked at the collective agreements, the benefits and did his due diligence. Later in

2011, he decided to make a request to be represented by the SOA. He also spoke to other members of the SOA including Insp. Lillico who told Mr. Saunders that there should not be a problem with his application.

20. Mr. Saunders made a formal request to the Service on September 14, 2011 (Ex. 4, tab 3E) and received a response dated December 12, 2011 (Ex. 4, tab 3F) requesting a

written submission. That was provided by Mr. Saunders in a memorandum dated January 26, 2012 (Ex. 4, tab 3G).

21. From that point, Mr. Saunders met or spoke with or exchanged correspondence with the SOA, the NRPA and others. The gist of all of this was that reservations were expressed about Mr. Saunders’ request. (Ex 4, tabs 3H, 3I,

3J, 3K and 3L).

22. Mr. Saunders described his major responsibilities as set out on his draft job description of March 3, 2011 (Ex. 7), and made the following comments of relevance:

a) He is the person in charge of the Video Unit;

b) He spends approximately 25% of his time on OPTVA projects and business which is like operating a small business;

c) He no longer edits videos, but rather plans and monitors productions;

d) Points 18, 19, 21 and 22 are no longer relevant;

e) He performs media relations and marketing functions; and

f) Re: point 24, he is now developing e-learning training.

23. Mr. Saunders said that with the new Chief of the Service, internal communication and connecting with members have high priority. Now video has a more prominent role. He crafts messages for the Chief who relies on his experience and expertise for contents of the messages.

24. Mr. Saunders is responsible for the safety of his staff and the members of the Service they work with (Ex. 4, tab 4A). Mr.

Saunders develops plans for staff and equipment for projects, assigning cameras and personnel to teams (Ex. 4, tab 4B).

25. Mr. Saunders prepares the budget for the Video Unit. (Ex 4, tab 1Q) which is then reviewed by his supervisor. It then goes to the Chief’s office, and ultimate approval is given by the Board. Mr. Saunders is also responsible for tracking the budget and for preparing variance reports when necessary. He can authorize expenditures up to $10,000. Over that, the superintendent must approve them.

26. Mr. Saunders is responsible for the OPTVA and pointed out an article about it in the Ontario Chiefs of Police summer of

2013 magazine (Ex 4, tab 2K).

27. An OPTVA catalogue is prepared showing the nature of the products (Ex. 4, tab 2L). Mr. Saunders explained he arranges a meeting of members. A list of projects is presented to the Board of Directors which is usually approved as presented.

28. Mr. Saunders engages actors for some projects and has prepared a waiver with the assistance of legal counsel (Ex.

4, tab 1E).

29. He also creates a business plan every year which is provided to the Board (Ex. 4, tab 2M). It contains a financial analysis. About 44% of the Video Unit’s resources are devoted to OPTVA. Staff hours are tracked, and used in the financial report and for calculations.

30. Mr. Saunders described the membership process in OPTVA.

A letter is sent by the Chief of the Service to the appropriate person at the member’s office. Then Board approval is sought. Mr. Saunders drafts the letter for the Chief to sign.

A memorandum of agreement is sent with the letter. Once the agreement is returned signed, Mr. Saunders sends an

invoice and follows up to ensure payment is received (Ex. 4, tabs P to S).

31. OPTVA has a web portal through work with the Canadian Police Knowledge Network (Ex. 4, tab 2A). Mr. Saunders recommended this to the Board and it was accepted. The contract is managed by Mr. Saunders.

32. OPTVA publishes a newsletter periodically (Ex 4, tabs 2H and

2I). Mr. Saunders is totally responsible for its creation and its content.

33. Mr. Saunders addresses concerns with OPTVA product (Ex.

4, tab 2N).

34. Mr. Saunders decides what projects OPTVA should take on

(Ex 4, tab 5A).

35. He thought of and developed the OPTVA constitution (Ex. 4, tab 2C). He took the lead in its formation. He co-chairs meetings of both members and the executive, and is responsible for elections (Ex. 4, tab 2E and 2G).

36. Mr. Saunders stated that his role as Executive Director of OPTVA is part of his role with the Service as its Manager of Video Services.

37. Mr. Saunders is also a member of committees of the Service (Ex. 4, tabs 1G 1K and 5F). As well he is a member of the Service’s senior management team whose civilian members are all members of the SOA, except for him (Ex. 4, tab 1N).

38. Mr. Saunders said he produces an agenda for Video Unit meetings (Ex. 4, tab 1V). He assigns work to the producers. He also makes the case to superiors if needed. He also developed a safety briefing form (Ex. 4, tab 1F) for projects ensuring safety is considered in any production.

Service civilian positions is set out on Ex. 4, tab 5N. Mr. Saunders’ position is in Band 11. There is no occupied civilian position higher than his.

40. In the Service’s pay equity materials (Ex. 5, tab 3C), Mr.

Saunders’ job position is the only one in the top band, Band

11 and his number of points – 801 – is the most of any civilian position in the Service.

41. In a January 2008 report from a pay equity consultant (Ex.

5, tab 3A), on page 7, the consultant states the following

about Mr. Saunders’ position:

The Video Unit Manager appears to be a very special case. As with the other outliers, the points are not in line with the wage; in this case the wage rate exceeds the points, leading to a distortion in the progression of points and wages. Nonetheless, the Video Unit Manager may well be entitled to compensation beyond what the points predict due to the revenue–generation and business management aspects of the job. These elements of value may not even be completely canvassed in the JE system, which was not designed to measure jobs involved in a direct sales business. Therefore, while I believe that there is a case for removing this anomalous position from the male wage line, the salary corresponding to the position should be protected. This could be achieved by adding a market adjustment component to the wage rate of the band, totaling the current rate.

42. Mr. Saunders stated that his remuneration in 2012 was

$106,000 of which $94,700 was salary and the balance was overtime. In the SOA collective agreement (Ex. 4, 1L) page

34 contains a salary schedule. The Managers’ salaries range between $90,000 to $128,000 so Mr. Saunders’ salary is within that range.

43. Mr. Saunders compared the pay equity plan of the SOA (Ex.

4, 5Q) with that of the NRPA (Ex. 5, 6B) which both use the same factors. Mr. Saunders believes the SOA plan recognizes his position better. Mr. Saunders explained this on page 7 of his January 26, 2012 memorandum to the Deputy Chief (Ex. 4, tab 3G) where he stated that the SOA factors are more in line with his position. Therefore, it is more appropriate for him to be in the SOA.

B. Cross Examination

44. Mr. Saunders confirmed that there is a Band 12 in the Service’s pay scale for civilians, but no one is in it. He indicated that a job evaluation system ensures employees receive fair compensation and that pay equity plans are the subject of negotiation. The SOA plan has a better method of evaluation. More points produce a higher salary.

45. Mr. Saunders’ position has evolved. He became the supervisor of the Video Unit a couple of years after being hired in 1984. The position was re-named as a manager. After OPTVA was created, a fourth position was added to the Video Unit.

46. On April 28, 2011, the Burkett Award was issued (Ex. 8) with the result that Mr. Saunders’ position became red- circled. This meant that he would not receive an increase in salary until 2014, and only 50% of any negotiated increase thereafter. Mr. Saunders had his meeting and discussion with Supt. Wright by this time. That meeting occurred in late 2010 or early 2011. Mr. Saunders was upset that he would not receive an increase from 2010 to 2014.

47. A new collective bargaining negotiation for the NRPA resulted in the Marcotte Award (Ex. 6). This award declined to override the Burkett Award. Mr. Saunders was involved in

red-circling, but the Marcotte Award rejected this position.

48. Prior to the formation of OPTVA, the Video Unit carried out production of training videos for the Service. That continues. Now, the Video Unit also prepares the Chief’s messages which are available through the intranet and externally. The OPTVA constitution was created in 2010. Prior to that back

to 1996, membership agreements were entered into.

49. OPTVA does not pay any remuneration to Mr. Saunders. It is operated as a function of the Service. No one receives any income from OPTVA. Money received from memberships all go to the Service. As evidenced by its business plan every year, the Service receives full cost recovery. 2,800 hours per year making production projects is a deliverable under the membership agreement.

50. Mr. Saunders stated that the Service does not make a profit on OPTVA. It exists at the pleasure of the Board. The Board approves the annual OPTVA business plan (Ex. 4, tab 2M). Usually the Chief of the Service signs the membership agreements, using the words: “I have authority to bind”.

51. Mr. Saunders indicated he could have his position re- evaluated and if he received higher points, this would lead to a higher salary. However, the factors and sub-factors of the job analysis questionnaire would not, in his view, get him around the red-circling. He felt that the process as it existed in the NRPA did not adequately capture his duties and responsibilities, so he did not request a re-evaluation. Some members of the NRPA did and had their points changed as a result.

52. Mr. Saunders said that he is eligible to retire with full pension at age 55. He is now 52. He indicated his pension could be impacted by red-circling.

53. He agreed that many program managers in the Service are not senior officers.

54. Mr. Saunders stated that all of his staff are civilian and covered by the civilian collective agreement.

55. The Service charges for record checks, accident reports. Its licensing unit also derives revenue.

56. Training video topics come from subject experts. Mr.

Saunders is the communicator. Technically, what is in the video comes from the subject experts. The forensic area is different. Videos always include an officer.

57. When OPTVA started, both Mr. Saunders’ job duties and responsibilities changed considerably. The change in job title did not create a shift for him. He had been a supervisor with the Service for 13 years before OPTVA started.

58. Mr. Saunders stated he has received job appraisals over the years (Ex. 4, tab 5H). He stated: “My position has not changed in 30 years, but the position I report to has.”

C. Re-Direct

59. Mr. Saunders is the Executive Director of OPTVA. Under para. 5.08 of its Constitution (Ex. 4, tab 2C), Mr. Saunders is appointed by the Chief of the Service. His responsibilities and duties vis-à-vis OPTVA are set out in that paragraph. Membership does not have a say in his appointment.

60. OPTVA does not pay Mr. Saunders any remuneration. There is a budget for the Video Unit (Ex. 4, tab 1Q) which includes OPTVA expenses and cost recovery amounts; the latter are shown in the budget as miscellaneous revenue.

2. Supt. Bob Wright

A. Direct Examination

61. Supt. Wright is in charge of district operations for the

Service. He is a member of the SOA. He oversees 520

Service personnel. He was the Superintendent of Executive Services and as such, supervised Mr. Saunders as Manager of the Video Unit. On the organizational structure diagram for the Service (Ex. 4, tab 5I, page 5), Supt. Wright pointed out that all managers of double-line box functions, except for Mr. Saunders, are members of the SOA. They are all civilians.

62. Supt. Wright talked about program managers. They prepare budgets as part of their job but are not necessarily in charge of a unit. The Service has 50 to 60 program managers who could be a constable or a sergeant.

63. Mr. Saunders receives a lot of confidential information. The Chief has great respect for Mr. Saunders and the way he deals with confidential information.

64. Supt. Wright said he has known Mr. Saunders for 29 years.

He recalled a conversation with him in late 2010 or early

2011 on the subject of the SOA. As Mr. Saunders was then under his command, Supt. Wright was looking out for Mr. Saunders’ welfare.

65. Supt. Wright asked Mr. Saunders about seeking to join the SOA. He did not encourage him as the NRPA was doing a good job for its members. There are pro’s and con’s of being part of either the SOA or the NRPA.

66. There is no overtime pay when you are part of the SOA. The NRPA has a lot of activities for its members. The SOA members receive two extra weeks leave in lieu of being paid for overtime.

67. When Mr. Saunders had a meeting with Supt. Wright he was told that his application to the SOA would have merit.

68. Supt. Wright said that supervising Mr. Saunders involved little work. He did an excellent job as Manager of the Video Unit and for OPTVA. He needed very little supervision.

69. Mr. Saunders is professional and respected as a leader. His productions are exceptional and have won awards. The new Chief of the Service is much more interested in Mr. Saunders’ work. Mr. Saunders has a macro view of the Service and plays an important role for the Chief, helping him to communicate with the Service as a whole.

B. Cross-examination

70. Supt. Wright reviewed his history in the Service, including that he is the longest serving member of the SOA.

71. It is in the discretion of the Chief for a civilian to become a member of the SOA. For the Service’s chief administrative officer’s position, the Chief made the decision which was approved by the Board.

72. Mr. Saunders prepares the budget for the Video Unit and tracks it. He reported to Supt. Wright on budget matters. Regarding confidentiality, Mr. Saunders was on the same level as other managers who were members of the SOA.

C. Panel Question

73. Supt. Wright said that the role of Manager of the Video Unit and Executive Director of OPTVA should be in the SOA. It is the only manager role that is not on the organizational structure (Ex. 4, tab 5 I, page 5).

NRPA Evidence

1. Richard Gordon

A. Direct Examination

74. Mr. Gordon is a special constable with the Service and is on the NRPA Executive. The Service has just over 1,000 members, 700 uniform and 300 civilian. There are 35 uniform SOA members and eight or nine civilian SOA members, all others being NRPA members.

75. Mr. Gordon has been a supervisor over court security officers for 5 years. He is currently in Band 11 and supervises those at the Band 9 level, similar to Mr. Saunders. Similarly, the Communications Unit supervisors are in Band 11, and those they supervise are in Band 9.

76. Mr. Gordon became a member of the NRPA Council in 1999 and a Board member the same year. Since then he has been on the NRPA Executive or Board.

77. Mr. Gordon said that he knew Mr. Saunders from the time he was hired. As a member of the Board of NRPA, Mr. Gordon worked with Mr. Saunders in 2000 with regard to pay, job description and job evaluation issues. Mr. Saunders had had his position evaluated but was not happy with the

result and asked Mr. Gordon to look into it. Mr. Saunders felt the process did not take into account the work he did, and

he also felt he was not being compensated for that work. A presentation was made to a job evaluation committee with the result that Mr. Saunders’ job classification was moved up from a “F” level to a “G” level and re-named as a “manager” position. The “G” level was the highest for the NRPA membership although there was a “H” level but only SOA members were in that classification.

78. Mr. Gordon referred to the following documents from Ex. 5:

1. Tab 1A – memo dated September 4, 1991 from the Director of Human Resources to the Deputy Chief re: consideration by the Joint Committee on job classification with the result of Mr. Saunders’ for reconsideration;

2. Tab 1B – description of job of Video Unit Supervisor dated July 1, 1996;

3. Tab 1C – memo dated October 7, 1997 from Mr.

Saunders to his superior requesting reclassification, and attaching his changes to the July 1, 1996 job description;

4. Tab 1D – memo dated December 22, 1998 from Mr.

Saunders to the administrator of the NRPA

concerning his job classification;

5. Tab 1E – revised job description dated January 11,

1999; and

6. Tab 1F – letter dated June 17, 2009 from Human Resources to Mr. Saunders advising him of the result of the reconsideration.

79. Mr. Gordon stated that from his observation Mr. Saunders was pleased with the increase he obtained.

80. A new process came about in 2006 and 2007 which culminated in the Burkett Award (Ex. 8 and 8A). Everyone had to complete a job analysis questionnaire.

81. The Burkett Award placed Mr. Saunders in Band 11 but red-circled his position in that there were no increases for years up to 2014, and starting then, only 50% of any increases would be paid.

82. The NRPA approached the then Chief who agreed to receive submissions for re-evaluation of positions. Some members of the NRPA did apply, but Mr. Saunders did not.

83. For the 2012 year, a further arbitration resulted in the Marcotte Award (Ex. 6) which upheld the Burkett Award (Ex. 8).

84. Those members of the NRPA who were red-circled exchanged e-mails regarding the issue (Ex. 9).

85. Mr. Gordon stated that fees are charged by the Service for various records checks, vehicle reports, by the licensing unit. He also said that he supervises 21 full-time and six part-time special constables who have equipment. The communication supervisor orders vehicles, equipment for the marine unit, bicycles and parts, and oversees mechanics, radio technicians and others.

86. Regarding confidentiality, Mr. Gordon said he operates inside a cell block. Cells are sometimes wired, there are undercover operations, he may need a SWAT team, all showing the need for confidentiality.

87. Regarding discipline, Mr. Gordon referred to General Order

029.08 (Ex. 5, tab 3D).

88. Mr. Gordon stated that he is involved to assist with the preparation of the Service’s business plan, and also is called for specific purposes to meetings of committees. The Chief or designate dictates who should attend. Attendance does make a person a senior officer.

89. In comparing Mr. Saunders position with other Service supervisors who are members of the NRPA, Mr. Gordon stated that he could not see a reason why Mr. Saunders should be in the SOA. All have access to confidential information. Mr. Saunders is not responsible for human

resources issues. He does not have a role in discipline. He may be managing resources, but not people.

90. A staff sergeant appraises Mr. Gordon, and he in turn appraises those under his command. This is done once a year. Other supervisors do the same.

91. Mr. Gordon said that all supervisors have obligations under Ontario law. He sits down with employees every day on danger briefings. He is a co-chair of the Service’s Occupational Health and Safety Committee. Mr. Saunders

is not a member.

92. For vacation, members submit a request on a form. His reports submit their request to Mr. Gordon who signs off and sends it up the line. If approved and the member requests a change, that can only be approved by the Chief or designate. Supervisors can also authorize overtime, all subject to any collective agreement in force.

93. The NRPA deals with member versus member issues.

According to Mr. Gordon, this is not a reason for Mr. Saunders to jump to the SOA. It could be the same in the SOA.

B. Cross-Examination

94. Mr. Gordon said if Mr. Saunders is made a SOA member, he does not know if Mr. Saunders would receive a pay increase.

95. Mr. Gordon stated that he sat on the senior management team wearing his NRPA hat, not as a court supervisor. He also sits as a NRPA member on the Service’s Occupational Health and Safety Committee.

96. He feels that Mr. Saunders does not qualify as a senior officer in that his duties and responsibilities do not meet

that standard. For example, Mr. Saunders does not deal with labour relations. The Board of the NRPA feels the same way.

C. Re-Direct

97. Mr. Gordon said that if Mr. Saunders’ application was granted, it would open flood gates. Also, it would result in a pay increase. Others would apply. There could be financial reasons in applying to be a senior officer in that the best 60 months salary determines the pension level.

2. Linda Jerome

A. Direct Examination

98. Ms. Jerome is the Human Resources Manager for the Service. Through her, job descriptions for the managers were placed into evidence (Ex. 12). All of those managers are members of the SOA.

99. Ms. Jerome stated she knows Mr. Saunders but has little contact with him at work.

100. Ms. Jerome said to her knowledge, Mr. Saunders does not have input into setting policy for the Service.

101. Not all program managers are senior officers. Only some are. Also, a job title does not determine where one fits within the Service.

102. Ms. Jerome said that Mr. Saunders is the only manager who is not in the SOA. It was that way when she joined

the Service. She thought at the time it was weird. In 2004 when she was managing the job evaluation process, she thought it odd that Mr. Saunders as a manager was not in the SOA. She was told it was an anomaly.

103. Ms. Jerome stated that she deals with managers regarding corporate issues and structure but does not do so with Mr. Saunders.

104. She described the pay equity process resulting in the Burkett Award. The job evaluation process established the relative value of positions within the Service. There could be a pay adjustment if a job was out of kilter. The purpose was to make sense of the salary structure, and to restore order, which was accomplished. Mr. Saunders’ position

was red-circled as a result.

105. Ms. Jerome said that the Service has a process to request job evaluations based on responsibilities. Mr. Saunders is in Band 11. There is a higher Band available. One can even break above the top end. Also, positions can change if the structure needs to be expanded or modified.

106. The value of work does not determine whether someone is in the NRPA or the SOA.

107. All managers except for Mr. Saunders and one other person have been acting Directors on a rotational basis.

108. Ms. Jerome indicated that the Chief and the Executive, with the approval of the Board, determine the organizational structure of the Service. There are frequent changes.

109. Ms. Jerome said Mr. Saunders has the same authority as other supervisors, all of whom are subject to the existing Collective Agreement and any Service General Order or directive.

110. Ms. Jerome confirmed that Mr. Saunders has never applied for a senior officer classification in the Service. Normally management decides whether a job is filled by a NRPA or SOA member.

111. Ms. Jerome said a job evaluation is underway for NRPA members, which includes Mr. Saunders’ position. Re- evaluation can be requested by an incumbent, a supervisor or a manager. A position is re-evaluated if it becomes vacant. Under a General Order, the position is

looked at every four years. Mr. Saunders has requested an evaluation. The methodology was agreed to by the Service and the NRPA in 2006.

B. Cross-Examination

112. Ms. Jerome said she was involved with the pay equity project that resulted in a ranking of civilian positions for NRPA members (Ex. 5, tab 6C). Out of all positions, the Video Unit Manager scored the most points and was put at the highest level of the NRPA salary structure.

113. Ms. Jerome confirmed that the SOA has a different job evaluation plan than that of the NRPA.

3. Insp. George Bench

A. Direct Examination

114. Insp. Bench is a 23 year member of the Service and has held a variety of positions. He is currently in charge of emergency services and is Primary Incident Commander for the Service.

115. Insp. Bench knew Mr. Saunders when he was the person

in charge of the Training Unit from October 2009 until April

2011. He holds Mr. Saunders in high regard. He considers Mr. Saunders completely trustworthy. Mr. Saunders performs an outstanding job facilitating the production and delivery of training videos. His group functions well together.

2012. Mr. Saunders’ Unit produces videos, some on a cost recovery basis. The Video Unit concentrates on OPTVA about half of the time and on the Service’s demands the other half.

2013. Mr. Saunders has worked on e-learning, buying software and flying in instructors to show him and the Service how to use the software to create products. The Video Unit manager is responsible for setting the tone. He determines the day to day operations, but is not involved in the Service’s organizational policy.

2014. Executive staff prioritize production for the Service. Mr.

Saunders is not a member of the executive staff. Capacity for production enters into the decision. For one-off videos, no approval is necessary.

119. Regarding content of videos, subject matter experts are relied on. They approve the content. The Video Unit personnel are civilians who are familiar with the work of police officers.

120. The Video Unit takes the message or issue and delivers the content, ensuring that the message is delivered.

121. The Service’s budget of approximately $120 million is broken down into different programs. The Video Unit has a budget prepared and managed by Mr. Saunders as a program manager. He also prepares variance reports showing why the Video Unit may be off budget for the year. There are over 60 program managers in the Service. Each is responsible for his or her own budget and

preparing variance reports.

122. OPTVA is different because of its cost recovery element.

There is cost recovery in other areas of the Service e.g. licensing, reports and secondments.

123. NRPA members are on the Business Planning Committee.

It has sworn and civilian members. Also, the Senior Management Team Committee has NRPA members. It is not a decision-making group. It receives current events reports and issues.

124. Mr. Saunders does not act in higher positions as other

Manager’s do to cover an absence.

125. Insp. Bench referred to the job descriptions of other civilian managers of the Service (Ex. 12). The Manager of Corporate Records and Information Management has a direct impact on how the Service does business. The Manager of Facilities and Supply Services looks after the Service as a whole in being responsible for facilities and fleet. The Communications Manager ensures operational function throughout the whole service. The Manager of Finance is a critical position to the whole Service. Also the Central Records Manager and the Technical Services and Applications Manager are Service-wide in their functions.

126. If the Video Unit was disbanded, it would not affect the day to day operation of the Service. It would affect training. Other products could be bought. The Video Unit is a very useful resource and there would be some impact if

it was disbanded.

127. The hiring process for the Service is controlled by human resources. Mr. Saunders does not have access to CPIC. Others do background checks.

B. Cross-Examination

128. Insp. Bench said that Mr. Saunders has had a big impact on the Service and OPTVA. The training videos produced are important. However the Service would survive without the Video Unit. That would not be the case if, for example, Central Records were to be disbanded.

129. The mandate of the Video Unit and Mr. Saunders has expanded province-wide.

130. Insp. Bench agreed that Mr. Saunders is the glue that binds OPTVA. While OPTVA has a board, Mr. Saunders is the key player.

C. Re-Direct

131. Insp. Bench said other civilian managers are more integral to the core policing function. If the Video Unit was not there, the service would have to find a replacement. The Service could not do so for other areas whose civilian managers are in the SOA.

Submissions of Applicant

132. Mr. Wray’s submissions consist of three points:

a) The contents of the exhibits support the

Application;

b) The Commission must make its decision based on case law, specifically:

(i) Dryden Police Association and Dryden Police Service Board, (December 17, 1998, OCCPS), a leading case which contains a list of factors to be considered;

(ii) City of Guelph Police Association and Beverley Lee, Lucille Rossette and Christine Ross, (May 17, 1984, OPC);

(iii) Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, (1975); and

(iv) Norm Boucher and Debbie Parisien and the

Cornwall Police Association and the Cornwall

Community Police Service Senior Officers’ Association, (September 4, 2006, OCCPS); and

c) Why certain evidence of the NRPA should not persuade the Commission.

133. In the Boucher and Parisien case, supra, both applicants brought an application to be classified as senior officers, and both were successful. In particular, Mr. Boucher’s responsibilities were similar to those of Mr. Saunders. He supervised one employee; in hiring he had the power of effective recommendations, he managed a capital budget of $400,000; he was involved in long term planning; he had a role in purchasing equipment, his title was “Manager”; and he developed policies.

134. Section 114 of the Act defines “senior officer” for a civilian as one who “is employed in a supervisory or confidential capacity”. Mr. Boucher qualified as meeting the “supervisory” test. Ms. Parisien did as well.

135. Mr. Wray submitted that Mr. Saunders falls under the “supervisory” test, meeting the factors set out in the Dryden case, supra.

136. Dealing with the Dryden case factors, Mr. Wray made the following points regarding Mr. Saunders:

a) importance of responsibility – Mr. Saunders has been in charge of the Video Unit of the Service for over 10 years. Through OPTVA, he is directing province-wide production of videos. That training product is important for the Service and for Ontario. Mr. Saunders is supporting operations and improving communications within the Service;

b) initiative – Mr. Saunders is on committees and is the Executive Director of OPTVA. He takes the lead and puts forward ideas with very little supervision as both Insp. Bench and Supt. Wright testified.

c) report – Mr. Saunders has reported to the Chief’s Executive Officer, to the Deputy Chief and to a superintendent;

d) oversees employees – Mr. Saunders oversees three full-time employees and one part-time person. In the Boucher and Parisien case, supra, Mr. Boucher oversaw one staff and 25% of his time spent on

this was determinative. Mr. Saunders’ role is

greater than that;

e) role in hiring and discharging – Mr. Saunders co- ordinates and participates. He reviews applications, short lists candidates for interviews, sits on panels for other service positions. He has not had to deal with any discharges;

f) powers of discipline – Mr. Saunders completes incident reports and if necessary, he could write a memo to a superior;

g) distribution of workload – Mr. Saunders is in full control of this for the Video Unit;

h) assign workload and assess quality – Mr. Saunders does both;

i) train – Mr. Saunders trains members of the Video Unit. The Unit has high standards and produces quality products. He has also undertaken an e- learning initiative;

j) grant favours to employees – Mr. Saunders receives requests from employees and, subject to a

collective agreement, deals with them as the boss of the Video Unit;

k) formulating procedures – Mr. Saunders determines how the duties of the Unit and OPTVA are to be completed;

l) choice of equipment and accommodations – as a program manager, Mr. Saunders has full responsibility of monetary expenditures related to the Video Unit. He puts together a business plan and a budget. He reports to the Board. He selects equipment the Unit needs;

m) reports from employees – all of the Video Unit employees report directly to Mr. Saunders. Mr. Saunders is in complete command of his Unit;

n) initiate orders and discipline – Mr. Saunders has considerable latitude as Manager of the Video Unit. He is very seldom provided with anything other than a desired outcome. No on manages him on a step-by-step basis to create the final product. He

brings ideas, and if they are approved, he runs with them. He takes the lead;

o) salary range – Mr. Saunders is at the high end of the pay scale for NRPA members and is within the salary range for the other civilian managers who are members of the SOA;

p) conflict of interest – Mr. Saunders does not have a lot of disputes; and

q) overseeing versus performing – Mr. Saunders spends the majority of his time on macro duties. He

is the leader and manager of the Video Unit and

OPTVA.

137. Mr. Wray submitted that Mr. Saunders meets most of the factors as set out in the Dryden decision, supra. Further, Mr. Saunders is the only civilian manager in the Service who is not in the SOA. Mr. Saunders is a manager who exercises a supervisory role.

138. Mr. Wray said the SOA has not taken a position on the Application. The Application has the support of the Deputy Chief. The subject was also discussed with Mr. Saunders by Supt. Wright.

139. The NRPA is opposing the Application. Mr. Gordon’s evidence contained the only reasons for the opposition. He said it was a matter of principle. It was not a potential loss of dues, it was not a loss of members although later on he expressed a concern that if the Application is granted, it might open a floodgate of further applications. There is no evidence this would or might be the case.

140. On cross-examination, Mr. Gordon said he personally would never become a member of the SOA.

141. In considering Insp. Bench’s evidence about the roles of other civilian managers, Mr. Wray submitted that Insp. Bench had not read their job descriptions, nor had he supervised them. He had not read the job description for Mr. Saunders. His evidence lacked credibility.

142. Insp. Bench also said the Video Unit function could be outsourced but not other units headed by civilian managers. Mr. Wray said this logic is flawed because units such as the life records management and finance could certainly be outsourced under a contract.

143. If this was a move by Mr. Saunders to get around red- circling and gain a pay increase, no witness gave evidence that such was the case. Mr. Saunders stated he did not know if he would receive an increase if his Application was successful.

NRPA Submissions

144. Mr. Chercover submitted that the statute should have a common sense interpretation. The Service is large, having

1,000 members. Of those, about 700 are uniform and about 300 are civilian; 35 are senior officers.

145. There are dozens of supervisors with the same authority as Mr. Saunders has in the Video Unit. Many are red- circled and watching this case.

146. Mr. Chercover referred us to Mr. Gordon’s testimony about the history of how the Service has operated. Sergeants and Staff Sergeants have supervisory authority, but they are not senior officers. To become senior officers, civilians have to satisfy s. 114 of the Act, namely, that they are employed in a supervisory or confidential capacity.

147. Section 114 of the Act is in Part VIII entitled “Labour Relations”. Mr. Chercover asked the Panel to read his authorities which come from a labour relations background.

148. Mr. Saunders has been in the same job for 29 years. He was supervised by a constable when he started. He has remained within the NRPA bargaining unit.

149. Mr. Chercover submitted that the Application is about money. Mr. Saunders does not know how much more he can get. If granted, the Application would be an invitation to a floodgate of more applications. The Application ignores how Mr. Saunders’ relationship developed over the

years, and it ignores 28 years of Mr. Saunders being a supervisor.

150. There is no magic to the word “Manager”. It is the responsibilities that are important. Compare Mr. Saunders’ job to the other civilian managers. Ms. Jerome said the others all have corporate responsibility. They have broad obligations across the Service. Mr. Saunders is in a narrow area. Insp. Bench said his unit was small and narrow. There are a lot of ways to do training.

151. Mr. Chercover accepts that training is crucial. But it is not Mr. Saunders’ decision to make across the corporation. That decision belongs to the Chief. Also, a senior management meeting is one that all staff attend. All sorts of confidential information is shared.

152. Mr. Chercover discussed the job descriptions and scope of work of the Service’s other civilian managers describing several as having broad corporate responsibility and indicating their roles are very different from that of Mr. Saunders.

153. Mr. Chercover reviewed Mr. Saunders’ job history saying that very little has changed over the years. He said that Mr. Saunders is in a support position, not in operations. He provides services to different units of the Service.

154. Any supervisory function exercised by Mr. Saunders is minor. The producers have technical expertise and do not require supervision. Any authority he has is subject to a collective agreement, a general order or a directive. His participation in hiring is minor.

155. Mr. Saunders’ salary has no relevance as it is governed by the job evaluation system. It is reasonable for a skilled specialist to be paid more.

156. Mr. Chercover submitted that there is no doubt Mr.

Saunders deserves credit for the growth of OPTVA. The video product and cost savings made it grow.

157. Mr. Chercover referred us to Insp. Bench’s testimony that the other civilian managers were crucial for the Service. Their work was operationally necessary. They are central to the operation of the Service as a whole.

158. Mr. Chercover submitted that the Commission cannot ignore how the Board, the Service, the SOA and the NRPA have governed themselves for years. Only legitimate managers have been put into the SOA. The Act should be interpreted so that labour relations would impact a confidential or supervisory role.

159. Since 1997, there have been three changes to the Video

Production Unit:

a) There is more travel as evidence by the shoulder patches in the videos;

b) Both the Service and the OPTVA decide which videos should be made; and

c) Videos have improved technically and now e- learning videos are being made.

However, there has been little if any growth.

160. The Video Unit budget is small in relation to that of the Service. Mr. Saunders prepares the budget as a program manager, just as over 60 others do.

161. Mr. Chercover referred us to Ms. Jerome’s testimony that Mr. Saunders has no input into Service policies. Other managers do. She also said she communicates with other

managers daily, but not with Mr. Saunders. Mr. Saunders has no more authority than other program managers.

162. Mr. Chercover referred to cases which are mainly labour relations cases and asked the Panel to consider them.

163. The test with respect to civilian managers is a management test which may be comparable to systems in the private sector: see City of Brantford Police Association and Board of Commissioners of Police for the City of Brantford (April 1990, OPC).

164. He submitted that in considering the phrase “supervisory or confidential nature” in s. 114 of the Act, it means more than what is conveyed to the ordinary person. Section

114 is entwined with the bargaining and arbitration process. Matters relating to planning, particularly long- term planning, budget preparation and preparation for negotiations are clearly of a confidential nature: see Brockville Police Force (July 1989, OPC).

165. Mr. Chercover referred to the discussion of “managerial function” in the case of The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local

87 [1981] OLRB Rep. August 1121.

166. Mr. Chercover submitted that in determining managerial functions, one should not be swayed by a title. It’s what a person does that is important: see Ontario Utility

Foremen’s Association v. Hydro Electric Commission of the Borough of Etobicoke [1981] OLRB Rep. January 38; Hamilton – Wentworth Police Services Board and

Hamilton-Wentworth Police Association (June 1992, OCCPS), and Corporation of the Town of Innisfil [1994] OLRB Rep. January 76.

167. Mr. Chercover argued that Mr. Saunders has zero information regarding confidentiality in a labour relations context.

168. Mr. Chercover concluded by saying that the NRPA respects the work of Mr. Saunders and his Video Unit and he does great and important work. But, this does not qualify him as a senior officer.

Reasons

169. The definition of “senior officer” at section 114 of the Act reads as follows:

“senior officer” means a member of a police force who has the rank of inspector or higher or is employed in a supervisory or confidential capacity.

170. In that Mr. Saunders is a civilian member of the NRPS, the sole issue to determine is whether or not he “is employed in a supervisory or confidential capacity” (emphasis added). That phrase is disjunctive so that if Mr. Saunders meets one or the other, namely he is employed in either a supervisory or a confidential capacity with the Service, then he will be classified as a senior officer.

171. The guiding decision of the Commission on this issue is that of Re: Metro Toronto Police Association (ORC, February 17, 1975), which has been referred to in Guelph Police Association (OCCPS, May 4, 1984), Dryden Police Association, supra, and Cornwall Police Association (OCCPS, September 14, 2006).

172. The often quoted part of the Metro Toronto decision, supra, reads as follows:

There is a fine line separating the degree of responsibility of the civilian employee in a

supervisory capacity and the civilian employee who cannot be so related. This means that every situation must be considered separately and in the end a common sense view must prevail after all the factors in the individual cases have been taken into consideration. Some of these factors are as follows:

a) How important is the responsibility of the employee?

b) How much initiative does he exercise?

c) Does the employee report to a position high in the hierarchy of command or management?

d) How many employees does he oversee?

e) What is his contribution in respect to the hiring and discharging of employees?

f) What powers of discipline does he exercise?

g) What powers does he exercise as to distribution of work-load and hours of work?

h) Does he assign work, assess quality of work and issue corrective instructions if work is improperly done?

i) Does he train employees?

j) What discretion does he have to grant favours to employees, such as time off?

k) What does he contribute in respect of formulating procedures in his area of duty?

l) What influence doe he exercise in respect of choice of equipment and accommodation?

m) Does all reports from employees whom he oversees flow through him or do these employees or any of them report directly to someone

superior to rank to the subject?

n) Is he but a conduit for the transmission of orders from his superior or does he initiate orders and discipline within the general framework of management policy?

o) Is his salary range commensurate with supervisory function?

p) Would he have a conflict of interest in relation to disputes between employees whom he oversees and management?

q) Does he spend a large part of his time in overseeing the work of others as opposed to actual performance of work itself?

The above list is not exhaustive, nor does an employee necessarily qualify in all of the above categories in order to be employed in a supervisory capacity as set out in the Police Act, but to determine his status there must be a balance of factors before a conclusion can be drawn in an individual case, and it should be noted that the factors above mentioned are not necessarily of equal importance in any individual case.

173. There are two aspects to Mr. Saunder’s employment/role with the NRPS and in reviewing the above factors, both must be taken into account. The two aspects are his role in video production for the NRPS itself, and his role as

Executive Director of OPTVA, which in our view, can be

best described as a “division” or “branch” of the NRPS.

174. Each of the factors set out above will be reviewed.

175. Mr. Wray submitted that Mr. Saunders has significant responsibility. Mr. Chercover denied that in comparing what Mr. Saunders does in relation to other senior civilian managers’ functions across the NRPS. Mr. Chercover asserted that Mr. Saunders’ functions are more akin to that of the other “program managers” of the NRPS.

176. We find that Mr. Saunders’ role with the OPTVA certainly entails significant responsibility on behalf of the NRPS.

177. Regarding initiative, it is clear that he is the guiding hand behind decisions of the OPTVA made by its Board of Directors as to which projects are its priority in a given year. It would appear that in his internal role with the NRPS, Mr. Saunders exercises less initiative.

178. Mr. Saunders reports to the Chief’s Executive Officer who in turn reports directly to the Chief. In past years, Mr. Saunders reported to the Deputy Chief. Therefore he reports to the highest ranks.

179. Mr. Saunders oversees three full-time civilian employees and one part-time civilian employee.

180. Regarding hiring of employees, the actual hire is done by the Human Resources Division. However, Mr. Saunders reviews applications and prepares a short list of candidates for positions in his Unit. He has not had to deal with a discharge of an employee.

181. On discipline issues, Mr. Saunders completes incident reports, and if necessary, would write a report to his superior recommending action.

182. Mr. Saunders assigns projects and work in his unit among the employees of the Unit.

183. Mr. Saunders assesses the quality of work of the employees in his Unit and prepares job evaluations for them.

184. Mr. Saunders trains members of his Unit, including recently an e-learning initiative.

185. Subject to provisions of a collective agreement, Mr.

Saunders is able to grant work-related requests to employees of his Unit.

186. Mr. Saunders formulates procedures regarding both his

Unit and the OPTVA.

187. Subject to budget approval by his superiors and the Board, Mr. Saunders has full responsibility for equipment purchases. Accommodation on the other hand is decided by the Service.

188. All employees in his Unit report directly to Mr. Saunders whether they are working on a NRPS or OPTVA project.

189. Normally, once a project is approved for implementation, it is then up to Mr. Saunders to carry it out.

190. Mr. Saunders is within the salary range of other civilian members of the SOA.

191. Mr. Saunders does not have disputes with employees of his Unit. If he did, presumably the collective agreement provisions and any relevant NRPS policies would apply as to how such disputes are to be dealt with. We find that he has the skills and resources to deal with any such disputes effectively and legally, should they arise.

192. It would appear Mr. Saunders spends a lot of his time planning for projects, ensuring the completed product is good and meets the desired outcome.

193. On balance, we find that the above discussion of the

factors in Mr. Saunders’ situation point in the direction that he is employed in a supervisory capacity in the NRPS, especially when one takes into account his role as

Executive Director of the OPTVA.

194. The Metro Toronto, supra, case, is instructive in holding that not all of the listed criteria have to be fulfilled to meet the “supervisory” test. Mr. Saunders’ job description demonstrates active engagement in a supervisory

capacity, including: managing staff, preparing budgets, long-term planning and oversight of production.

195. In Metro Toronto, supra, it was clearly stated that each civilian supervisory role must be considered individually and separately.

196. Therefore we must assess Mr. Saunders’ role on its own merit. When we review Mr. Saunders combined role of managing the Video Unit and being Executive Director of OPTVA, we disagree that his role was like that of “all other program managers”. We find instead that he has a very high level of responsibility, initiative and reach, much higher than a program manager.

197. Mr. Saunders manages four staff. If the Service could employ a larger number of staff in the Video Unit, we have no doubt that Mr. Saunders could responsibly supervise a larger team, see Cornwall, supra.

198. Over his thirty year career with the Service, Mr. Saunders has had nothing but superior reviews and has often been

noted as an independent leader who needs little supervision.

199. Also, Mr. Saunders has participated in the hiring and supervising of staff. While it has not been necessary to this point, we believe that Mr. Saunders could effectively participate in dismissing a member of his team if that was warranted. The Human Resources Department takes care

of most of the administrative procedures with hiring and firing of employees, so it is not necessary for Mr. Saunders

to take on any of those tasks and that should not count

against him.

200. It was pointed out that Mr. Saunders’ role differs from that of the other civilian managers who are all members of the SOA. They have roles that extend across the NRPS – corporate records, information management, facilities, supply services and communication. These are service- wide roles, whereas it was argued that Mr. Saunders role

is much narrower in scope.

201. The scope of video/online training of police within police services should not be minimized. More than ever, the need for good quality, easily accessible and ongoing training for officers across the Province is of utmost importance. We have heard from all of the witnesses that the training products produced by Mr. Saunders and his team are exceptionally helpful not only across the NRPS but to services across the Province. We find that the reach of Mr. Saunders work is actually far reaching and the impact of that reach cannot be undervalued.

202. It was argued that the width the position serves may be an additional factor. When assessing this we take into account that all officers of the NRPS have access to the training products and video evidence support but we also take into account the wide spread members and customers for the OPTVA products. The ongoing relationship building

and resource sharing provided through the OPTVA is also significant.

203. It was also pointed out that unlike the services provided by the Units of the other civilian managers, if the Video Unit was disbanded, another service provider could be easily found. We disagree. The Video Unit is not the only service that can be provided by an outside provider. Most services can be outsourced in todays open market. Also, in this age of scrutiny of police budgets, contracting out is growing for services such as communications, records management, information management, facilities and supply services.

204. While it is true that the work of the Video Unit could be outsourced, we question whether the output would be as well-informed, relevant and representative, as it is coming from within the Service, by a trusted, experienced (seasoned) and known member of the Service. The November 1, 2012 Report of the NRPS to the Niagara Police Services Board (Ex.4, Tab 2M, p.1-2) states:

The Niagara Regional Police Service Video Unit was formed in 1982 as a cost-effective means of providing in-service training to it’s members. Thirty years later, the four-member Unit has earned an international

reputation for quality and innovation. The Unit has been honoured with nearly 200 awards for production excellence, including the prestigious Law Enforcement Video Association’s Award of Distinction for Best Overall Video on nine occasions. (emphasis added).

205. Not only has the Video Unit been “cost-effective”, it is also important to remember that unlike any other division of the Service the Video Unit fully funds itself through the OPTVA memberships and video production income.

206. The re-classification applications that have come before

the Commission have been varied and diverse. In the case of the Brockville Police Force, supra, the secretary to the Chief of Police was declared to be a “senior officer” while the secretary to the Deputy Chief of Police was declared not to be. Both positions had similar duties, but when taken as a whole the secretary to the Chief of Police was deemed to have more “management” functions, including: long-term planning and budget preparation. It was found that her very specific role was integral to the “good management of the force.” Mr. Saunders produced evidence that demonstrated he was not only managing a division but he was actually concurrently running a “business” with the OPTVA. He has clearly demonstrated that his role requires high-level management functions, and that he is exercising those.

207. After careful consideration of all of the evidence presented and the submissions by the Parties, we conclude that Mr. Saunders’ position as Manager of the Video Unit meets the definition of “senior officer” in that he is employed in a supervisory capacity.

208. For the above reasons, the Commission grants the application and Orders that Jamie Saunders be classified as a senior officer of the NRPS.

DATED AT TORONTO, THIS 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013

David C. Gavsie Zahra Dhanani

Associate Chair, OCPC Member, OCPC