Dare Foods Limited v. Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers International Union, Local 264, 1992 CanLII 4695

Before : Janis Sarra,Vice-Chair; Janet Slone Taylor and Melda Okoye, Members

Appearances: Brent LaBord, David Lippert for the Applicant; Bernard Hanson, Ron Piercey for the Respondent

Cite As: Dare Foods Limited (No.2) (1992), 3 P.E.R. 142

Comparisons - Collection of Job Information

Thestandardforcollectionofjobinformationis one of accuracy. The parties were directed toamendthe job fact sheets to record all job requirements of all the job classes.

Gender Neutral Evaluation

The Tribunal concluded that the evaluations failed to reflect and positively value the full range of content in the female job classes. Moreover, values which were recognized were not equally or consistently applied.

Negotiation - Good Faith

The Union disputed the findings of the Employer's evaluation system and proceeded to independently evaluate jobs using its own system. The Employer alleged that the Union's conduct amounted to a failure to bargain in good faith. The absence of any written agreement setting out the bargaining process or discussion about how differences between the parties were to be resolved was significant. Where there was no agreement as to how a bargaining impasse would be resolved there was no failure to negotiate in goodfaithasthepartieshadotherwisemettheirobligationstonegotiate. The Tribunal rejected the Union's allegation that committe members had been intimidated.

Comparaisons - Cueillette d'informations sur les emplois

La norme pour la cueillette de renseignements sur les emplois est l'exactitude. Les renseignements sur les emplois recueillis s'étaient avérés inexacts. Le Tribunal a donné instruction aux parties de modifier les fiches descriptives des emplois afin qu'elles indiquent toutes les exigences des emplois, avec exactitude, pour toutes les catégories d'emplois.

Évaluation non sexiste

Le Tribunala concluque lesévaluationsétaient sexistesetque lecomitén'avait pas communiqué lecontenu intégral des catégories d'emplois à prédominance féminine et ne l'avait pas évalué positivement. De surcroît, il n'avait pas appliqué également ou uniformément aux catégories d'emplois à prédominance féminine les valeurs qui avaient été reconnues.

Négociation - Bonne foi

Le syndicatcontestait lesconclusions dusystème d'évaluationdel'employeureta procédéà une évaluation indépendante des emplois à l'aide de son propre système. L'employeur a prétendu que la conduite du syndicat équivalait à un défaut de négocier de bonne foi. En rendant sa décision, le Tribunal a fait état de l'absence de tout accord par écrit établissant le processus de négociation ou de discussions sur la façon dont les parties résoudraient leurs différends. Bien que les parties aient été dams une impasse et qu'il n'y ait eu aucun accord sur la façon de sortir del'impasse,lasituationne constituait pas undéfaut de négocier de bonne foi si, par ailleurs, les parties se soumettaient àleurobligationdenégocier. Le Tribunal a rejeté l'allégation du syndical à l'effet que les membres du comité avaient été intimidés.

DECISION OF JANIS SARRA, VICE-CHAIR, AND MEMBER MELDA OKOYE, SEPTEMBER 28, 1992

1This is an Application by Dare Foods Limited (the "Employer") objecting to an order of a Review Officer dated August 1, 1990, containing the results of job comparisons for six job classes. The Officer found that the Packer and Dough Feeder were of equal or comparable value, the Packaging Machine Operator Band Janitorwereofequal or comparable value and that the Sample Roomand Receiverwere of equal or comparable value. The Officer ordered the parties to resume negotiations for an adjustment schedule and pay equity plan. The Respondent, the Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers International Union, Local 264 ("the Union") is the bargaining agent for approximately 470 workers at the Employer's Kitchener plant. The plant produces a variety of cookies, crackers and cereal products.

2At the outset, there were several preliminary issues. First, the Employer alleged that the Union had failed to negotiate in good faith when it would not accept the initial job evaluation results. The Employer submittedthatthe reviewofficer did not have jurisdiction to make the order,sinceinitsopinion, the Union should be bound to these results. Second, the Unionalleged that the pay equity committee members had been intimidated by the Employer. In a decision dated August 2, 1991, the Tribunal held that the review officer acted within her jurisdiction under section 16 of the Pay Equity Act (R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 7). In that decisionweinformedthe partiesthatwewould disposeofthe bargainingand intimidationallegations in our final decision; we will first briefly address these preliminary issues.

The Pay Equity Bargaining Process

The parties commenced pay equity negotiations in the fall of 1989 and agreed upon a joint committee process with equalmanagement and unionrepresentation. They agreed upon the definitions of employer, establishment, and male and female job classes. Although there was some dispute about agreement upon a gender neutral comparison system, both parties agreed at the hearing that the gender neutrality of the system chosen was not anissuebeforetheTribunal. Job information was collected by questionnaires and transferred to job fact sheetswhichwere agreed upon. Some training on job evaluation was given to the

committee members by the Employer's consultant. Nineteen job classes were evaluated over a three day period and assigned aninitialpoint value.Individualmembersratedeachjob and then discussion followed in an effort to reach concensus. After the initial evaluation, a first point rank order was drafted by the Employer. The Union then proposed an alternative comparison system but the parties were unable to agree. At that point negotiations broke down. The Union then proceeded to independently evaluate the jobswithits own consultant using the Employer's comparisonsystem. Although the Employer was invited to participate in this process, it did not. Bargaining had come to a standstill. Both the Employer and the Unionfiledapplications with Review Services. The Employer's allegation of bad faithwasbaseduponits submissionthatoncethe partieshadinitiallyevaluatedthe jobs usingitscomparisonsystem, the Union was not free to dispute the results. The Union submitted that at each pay equity negotiation meeting, it had continually reserved its right not to accept the comparison system and to seek outside consultation.

2 In Haldimand-Norfolk (No.6)(1991), 2 P.E.R. 105, the Tribunal set out some indicia for assessing whether parties have met their obligation to negotiate in good faith as required by section 14 of the Act. Applying these indicia to the facts in this case, we find that both parties met their obligations to negotiate. The Employer recognized and negotiated with the Union. Both parties ensured that they had bargaining authorityatthepay equity negotiation table. They met the obligation to disclose information necessary to foster full discussion, as well as the obligation to engage in full, open and informed discussion in order to meet their obligations under the Act. This included a willingness by both parties to discuss meeting the statutory requirements, to justify their positions at the negotiation table and to carefully consider and respond to objections, concerns and bargaining positions of the other party.

3Inthis case, we find the failure to negotiate in good faith is not established for several reasons. First, neither party set outinwritingwhatthe bargaining process was to be. There were no terms of reference, and more importantly, no discussion about how differences were to be resolved if the parties could not agree. There were no written agreements on any aspect of the plan. The evidence of the Employer's former Human Resources Director responsible for pay equity negotiations at the time, was that the Union had reserved its right not to accept the systembut hadagreedto tryitgiventhatthe Employerhad already purchased the system. When a dispute arose with respect to the evaluations, both parties applied to Review Services to resolve the issue of evaluation of the jobs. The Review Officer's order discloses that during this process, the parties continued to bargain and agreedto the majorityofjob comparison results. We conclude that the Union never agreed to be bound to the initial evaluations of the female job classes and the parties never contemplated how they would resolve such an impasse. Such a bargaining impasse cannot be construed as a failure to negotiate in good faith. The Act provides a dispute resolution mechanism for such situations, and the parties in this case both chose to utilize this mechanism.

With respect to the Union's allegation that one of the Company vice-presidents intimidated committee members during the evaluationprocess, wefind thatthe evidencefalls farshortofestablishing intimidation. The vice-president and the Union negotiator had a long history of rigorous debate during negotiations for collective agreements. Pay equity negotiations followed this pattern. As a Tribunal, we recognize the need to be sensitive to issues of gender and the dynamics of an evaluation committee. In Haldimand-Norfolk (No. 6) the Tribunal took note of studies on the powerful nature of small group dynamics in evaluation committees, where women's opinions werenottakenseriously and decisions disproportionately reflected

men'sconsensus. The Tribunal will be sensitive to whether parties,iftheychoosetouseajointcommittee process, work to eliminate bias not only in the actual setting of values but in how the committee functions in treatment of its women members. Suchisnot the case here. The Union did not call any of the women onthecommitteeto testify nor did it offeranexplanationfornotdoingso. We find, therefore, no evidence that the Employer interfered with the participation of the women members on the joint committee.

4The parties were responsible for negotiating and posting a pay equity plan for this establishment by January1,1990. When they did not reach agreement and were unable to meet the statutory deadline, they notified the Commission. The Review Officer took jurisdiction under section 16 of theAct whichspecifies:

16(1) If the Commission,

(a) is advised by an employer or a bargaining agent that no agreement has been reached on a pay equity plan under section 14; or

(b) receives a notice of objection under subsection 15(7), a review officer shall investigate the matter and endeavour to effect a settlement.

(2) If the review officer is unable to effect a settlement as provided for in subsection(1), he or she shall, by order, decide all outstanding matters.

The Review Officer investigated and was able to settle a number of issues between the parties including comparisons between all the job classes except the six in dispute. The parties also agreed to a five point rolling band for the purposes of determining comparable worth. Under subsection 24(1) the Officerissuedanorderonthe job classes still in dispute and remained seized under section 16 to monitor and decide any outstanding issues. In our view, the parties followed the statutory framework precisely. The Review Officer was within her jurisdiction to order the comparisons, and the parties were entitled, as the Employer did in this case, to request a hearing before the Tribunal on the Review Officer's Order.

COMPARISON OF THE JOB CLASSES

1 In Haldimand-Norfolk (No. 6) the Tribunal held that there are four component parts of a gender neutral comparison system required to be described for purposes of the Act, specifically: the accurate collectionofjobinformation; deciding the mechanism or tool to determine how value willattachto the job information; applying the mechanism to determine the value of the work performed; and making the comparisons. Gender bias can enter at different points in the process. Whatever system is used, it must analyse and rectify systemic patterns of wage discrimination.

2 In this case, the parties agreed that the selection, definition and weighting of the factors had been negotiated and agreed to, bearing in mind the requirements of the Act. The parties agreed that there is no issuebeforethepanelwithrespectto the genderneutralityofthe evaluationmanualwhichisessentiallywhat thecomparisonsystemiscomprisedof. Rather, the parties could not agree upon how to apply the system in a gender neutral manner to determine the value of the work. The parties asked the Tribunal to put itself in the "shoes of the evaluation committee" to determine the value of the work performed and to compare the job classes in question as required by subsection 6(1) of the Act.

3 This is the first case in which the Tribunal has been asked to place itself in the role of the pay equity committeeandevaluatejobsusing an already agreeduponcomparisonsystem. We have agreed to do so, althoughthiswillnotalwaysbetheTribunal's approach. AstheTribunalheldin Haldimand Norfolk (No. 6),wefindthatthevaluewhichattachestothe work is the joint decision of theparties. The Tribunal's role inthis respect is to ensure that the processand content requiredbythe Act arefollowed;and onlyincases where parties have bargained to an impasse on specific value issues will we intervene to decide the most appropriate determination of value. In this case, in evaluating the jobs, we are deciding only whether the collectionofjobinformationwasaccurateand complete;thenapplyingthe agreeduponjobevaluationtool to the job classes in dispute; and finally, making the comparisons.

4 This workplace is highly segregatedbasedupongender,and the job classes are almost exclusively male or exclusively female. It is helpful to briefly describe the work of the six job classes. There are two ReceiversintheReceiverjobclasswhorotatebetweentherawmaterialsandpackagingwarehouses. The job of the Receiver is to receive raw materials and dry stock for the plant. This involves dealing with deliverydriversfromalmost one hundred different companies. The Receiver matches purchaseordersto bills of lading in terms of type of product and quantity, and verifies that there is no obvious damage to incoming materials. He assists drivers in hooking up hoses for delivery of liquid raw materials, and occasionally loads materials onto skids. He is responsible for both a perpetual and a quarterly inventory. There are also standard practices he must comply with for rotating stock so that it does not become stale dated. The Receiver operates a tow motor to stack skids, and performs the book keeping to record incoming goods and inventory.

5The job of the Dough Feeder is to control a 1.5 ton tub by a switch controlled hoist, to fix it to a hopper, and then to adjust the flow of the dough into the machine which cuts the cookies. There are two types of machines involved, thewirecutandtherotarymotor. The wire cut process involves dough being fedintothe hopper,beingpushedthrougheighteen extrusion nozzles and thencut bywireintocookiesand dropped onto a continuous baking sheet which is called the oven band. The job of the Dough Feeder is to ensure an even flow of the dough into the hopper,to visuallymonitorforinconsistencyin dough texture or colour and to monitor weight of the cookies, making appropriate adjustments to the flow of dough by the tilt of the tub and manual control of the gate. The Dough Feeder also monitors specified weights and dough consistency on the rotary machine. In this process the dough is automatically fed into the machine where the dough on a first roller is pressed into the pockets of a second roller. The Dough Feeder picks off defective product, and is responsible for some cleaning of the equipment. There are five employees in the Dough Feeder job class.

There are approximately 30 employees in the Janitor job class. They each perform a set of job tasks to which they are assigned. For example, a Janitor who works in the steam room must take the disassembled machinery parts, cleanthemwithhighpressurehotwatersprayand usechemicals to sanitize them. The Janitors who clean the Creamer, must dismantle the machine die, clean and sanitize the work areaandequipmentthoroughlyandthenreassemblethemachine. There are five or six sets oftaskswhich are the work requirements of the Janitor job class. If a vacancy occurs, a Janitor can informally apply to move to a different set of job tasks, much as in applying for a posted vacancy. There is also a list of "specials"whichare123taskswhicharedoneinfrequentlybutonanongoingbasis. These include washing

walls, overhead pipes, ceilings and cleaning out CVS tanks. Two to five Janitors are assigned to the "specials".

6The Sample Room job has three major sets of tasks. One worker undertakes all the tasks, but is assisted part time by another employee. First, the job is responsible for the preparation and shipping of sample trays which include promotional brochures, materials and sample products. She takes requests from a variety of sources, orders the product from the plant or Employer's other plants and arranges transportation on deadline to the sales representative or requesting institution. The job also involves giving advice to the marketing departments on design of sample trays in the launching of new products. Second, the Sample Room job is required to co-ordinate all uniform collecting, cleaning and dispensing to employees. Employees are entitled to uniform changes twice a week in the winter, and three times a week in the summer. The Sample Room worker must deal with five laundrycompaniescleaningdifferenttypes of uniforms. She also dispenses gloves, mandatory hair nets and other safety equipment. Finally, the Sample Room is responsible for employee sales each week. This requires ordering and setting up sales productfrom this plant and the Employer's other plants,and thensellingthe productthrougha "storefront" type operation to employees and former employees. The Sample Room takes in the cash from sales, balancesthe salesintakeand productout,and forwardsthe moneyand inventorycontrolto the accounting department.

7The Packer job class undertake a series of tasks, and are rotated among the functions every few hours. One set of tasks called tinning, involves the removal of approximately 30 cookies with each hand movement,placingthemina "tin"forfuturepackagingor forcombiningwith other cookies for mixedbags. The Packer works continously to pack a number of rows and layers to fill the tin and then lifts one these 7 kilogram tins every2-4minutes onto a skid or conveyor belt. Another set of tasks involves working in pairs: the first packer places cookie bags over a mandrel, then places a plastic strip with perforated lines into the mandrel, forming three rows, and then tin tying the bag and placing it on a conveyor. A second packer removes 6 to 8 cookies eachhandstroke,placingthemintocookiebagsatacontinuousrate. The Packer also simultaneously visually inspects for cookies which are discoloured, burnt or misformed and verifies that the filled bag conforms to the specified weight on the bag. The Packers who package the chocolate mallow cookies perform a different kind of visual monitoring, manual pick up and packaging function, and must wear gloves to ensure no finger prints on the cookies. There are approximately 200 packers, who on average package 20 tons of cookies and crackers each shift.

8The Packaging Machine Operator B is responsible for the set up, operation, maintenance and some cleaning of the following machines. First, the TriangleMachinewhichcreates100 cello wrapped bags of product a minute. The product as it comes out of the oven is carried by a series of moving belts to syntrons, a device which shakes the product down to a scale on the Triangle. The scales deposit the product into buckets which drop the weighted product down a tube into bags. The filled bags are sealed at top and cut off, dropping down a shute onto a belt and carried to a boxing machine called a Langen. The Packaging Machine Operator places boxes manually into the Langen at a rate of 100 boxes per minute. The Langen forms and fills the boxes with the wrapped product which then is sent through the machine to be automatically code dated with an expiry date and sealed at both ends with glue guns. The box passes over an electronic scale to confirm it is the weight specified on the box. The product then

moves into an automatic case packing machine called an Edson which forms and seals the cartons. The Rovema is another packaging machine performing functions similar to the Triangle, however it is not computer programmed and runs at a slower rate. The Packaging Machine Operator is responsible for the smooth operation and correction of mechanical problems with all of these machines, as well as ensuring wax paper, cello, glue pots and boxes are continually supplied to the equipment. There are four Packaging Machine Operators who rotate regularly through all the job tasks.

ACCURATE COLLECTION OF JOB INFORMATION

1 The parties in this case agreed upon the tool for collection of job information and in a joint committee process agreed upon job fact sheets. Both parties however, during the hearing, led a substantial amount of first hand evidence on each of the jobs, through witnesses who are or have performed the work, as well asmanagerialandsupervisorystaff. The Tribunal also received submissions on what period of time should be assessed for collection of job information. In this case, nothing turns upon this question as the work requirements have beenrelativelystable,andthuswehaveassessed the work as at the posting date. The Tribunal also went to Kitchener to take a view of the work being performed at the plant.

2 The Tribunal held in Haldimand-Norfolk (No. 6) that the standard for collectionofjob information is one of accuracy. Given that most women and men perform different jobs with different skills and job content characteristics, a key requirement of the Act is to make visible those job characteristics using the statutorycriteria,thatwerepreviouslynotvisible and thus notvalued.The job requirements of both female and male job classes must be made visible before they can be evaluated in a gender neutral manner. Accurate and consistent job information is essential. In this case, we found that the job information collected was notaccurateforanyofthejobs in dispute, although to varying degrees. Rather than assess the ability of the tool in this case to accurately collect the job information, we have instead decided what information was missing based upontheevidenceledathearing. Incumbents are the people most familiar with the skills and requirements of their work, including both the detail and complexity required. We find anyproblems inthe datacollection process have been cured inthis case bythe extensive oralevidenceled by both parties.

3 The Employer urged us to adopt the job fact sheets as agreed to and then add information led in evidence. The Union disagreed, submitting that where the oral evidence conflicts, the Tribunal should decide whether an element of a job is required. We have decided to adopt the Employer's proposal although the evidence of the witnesses in some instances conflicted. On balance, we accept the joint committee agreement as consensus on whether a function is performed. We do note however, that the issue of whether the Dough Feeder actually adjuststhe ovenbandswasthe most controversial part of the oral evidence. Although we adopt the job fact sheet description, we suggest that the parties monitor this particularfunctionduringthe next six months, and ifinfactthe DoughFeederisnotrequiredto do this,that the parties reduce the evaluation accorded this job appropriately. We also suggest that the parties meet to consider whether the single Janitor who ignites the ovens and measures pig feed belongs to the Janitor job class at all or whether it should be evaluated separately.

4 We find that theevidencefrombothpartiesestablishesthatthe job information was not adequately collected; a number of requirements were missed entirely or inadequately collected and recorded. As a Tribunal, weare requiredto apply a standard ofaccuracyto the collectionofjobinformation[Haldimand Norfolk(No. 6), supra, at para.24] and we therefore direct the parties to amend the fact sheets with the additional information contained in Appendix A which forms part of this decision. Based upon the oral evidencethe Tribunalreceivedfrommembersofthe committee,weconcludedthatthe committeewasable to adequately assess the work ofthe male job classesdespitethe inaccuratejob fact sheets, because they knew the male jobs from first hand knowledge and applied that information in their valuing of the jobs. However, in order to ensure consistency now and inthe futuremaintenanceofpayequity, wefind that the job fact sheets must be amended to record accurately all job requirements of all the job classes.

EVALUATION OF THE JOBS

1 Based upon the accurate job information, the Tribunal then proceeded to evaluate the job classes in dispute. Gender neutrality must be assessed in the implementation of a comparison system, not in just its design. The Act's purpose is to redress the systemic discrimination built into existing compensation practices. If theskill,effort,responsibilityandworkingconditionsarerequired in the normal performance of the work, they must be of value to the organization whether or not those requirements have been consciously recognized or previously valued by the Employer. They must be valued in order to meet the requirements of the Pay Equity Act. We approach this case with that essential requirement in mind.

2 We make a preliminary comment about the comparison system. The parties agreed upon the evaluation manual of the comparison system which sets out the sub-factors and establishes weighting of those sub-factors. Given the parties' submissions that they met the requirements of the Act, the Tribunal did not intervene to assess the gender neutrality of the system's design. Our decision was based in large measureuponthe fact that the job classes indisputewerejobs inthe productionpartofthe plant only, and that the design of the comparison system equally advantages or disadvantages the male and female job classesinthisparticularcase. As requested by the parties, the Tribunal applied the agreed upon evaluation manual in a gender neutral manner to the job classes in dispute.

3 Section 5 of the Act requires parties to determine the value ofwork by applying four criteria: skill, effort and responsibility normallyrequiredinthe performanceof the work and the conditions under which it is normally performed. Parties are entitled to divide these criteria into sub-factors. As long as the informationcollectedisconsistent and accurate and the valuation of workrequirementsundersub-factors is free of gender bias, parties can fashion the comparison system to reflect the value of work to their particular organization. What the Act requires however, is that parties examine their decisions at each step of the process to ensure that they are eliminating systemic discrimination and bias in decision making wherever possible.

In Haldimand-Norfolk (No. 6), the Tribunalsetsome initialcriteria to assistinassessingthe gender neutrality ofa system when it is applied to determine value. Although, we are not assessing the design of the comparison system in this case, it is essential for us to bear in mind the same considerations as we proceed to apply the evaluation tool. Specifically we asked ourselves:

Isthevaluing tool ofthecomparisonsystemappliedconsistentlywithoutregardto the gender of the job class?

Is the decision making process accomplished in a manner free of gender bias?

Did the mechanism identify systemic wage discrimination? [Haldimand Norfolk (No. 6), supra, at para. 84]

4 In this case, the Tribunal identified two major inadequacies in how the parties applied the comparison system. Although the committee was representative of the interests of the parties, as well as job classes in the establishment, we are not persuaded that the committee was sufficiently knowledgeable in gender bias-freeevaluationtomeettheirobligations. Both parties failed tocallevidenceonthetypeoftrainingthe committee received and whether it addressed gender bias-free valuation. The Tribunal did hear the evidenceof several committeememberswithrespecttohowtheyvaluedthejobs. From this evidence, we have drawnaninferenceand concludedthatthetraining,whateverformittook,wasnoteffective increating an awareness of gender related issues in the evaluating of jobs. Parties must be alert to the fact that traditional attitudes and stereotyped notions of the value of women's work, can continue to operate in a committeesituationregardlessofrepresentation. Where there is a job evaluation committee, it is essential that there be adequate training in bias-free evaluation, and that members develop a conscious awareness of the biases people bring to the process ofvaluing. Value judgements made by a committee untrained in identifying systemic gender bias, may preserve existing wage inequities through the undervaluation of the female job classes.

5 There were several indications that the committee's initial evaluations were gender biased. In part, we believe this is due to the fact that the men on the committee had a greater familiarity with the work of the male job classes and thus gave it more weight. As the oral evidence indicated, they had performed many of the male jobs. Such problems in gender bias and inconsistent evaluation could have likely been corrected with more extensive training on gender-bias free evaluation. The Committee failed to reflect and positivelyvalue the full range of content inthe female job classes.Asaresult,the evaluationdid notidentify or rectify the systemic discrimination in recording and valuing women's work.

6 There are aspects of work for which the committee and the Employer have givenvalue to the male job classes, and yet have not applied the same measure of value to the female job classes. Thus, values which were recognized, are not equally or consistently applied. In this workplace, particular value is accorded to high standards of product, to effective sales and marketing, and to good consumer relations. An example of these values, is the valuing of contacts internal and external to the organization. The committee has valued the need for tactindealingwithtruckdrivers in the Receiver's job, as important for the goodwill of the company and the efficient unloading of raw materials. Similar value was not applied to the Sample Roomjob whichhasextensive contact with five laundry companies, as well as the Employer's other plants, a network of sales representatives in Canada and the United States, contacts with the three marketing and sales departments in the Kitchener plant and dealing with all employees on both uniform exchanges,cookieandcandysales,andcomplaintsarisingfromthem. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has taken the values accorded to the male job classes and applied them consistently to the work requirements of the female job classes.

7 Second, there are work requirements of the female job classes which differ from the male job classes and which are characteristically part of women's work. They are clearly part of the job requirements and yet have beenaccorded little or no value by the Employer or the joint committee. A good example of this is the physical and mental demands of repetitive motion work. The male job classes in this case do not have this particular requirement. By contrast, both the Packer and Packaging Machine Operator B are required to undertake fairly demanding and precise repetitive motions. This required skill or effort has not been adequately valued.

8 In our view, these problems highlight preciselywhatpayequitywas designed to address. The Act requirespartiesto makevisible the work ofbothwomenand menbycollectingitaccurately, and evaluating it without gender bias. Parties are obliged not only to apply values historically given to male work and applied unequally to women's work, but they are also required to identify those aspects of women's work whichare requiredbythe Employerand thus are ofvalue to the organization, but have notbeenpreviously assigned any value by the Employer.

9Our task was to identify and rectify these problems as we proceeded to value the jobs. Since we aresatisfiedthatthe joint committeeconsciouslyrecognizedand valuedthe work ofthe male jobs, wehave for the purposes of this decision accepted all of the Committee's point values for the male job classes of Receiver, Dough Feeder and Janitor (included in Appendix B). In our view, they more accurately reflect the value of the skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions of these jobs to this particular organization than the inflated or deflated submissions of the parties.

10We have proceeded therefore, to examine and value the female job classes in two ways. First, we applied the values recognized in the male jobs to ensure these values are being equally recognized and applied consistently to the female job classes. Secondly, we examined the work requirements to ensure that all work requirements were being valued, not just those present in the male jobs. As both parties urged, we decided grade levels upon a "best fit" criteria, given the requirements of the Act.

11Appendix A directs parties to amend the existing fact sheets to ensure accuracy and completeness. It is this information which forms the basis of our valuations. Wedonotfinditnecessarytorepeatthejob informationhere,ratherwewillfocus uponthoseconsiderationswhichassistedinourevaluationofthe jobs. We will deal with each of the four statutory criterion in turn.

SKILL

1 The parties agreed that skill would be measured by three sub-factors, complexity/judgement, education and experience. The complexity/judgement sub-factor focuses upon decision making required in the job, both the knowledge and experience to make decisions and the difficulty of material or information upon which decisions are based. Education refers to the formalized training necessary to prepareanindividualtosatisfactorilyfillaposition. It is closely associated with experience, which measures the length of time required to learn the job's essential techniques and skills. Since these sub-factors were agreed by the parties to measure all skills, the skill requirements of these job classes must be collected in one of these.

2 With respect to the male job classes of Receiver, Janitor and Dough Feeder, the committee accorded value to decision making for work which is generally standardized, but where there is some choice of action within defined procedure or accepted practice. The jobs were also given value for decisions on quality and accuracy. In particular, the Janitor's work was valued because of judgement on cleanliness, sanitization, and length of time to clean, and because of skills required to dismantle and reassemble equipment for cleaning. The Dough Feeder was valued for skill and judgement to adjust flow of the dough to come within a specified range of cookie weight. Skill was also measured by the visual attention and monitoring of the dough tubs and oven band, as well as in weighing samples every 10 to 15 minutes. The Receiver was valued a half grade higher because the work is more diversified; decisions are madeto acceptincomingrawmaterials,settingout required raw materials as per the productionschedule, as well as basic book-keeping and inventory skills.

3 In reviewing the Sample Room job, the Tribunal found that these same skills are not valued. The work is much more diversified than the Receiver in the variety of skills involved. The required bookkeeping and inventory skills are more varied and complex than that of Receiver and include order forms, shipping invoices, cashier sheets, master control sheets, cash balancing, accounting orders, and delivery ofsamplesandgoods. The Sample Room employee must ensure sales promotions deadlines are met. She makes decisions on exceptions to accepted standards or practices and must organize her time to meet the competingdemandsofthevariousfunctions. Like the Receiver, the Sample Room job must have excellent product knowledge. Although the Receiver has skills with respect to inventory control and rotation, they are prescribed and carefully monitored by the Purchasing Department. If the same values are applied consistently to the Sample Room, the inventory and stock control is much more diversified in terms of required decision making. The Sample Room must anticipate orders from both marketing and sales, so that products from other plants are ordered and available. In some cases, the Sample Room is given explicit instructions as to amount and type of action. The product directions and operational marketing plans in evidence indicate that the worker must read, interpret and apply action plans for sales campaigns. In other cases such as organization, set up and management ofemployeesalesor sample product format, the decision and judgement skills are undertaken by the employee herself who works towards assigned objectives. In our view, the system failed to value the problem solving skills and did not recognize the multiplicity and variety of skills. Accordingly, we find grade 2.5 is appropriate for complexity and judgement of the Sample Room. We are also satisfied the job requires at least equal education and experience skills as the Receiver, and accordingly amend experience to a grade 1.

4 With respect to the job ofPacker,wefindthatmanualdexterityandfinemotormovementskills are completely overlooked by this comparisonsystem. It is not collected by any of the three sub-factors and yet is very much a partoftheskillrequirementof the Packer job. The Packer must have skills to spread, inspect and pick up cookies in a very rapid hand/eye movement without damaging the cookies or falling behindthespeedoftheconveyorbelt. Value must be accorded not only for the speed but also frequency of judgement skills used. As a result, we have added a component to the complexity/judgement sub-factor, at grade 2, in recognition that the organization requires these skills, and must value them accordingly. Similarly, the comparison system fails to capture both the manual dexterity and the skills of operating and maintainingthe packagingmachineswhichformpartoftherquirementsofthe PackagingMachine Operator job. As the Tribunal noted in Haldimand-Norfolk (No. 6), we will determine whether a comparison

system will capture the value of work in female job classes, and that frequently overlooked skills of women's work include: fine motor skills like rapid finger dexterity, and operation and maintaining different typesofmanufacturingequipmentincludingfixingmechanicalproblems. As a result, we rate the Packaging Machine Operatorundercomplexity/judgementatgrade2, accordingvalue to boththe speed and diversity ofjudgementandmechanicalskillsrequired. We also have assessed each of the other jobs to ensure that they were accorded value if these skills are required.

Effort

The effort criterion in this comparison system is measured by the sub-factors of initiative and physical/mental demand. Initiativecollectsthedegreeofindependentactionrequired and is limited by the amount of direction received from supervisory personnel or standard practices. In our view, only the Sample Room job was undervalued by the committee in assessing the intitiative required. The effort required for the Sample Room fits precisely the description of grade 3 of the comparison system; specifically, the Sample Room only works under very occasionalsupervision. She proceeds on her own when the majority of duties are defined by general instructions and established methods. Only unusual problems are referred to a supervisor. Unlike all other job classes in dispute, the supervisor for the Sample Roomisnotevenon the same shift asthe employee;anotherindicatorofthe amount ofindependent action required for the job. The Sample Room job requires initiative in forecasting types and quantities of employee sales, in design and organization of sample trays and in ensuring the various deadlines for types ofactivityaremet. When she receives a request and the information is not adequate, she decides if contact and follow up are necessary. Similarly, if requests cannot be accommodated, she will initiate contact and suggest alternative solutions to deadlines or product requests. The Pay Equity Office guidelines for implementingpayequityinthe workplace, note that one frequentlyoverlookedaspect ofeffortinwomen's work, isthe effortinvolvedinprovidingserviceto severalpeople or departments and working under many simultaneous deadlines [Pay Equity Commission, Implementing Pay Equityin the Workplace]. This is precisely the effort required of the Sample Room job and it must be valued.

The physical/mental demand sub-factor is to record and value the intensity, severity, and frequency of physical effort and mental concentration required. The system values all the job classes very conservatively, not according much value to the amount of physical and visual effort required. However, ifweare to accept that the value accorded to the male job classes by the committee illustrates agreement ofthe partiesas tothe value of physicaland mentalefforttothis organization, our role isto ensurethis value is applied consistently, without gender bias. In our view, even adopting the values accorded to effort of the male job classes, we find that the committee failed to adequately value the female job classes. In particular,thereweretwo aspects of"effort"whichhavebeenhistoricallyoverlookedinwomen'sworkand which the parties failed to value here; concentration for prolonged periods and the effort required to perform multiple tasks simultaneously which require extensive hand-eye co-ordination. The Packaging Machine Operatorforexample,requiresaveryhighdegreeofvisualconcentration, combinedwithclimbing andliftingtoquicklycorrectjamupsandmechanicalproblems. Not only was concentration not recognized and valued by the committee, but the high degree of visual alertness and continuous monitoring combined withthe physicaldemandsofconstantmoving,liftingand otherphysicaleffortcombine to put the Packaging MachineOperatorata grade 2.5. With respecttotheSampleRoom,inourviewthejobdoesnotrequire a very high degree ofvisual attention, but it does require non stop movement; product is constantly being lifted, moved, sorted. For example, on employee sales days the Sample Room worker can lift 150 to 500 cases of product. Unlike the Dough Feeder or Receiver, this physical effort is almost exlusively manual. This requirement has not been valued. In our view, the Sample Room should be rated equal to the Receiver in terms of physical/mental demand, at a grade 2.

Responsibility

1 The parties agreed that responsibility would be measured by four sub-factors; result of errors, contacts, and supervision, scope and character. The parties agreed that none of the six job classes in dispute exercised any scope or character of supervision and all rate zero.

2 With respect to results of error, we find that the Packaging Machine Operator and Sample Room were undervalued by the committee. We find that there is nothing to distinguish the Packaging Machine Operator from Packer, Dough Feeder or Receiver, all ofwhichwere accorded value based upon risk of lost production and profit due to error, as well as possible negative consumer impact if cookies falling below standards are not caught. With respect to the Packaging Machine Operator, there is exactly the same risk of error plus the additional risk of economic loss from damage to the machines if mechanical errors are not corrected swiftly. Applied consistently, we accord the same value of grade 1.5 to the Packaging Machine Operator for results of error.

3 The Sample Room illustrates an example of a different kind of responsibility which parties did not valueat all, and which does not exist in the male job classes in dispute. The Sample Roomwasgiventhe lowest grade for results of errors, yet the sub-factor by its definition is to measure the likelihood and probable effect of errors on the job. In sample preparation, particularly prototype products, the Sample Room is responsible for ensuring that the correct product, meeting consumer standards, is shipped to marketing or to the sales representatives. This means ensuring a multiple set of deadlines for sales meetings andcompanypromotionsaremet,usingavarietyoftransportation means. Result of errors can mean loss ofcompanysales,frombothnewandexistingclients. As with the rest of the jobs, allowing below standard product out the door also has a consumer impact. In addition, the Sample Room job is responsible for the intakeand cashbalancing of up to $3,200 each week in employee sales, as well as ensuringproductsout to other plants and sales promotions are credited to the appropriate cost centre. Thus we would accord the Sample Room job grade 1.5 instead of grade 1.

4 In contacts, the committee failed to consistently apply value between the female and male job classes. The Receiver, for example, was given value for contacts with the 100 truck drivers who deliver raw materials, as well value for infrequent contact with the employeeswho come infour Saturdays a year to do quarterly inventory. The Employer and the joint committee recognized the need for tact and courtesy inensuringworkwasaccomplished. They recognized the value of front line contact with the driverseven though problems aredealtwithbytheReceiver'sSupervisor. This same value to the organization was not applied consistently to the Sample room. First, the Sample Room job requires dealing with and problem solving with five laundry companies for uniforms essentialto sanitation production requirements. The job also requires the Sample Room to deal with almost 500 employees for receipt of uniforms 2-3 times per

week, as well as gloves, hair nets and other safety equipment, and includes handling uniform complaints. In undertaking employee sales,the Sample RoomWorker alsocomesintocontactwithall employees and former employees, using the tact and courtesy required of sales persons in a retail store. Finally, her contacts with the marketing departments of Dare, with the various transportation services and all the sale agents,are contacts that require co-operationinmeeting deadlines,bothinsideand outsidethe organization. The contactsare varied,requiringdifferent kinds of responsibility, tactand diplomacyinterms ofextensive internalcontactsandthesmoothoperationofexternalservices. In our view, the committee failed to accord value to both the diversity and complexity of required contacts; we accord the Sample Room job a grade

Working Conditions

Whereas the committee accordedrelativelyhighvalueinworkingconditionstoall of the male jobs, theydidnotconsistently apply these same values to the female job classes. For example, for the male job classes, value was given to: constant standing, cramped spaces, dirt, heat, dust, temperature differences andfumes;inotherwords,physicallydisagreeableconditions. In rating Sample Roomatthelowestgrade "pleasant surroundings", the committee failed to recognize the cramped working quartersinwhichthe job must function. We accord the job grade 1.5. With respect to the Packaging Machine Operator, the Committee did not accord value to the excessive noise, cramped working space, the constant standing, the requirement ofcleaningout movingequipment,and slipperyfloorsfrom the large amount ofproductonthe floors. These working conditions make the Packaging Machine Operator at least equal to the Receiver's working conditions at grade 2.5.

Making the Comparisons

The Tribunal has compiled the point values for each of the job classes and appended them in Appendix B which forms part of this decision. Applyingboththeweightingand the banding agreed to by the parties,wefind thatthe Packerjob class is equal to the DoughFeederjob class,with85 and 80 points respectively. Although the Janitor job class also had 85 points, we note that it is paid on exactly the same payscaleasthe Dough Feeder. We find thatthePackagingMachineOperatorBisvaluedhigherthanthe Janitor at 92.5 points. However, the Janitor is the next lowest in value and there are no male job classes ina5pointrollingband,whichcanbe compared. Wethereforeapplysubsection6(3)(b)ofthe Act which requires that the Packaging Machine Operator be compared with the highest job rate of the next lower value male job class. We find therefore, the Packaging Machine Operator B and Janitor job classes to be of equal or comparable value. Finally, we find that the Sample Room is worth 120 points. The amount originallyagreeduponbythe committeeforReceiver was107.5, however,atReviewServices,the parties amendedthevalueoftheReceiverjobclassto115 points. Although we do not knowtheprecisereasons forthischangeinpoints,weacceptthepartiesagreement. Applying theagreeduponbanding,wefindthat the two job classes of Sample Room and Receiver are of equal value.

Remedy

1 The Tribunal upholds the Review Officer's Order of August 1, 1990 that the Packer and Dough Feeder job classes are of equal or comparable value; the Packaging Machine Operator B and Janitor job classesare ofequalor comparable value;and the Sample Room and Receiver job classes are of equal or comparable value.

2 We order the job fact sheets for allsixjobclassestobeamendedascontainedinAppendixAwhich forms part of the decision.

3 We order the parties to negotiate, within 30 days of this decision, a pay equity adjustment schedule as of the statutory payment date of January 1, 1991 and to post a pay equity plan within 45 days of this decision.

4 We remain seized to set the adjustment schedule and order the plan, should these parties be unable to agree.

DECISION OF MEMBER JANET SLONE TAYLOR, SEPTEMBER 28, 1992

1 In this case, the Tribunal was asked to determine if three female job classes were equal or comparable invalue to three male job classes in The Bakery, Confectionery&TobaccoWorkers InternationalUnion, Local 264 bargaining unit within the establishment of Dare Foods Limited. I agree with the majority's decisionthatthefemalejobclassesareofcomparablevaluetothe respective male job classes. I disagree with their approach in coming to this decision.

2 Thedecisionmakestwoseriouserrorsinreachingitsconclusions. First, it exceeds our mandate. The majorityfindsthatthe partieshadagreedto the genderneutraljobcomparisonsystemandtothesuccessive steps in the process up to the point that no agreement could be reached on the six jobs in question. The majority then makes anumberofdeterminations concerninggender neutrality and bias with respect to the process and the system used by the parties. Gender neutrality was not the issue before us. The parties asked the Tribunalto dealwithone issue onlyin respectofthe evaluations:Arethe threefemale jobclasses of equal or comparable value to the male job classes?

3 Second, the decision ignores the Tribunal's own jurisprudence. The Tribunal has previously found thatpartiesareboundtotheagreementstheyhavemade. In Gloucester (No. 1) (1991), 2 P.E.R. 52, the majorityrejected the applicant'sargument thatitwasnot bound by its agreement because the process was flawed, and concluded that the parties were bound by what they had agreed to in the successive steps undertaken to achieve pay equity as required by the Act.

Despite our mandate and our jurisprudence, this decision concludes that the committee responsible for the pay equity process was not knowlegeable about the issue of gender bias-free job evaluation (paragraph 26). Since neither party led evidence on this matter, no such conclusion can be drawn. No

useful purpose is served by looking into or commenting on the process followed in this case, even if the Tribunal had had the facts before it to do so.

4 The fundamental errors in approach are continued in the determination concerning the evaluation of the female job classes. At paragraph 27, the decision notes that "There were several indications that the committee's initial evaluations were gender-biased." Since the Tribunal heard no evidence on this issue, this determination can only be based on subjective feelings about what occured in the evaluation process and concerning the skills of the evaluators.

5 Neither is it universally true that the committee overlooked the range of content in the female job classes, as the decision finds at paragraph 29. For instance, the committee gave a rating of 3.0 to the Packerjobclassin the sub-factor, physical and mental demands. This was the highestratinginthisfactor for any of the six jobs in question. Only one other job class of 19 evaluated by the committee received a rating this high, indicating that the committee was indeed aware of and gave value to at least some aspect of the physical effort required by the Packer job class.

6 In numerous other instances, the committee rated the female jobs as equal to the male jobs in various sub-factors. There was no consistent demonstration of the committee's failure to give "the same measure of value to the female job classes" as the male job classes, as stated in paragraph 28. I agree that the committeeappeared morefamiliarwiththe content ofthe male job classes, the Tribunal, howeverissimply unable to make any determination on this issue without any evidence.

7 I agree that the job fact sheets for all of these jobs appear incomplete, based on the evidence led by both parties. Nevertheless,theywereagreed to by the committee. The Tribunal should not interfere in a binding agreement. The Pay Equity Act does not require complete reliance on job fact sheets in the evaluation of jobs; the evaluation process may well be improved by group knowledge of the jobs, and deficiencies in job fact sheets may be at least partially cured in this manner, provided the knowledge is consistently drawn on in evaluating jobs.

8 At Dare Foods the apparent lack of completeness was, I believe, addressed in the Committee through their knowledge ofthe jobs, bytheir drawingonthis additionalinformationinthe evaluationofthejobs,and bythe actiontheytook incallinginemployeesto clarifyandamplifythe jobfactsheetsduringthe evaluation process. ItisappropriatefortheTribunaltofollowtheirapproachbyalsodrawingontheevidence before it reach an understanding of the jobs it must evaluate. It is not appropriate to look behind their binding agreement.

9 Instead of ordering the amendment of the job fact sheets, it would have been preferable for the Tribunal to direct the parties to undertake this task. They alone must continue to monitor and assess the jobs in meeting their obligation to maintain pay equity. It is simply more practical for the parties who are most familiar with the jobs and who can draw on the most complete information concerning them to undertake this task. ThiswouldassuregreatercompletenessandaccuracythantheTribunal may achieve.

10 Since the decision orders numerous additions to the job fact sheets, I note my disagreement with respect to the following:

Receiver (Exhibit 14)

Add, As Activity E:

-puts raw materials out in production area prior to commencement of production shift.

Sample Room (Exhibit 13)

Impact of Errors, delete:

-loss of production if improper sanitary clothing supplies

There is no evidence to support this addition. The Sample Room position does not keep track of the number of uniforms available, and reports problems with uniforms to the supervisor.

Packaging Machine Operator B (Exhibit 12)

Initiative, amend maintenance of machine to:

-corrects minor machine malfunctions and calls mechanic where required.

Add:

-calls supervisor if downtime will exceed 10 minutes.

CONCLUSION

This decision constitutes unwarranted and unnecessary intervention by the Tribunal. The majority's findings ongender neutrality of the process, despite our previous jurisprudenceand the parties'agreement that this was not at issue, indicates a willingness to push the role of the Tribunal beyond its mandate to decide the issue before it. Since the whole scheme of theAct is directed towards fostering and encouraging freely made agreements in a self-managed process, there is no justification and no need to do so.

Appendix A to Majority Decision

The Job FactSheetsmustbe amendedbyaddingthe followinginformationinorder to ensure the accurate and complete collection of job information.

Receiver (Exhibit 14) Under: Job Description Activity A, add:

-required to rotate between packaging and raw materials warehouse.

-verify quantities and items against purchase order.

-check for noticeable damage in packaging.

-sign on behalf of company, the bills of lading upon receipt.

-assist drivers in locating raw materials silos and in hooking up hoses.

-advises drivers calling in whether or not space is available

-removes product from truck with forklift if required.

Activity C, add:

-rotate stock on a first in, first out schedule.

-product off racks with forklift for service.

-verify product level report to ensure adequate supplies for daily production.

Activity D, add:

-work with other employees to co-ordinate inventory.

Education, equipment, add:

-tow motor, utility knife, calculator.

Initiative, add:

-can accept incoming goods.

-check daily list incoming items

Impact of Errors, add:

-contamination if truck directed to wrong silo.

-risk of accident in operating tow motor or fork lift in congested areas

Contacts, add:

-quarterly inventory employees.

Working Conditions, add:

-cold room conditions

-congested work area

-constant standing

Janitor (Exhibit 11) Under: Job Description

Activity A, add:

-clean copper kettles and belt.

-for creamer job, dismantle cylinder and parts to clean.

-boil and disinfect parts and pipes to remove jam and peanut butter.

Activity C, add:

-push equipment of 20

-120 lbs into steam room for cleaning.

Education and Equipment add:

-WHMIS training

-tow motor, high pressure hot water spray, adjustable wrench, screwdriver.

Initiative, add:

-supervisor visually checks work and decides whether clean enough.

Impact of Errors, add:

-risk of bacterial infection

-risk of damage or accident during cleaning process due to slippery floors.

Contacts, add:

-mechanics.

Working Conditions, minor, add:

-heat in steam room; slippery floors; boiling water. major, add:

-fumes in climbing into tanks to clean.

-standing 100% of time.

Dough Feeder (Exhibit 9) Under: Job Description

Activity A, add:

-adjust manual wheel to control flow.

-control speed of compression rollers.

-adjust canvas belt on rotary machine.

Activity B, add:

-assess product for lumps, flour, sugar.

-sort defective product to good product or waste tubs.

-pick up cookies every 10 minutes, weigh on digital scale and ensure average of 3 samples conforms to specified weight.

Activity C, add:

-blow particles of dough out of cracks.

Equipment, add:

-digital scale, wrench, hoe, air gun.

Initiative, add:

-supervisor to decide dough consistency, unmachineability.

Impact of Errors, add:

-dough overflow would waste good product.

Working Conditions, major, add:

-standing 100 % of time, lack of variance in work.

Sample Room (Exhibit 13) Under: Job Description

Activity A, add:

-request and receive candy supplies from other plants for employee sales and marketing samples

-preparation for shipping of samples,

-receipt of requests by telephone fax, inter-office memo to fill orders for sales force in Canadaand UnitedStates;threeinternalmarketingdivisions,hospitalsandinstitutions,and prospective buyers.

Activity B, add:

-problem solving on uniforms for employees

-monitor rotation and supply of sizes

Activity C, add:

-maintain inventory records of product for sales and promotions

Equipment and skills, add:

-Cash register, product knowledge

Impact of Errors, add:

-loss of sales and goodwill if deadlines missed

-loss of production if improper sanitary clothing supplies

Contacts, add:

-staff in cookie, cracker and candy marketing divisions.

Physical, Mental Demands, add:

-carrying, lifting and storing product

-standing majority of time

Packaging Machine Operator (Exhibit 12) Under: Job Description

Activity A Production set up, add: -run check of vertical and horizontal seals

-adjust and clean jaws for upper and lower seals and ensure plugs are tight.

-check metal detector functioning

-check weight of product and adjust according to specific weights

-check speeds of storeveyor, trolley drive, syntrons and incline conveyor and make appropriate adjustments.

-ensure belt routed to Triangle

-run manual check on computer standard codes and adjust as required

-check system cleaned out.

Activity B, Langen, add:

-check vacuum pump

-ensure glue pots appropriate temperature and kept full; scrape clean

-visual check of seal of boxes

-initially loading of 1500 boxes to start up, adding 100 boxes a minute

-loading of shippers

-maintenance on Edson, included gluing, code dates, removal of damaged cases, minor repairs

Activity C, Rovema, add:

-ensure heat turned on

-check metal detector

-use hoist to change wax rolls every 2 hours, ensure wax paper set properly

-ensure good seal on bags

-clean jaws

Activity D, Triangle, add:

-splice cello on every 45 minutes

-catch double bags, improperly sealed bags, refeed product manually

-scrap chocolate and raisin build up in buckets

-maintain proper tension on cello

-visual monitoring of speeds and adjust by dial to conform to specific product and speed of oven

Activity E, Miscellaneous, add: -if product rejected for incorrect weight, open packaging, tin the product and remove broken pieces, refeed product at end of shift.

-visual check of size and colour of cookies

-manual weight checks using balance scale

Under Skills and equipment used, add:

-Rovema, Langen, Triangle, Edson

-basic computer skills -utility knife, large and small scraper; adjustable wrench, hoist, 9/16 inch wrench, wire brush, allan keys, needle nose pliers, balance scale

Under initiative, add:

-maintenance of machines

-check and adjust sealing temperatures

-adjust speeds of conveyor belts, and resolve problems with cleaning and alignment of electronic eye

-decisions and actiononbucket jam ups, manually or computer maintenance of contact mechanic

Under impact of errors, add:

-waste of product if spill/overflow

-wasted resources if mechanical problems not connected with 5-10 minutes of warning lights

-lost production time to Langen and packers.

-damage to machinery

Under contacts, add: -other machine operators

Under physical, mental and visual demands: add:

-speed of machinery, feeding 100 boxes per minute on Langen; five minute maximum time line to correct cello breaks and other mechanical problems, over 70% of time

Under working conditions add: under major:

-climbing and repair while belts still moving

-heat bars to scrap off excess cello

-awkward positions

-standing 100% of time

Packer (Exhibit 10) Under: Job Description

Activity A, add

-monitor for burnt, discoloured or misformed cookies

-watch scale for over/under specified weight and make appropriate adjustments

-pick up and package a variety of product types using different hand/eye sequences -occasional carrying and set up of strips and boxes of bags from skids to work station

-changeover of mandrels

-remove product when case packer down, and replace on conveyor when production line restarts

-work in close co-operation with partner in tin tying packaging.

Activity B, add:

-sweep up broken cookies

-clean up fallen strips, trays, bags

-use air gun to blow product particles off belt

Activity C, add:

-carry tins from skids to tables during continuous production

-restack product for pick up

-fix stacking problems of shingled cookies

-lift 7 kilo tins up to conveyor or load onto skid, every 2-4 minutes

-visual inspection for colour, dough lumps, burnt or misshapen cookies

-removal of flawed product

Activity D, cracker line, add:

-fix stacking, check for oil, salt, dirty or miscoloured crackers and remove

-monitor "slugs" of crackers in cello, open and replace broken product

-monitor "zig" automotive packing machine which seals crackers in cello; check seal, remove double cello on roll changeover -on Langen, watch for open boxes, poor print on box; remove, open and replace in process

-tin manually when mechanical problems on case packer

Activity E, Pop Tart Line, add:

-inspect for leaking pop tarts

-straighten stacking and rows

-pack 3 pouches into a box on mandrel at rate of 114 pop tarts per minute

Education, equipment, skills, add:

-replace mandrel; air gun; gloves on chocolate line, manual dexterity

Initiative, add:

-visual monitor and removal of product below standards

Impact of Errors, add:

-loss profit if bags overweight

-loss of product if cookies not caught on continuously running belt

Contacts, add: - other packers, packaging machine operators; crew leader

Physical/Mental Demand, add:

-constant standing 100% time in extremely confined space

-stretch to reach skid stacks and over shoulder conveyor belts, constant

Working Conditions, add:

-cramped space, eye strain, draft.

Appendix B To Majority Decision

Factor/ Receiver Janitor Dough Sample PMO Packer Sub-Factor Feeder Room

Skill

Complexity/ Judgement

1.5

2.5

Education

Experience

Effort

Initiative

1.5

Physical/ Mental Demand

2.5

Responsibility

Result of Errors

1.5

Contacts

1.5

Supervision -scope

Supervision character

Working Conditions

2.5

1.5

2.5