GSB #0196/00

OPSEU#00U008

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union Grievance) Grievor

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Management Board Secretariat) Employer

BEFORE Owen V. Gray Vice-Chair

FOR THE GRIEVOR: Ed Holmes, Counsel Ryder, Wright, Blair & Doyle Barristers and Solicitors

FOR THE EMPLOYER: Stephen Patterson, Counsel Legal Services Branch Management Board Secretariat

HEARING October 5 and December 6, 2000; written submissions February 9 and March 2, 2001.

Decision

1In November 1999 the employer issued two documents to its management. One, entitled “Guide To Job Evaluation Decision-Making Process,” prescribed a management process by which internal decisions about classification would be vetted before being adopted by the employer and communicated to affected employees, to ensure consistency within and across ministries. The other, entitled “Writing Job Descriptions In The Modernized Format For OPSEU Jobs,” gave instruction as to writing job descriptions using forms that were, in some respects, different from the forms used previously for that purpose. For ease of reference, those documents are referred to hereafter as the “Guide” document and the “Writing Job Descriptions” document, respectively.

2In response to those documents, on January 31, 2000, the union grieved as follows:

The Union grieves that the Employer has contravened Appendix 7 (1) by introducing a “modernized” job description format which incorporates many of the factors and structure of the BUO job description thereby continuing the classification overhaul process. In addition, they have re‑introduced a job evaluation decision making process which is similar to the consistency validation process used during the classification overhaul.

Settlement Required:

1. A Declaration that the “modernized” job description format and job evaluation decision making process is contrary to Appendix 7

2. An Order that the Employer instruct all Ministries to cease and desist using the “modernized job description format” and return to the job description format previously used in the classification system.

3. An Order that the Employer amend the job evaluation decision making process so that it complies with the classification grievance procedure and Appendix 7.

“BUO” is the parties’ shorthand for “Bargaining Unit Overhaul,” which they use synonymously with the phrase “classification system overhaul” in the preamble and first numbered paragraph of Appendix 7 to the current collective agreement:

APPENDIX 7

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OVERHAUL

This confirms the agreement reached by the parties during negotiations with respect to the classification system overhaul.

(1) The classification system overhaul shall be deferred for the duration of this collective agreement, and for the period of its operation.

Issues

3The union says that management’s right to write job descriptions and evaluate jobs is fettered by Appendix 7, which should be interpreted as an undertaking by management not to change any aspect of the existing classification process. The union says that the changes complained of in the grievance are contrary to Article 7 because they are a change from what had been done before and are “reminiscent” of elements of the BUO.

4The employer says that the union’s interpretation of Appendix 7 is too broad. Appendix 7 does not contemplate freezing everything to do with classification. It freezes only the existing classification standards and the values attached by the parties to the outcomes of applying those standards. The employer says that these are not changed by the documents complained of, and that the implementation of the guidelines set out in those documents does not amount to proceeding with the BUO or altering the existing classification system.

Background

5For most OPSEU-represented positions, the applicable classification system was and is a grade description system, in which the job to be evaluated is compared as a whole to pre-determined standards or guides written in narrative terms. Jobs in the Office Administration Group (OAG), however, are evaluated using a point rating system, in which each compensable factor (knowledge, skill, judgement, accountability and group leadership) in the job is compared against previously defined and weighted factor levels in the standards.

6In Appendix 13 to their 1992-93 collective agreement, the parties agreed that there was a need for a long-term solution to problems manifest in classification grievances and in negotiations under what was then Article 5.8, which provided for determination of pay rates when a new classification was created or an existing classification revised. They agreed that this required overhaul of the bargaining unit job evaluation system then in place. Appendix 13 contemplated achieving the needed overhaul through a joint process, with a moratorium on classification grievances in the meantime.

7In a Framework Agreement dated December 7, 1994, the parties agreed to negotiate a new compensation system based on a point factor job evaluation methodology. When the terms of the 1994-98 collective agreement were finalized in late March 1996, Appendix 7 of that agreement replaced the earlier Framework Agreement. It provided that the employer would, in consultation with the union, “continue and complete the development of the new classification system, including the six (6) new classifica­tion plans and as much as possible of the factor models and relat­ed work already jointly completed”.

8By the time negotiations for the current collective agreement began in 1998, the employer had extended the pre-1996 jointly completed work to a point at which it had a classification plan for each of the six OPSEU bargaining units. Each plan identified the factors that would be treated as significant in evaluating a job in the bargaining unit to which it applied, and a point system for evaluating a job on a factor by factor basis and arriving at a total point value for the job. The employer had not yet proposed any pay plans by which a payment level or range would be assigned to a job based on its point value. A position description had been written for each job, however, purportedly setting out the relevant information about the job, organized in relation to the applicable factors. Each description had been evaluated in accordance with the applicable plan, to arrive at an assignment of points for the job. Copies of these evaluated job descriptions and evaluations had been given to bargaining unit employees whose jobs they purported to describe. About 10,000 grievances had been filed by employees, each challenging either the accuracy of the job description, the correctness of the assignment of points in the evaluation of the job based on that description, or both. A theme of at least come of the grievances was there were inconsistencies in the way similar jobs were described or evaluated within or across Ministries.

9On February 16, 1999, the employer wrote to the union as follows:

February 16, 1999

Ms Leah Casselman Ontario Public Service Employees Union 100 Lesmill Road North York, ON M38 3P8

Dear Ms Casselman:

Re: Initiation of Wage Bargaining

Effective September 30, 1998, the Employer implemented the Bargaining Unit Overhaul (BUO) classification system. In doing so, employees were provided with job descriptions evaluated under the new system. It was anticipated that, in this round of bargaining, pay plans would be negotiated for these positions,

After careful consideration, and to address the concerns expressed by employees, the union and those of the Employer, the Employer has decided not to put forward pay plans related to BUO in this round of bargaining. We propose to set aside the BUO for the duration of the next collective agreement.

Following implementation of the system, a significant number of employee complaints were received regarding the content of job descriptions and inconsistencies in the evaluation of like positions. For example, employees complained of job descriptions not being sufficiently detailed, and similar jobs having different evaluation results and point totals.

In conducting the analysis required to prepare for wage bargaining, it became clear that developing reasonable and affordable pay plans would pose considerable difficulties. Salary ranges which would both cover most employees and be affordable in the long term would have resulted in:

• no across‑the‑board increase for the life of the collective agreement:

• an immediate decrease in wages for 24.9% of employees;

• no salary protection for employees facing a reduction; ‑

• no increase for 50.3% of employees;

• a one‑time increase to base salary for 24.8% of employees, upon implementation.

Based on the above, about one in four employees would have received pay decreases ranging up to $11.81 per hour, with an average of drop of $1.80 per hour. No salary protection would have been provided.

On implementation of the BUO pay plans, it would have been the Employer’s position that half of the workforce, 50.3% of employees, would not have received a pay increase.

It would have been the Employers position that only about one in four employees would receive a single, immediate pay increase. Increases would have been limited to those employees whose existing rates are lower than the minimum rates in the new pay plan. The extent of their increase would have been to increase their pay to the minimum rates of the new plan. Increases would not have been evenly distributed.

At the same time, considerable resources would have been required by both the Employer and OPSEU to address employee complaints and identified inconsistencies.

The Employer is committed to negotiating a collective agreement which reflects both the interests of its employees and the public. We believe the best way to do so is to retain the current classification system for this next agreement and to table a proposal for across‑the‑board pay increases and performance pay.

We are confident we will be able to engage in meaningful and productive discussions with you and look forward to doing so.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Wilson Director

Emphasis has been added to the portions of this letter on which the union particularly relies in support of its position that Appendix 7 amounts to agreement that the “current classification system” will remain in force unaltered in any respect.

10The effect of management’s decision not to proceed with the BUO and related issues was addressed in a document that MBS circulated to managers to assist them in answering employee questions during negotiations. (Although managers were instructed that the document was not to be distributed to staff, OPSEU obtained a copy). The questions and answers set out in that document included these:

Q3. Does this mean positions won’t be based on points?

A3: Yes. The existing classification system will stay in effect for the duration of the next collective agreement.

Q4. Does this mean we go back to the job descriptions that had already been done in the old format?

A4: Yes. The format and content of those job descriptions matches the evaluation requirements of the existing system.

The employer is reviewing the impact on any new/changed jobs which have been described only in the new BUO format.

11In concluding their collective agreement, the parties agreed on a wage structure premised on the existing classification system. They amended Appendix 7 to read as quoted in paragraph [2] of this decision. After the collective agreement was concluded, there was some uncertainty about what should become of the grievances that had been filed in response to the job descriptions and evaluations prepared for purposes of the BUO. In late October 1999, the parties agreed that those grievances would be held in abeyance at their current stage of the grievance process “pending resolution of the classification system overhaul project (BUO) which has been determined by Appendix 7 to be deferred for the duration of this collective agreement and for the period of its operation.”

12As noted earlier, in November 1999 the employer issued the two documents that prompted this grievance.

13The current agreement provides, as the previous one did, that unresolved individual grievances about the propriety of a classification may be referred to the Joint System Subcommittee (“JSSC”) for resolution:

22.12 CLASSIFICATION

22.12.1 An employee who alleges that his or her position is improperly classified may discuss his or her claim with his or her immediate supervisor at any time, provided that such discussions shall not be taken into account in the application of the time limits set out in Article 22. An employee, however, shall have the right to file a grievance in accordance with the grievance procedure, specifying in his or her grievance what classification he or she claims.

22.12.2 A classification grievance as provided in Article 22.12.1 which has not been resolved by the end of Stage 2 of this grievance procedure may be referred to the Joint System Subcommittee (JSSC) provided in Appendix 7 (Classification System Overhaul) of this Agreement, for final resolution. The JSSC may decide on any grievance referred to it. Where the parties at the JSSC concur, their decision shall be binding on the parties and any affected employee. Where the parties at the JSSC do not concur, the matter shall remain unresolved unless and until concurrence is reached.

22.12.3 The Employer upon written request either by the employee or by the Union shall make available all information and provide copies of all documents which are relevant to the grievance.

“Guide To Job Evaluation Decision-Making Process”

14The “Guide” document prescribes procedures to be followed within management in coming to management decisions about classification. It identifies in general terms who will be involved in the decision-making process on behalf of management, with emphasis on consultation and committee procedures to ensure consistency within and across Ministries on job evaluation issues. The internal process it describes includes groups called “Ministry Consistency Team” and “Cross-Ministry Consistency Team.”

15The union’s witness testified that the union’s concern about this was that the introduction of this structure would build delays into the employer response to classification grievances and complaints. It was also concerned that the removed authority regarding classification problems from the local level, so that HR locally would have to defer to another body. She further testified that there had been a process in the BUO that involved a “Consistency Evaluation Committee”, and the union was concerned that the employer was introducing a structure “reminiscent” of a structure in the BUO.

“Writing Job Descriptions In The Modernized Format For OPSEU Jobs”

16The “Writing Job Descriptions” document begins with this statement of its purpose:

The purpose of these guidelines is to provide information and guidelines for:

• writing and editing OPSEU job descriptions in the modernized format developed for both the 6150 and the 6150(OAG); and

• use of relevant job information in BUO descriptions when preparing OPSEU job descriptions

The modernized format should be used whenever updating existing or preparing new job descriptions for OPSEU jobs.

“BUO descriptions” are the job descriptions that were prepared for purposes of the BUO. The document describes the “modernized format” this way:

2. MODERNIZED FORMAT

a) Purpose of the modernized format

The update is primarily to facilitate a change to describing some of the information about jobs in the form of factors. It will make the format more consistent with current job description writing practices, and more consistent with how other jobs in the OPS are described. The modernized format is generally very similar to the existing format.

b) Components of the modernized format

The modernized format includes the following main sections (the information required in each section is explained later in more detail)

1. Position information ‑ title, number, location, etc.

2. Purpose of position ‑ why the position exists in the organization

3. Duties & responsibilities ‑ a series of statements which characterize the main duties and responsibilities of the job

4. Staffing and licensing requirements ‑ statutory licensing/certification requirements

5. Knowledge ‑ areas and types of knowledge required to carry out the job

6. Skills ‑ reasoning, communication, interpersonal and other skills critical to carrying out the job

7. Freedom of Action ‑ degree of independent action required by the job

8. Signatures ‑ signatures of appropriate managers approving the job description

9. Class Allocation ‑ identification of the class level assigned to the job and the rationale for the decision

17The form in use up to this time, form 6150, likewise began with tombstone position information in a section numbered 1, followed by a “Purpose of position” section numbered 2. The third section of the old form was entitled “Duties and related tasks”. In this section the form asked that the percentage of time spent on each task be identified in this section, and most job descriptions in the old format did include percentages. The heading on the fourth section of the old form was “Skills and knowledge required to perform job at full working level (Indicate mandatory licences or credentials, if applicable).” The old form ended, as the new one does, with “Signatures” and “Class Allocation” sections.

18In both the old form and the new one contemplated by “Writing Job Descriptions”, the Class Allocation section is where the Evaluator is to record the classification he or she assigns, and the rationale for that classification. In both the old and the new form, the Evaluator states in this section that she or he has classified the job “in accordance with the Civil Service Classification Standards.” “Writing Job Descriptions” does not purport to change the existing Civil Service Classification Standards in any way.

19The “modernized format” abandons the blanket requirement that each and every duty be assigned a percentage of time, regardless of the relevance of such information under the applicable class standard. In that respect, “Writing Job Descriptions” says this:

3. WRITING OPSEU JOB DESCRIPTIONS

d) Percentage of Time

There is no specific requirement for assigning a percentage of time to each of the duty and responsibility statements listed in Section 3 of the job description.

However, in some instances the percentage of time required to perform certain types of duties or responsibilities (e.g. time spent operating specific equipment) is relevant to the application of particular class standards. When evaluating jobs related to these class standards, it is necessary to reflect the percentage of time spent on these duties. The percentage of time may be indicated within the statement about that particular duty.

For example, the class standards in the Highway Equipment Operator class series are partly differentiated on the basis of the percentage of time spent on operating a certain type of equipment. In this case, the job description should include a duty statement about the type of equipment operated ‑ and include mention of the percentage of time spent operating that equipment.

20“Writing Job Descriptions” prescribes a change in the “other duties as assigned” language almost invariably found in job descriptions written in the older format:

3. WRITING OPSEU JOB DESCRIPTIONS

e) Other duties/responsibilities as required

The modernized format for OPSEU job descriptions will contain, as part of the form, the following message: “Managers have the right to assign additional duties”. This message will replace the previously employed duty statement “Other Duties as assigned”.

21“Writing Job Descriptions” has this to say about the use of “information from the BUO data” to prepare operative OPSEU job descriptions:

3. WRITING OPSEU JOB DESCRIPTIONS

f) Considerations when using BUO information

When using information from the BUO data to prepare OPSEU job descriptions, the following should be considered:

• is additional job information required to evaluate the job against the relevant class standards?

It is important to note that some class series use very specific job detail as a basis for differentiating between class levels. When evaluating jobs related to these classes, it is important to ensure that the relevant job information is included in the description.

The document goes on to give examples of situations in which additional information would likely be necessary to determine the appropriate class level within a class standard.

22The union’s witness testified that the union was concerned about the references in the “Writing Job Descriptions” document to the BUO and BUO descriptions. The concern, she said, was that the language of the document appeared to authorize a manager to transpose information from the BUO description to the operative job description without looking at what the employee was actually doing currently. The union was also concerned that jobs would be described “in the form of factors”, and that job duties would not be ranked by percentage or otherwise to show which were key duties. It is concerned with the splitting up and expanding of the old fourth section on Knowledge and skills, particularly because “Freedom of Action” and other words used in this connection were used to describe compen7sable factors in the BUO evaluation system.

23The union’s witness testified that changing “other duties as assigned” to “managers have the right to assign additional duties” had come up during discussions of the BUO. The union understood “other duties as assigned” to mean duties related to the job. The employer had said the new language meant the same thing, she said, but the union saw it as a change nevertheless. In this context, the union sees it as a change to something that was part of the BUO.

24In cross-examination, the union’s witness acknowledged that while the factors in the modernized job description format were factors common to all of the 6 evaluation plans in the BUO, there were factors in each of those 6 evaluation plans that are not included in the modernized job description format. For example, each of the 6 BUO evaluation plans included “Physical Exertion” and “Disagreeable and Hazardous Working Conditions” as compensable factors. Those are not addressed in the modernized job format.

25The employer’s witness testified that when attention shifted from the BUO back to the existing classification system, Ministries were concerned about existing job descriptions that were 5 to 10 years old with respect to positions that had changed in the meantime and for which the more recently written BUO descriptions were (in their view) more accurate. There was a concern about how ministries would update the existing descriptions, particularly as training with respect to writing ob descriptions for the existing system had not been delivered widely during the years in which classification reform had been the parties’ focus.

26The employer’s witness testified that while a lot of grade descriptions in the existing classification standards have characteristic duties and qualifications and skills, a lot of newer class standards written between 1988 and the mid 1990s have factors as well. Additionally, classes established after CECBA reform for previously excluded “management” positions used a benchmark approach in which factors are identified. The modernization of the format for job descriptions was meant to take all this into account. Management believed that writing job descriptions in this new way would generally make it easier to apply the existing class standards, but ministries were told that where the older, more narrative approach was more appropriate to an evaluation against the existing standards they should continue to use it. A blanket expectation that a percentage of time spent would be assigned to each job duty was not continued because in many jobs a meaningful assignment was difficult to make and would not be significant in applying the relevant class standard. She noted that where such percentages would be significant in evaluating a job, that information should be included.

27As for the BUO descriptions, the employer’s witness testified to the effect that job facts gathered in the BUO process could be used in updating job descriptions under this system if they were accurate. Managers were not obliged to use the BUO descriptions, she said. Managers were cautioned that information in those descriptions, however accurate, might not be sufficient for a proper evaluation under the existing system. For example, it was not necessary under the BUO system to specify the number of persons supervised by position, but this information might be crucial to application of the group leader factor in OAG positions under the existing OAG classification system. She stated that Ministries have been cautioned not to simply print off the BUO description, that that description is not the official description under the existing system. She emphasized that a position described in the modernized format is still evaluated in accordance with the existing OAG or grade description standards.

Decision

28The union argues that Article 7 precludes the employer from changing anything that is part of the existing classification system. The employer does not dispute that by agreeing to defer the classification system overhaul it agreed to retain the existing classification system. The parties’ dispute is about what “classification system” embraces in this context so as to preclude its change. It certainly embraces the standards by which OPSEU bargaining unit jobs are evaluated in order to classify them. That is clearly the core of the classification system. At an opposite extreme, no one would sensibly suggest that Article 7 precludes the employer from changing the kind of the paper on which classification decisions are written, or the supplier of that paper, or the means by which the text of those decisions is imprinted on the paper. The parties surely did not intend to preclude the employer from changing things that are in some colloquial sense “part of the system” if the changes could have no effect on classification standards or outcomes.

29Further, although those who make classification decisions on the employer’s behalf are “part of the system” in a very real sense, the parties surely did not intend to freeze in place the particular individuals who were making classification decisions on the employer’s behalf when the collective agreement came into effect, so that only those individuals could make such decisions for the life of the agreement. Although the idiosyncrasies of the individuals making those decisions may have an effect on classification outcomes in practice, this would be despite the classification system rather than because of it. Changing the identity of the individuals who make classification decisions under the pre-existing classifications system does not amount to a failure to defer the BUO contrary to Article 7. In so far as that is essentially what the instructions in the “Guide” document do, the implementation of those instructions is not a breach of Article 7.

30The union argues that the process provided for in the “Guide” document undermines or violates the grievance process by introducing delays into it. The employer notes that the decision-making process described in the “Guide” takes place before a classification decision is made, whereas a grievance would necessarily be in respect of a classification decision already made, implying that the grievance process would thus be unaffected by the new internal decision making process.

31There is no evidence before me about how the JSSC process works in practice. Certainly, one would expect members of the JSSC on both sides to be concerned about the consistency of classification decisions, and that that concern might contribute to the length of their deliberations. It is not apparent that the employer has constrained its representatives on the JSSC to have any decision they might make on a grievance vetted through the process contemplated by “Guide To Job Evaluation Process.” Even if it has, the evidence does not establish that this will necessarily delay the process by comparison with whatever took place before the process contemplated by the “Guide” document was introduced. Finally, I note that the collective agreement provision for consideration of grievances at the JSSC does not specify time frames for its processing of grievances. In the absence of bad faith, of which there is no evidence here, I am not persuaded that any delay that is the consequence of bona fide efforts by either party to ensure consistency in classification outcomes would be, without more, a breach of that grievance resolution process or of the agreement to defer the BUO.

32I accept the employer’s argument that for purposes of assessing whether it has changed the classification system, formal job descriptions are properly thought of as inputs to the classification system rather than as an element of the system itself. Standardization of the form in which job descriptions are written for input into the system hopefully contributes to efficiencies in the creation and evaluation of the descriptions, but will not change the classification system itself unless it results in the descriptions’ being incomplete or inaccurate. It is not clear from the union’s evidence or argument how the changes of form complained of would affect classification outcomes. If the content of a job description is accurate and complete, the form in which it is presented should not affect the application or outcome of the existing classification system.

33Having regard to the “Writing Job Descriptions” document and the employer’s evidence and representations about it in this proceeding, the modernized job description format only makes and was only intended to make changes of form, not substance. Those who write the job descriptions must still include the information necessary to apply the existing classification system. It is that system, not the system contemplated by the BUO, that is to be applied to the job description. Nothing in the evidence suggests that there are any circumstances in which a job description written in accordance with the guidelines in “Writing Job Descriptions” would be different in substance from one written in the older format, or by design result in a different classification decision under the existing classification system. When all the explanatory material in that document is taken into account, nothing about the newer format is likely to cause misdescription of a job in some respect that would be material to the outcome of a classification decision.

34The union is concerned that the instructions in “Writing Job Descriptions” will encourage managers to take job descriptions prepared for the BUO and transcribe them willy-nilly onto the new form without regard to whether they are an accurate and complete basis for a classification decision under the existing classification system. Properly read, the instructions do not encourage that behaviour, they discourage it. If despite management’s instructions managers do what the union fears and feed inaccurate and incomplete job descriptions into the current classification system on the new forms, then that will be cause for complaint, just as it would be if they did that using the old forms.

35The union is also concerned that the change from the old “other duties as assigned” language to the new “managers have the right to assign additional duties” language has some substantive effect. In addition to the representation referred to in paragraph [23] above, the union has the benefit of the employer’s representations in this proceeding that none of the changes provided for in the “Writing Job Descriptions” document makes or is intended to make a substantive change to the classification system. The same logic applies to the new language as to the old: neither phrase could be relied upon to relieve the employer from the strictures of the classification and pay system contemplated by the collective agreement.

36I am satisfied that the implementation of the instructions in “Writing Job Descriptions” is not a change of the existing classification system or a breach of Article 7.

37My findings that the employer has not changed the classification system or breached its agreement to defer implementation of the BUO are logically sufficient to dispose of the grievance. From a labour relations perspective, however, I think it is important to deal with one other issue that arose in argument.

38One of the concerns expressed by the union as a reason for filing and pursuing this grievance was that the employer should be held to the bargain it made in Article 7 of the collective agreement. In the alternative to arguments that I have essentially accepted, the employer argued that if it did breach paragraph 1 of Article 7 or otherwise purport to change the existing classification system, the GSB would be without jurisdiction to remedy the breach because of paragraph 1 of section 52 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, S.O. 1993, c. 38, as amended (“CECBA”). The employer’s assertion that that statute permits it to unilaterally alter the classification system with total impunity is certain to have adversely affected the parties’ labour relations, and unnecessarily so if it is untrue. The issue was argued by way of supplementary written submissions. Having concluded that section 52 of CECBA does not have as broad a reach as the employer suggests, I think it is important to say so in this decision.

39Section 52 of CECBA must be read together with section 51:

Part V GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

51. An order of the Grievance Settlement Board shall not require the creation of a new classification of employees or the alteration of an existing classification.

(2) An order of the Grievance Settlement Board shall not require a change to be made in the classification of an employee.

PART VI MISCELLANEOUS

General

52. (1) A provision in an agreement entered into that provides for the determination by an arbitrator, a board of arbitration or another tribunal of any of the following matters is void:

53. A classification system of employees, including creating a new classification system or amending an existing classification system.

54. The classification of an employee, including changing an employee’s classification.

40The scheme of CECBA is that rights disputes — that is, disputes arising from the interpretation, application, or alleged violation of a collective agreement — are to be referred to the Grievance Settlement Board (“GSB”) for final and binding settlement by arbitration: CECBA, subsection 7(3). In the result, the GSB is the only tribunal to which such rights disputes may be referred. Matters relating to the GSB’s jurisdiction in such matters are addressed in Part V of the Act, where section 51 is found. Section 51 imposes limits on the remedies that the GSB may order if it finds that the employer has breached the provisions of the collective agreement. It does not otherwise preclude enforcement of collective agreement provisions concerning or involving classification matters.

41Section 3 of CECBA provides that the parties may agree in writing to voluntary interest arbitration — that is, referral to an arbitrator or board of arbitration of all matters remaining unsettled in collective bargaining for final and binding determination. Arbitration to settle the terms of a collective agreement (as opposed to arbitration to interpret or enforce the settled terms of a collective agreement) is the only sort of arbitration in which “an arbitrator, a board of arbitration or another tribunal” other than the GSB could be engaged. I therefore conclude that “determination” in section 52 refers to the sort of determination that an interest arbitrator or arbitration board makes when settling the terms of a collective agreement. Section 52 makes unenforceable any agreement to confer on “an arbitrator, a board of arbitration or another tribunal” the jurisdiction to settle issues that the parties have been unable to settle themselves in collective bargaining concerning “a classification system of employees, including creating a new classification system or amending an existing classification system.” It does not prohibit collective bargaining on those subjects, nor does it purport to make unenforceable any provision about which the parties come to agreement on those subjects in collective bargaining (other than a provision to refer the issues to interest arbitration).

42Accordingly, I agree with the union’s submission that neither section 51 nor section 52 of CECBA would preclude the GSB from making an order requiring that the employer comply with Article 7, if such a remedy were warranted. Enforcing the parties’ own agreement on a classification system does not amount to “determination … of … a classification system” in the sense intended by section 52 of CECBA. Subject to section 51, and to the provisions of the collective agreement itself, the GSB does have jurisdiction to enforce provisions that the parties have made in their collective agreement prescribing the classification system to be used in determining compensation for bargaining unit employees.

43Since I have concluded that the employer conduct complained of did not contravene the collective agreement, this grievance is dismissed.