ll/B7/2014 08:55

BETWEEN:

4155859353 SURDYI<DWSKI

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION (Under the Labour Relations Act, 1995)

("OPG")

AND lN THE :MATTER OF an atb).tration. of the Transportation Of:fice.r Job Challenge Dispute grievance (OPGN�2009-5527) under collective agreement between the parties

BEFORE: G. T. SURDYKOWSKI- Sole Ar.bjtr.ator

APPEARANCES:

For OPG: Tom Moutsatsos, Counsel; Brandon Pageau; Pauline Witzke; Helen Fraser (HR); Lorraine Tait (.TE); Pierre Beyore (JE).

For the SocietY.: Tra.cey Henry, Counsel; Joe Lesperance, Staff Representative; Geotge .Lak.in.s, Transl?ortation Of.f.icer.; .Deodaft Som.a.m, Society Unit Director NWMD; Chuck Petrovic, FLM Rad. Protection

PAGE 02

Hearings held in Toronto, Ontario on September 21, 2010; March 23, May 17, 19, June J., 14, Ju1y 6, Novembe:r: 2, 2011; January 10, 13, february 7, 10, Apri112, May 3 J, November .14, 23, 2012; March 20 and August 22, 2013. .. 0/.P !i{r� ()�;3"2/ 1L[S

/'9 tC· .I � . .l 25 � 7 � . . .;:!! i>'����-.. li Wriit�m Submissions completed on August 6) 2014. h ..

. : .-I� h- trf2 .,, · JQ\ �lor·: ��f<.� .. f..,� ' /c....,....- V II ' 1:1 /'< .. ;? \\,,,i ( ?? 0\ f{ v; r;� , ·. r_lc£Ja··� � t \1 a · , t.., 1;

Copyright © George T. Surdykowski Arbitrati.onfMediation Inc. 2014

'�i·� • .Q- \ i " �' ! I .. �•

\1,

[All rights reserved. Reproduction or �toragc:J in any retrieval syStQ\m in whole or in par� in any form or format, by anyone other thCJ.D the parties, otber than for use in legal proceedings, for not-for-profit educational pti!TJOSes, or as requ.i.red or permitted by Jaw, without ex:press written. consent is prohi.bited.J

11/07/201 4 08:55 4155859353

.L INTRODUCTlON

SURDYKOWSKI

2

AWARD

l. This is a job challenge grievance filed by the Society on behalf of all bargaining u11it incumbents in the Transportation Officer ("TO") pos.i.tl.on.

2. Both parties filed comprehensive hearing briefs, and. called extensive oral evidence to supplement those wri.tten briefs. I heard .many days of oral testimony (from 4 witnesses called. by the Society in chief and 2 in reply; and 2 witnesses called by OPG)

and received hlll1d:teds of pages of documentary evidence in the form of 46 Exhibits (some of which consist of multiple par.ts). ColU1seJ. spent a day making oral submissions,

which were au.gr:o.ented at and subsequent to the oral hearing by written summaries and. submi.ssions.

3. It would take many pages and serve no useful·purpose to clutter this decision 'V\T).th

a detailed description of either the evidence or counsels' submissions. Doing so would do more to obfuscate than to .i11tun1nate, and contrary to what some seem. to think, a

grievance arbitration decision is not required or intended to provide a transcription of the 0vidence. '\Vbat is required is a reasoned decision wh1ch includes tbe evidentiary basis for the conclusions reached. Jn this case, I consider it suffi.cient to take a summary approach (which will nevertheless result in a lengthy decision).

U. FACTS NOT lN ;DISPUfE

4. The TO .position was created in 1. 999 in response to a consultant's best practices

si.udy which advised OPG to create a position to specialize in shipping oversight and quality assutance as a program enhancement. Th.e only "historic" TO "Job Identification

Data" document (i.e. job descriptio11) jn evidence (Exhibit #1, T-2 and Exhibit #2, T-l)

awarded the position 282 points, which placed it at the .MP4 salary grade leveL There is

no indication that the Socj.ety challenged the grading or MP4 .rai.ing at that time. The current TO "Job Identification Data" document (which replaced the historic document­(Exhibit #1., T-3 and Exhibit #2, T-2) is dated July 28, 2009 and. shows the TO position as 1.ner.iting (in O.PG's view) 290 points, w:bjch is still at the :MP4 salary grade leveL Tbe Society claims that the MP4 rating does not properly .reflect the CUT:TeT.J.t duties and responsibilities ofthe position.

5. The Society claims that the TO position merits 323 points, which equates to the MP6 (31.4-333 points) salary grade level. OPG asserts that the position .r.oeri.ts no more

PAGE 03

1 1 /07/2014 08:55 41 55869353 SURDYKOWSKI

3

than the 290 points awarded in 2009, aud that it is properly in the :MP4 (272-291 points)

salary grade .leveL

6. There are 11 job evaluation factors in the job .ratio.g system agreed to by the

parties, Section 9 of"The Plan. A Job Evaluatiot;� Manual" ("Plan A") stipulates the

specific number of points to be awar.ded at each Degree level for each job evaluation. factor. There are no point ranges. For example, under the "lndependent Action" job eva.luEJ.tion :factor, Degree 4 awards 34 points and Degree 5 awards 42 points.

7. Thete arc four: job evaluation :HICtors in dispute: Independent Actio11, Staff Responsibility, Extemal Contacts, and Accuracy. OPG .rates tho5e four factors as follows:

" Independent Action (.Degree .range 1-6)

" Staff Responsibility (Degrees range 1-4) .. External Contacts (Degree range 1 �6) • Accuracy (Degree range 1-4)

Tile Society claims that the .ratings should be:

" Independent Action • Sta.ffResponsibility • External Contacts

• Accuracy

- Degree 4, 34 points �Degree 3, 30 points

- Degree 4, 17 points - Degree 3, 29 points

-Degree 5, 42 points

-Degree 4, 40 points -Degree 5, 21 points

-Degree 4, 40 points

8. Generally speaki:o.g, the TO position is tesponsible for supporting the OPG

Radioactive Mate:r.i.al Transportation ("RMT") program .mandate of safe, compliant, efficient transportation of radioactive materiaL TOs are said t�) be the ":fi.m.l barri.e.r:" to

the :r:eJ.ease of TYPe A a.n.d. B Radjoactj"Ve Materi.al Shipments of radioactive material to

and from OPG licensed facilities, and to and from licensed external facilities. They axe

the final barrier .i:o. the sense that a TO's signature is the last one on the :r:equired shippjng

documentation. A Type A orB "package" ofradioactive material cannot be shipped. unless a TO has "signed off' on the required shipping docum.elJtation.

9. T11e packaging and transportation of radioactive material is highly regulated.

Transport Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (the "CNSC") exercise

regulatory o"Versight authority under tl1e Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Packaging

and Transport of Nuclear SuhstanceJ Regulations (the "PTliTS Regulations''), and under the auspices of the Interna.tionaJ. Atomic Energy Agency (the "JAE.A ") and the

PAGE 04

1 1 /07/ 201 4 08:55 41 66859353 SURDYKOWSKI

4

Regulations for the Sqfo Transport ofRadioactive Afalerial (the "IAEA Regulations''), The CNSC is the ptimary .responsible regulatory autbo.rity 1n Canada.

10. Radioactive waste materials are identified and transported as "packages�'. The.r0

are 5 different types of packages: Exc�pted; Industrial; Type A; Type B; and� Type C .

.B.r.ie:fly,

• Excepted packages arc packages in which the allowed radioactive content is resi:ricted to such low levels that the potential hazards are insigni..5.caut and therefore no testing of cont�.inment or shielding integrity is required.

• Industrial gackages are used. to transpo.rt two types of material: material having low activity per unit mass (known as Low Specjfic Activ:ity or "LSA') material). Items classified as LSA material include hospital waste; and, non-radioactive

objects having low levels of surface contamination (known as Surface Conta.mjnated Objects or "SCO"). Fuel cycle machinery or parts of nuclear reactors whose surfaces .have been contaminated by coolant or process water are considered to be SCO. Both types of material a.re inherently safe, eJ.ther because the contained activity is very low, or because the material is not in a foo.u which disperses easily.

• Type A and B packages contain. more hjghly radioactiv0 material. Under tJJe PTNS Regulations, "Type A package" means a package that is designed to meet the requirements of paragraphs 413� 414 and 633 of the IAEA Regulations. "Type

B package)' means a package that is designed. to meet the :requj:rements of

paragraph 4 J. 5 o.r 41 6 and paragraph 650 or 665 of the IAEA Regulations. Type B packages carry materials with the highest leve.Is of radioactive activity.

(i) Type A packages are used for the transport of relatively small but

significant quantities ofradi.oact'i.ve m.ater.ial. Type A packages are required to ma1.nta.ln their 1n.tegrity during transportation an.d therefore are subjected to testing in that respect. TYPe A packages are used to transport

radioisotopes for medical diagnosis or teletherapy, techn.etium, generato:r.s used to assist in the diagnosis of certain cru:�cers, and also for som.e n:uc.lear fuel cycle materials.

(ii) Type B packages arc:: required for the transportation of highly radioactive

materiaL These packages must vvithsta.nd the same transportation

conditions as Type A packages, but because their contents exceed the

PAGE 05

_ _ ___ _ __ .. _ __ ___ _ _ __ IYP�,L\Ji.f!IJ!s ii;is n.e�e�ill)' to �.R�<:;j.fy ad_di!J()!I�-I�§.i�a1.1_c_tli()Jp_e�l_�;:a.s_�;: ... ____ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

1 1 /07/201 4 08:55 4 1 55859353 SURDYKOWSKI PAGE 05

5

of radiation or radioactive ma.te.ri.al. due to accidental damage. This type of

package must be capab.le of withstanding accide:o:t co.o.d1tio.n.s, without breach ofr.ontainment or an increase 1n radiati.on to a level which wou.ld endanger the general public or those involved in rescue or clean�up oper.ation.s. The protective adequacy of a Type B package must be demonstrated by stringent accident conditions testing. Type B pa.cka.ges ar.e used to transport material as different as UD.e:o.capsul.ated radioisotopes

fo:r: medical and research uses, spent nuclear fuel. au.d vit:rifi.ed high-level waste.

• Type C Packages (which the evidence suggests are not shipped by OPG) are used to transport highly radioactive material by air. Type C packages must satisfy ali

the add.iti.onal requirements of Type A packages and most of the additional

requirements of Type B packages.

l J.. PBge 1 of the January 4, 2007 "historic" TO "Job Identi.f:icaiion Data" documen.t

summarizes the TO job f11nction as being to:

"Coordinate the transportation of fa.c.illty Radioactive Material Shipments defined as the movement of r.a.dioactlve material to and from Ontario Power Generation Inc. (O.PG) licensed facilities as well as to externa.Ilicensed fa.cilitjcs. Interface wjth a.JI levels of station personnel to identify, forecast, schedule and coordinate radioactive material transportation services."

The .. Job Functi.0:071 summary statement on page 1 of the current TO "Job Identification Data" document .is somewhat m.o.re specific:

"Support the OPG RMT Program mandate of safe, compliant, efficient transportation of radioactive material . Coordinnte nnd provide final release the [sic J trnnsportation of Radio�ctive Material Shipments to and from Onta.rio Power generation (OPG) licensed facilities as well as to a.nd from external licensed fa.cili.ties where OPG packagings, drivers, or radioactive material are i1�volved. Interface with all levels of OPG and external personnel to identify, forecast, schedule, and coordinate radioactive material transportation services."

1.2. The more fulsome descri.pti.on in the historic Job J.denti.:6.cation Data document

lists the following 10 TO duties and responsibilities:

1. Coordinate and oversee the movement of radioactive material to and from OPG li.censBd facilities as well as to other Jjcrnsed faciljtJcs_ Partic.ipate: in facility planning a.nd scheduling processes to stay abreast o:f scheduled and upcoming activities that will involve transportation of radioactive matcr.ia.Js. Develop and mvise, for Manager review, documentation related to radioactive material transportation.

1 1 /07/201 4 08:55 41 55859353 SURDYKDWSKI PAGE 07

6

2. Provide fn,u.r;:tional advice and guidance to personnel on the regulations pertaining to the transportation of radioactive materials, to ensure that all materials that move to and from any licensed facility, comply with such rcgt1.laticm.s. Provide ,interpretation and applicatio.n of various ltWslative acts, laws, and regulations, �with Corporate, divisional and departmental policies and Qrocedures, reJated to the transportation of radioactive materiaL Through persuasion and influence� attempt to ensure compliance to appl icab le regulations.

3. As the single point of contact, for the Department a.t OPG facilities, provide direction and oversigb.!,for th� packagi ng and movement of radioactive materials. Provide support for non�standard shipment, including specifYing packaging, identifying and coordinating Engineering, Regulatory and other re�omces as needed.

4. Perform final review a.nd approval of specific ra.d ioa.ctive materia.! shipments, including a physical review of the transportation package and f:he associated documentation,

5. .Review specific Department procedures executed by li.censod fa.cili.ties for comp.J.etenes�, authorize documentation and forward. to Department Records. Assist with the shipping process record�.kceping including information retrieval for reporting purposes and data analysis.

6. Provide notificatio:n to Department Management of incidents invo)v·ing transportation ofrad.ioactive material :in accordance with regulations and corporate procedures. Investigate radioactive material transportation incidents and prepare reports for Manager review.

7. Lia.ise with appropr.iate personnel regarding transporting of radioactive materials. Ens11re that qua.lifi.cations� placarding� shipping methods and goods transported meet legal .requirements and that materia.! is moved i.n a.n environmentally responsible manner. R<ifer an.y highly unusual RToblems to Man�

8. Identify ma.ndl!.tory training requirements :for personnel involved in the tremsporta.tion o:fradioa.ctive materia.ls. :P.repare or Msist in the preparation of training material a.nd evaluate eontent :For compliance with procedure� and regulations. Coordi.naf:e whh appropriate organizations to ensure required training is delivered on a timely basis.

9. Provide periodic, limited supervisory responsibili.tics of work assig(lment, instruction and checking to staff assigned for special projects or as delego.ted to assist with work activities.

10. Perform other duties as required.

[.Emphasis added.]

13. Tbe more fulsome description in the current Job Ideutification Da.ta document

(which has a "Last Analyzed" date of July 28� 2009) .Lists 21 TO duties and respon.s:i.biJjties (witl1 emphasis added):

1 1 /07/ 201 4 08:55 41 55859353 SURDYKDWSKI

7

:I. Provide direction, expertise and oversight for the packaging, handling, shipping and receiving of radioactive materials from. OPG facWtics and from Extemal fac ilities utilizing OPG-owned packagings or OPG carrierR. Through observation and coaching, persuasion and inflJ!PXt9-�, ensure compliance with applicable procedure:> and regulations.

2. Through oversight, prevef.l.t events that would result in the unp.lanned discharge, e.missio:n or escape ofntdioactive material from a transportation package. Support the Transportation Emergency Response Plan (TERP.) a.nd participate in TERP dril ls as required. As the fina.l barrier to preventing transportation �nt!l,, �J)JlUre that radioactive materials are iransportcd in a safe and environmentally­responsible manner.

3. Coordinate and provide final release of the highest classifications of radioactive materials transported by OPG (Type A and Type B, including irradiated fuel shipments) f1om both OPG and External facilities . Perform the final independe.nt review ofthese shipments, including physical inspection oftbe iTansporta.tion package and tiewdowns, and review and approval of the associated shipping documents. Intervene, where safe (:o do so, to preve.ot procedural or reguls.tory non-compliances pertaining f:o the transportation 0fradioa.ctive materials.

4. For irradiated fuel shipments, nccompany the �hipmcnt to ct:�sure compliance vvith the Transportation Security Plan, and provide liaison with OPG Security to e.mmre that no issues arise that would endanger the irradiated. fuel ship.ment

5. .P.J:ovid.e sup_]ort for non-rout.ine aod/or out ... ofwprovince radioactive sh igments from OPG n11d External facilities using OJ:'G pa.cka.g:in.gs and/or cnrriers, including specifying required packa.gings, developing method of approach to trMsportation, and identifying and coordinating Engineering, Regulatory, and other resources as required. Perform final release of these shipments as required, including physical inspection of the transportation pack;agc::: and/or tie- downs, and review and approval oftbc associated shipping documents.

6. Perform quality oversight of air pressure hold te$1:s o.fT'ypc B packages to ensure containment integrity and regulatory compliance prior to shipment ,Provide fi11al approval or rejection of completed air pressure hold or va.cuum-decay te5ts.

7 _ Provide notification to Department MaDagor of incidents involving the tnmsportati.on of radioactive materials in accordance with the regulations and corporate procedures. fnvestigate radioactive ma.teria.J transportation incidents and prepare reports for Manager review.

8. :Liaise with appropriate OPG and Extema.l pcrson:od regarding the transportation of radioactive materials. Ensure that qualifications, safety marks, shipping methods and goods transported meet legal and procedural requirements . .A.s required, verify that External facilities hold appropriate licenses to irnport, export, possess or transfer radioactive materials. Report any unusu&l_and significant probkms to the Man�,gpr.o

--- -- - --- --- ____ 9._ Lia.i_s�_witl:tDlgul<ttRry_s_t(lff_to_assiat_withi_uspQ.ctionsoflicensed_operations, equipment and/or facilities, or to ensure compliance with regulatory

PAGE 08

1 1 /07/201 4 08:55 4 155859353 SURDYKOWSKI

8

requirements. Fol.low up with regulator as nece�sary to collect ru1d clarify infonnntion.

I 0. Keep current o.n packaging operation procedures and understand the critical steps of these procedures. Ma.inta.in fnmil.iarity wi(:h t:he regulations related I'O the 1Tansportation of radioactive material. Coll.ect, maintain and d.issemjna.te Operating .Experience regarding the transportation of radioactive ma.t:eoa.l.

11. Ensure compl.ia.nce with, and provide expertise, fimctional a.d.vi.ce, guidance and inte!:P.retation to corporate personnel on legislative acts, lnw�and reguJations, and corporate, divisional and departmental policies and procedures pertaining to the transportation of radioacti.ve materials.

12. IdentifY., review and i.ntemret proposed acts, Jaws, rcgul.ations:....policies and.

procedures related to the transportation of radioactive materiaL Jdentify potc:mtia.l impact� on the corporation, department or program tllat 1:ru!Y. re�mlt Develop �md implem�n.t..rumroa.cbes and solutions to address these ·imR.�.ts ...

13. Review Verification Sheets with the supervisor respon::�ible for preparing the package and ensure that any deficiencies are corrected. Authorize and certify the completed verification sheets for Type A and 1)..P..�� and route as required..

14. Partic·ipate in facility planning, and scheduling processes to stay abreast of scheduled activities that may involve the transportation of radioactive materials.

15. lden�jfy mandatory training requirements for pE/rsonnel involved in the

transportation of radioactive materials. Assist in the preparation o:ftra.ining material and evaluate content for compliance with procedures a.ncl the regulations. Attend radioactive material. transportation training as subject mo.ttf;T expert to provide clarification of course material and responses to trainee questions as required.

16. A.ct as a subject matter expert at infor:mation sessions presented to the public as well as external emergency response organ17.ations along transportation routes and associated organizations per Public Affairs a:onua.l pla.n.

17. Maintain and administer access rights to the E.lectTon.ic Sh.ipment Advice Form (ESA F) program. Recommend and support upgrades as required.

18, Participate on inter-facility planning and strategy teams, such a.s Team 0:20.

19. lniJ:iate, develop, review, and revise documenta.tjpr,l_,_p,r_Q.Pedurc�,_:�.!Jd. lnstn,tctions related to radioactive material transportation :for the guidance of Corporate and Extemal. �taff.

20. .Provide periodic, limited supervisory responsibilities o:fwo:rk a.sslgnment, instruction, and checking to staff assigned for special projects or as delegpted to assist with work activities.

PAGE 09

11/07/2014 08:55 4155859353 SURDYKOWSKI

9

.lll. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

14. George Lakins (who had. been a TO for nc�rly 8 yem:s (siu.ce December 2002)

when he testified as a Society witness) identified Exhibit #1, T � 12 as a 2005 document

provided to IOs to reinforce their duties and responsibilities oftb.eir role in OPG's :radioactive shipments program. It reads as follows:

Trnnsportat�on Officer Role & Responsibilities • The role of the Tmnsportation Officer (TO) is to support the OPG RMT .Program

mandate of safe, compliant, efficient transportation of ra.d.ioactivc material Thi� is prima.li.ly achieved through providing structured. oversight of Type A and B shipment�. This oversight is an essential component ofthe QA Program nnd acts as a final, vjtal barrier to transportation event�. The following cl.a.rifica.tioo o:f responsibilities bas beeo duveloped to assist. tbc TO i.n being effect.ive a.nd successfu I in this most important position..

.. Routine face to face interactions in the :field with customers is a very important aspect of this role.

• Routinely participate in customer pianning meetings, scoping meetings, pre-job briefings etc with the goal of ensuring shipments and package operations occtJT in a controlled, planned manner.

• Ensure a clear un.de.rstandi.ng of each of the roles i:nvo.lved i.o ma.king routine/oon� routine shipments and consider the impact that each of these ro.les can have on quality and. compliance.

• The level of oversight required is directly proportion a.! to 11Je amoUilt of risk associated. with a shipment. Risk factors such. as inexperience, complex operating procedures & work plru1s, compressed timelines, a.nd lack of clarity of roles and responsibi.Jities will dramatically increase the amount of TO i1wolvement in package operations and .shipment preparation. Consider the risk factors when reviewing each shipment.

• It is imperative that Transportation Officers are in the :field overseeing package handling operations, at critical junctures of assembly and shipment preparation 9.9 required in order to be able to effectively evaluate compliance and qualjty.

• E<:.n�ure customers understand tho importance of verification sheets as qu.�Hty documents and the proper means of completing these records. These records are key to demonstrating that the QA process is functioning effectively and thi!l must be kept in m ind each time one is reviewed and signed by the Ti'.ansporta.tion Officer. Don't accept substa.n.dard quality records!

• Review & sign comp.leted verification sheets with respons.ible supervisors prior to releasing shipments. Ask 9pecitic, probing qllestions; get tJw necessary answers so that you can confidently say that all required standards have been met prior to any shipment lea.ving a f:a.oiHty.

• Keep current on package operating governance; recognize and understand criti.oal aspects of these procs.

• Prior to releasing any Type B shipment or empty Roadnmner or Trillium shipment, provide verbal confinnation to the RMTE Driver that the shipment meets all applicable regulatory and procedural requirements and is .ready to be

PAGE 10

---- -- - - -- - - - ---- --- --- -- -offered-fortran-sport� - ------ ---------- ---- - ---- -- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - ---- ---- ---- -

ll/B7/2Bl4 08:55 4155859353 SURDYKDWSKI PAGE 11

10

• PJa.ce additional attention to detail on any shipment identified as higher risk or infrequently performed task evolutions (IPJE), such as Roadrunner and IMT ship.men.t�: Trent every barrier in the shipment process as if.it were the only one. (Maximize defense in-depth)

• When monitoring/reviewing sh.ipmoots for release) .focus on identified vital pa.c.kage parameters.

• Use second party verification as required on critical or infrequently performed tasks.

• Demand procedural and :reg•datory compliance. Verify that users are following operating procedures,

• .El.iminnte "workamunds" at every opportunity. Unplanned, uncontrolled package handljng operations a.re unacceptable.

• Take every opport.u.nity to simplify, simplify, simp.li:fy. • Never let uncertainty about any aspect of a shipment go unchal.lenged, talk to

your peers, ta.lk to your S'l)pervisor, but leave no doubt or it doesn't go out. • Always take the time to do the job right. Remember, you are the last barrier. • Don't make decisions in isolation, use the experience of the RMT team­

communicate. • Expect success but anticipate failure. plan RMTD and OPG to be successful­

leave nothing to chance. • You ''own" the role of shipment QA oversight. Get i.nvo.lved; stay involved - do

what it takes to make it right .. Don't rely on customer owned processes to communicate package OpEx - get out

there and ta.lk to people. • Challenge the ''status quo" -there is always room for improvement. • Use event free tools daily to recogn.t�e and avoid error prone si.tua.tions. • Recognize and avoid "groupthink", Use critical thinking every day to ensure the

right questions are asked and the best decision$ are made. For every what, ask why, what if... [sic]

(Bolded emphasis added; underlining supplied.]

1.5. Altbough there is a lot of"spin" in both the evidence and parties' submissions, the evidence about what TOs a.ctually do is substantially consistent with the current (July 28,

2009) Job Identification Data document (paragraph 13, above) and th.e 2005 document

J.den.ti.fied by Lakins. (I note that the air pressure hold test responsibility was added. to the TO duties and responsibHities in 2005.) Because it is botb.later in time and the "official"

duties and responsibilities description the July 28� 2009 Job Identification Data document takes precedence over both the bistoric Job ldentification Data document and the 2005 document.

1.6. The two earlier documents provide an evolutionary context However, they offer

limited assistance because there are few jobs that don't evolve, nu.d my task is to evaluate

the TO job as it is) regardless of what it was. (Indeed, as 1be Society points out, Plan A -- - - ------- does-:oot suggest tbata comparison between-histo:r.i.c-and_currentdocuroents-is useful.)- - -- -- - - -- -- - - --

11 /07/2014 08 : 55 4 155859353 SURDYKDWSKI

1 1

That said� Lakins testified in cross-examination that overall TO accountability and responsibility .have not changed since he started in th.ejob (on or about December 25, 2002). That js, notwithstanding tbe am.endments to the detailed list of TO duties and

responsibilities TO overall accountability or responsibility did not change iJJ a.uy substantial way when the July 28, 2009 Job Identification Data document crune into

effect, such that the current job document .reflects the duties and. responsibilities of the position since at least late 2002.

1 7. A table on page 1 8 of OPG's ''Radioactive Material Shl.pm.ents Ar.m:ua.l Repo.rt 2009" (Exhibit #5) shows that OPG's shipments of ra.djo.act:ive .materials stea.dil.y decreased from a higb of 1 926 in 200 1 to a low of 760 in 2009 (the last year for which l have evidence). Shipments of Typc A and Type B packages b.a.ve shnilnrly decreased, with the number of Type B packages shipped decreasing :fi:om 386 i.u 200 1 a.nd 389 in 2002 to 260 (i.e. 5 1 % of the total, and 5 per week o:n. average) in 2009; and the number of Type A packages shipped decreased. (albeit more erratically) from a high of 1 3 2 in 200J. to a historic low of 34 (i.e. 4.5% of the total, and significantly less than 1 per week on average) iJ1 2009.

1 8 . The TOs' most si.gni:ficant involvement is with Type A and Type B packages (Job Description point #13). They have no in.volve.men.t with Excepted shiJ>ments (which Lakins sometimes .seemed to conflate with Industrial packages) unless they are empty (i .e. being returned to be refilled) Type B containers classified as Excepted. This particular task falls to a TO located at the Bruce Power Waste Management facility before the container is retumed to Darlington o:r. J?jckering. The TO engages i1J a verification process s1mjlar to that for TYPe B packages in order to ensure that such an Exce.rted shlpm.ent has been properly documented and is in good condition. However, a TO does not have to "sign off" jn order to release such a.lJY sbipm.ent classified as

Excepted. «Low activi.ty" Industrial packages are moved in ISO containers which require

s om.etim.es difficult tie-down solutions. A TO ensures compliance and checks the

paperwork, in. tbat respect.

1 9. The "Multi�Purpose T:r:ansponat:ion Package Recei.vj.og, Hao.dl.i.ng an.d SJ:-Jpping Verdi cation Sheee (Exhibit #l, T � l3) which must be signed before a TYPe A or B package is released to shipment reads as fol lows:

Certification

As the responsible Supervisor of this work� I hereby certify by signing immedia:te.ly below that the pa.cl<age has been hand.led and prepared for shipment in. <1ccorda:nce with all applicable procedures_ To enable me t.o .�o certify, ·r hnve reviewed and verifi.ed the acti.on.� actually

PAGE 12

__ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ uncl_�!_1al<t::Jl"':Vit:b __ th�loQ_al_1r�illJIJQTJ�tiQJI_Qf1Lc�r,_�sp�Qi<l.UY_th�_folJm'!i.ngs;t(lps_tllaUt!"e�cl"itical_to __ _ - - ··- �- - - �--this p8ckagc:

1 1 / 07/201 4 08 : 55 4155859353 SURDYKDWSKI

1 2

(Section 4 . 1. 1 (a))

I . Activities were performed by qualified personnel including TDG C.lass 7 Qualified people where :required;

Z. Equipmenl: U$t::d. was calibrated for torquing and testing package integrity;

3 . Containment int�grrty i s guaranteed by follo-wing th.e activities l i sted in the procedure;

4. Containment support components are in good condition;

5 . Tie�down components are positioned correctly and locking tabs/match marks aligned;

6 . Tamper evident seals (TES) are in place and recorded correctly;

7 _ No loose contamination ot1tside of contain ment; and

8. Package and trailer in good physical condition.

Responsi.bl.e Supervisor # l (Print Nam.e)

Responsible Supervisor #2 (Print Name)

(As required)

Signature

Signature

YYYY-MM-DD

YYYY�MM-OD

l hereby certify by signing below that al l sections are completed and required infonnation is acceptable (Section 4 . 1 1 (b)).

N W MD Transportation Officer (Print Name) S.ignature YYYY wMM.-DD

20. Although. there ar.e mjn.or variations in wo1·ding, for purposes of this Award this multi-purpose Verification Sheet is suffici.ent[y representative of the Verification Sheets

PAGE 13

- - - -- - - --- ----which-must-be-signcd-to rdease-a 'Fype-A or 'fype B-packagc; ·-F or-exam.ple; thc-Type·B--- -- - -- -- -- - -- -

11/07/2014 08:55 41 5 5859353 SURDVKOWSKI PAGE 14

1 3

Trillium package Ver:ificatio:n Sheet (Exhibit #2, T- l 6) is substantially the sarne as the

generic multi�purpose Verification Sheet (the only d'ffe:rences being seman.tic; na.mel.y,

that point #3 in the Responsible Supervisor certification section reads "activities/steps

relating to containment integrity have been completed as per operating procedure; , poiT.lt

#5 reads "tie�down components arc positioned correctly and secure"; and, point #7 reads

"n.o detectable ftxed or loose contamination outsj.de of containment". [Emphasis added to indicate differences.]

2 1. . Common shipments include radioactive waste transported to the Bruce Power faci l ity JJear Kincardi..ne; heavy water transported to the triti um removal .facility at Darlington; spent fuel rods sent to Chalk River; and Cobalt 60 produced at Picke11n.g

transported. to Kanata. for medical purposes. Radi oactive mate:d..al packages are .rated

according to radiation levels. Lakins explained what lower rated packages referred to by OPG as "Trillium packages" and .. Roadmnner packages" (reactor core, pressure tubes,

etc.), are and that eac.h requires its ovvn. certification. As a TO he is involved with and

required to verify and approve all Typ0 A and Type B packages (Job Description point

# 1 3 ; and, :for example, Exhibit # 1 , T � 13 ), a:nd any packages being transported out of Ontari.o r.egardJ.ess of rating. He exp.lai.u.ed a. TO' s involvement in that respect at some

length, including once yearly shipments of chemicaJ waste to TeJIDessee and shipments to Quebec, both of which are subject to speci:5c compli.<m.ce an.d �pproval protocols. A TO accompanies every such shipment There are an average of 6-1 0 "non-routine and/o:r out­

of�province radioactive shipments" (Job Description point #5) per year. An individual TO typi cally deals with 1 or 2 such shipments each year.

22. A Type A o.r Type B package is :not released for transportation and cannot leave the shipping station without a TO' s signature on the Verification Sheet The Society

claims tJ1at this means that TOn approve the release of Type A and B packages for.

shipment. OPG disagrees. It argues tl1at TOs ar.e :o.ot ultim.ately :r:esponsible or

accountable for any errors on such shipments, and that they do not "approve" tl1e transportation of Radioactive Material Shipments . OPG claims that TOs simply review shipping documentation prior to shipment as a :6.oal quality assurance check.

IV. lJECJSION

23 . As indicated above, I agree va.ritb the Society that Plan A contemplates a de novo assessment whenever the job evaluation. is triggered, and that a fundamental change in duties and responsibilities is not a necessary precondition to a change ju.job rating.

l:lowever, that does not .rn.ean tl1at a comparison between job descriptions and an evolutionary assessment does not inform the analys1s, particularly when. (8s in tlus case)

__ _____ _ _ ___ _ th�j.Plu�ting_ba...S_�cl<ID_11.'l�_p.IP.YjQ1JSj.Q.b_d�s�r.iptio:n_w2!s appar.S::ntly_not cballenged. ___ _ _ _ ____ __ _ _ __ _

OUKJ.J T I'.UWOI'..L

1. 4

Tn.deed, the Society spent a great deal o f hearing time trying to demonstrate that there ]Jave bee:o c.ha.l)ges to TO duti.es and responsibilities sufficient to justify a job rating

change, and the parties j oined issue in that respect.

24. Duty and responsibility changes may be particularly instructive when the difference between Degree levels is slight (as in, for example, the case of the ln.dependen.t

Action factor wbicb di.stin.gnishes between "occasional" or L4little" in Degree level 4, and •'little" or "seldom" in. Degree level 5 (paragraphs 30 and 33 , below); an.d, tbe differences

between Degree levels 3 and 4 in the Accuracy factor (paragraphs 60-61. , below).

25. The fact that there have been changes to a.job's description does not necessar.jly

mean that a rating change xs justi:fied. All job descriptions change over tim.e. Some job

description changes indicate that the job has changed, in which case the question

becomes : is the c.hange sttf:ficjent to m.er.i.t a. change in the job rating. Under Plan A evolutionary changes to duties and responsibilities will not .oecessarily be sufficient to

result in Degree level changes . Other job description changes, part.icular.ly for relatively

new positions, ate mere description tweaks or refinements which clarify ·fue duties and responsibi ljties of the position.

26. The 30-page Plan A Job Evaluation Manual ("Plan. A") and accompanying 25-

page Plan A Guidelines (the «Guidelines") are used to establish the appropriate collective

agreement salary grade level :for employees under the «Management & Professj.on.a.l"

("MP") collective agreement salary schedules. The stated. purpose of the j ob evaluation

(sum..marized) is to determine the appropriate salary grade or level for all MP-.rated bargaining unit employees on the basis of 1 1 stipulated factors, atJ.d comparing each job

or position to other jobs, both iu:temally and. externally. Section 5.4 of Plan A provides that:

5.4 The process ofra:ting ajob has three steps:

(a) 0Je job is assessed <.�.gainst the words in the factor degree levels;

(b) the job is assessed against other jobs assigned to the same or adjacent factor degree levels;

(c) the resu.1tant salary grade for the job is compared with the salary grade for other jobs.

Steps (b) and (c) a.re a valid and necessa.ry part of the l'ating process and serve as a chec.k on step (a).

27. OPG submits that the first step under Plan A is to assess a job descr:iptj.on against

the words contained in the J. l listed. factor degree levels or ratings. OPG argues that the

I HUL-

11/07/2014 08 : 55 4155859353 SURDYKOWSKI PAGE 15

'! 5

job eval.uati.on factors ate interrelated> such that a change in the rating of oue factor

JJecessitates a reassessment of other factors. I agree. OPG also says tbat the second step assessment compares tb.e job being assessed against other jobs assigned the same or

adjacent factor degree levels� but that this check is just that and does not driv e the process

or determine the result. I do not agree. I am satis±led that the Section 5 .4(b) and (c) job

rating steps can. dete:nnine the result in appropriate circumstances. That js the clear purpose of those steps.

28. Section 7 of Plan A groups the 1 1 job :factors i:o.to three categories: skiU factors

(i.e. education, expelience, aud difficulty of soluti.ou. ofwork problems), responsibility

factors (i .. e. requirement for jn.dependent action, nature of supervision, staff

responsibility, number supervised, internal contacts, external contacts, and responsibility

for accuracy - effect of errors), and wo:r:king conditions factor (i.e. wor.king conditions) .

The :four u.n.derli:o.ed ratbJg.s ar:e the ones in dispute. TI1ey are al.l responsibility factors. Section 8 ofPlan A contains comprehensive descriptions ofthe 1 1 job evaluation fa.ctors,

including the 4 in issue. The Plan A Guidelines are intended to re.m.ove "many o:fthe unknowns, allowing easier and more defensible application of the Plan to produce better

job relativity and reduce the impact of inconsistent interpretation", but are specifically not intended to replace the "Facto:r: Statements" or "Rules of Application" in Plan A.

(i) 8.4 Reguixem.ent for Independent Action

29. To repeat, OPG assesses the TO position at Degree 4 (34 point) for thjs factor.

The Society asserts it is properly assessed at Degree 5 ( 42 points).

30. This factor measures the independence of action required of the employee. It

measures the extent to which instructio.ns, directions or existing work practices p:r.ovide

work guidance, the extent to which the employee is required or expected to refer to

supervisory or other personnel for advice� instruction or direction; and the nature ofworl< progress and quality checks on the employee' s work. In the words of Sect.io.n 8 .4 of Plan A:

This factor serves a s a scale of measurement for th.e extent to which independence of action is required ofthe emp.loyee, and measures .in tenns of the exte11t to wh ich:

(a) Tnstmction, direction or existing practice accompanies or covers work, or work a.ssignmenti;.

'"t .l U U U O .:J ..:J O ..:J

1 6

(b) Employee i s required or expected to refer to S upervisor, or designate/re::�ponsible parties, .i .e., as s system requ.iremeot where appl icable, for a.d.vice, instmction or direction.

(c) Progress and quality checks are expected to be made on the employee's work.

Plan A compares Degree 4 and Degree 5 as follows;

The job requires the employee to accomplish the work objective with on ly occas.ional reference to or check by the Supervisor.

Little adv ice or instruction is provided. except on important points

Only highly unusuaJ problems and important matters a.re expected to be referred to the su.perv.isor for advice, instmction or direction.

.Degree 5

The job ·requires the emp loyee to produce a service re.ndered or function performed with little reference f:o or check by the Supervisor.

Advice or instructions are seldom provided, and then are usually only departmental or equ.i.valent practice.

Reference to the Supervisor for instruction or direction i.s expected to be made infrequently, a.nd then only on quite important matters, or for clarification ofthe objective, or for interpretation of departmental or equivalent practice.

I HUL..

Only occasional checks are made by the Supervisor) and these a.re on the general. performance of the work.

Seldom are checks made on the employee's performance of the serv·ice or function, a.n.d a.re on broad aspects only.

3 1 . Under the Pla1.1 A Guidelines (s. 5 .4) the 3 criteria for eva1ua1ion of this factor are:

(a.) work assignments are covered by instruction, direction or existing practice;

(b) the Su.pe.rvisor (or oth0r responsible party) is involved duri.ng the processing of the assignment; and

(c) the assignments are checked for wor.k quality and progress.

The Guidelines indicate that w:heu two of the criteria are evaluated. equally that level

indicates the entire factor, and that when. all 3 differ, the middle factor. governs. The

Guidelines also provide the following comparison between Degree 4 and Degree 5 :

4th Sth Specialist or Senior Annlyst Section Head or Equivalent

11/07/2014 08 : 55 4 16 6859363 SURDYKDWSKI PAGE 18

1. 7

Criterion (a) � Possible approaches to achieving objectives pmv:ided .

� Requirement to work within departmental policy.

- lnstructio.n/advice limited to work objective interpretations and practices.

Criterion (b) - Full responsibility for assignments

- Refer.ence to Supervisor for highly unusual problems requiring authoritative ded.sions

Criterion (c) - Occasional cursory checks for information purposes

- Some guidance o.n impact of probable approaches or department practice.

- Self-supervi sed '

� lnstructjons limited to .important .m.a.tters (departrne11t-.levc.l policy etc., or requiring department head approval).

- Infrequent checks related only to broad objective accomplishments

32. The Society submits that this factor measures the extent to which the employee receives work 1nstruction and direction during a work assignment, and the frequency of

Supervisor work progress and quality checks. I agree� but that does not ad.van.ce the analysis. OPG argues that a subo:rdjnate usually ex�;;rcises a lesser degree of independent

action than his/her supervisor. r agree that that is � the case.

33. To my a.r.bitrato:r eyes, the:r.e j,s very little practical difference between Independent Action Degree 4 and Degree 5 . However� I must choose. The evidence (.i11.cluding that of TO Lakins) established that legislation by and large provides final outcome requirements but not how the,ge axe to be achieved. The evidence a1so establishes that final outcome

requirements are determined by OPG or the "owner'' of the radioactive mater-ials or packages, and that in either event there is always a Procedure or ":PROC" which is detetmina.tive of the "how" in that respect.

34. The Society places great emphasis on the TO duti.es and responsibilities with respect to s.hipment Verification Sheets an.d air pressure hold tests. The dispute between. the parties is most clearly delineated in paragraphs 24-26 of the Society's written repl y

submissions. The Society denies OPG's assertion that the TO is ro.erel.y signing the shipment clea.ra:oce declaration of tb.e V crification Sheets and not authorizing or

. -- -- --- - - certifying.-th.e shipment-It-points to the testi:ro.o.ny-of-'I'Os-Lakins and-I'etrovic tG-the

11/07/2014 08:55 4155859353 SURDYKDWSKI PAGE 19

1 8

effect that the TO is required to have a conversation. with the responsible FLM, and to the

reference in the TO job description point #13 to tbe TO responsjb.i.1ity for authorizj.ng �md certifying "veri:fication sheets :for Type A and Type .B .Packages and route as required". The Society emp.bru�izes the TO's role as the vital •'fmal barrier" to tb.e tra.nsportati.otl of such shipments. The Society submits that the specific TO ai:r p.r.essure hold test responsibility puts greater on the TO tba.u. the every employee responsibility to e.nsure safety and procedural compliance emphasized by OPG.

35 . There is no doubt that the TO role is an i:r:nporta.n.t one. But it is a qua.U.ty assu.r:ao.ce role. Yes, the TO must check the shipment V crification Sheet aod have a conversation with the responsible FLM, but the sheet completi on check is, witb respect,

largely adm.i.nistrati.ve (albeit knowledge based), and the .FLM conversatio.n is really intended to cause the FLM, who is responsible for directing and oversee1ng the actual

work, to think again in that respect Also, although a TO's signature is the last one

required, it is not the only one. A shjpment can equally not leave without the sign0d

certification by the "Responsible Supervisor". I observe that the Responsible Supervisor

certification is much more specific a.nd actual ly certifies that the Supervisor has "reviewed. and verified tbe actions actually undertaken'' with the TO and .. cspeci.al ly" R specified critical steps. The TO simply certifies that aU Verification Sheet «secti o:os have been comp.leted." and that based on the sheets and what the responsible FLM has told him!ber the h.tfon:nation is acceptable.

36. The Society's submissions beg the question; who would be held responsible if notwithstanding that the work activity portions of a Veri:5.cati.on Sheet were completed judicating that al.l wo:rk required bad been properly p�rforms and the FLM so certified both on the Sheet and in his/her conversation with the TO something went wrong as a. result of something being left undone? It seems to :r.ne that .it would not be the ]'0, How

could the TO be expected to even suspect that something might be amiss jn such circumstances? As for the ai'(' p;ressure hold test, it seems to me that the TO i.s there to

p:rovJ.de a fresh second set of eyes to ensure that the gauge is read properly.

37. In my view, TO .i.s not a «Section Head or Equivalent" position . . .f am satisfied. that, on balance, the TO position is properly rated Independent Action Degree Level 4 (as

assessed by OPG).

(ii) 8.6 Staff Responsibility

3 8 . OPG rates the TO position at Degree 3 (30 poj:nts) for th\s factor. The Societ-y submits that the proper rating is Degree 4 (40 points).

- -- -- -- - - - - -- ------ - - -------------- ------------

11/07 / 2 01 4 08 : 55 4155859353 SURDYKOWSKI

1.9

39. This factor measures the respons1bUity of ((Stafr' positi.ons to provide advice,

guidance, assistance in a functional capacity to Line or Staff employees, to exercise control over the action� pur.sued, and to be accountable for "the soundness of such advi ce whereby the incumbent's Supervisor has :functional authority/responsibility of control as part of unit's primary delivery functions".

40. Plan A stipulates that a Degree 3 employee vvill :

Provide advice, guidance and assistance in a re]ativoly loca.li.zed area, such as, with in departme11t or division or equivalent bounds, or in a wi der area (i .e., a region or several departments or several division.s) OJJ a function, which i8 shared with other employees . This i ncludes the inte�pretation and explanation of standard practice instructions, procedures or equivalent, and the responsibi lity of attempting to ensure tbat they arc comp l ied with.

A Degree 4 employee will:

Provide advice, guidance and assistance in a broad area such as on a Branch or corporate­wide basis, including the interpretation and explanation of �tandard practice instructions) procedures o.r equivalent, and the responsibility of attempting to ensure that they a.re comp.lled with; o.r by respons.ibi.Hty for initiating, devc.loping and issu.ing standard practice instructions., procedures or equivalent for the guidance of members of the department or division or equivalent.

41 . The P.lan A Rules of Appbcation for tlris factor (s. 8 .6. 1) specify that:

(c) A "Sta:ff'' position, which rates 3rd degree or higher degrees, is one which has a primary objective, the giving of advice, guidance or assistance to

(i) other than functional organizational groups or

(ii) functional representatives in other organization groups or (1i i) members of the same organizational groups who have direct responsibil ity for carrying out the primary oq_jectives of a common S upervisor.

(d) A clearly recognized Staff position i.s to be gra.nted the level in which it rates highest under either this factor or the f21ctor "Nature of Supervision Given to Others", but ·it ·is not to be cred ited under both. In sucl1 Staff positions, no credjt is given under the factor ''Number Supervised except for the staff. who report djrectly to the Staff pos ition.

(e) Similar degree levels cannot be credited to individuals in the same direct .line of authority.

PAGE 20

11/07/2014 08:55 415585 9353 SURDYKDWSKI

20

Plan A Guidelines s. 5.6J specifies the following vvith respect to the essential components of staff .responsibility:

o "advice, gu i dance and assistance" can only be credited when one's supervisor has that functional authority or responsibility of contro'l as pa.rl: of the unit's Primary Dellvery .Funct.ioni!. (Th is is a most primary cons ideration.) ;

o position is idcnti.f:ied as a. "staff' position;

o position i.s re$pons ible for provid ing "advice, guidance an.d assistance" to line or staff members and attempting to exercise control over the action to be pmsued; a11d

o pos ition is held accountable for sou:odncss of the advice given.

Section 5 .6.2 includes Rules 3 and 4 as follows:

Rule 3 To rate Degree 3 or hi.gher, the positjon's primary function must be the giving of "advice, guidance and assistance" to organir.ation. groups beyond those reporting to his/her supervisor, or to colleagues in his/her own organizational unit who are responsible for carrying out the primary objectives of a common supervisor (Reference: Plan A 8.6 . 1 (c)).

Rule 4 Stipulates application of credit vis-a-vis Nature of Supervision and N umbers Supervised factor (Reference; Plan A 8 .6.1 (d)).

Guidelines s. 5.6.3 provides this comparison of Degrees 3, 4 and 5 :

Degree 3

o The position 's primary function is to provide ''advice, guida.nce and assistance"

in a functional ca.paci1y. An attempt to ensure compl iance is also required.

o This level is applied to positions which exercise this role either alone over a department or division (not necessarily his/her ovvn); or with others over a region or seve\"a) departments or several divisions.

o Positi.ons whi.ch "help" others responsible for "advice, guidance and nssistance" given on a .Branch or Corporate-wide basis or which share this responsibility ate c.redited with Degree 3 . (A large divis.ion does not qual ify as the term "b.roacl area" is interpreted to mean extensive organizational authority versus extensive numbers serviced. This interpretation is supported at the end of the fourth degree statements, .ie, "the department or division or equivalent" A d.ivision must be considered tl.1e same as a department for this factor.) Attempting to ensure compliance is also required. Tt is expected that the one being "helped" has Degree 4 Responsibi lity based on conditions outl ined below.

PAGE 21

4 J. D D D D ':J .:! D .:l OUKLI Y I'\U\'101'\J.

2 1

Degree 4

o The primary j ob ftmction is to give "advice, gu,idance and assistance" to a Bnmch or higher level unit of the Corporation and "atte.mpt to e:n sure compliance" with the sa.me. Large djvisjons do not qualify. These positions, .like those granted Degree 3, must also provide interpretation .and explanation of st1mdard practice instructions or procedures .

o Degree 4 is also used where the primary o�jecti.ve of a position is the responsibility to initiate, develop and i ssue standard practice instmct.ions or procedures for guidance of a department's or divisiof.I'S staff.

Degree 5

o Is seldom used. It is intended for use where the primary olJ_jcctive is either acf:ing as a cou.sultant to a .Director or higher level manager; or ha.vi.ng responsibi lity for initiating, developing, and issuing standard practices or procedures for the guida.JJce of departments and divisions across the Corporati.on .

42. I a.gr.ee with OPG that this factor measures the extent to which an employee is required to attempt to ensure compliance with tb.e advice, guidance, etc. l do not agree that it necessarily measures the extent to which a.u employee is accountable in that :respect. The Staff Responsjbjljty factor is give.u to "staff:" positions. The first 2 degrees

are typically given to employees "vho assist a senior supervisory position in the

pe1forrnance of their functions and respons.i.bjJjti.es. A Degree 3 or higher e.rn.pl.oyee is respcmsible for providing advice, guidance, etc. to work groups beyond his/her :functional

area and for en.suring compliance with such advice, guidance or iu.si..rocti.o:n.. A staff position will be given the higher of eithet the Nature of Supervision :factor or the Staff Respo:osibi1ity factor but :oot both. Tbis is also a hierarchical factor related to the I11te:mal

Contacts factors. For example, Degree 2 or h1gher Staff Responsibility ·will normally

have Degree 4 in Internal Contacts.

43 . The primary TO j ob function is to provide important Quality Assurance oversight for the transportation of packages of radioactive ;materials. Although this involves giving

"advice, guida.uce and assistance" to the PWU-n:::presented employees who prepare the

package an.d to attempt to ensure compliance in that respect, this is pr.iJ:narily at the :ful).dio:nal level, not at a Branch or higher level unit of OPG. TO dut:ie::; <l.lld respon.si.blljties in that respect do not include the authority to give work direction as such to other employees. There is no dispute that TOs have no direct or indirect employee

supervisions and. tbaf the position is properly rated at Nmnber Supervised Degree level "0". Notwithstanding the loose use ofthe terrn in some of OPG's Procedure docmnentation it is apparent that to the exte.nt that TO� give "direction'' they do so in an. advisory or cautionary way co:o.sbtent vv:ith the collaborative team culture encouraged by OPG. In the (albeit unlikely) event that a PWU Mechanical Maintainer tasked -with

1 1/07/ 2014 08:55 4166869363 SURDYKOWSKI PAGE 23

22

preparing a nuclear materials package for shipment docs not accept a TO's advice or

caution� the TO cannot ord.e:r the Mec.b.a.nical Maintain.er to comply or apply discipline.

Instead, the TO has two options: s/he can either turn to the Mechanical Maintainer's First

Line Manager C'FLM"), for that purpose, or refuse to sigo. the Cer.ti:fi.ca.tion document which is required before the shipment can be released.

44. Lakins claims that TOs give work instruction, which be djsti.o.guishes from

direction, to other. employees in the field, i.n.cludiug PWU- represented Shippers, Receivers, Mechanics and. Radiation Protection employees, both through the procedtu:es

they have authored (although he waffled. a bit on this) and directly. Lakins clarified that he docs not mean direct supe:rv:i.sion in the sense of telling PWU employees when to do a task or when to take breaks, but does apply if a TO notices a failure to follow procedure or a shortfaU in. that is reqwred. I disagree with Laki.ns' characterization. A TO is not

required to be and is generally not present during package assembly for other than air pressure hold tests (which are only per.for.med on Type B packages - which average 5 per week (Exhibit #5) which Lakins testified typically occupi.es only an hour or so per week of a. TO's time) and to give review the documentation and sign off on the release of the

. package. Society�represented FLMs provide direct supervision to the .P\VU-represented. employees, and they, not TOs, arc responsible for e:nsuri.ng the required work i.s done correctly. It is clear t.ha� a TO checks and ensures that the procedure checklist has been properly completed by the PWU-.represented employee(s), and docs not actually check

the work itself� other than during the final package visual inspection "walk around". The PWU-represented employee(s)' l?LM is responsible for direct supervision. The TO provides an "oversight" fuo.ction - not a supervision/direction function.

45 . The primary TO responsibi..Jjty is to ensure that the shipping docum.entation for

Type A and Type B packages of radioactive matetials have been completed and show that aU applicable procedure have been followed, and that there are no obvious physical

deficiencies to the package as loaded on the transport vehicle. However, the duties and

responsibilities of the TO position include assj.sfu1g the .RMT Manager by prov:i.di.ng "advice, guidance and assistance" on a Branch or OPG�wide basis, and to .i.nitiate, develop an.d jssue standard RMT practice instmctions or procedures. This is reflected in points #1 1 and #12 ofthe current j ob description (paragraph 1 5, above) .

46. However, I disagree with the Soci.ety's submissions that paragraphs 1 1 and 1 2 of

the current job desc.dpti.on have significantly expanded TO duties and responsibilities

fmm those describEJd in paragraph 2 of the historic job desc.ription v.r:l.th respect to providing expertise, fuu.ctional advice, guidance an.d .i.ntetpreta.tion regarding regulatory or OPG intemal requirements. Although the increase fTOm .1. 0 to 2J specified duties and

1 1/07 / 2014 08 : 55 4155859353 SURDYKOWSKI

23

responsibilities may suggest this close inspection does not reveal any significant accretion in that .respect.

47. I am satisfied. that any appar.ent cha:n.ge or addition to TO duties and

responsibilities is just that - apparent For example, it is true that the historic job

descri.ption. described (in paragraph J ) TO respo:o.sj.bility as being to "Develop and revise,

fo:r Manager �:eview, documentation related to radioactive .tn.aterial transportation."; while

paragraph 1 9 of the cutr.ent job description states that it is a TO duty and responsibility to

"Initiate, develop, review, and revise documentation, procedures, and instrucHon.s related

to radioactive material transportation for the guidance of Corporate ao.d External staff."

However, tbe position is not identi:6.ed as a. staff positi.on, the TO does not attempt to exercise control over the action to be pursued, and the evidence does not suggest that a TO i s held accountable (within the meaning of Pl an. A) for the soundness of the advice given .

48. Further, it is clear from the evidence that TOs d o not have authority independent

of the RMT manager to promulgate .new or revised documentatjon, procedures, or instructions. That 1s, TOs continue to be the Subject Matter Experts ("SMEs") that they

ha:ve always actual.ly been, and to ha:ve the Single Point of COJ.ltact ("SPOC")

responsibility they h.a:ve always had. The only real difference in that respect .is that TOs �.re now officially (and separately) designated as the SMEs ofthe vari.ous applicable

procedures. (For example, TO Mro:shall is the designated SME for W-P.ROC-W.M-003 3 ;

T O Palladino i s the designated. SME for W-PROC-WM-0006, W-PROC-WM-0032, W­PROC-WM-003 1. , TO Pearson is the designated SME for W-PROC-'WM-0060, and W­

PROC-WM-0035; TO Lakins is the designated SME for W-PROC-WM�0040. However, RMT Manager Pauljne \i\Titzke is not only the Content Authority for all of these p:rocedur.es, she is also the designated SME for w .. pRQG-"WM�0002, whi.ch i.s a .licensing basis d.ocum.e.nt for Radioactive Material Transportation. 1 also note that STE/0 Wolff was the designated SME for W�PROC-WM-0023 whkh is the procedure for "T,J.ilJ.jum Transportation Packaging Maintenance, Inspection and Testing" when D. Howe was the Content Authority and RMT Manager) .

49. Although I agree with the Society that the <<or" in the Degree 4 rating description

i.s di.sjunctive, on 111<.� evidence TOs do not have the Degree 4 level of responsibility for

initiating, developing and issuing standard practice instructions, procedures or. equivalent

for the guidance of members of tbe depatim.ent or d.iv:isjo.n or equivalent described in Plan A. TOs can and do identify and initiate changes to procedures as these appear to be

required. But so can any employee in. any classification. That .is part ofthe OPG culture. Changes to procedures cannot be implemented without the approval of management

authority, which jn the case ofTOs is RMT Mauage:( Wjtzke or a Section Manager to

PAGE 24

•H b b i:J b :J::l b ::l SURDYKDWSK I PAGE 25

24

whom she has delegated that authority. (TOs report to the Section Manager, Radioactive . Shipments.) Although TOs draft the procedures they operate under (which they do in consultation with the relevant categor.ies of other employees (e.g. Engineering, Radiation Protection, Chemical Laboratory, Ope.rai.io.ns, Mecha.n.ica.l Maintainers, the Reactor Maintenance people in Inspection and Maintenance Services)� I reject Lakins' and the Society's suggestion that TOs make the final "call'> with respect to al.tering established _ p.r.oced:ures or establishing new om::s, or that as the S:ME of a procedure a TO "owns" a procedure. The final �'call" is made at a level above the TOs, and a new o:r. altered

procedure cannot be issued or implemented until i.t is approved. by the Content Authority (i.e. the RMT Manager (cu.rrently Witzke) or her delegate), and the Content Autho:r..i.ty "owns" the procedure.

50. The changes in the general description of the TO function and to the list of duties and r.esponsibiliti.es ro.e:r.eJ.y cla:ri.fy TO duties and responsibilities by providing what is largely a more detailed description. of same. To the extent that duties a:J).d responsibilities

bave been. added, they are not sufficient to justifY a change in Degree level.

5 1 . I am satisfied that tbe TO position is properly rated at Sta'ff RespolJ.sibility Degree

Level 3 .

(iii) 8.9 External Contacts

52. OPG rates the TO position at Degree 4 ( 1 7 points) for this factor. The Society says the TO duties and responsibilities merit a Degree 5 (2 1 points) .r.a.ting.

53 . This factor measures the responsibility ''to deal tactfully, dip1omatl.ca.Uy and

harmoniously witb�' the public or extemal entities �'in or.d.er to achieve and maintain good

relationship, goodwm and corporate presti ge vvith reasonabl e frequency via (1) face-to­face contact; (2) telephone contact; (3) written contact."

54. Plan A distinguishes between Degrees 4 and 5 as follows:

4th Contacts involving coordinatin g o.fthe work or activity of"outsiders" with that ofd1e Corporation and influencing them to adopt a course of a.ction suitable to the Corporation.

5th Ccm.tact� invo lving tl1e influencing of"ou.tsiders'' to �hange their course of action to one su itable to the Corporation.

(Emphasis added.)

11/07/ 2014 08: 55 415 5859353 SURDYKDWSKI

25

55 . Plan A s. 8.9.1 stipulates that it is the nature and purpose ofhighcst level normal ox typical co.I'J.tact made with reasonable frequency, and not with whom coD.tact j� made, that is important; al).d that written contacts ar.e only cot:lsidered when the 1odj.vid.ua.l. signs a.nd assumes responsibility for the document. Plan A GuideHnes s. 5.9 defines "Exter.nal

Contacts as business contacts outside of OPG, including individuals; representaiives of pubHc groups, private or govemment sectors; an.d full�time staff officials of any employee representative body acting o:n. official business for that body.'' The Guidelines

s. 5.9 .2 distinguishes between Degrees 4 and 5 as fo11ows:

Degree 4

Two dema.nds wh ich must be met to qua.li:ty for Degree 4 are the .necessity to:

(a) coordinate the work or activity of outsiders with that of [OPG]; and

(b) influence the outsider to adopt a course of action acccptabl.e to [OPGJ,

Note; "In:fluencc" means the altering of another's stro.ngly held viewpoint through assertive presentation, negotiations, organization ability1 and convincing attitude. "Influ.en.ce" .i� not considered where a '<tlig stick" �upport is present, eg, where specific actions of outs) de parties are dictated by the terms of a. co.ntrac6 by la."?-1, by legal regulation, Qtc.

Degree 4 recognition would also be applicable to Degree 3 contacts but where the i::�sues dealt with are coni:rove:rsia.l in nattJ.re.

Degree 5

The major difference between .Degrees 4 and 5 is infl••e�cing an outsider to alter an existing course of action, esta.bl.i.sh.ed process, or finnly held viewpoint, etc. This demand is greater than that related to the influence on outsiders uti lized in the mutual

development of a process or the achieving of an understand.ing where viewpoin1s are negotiable (Degree 4).

[Balded emphasis supplied; underlined emphasis added.]

56. T am satisfied that the TO position is properly rated at External Contacts Degree

Level 4, primarily because of the "maj or differ.ence" identified by Degree 5 . That is, TOs

do not reach Degree 5 because they are governed by and may not deviate from

established procedures on their own independent authority. They do not ,have th� independent authority to seek to "influence,, (i.e. act without "big sti.ck" support) an "outsider" (such as Bruce Power, Kinectrics Inc. (a laboratory facility - formerly part of

Ontario Hydro), Nordi.o:o. al).d jts associated transporters (such as .Tad.e Transport), or

extem.al third parties who contract with OPG's Isotope Sales Group, ox Transport Canada or the CNSC), or to mutually develop or negotiate an understanding with any external

PAGE 25

- - - - - ---- -- - - -- -- - ----- - - - - - - -- - --- - - - ----- - - - - - - -- - --- - --- --- - -- -- - - - - ---- - ----- ------- -------

1 1 /07/201 4 08: 5 5 4 1 55859353 SURDYKOWSK I

26

entity which deviates from either regulatory or jntemal OPG requirements or procedures. Degree leve.l 5 requires a .leve.l of independence that TOs do not have.

57. The evidence with respect to various external contacts reveals that TO "jntJ.uen.cing" operates at tbe level of explaining and requiring non-regulatory external

contacts to adhere to regulatory and OPG requirem.eJJ:ts. The evidence with respect to the .Emergency Response Orgauizatio.n ("ERO") presentations to the public and emergency

first responders suggests that this is largely a public relations exercise intended to m.olHfy

con.cer.:ns abont hazards associated with accidents involving radioactive packages.

Although having a TO perfonn tbis task brigs a certain cachet of expertise to the presentation, the fact i.s tJ.J.at TO .knowledge-based expertise is not required fo:r this task, and tb.at this is JJot the sort of influencing ofvievvpoints con.tero.plated by the External

Contacts factor. Even if it did, it would not help bring the TO position within Degree

.level S . Nor does the example of the Jade Transport Co60 shi.pm.e.nt :from. Darlington to

Japan assist the Society. The TO in that case did not influence an "outsider" to alter its course of action within the meaning of the External Contacts factor. The TO simply refused to sign off on the shipment because it did. not comply with regulatory

require:ro.eJJ.ts (j .e. tlJe OPG Shipper was not marine qualified) - which is a primary quality assurance TO responsj.bjJjty. The "influencing'� that occurred was by "big stick"

regulatory requirements in place with the TO acting as conduit and gatekeeper.

(J.v) 8 . 1 0 Responsibility for Accuracy � Effect of Errors

58 . OPG rates the TO position at Degree 3 (29 points). The Society says it deserves a Degree 4 (40 points) rating.

59. This factor assesses the importance of accuracy and sound judgment and decision.�

maldng. J.t measures this in terms ofthe point at which an. error would be detected, and

the effects of inaccuracy IDJd poor. judgment. As per s. 8 . . 1 0: «The greater the impact, the greater the dema.o.d for accuracy."

60. Plan A de:f:i.nes Degrees 3 and 4 as follows:

3rd

Probable errors might be d.iffioult to detect1 and could result in cons.idera.bl.e confusion, interruption or loss of time to other employees, and might be fe.lt to a considerable extent by a. number of work groups or other departments. Considemble effort and expenditure for oorrection1 or considerable financial loss could result. Errors could hnve a cons1de-ra.h le adverse effect on public or labour (employee) relations.

4tb

PAGE 2 7

1 1 /B7/2B l 4 08:55 4 1 5 5859353 SURDYKOWSKI

27

Judgements and decisions are required in which errors would be difficult to detect and wou ld re:mlt in great financial loss. 'D1e effect would likely be widely felt. .Errors would have serious a.rid long Jasting effect on public or labour (employee) relations.

PAGE 28

Plan .A also stat�::s (in Rules of Application s. 8 . 1 0. 1 ) that the errors must be in relation to the demands aud duties of the job; tbat the analysis under this factor must consider the probable types of errors that the incumbent of the positi on. roight make, and assess the effect on OPG of the most serious ones; that errors may be mechanical errors or errors .in judgm.en.t (but that jobs involving automated technology applications must be analyzed for the pre.se:nce :md impact of built-.in. error prevention and. detection capability); a:nd that the fact that carelessness or :failure to care:61Ily consider aU facts may be the cause of

errors J.s immaterial.

6 l , The Plan A Guidelines largely reiterate the requirements of :Plan A itself. Section 5 . 1 0 states that:

The purpose of this factor is DOt to reward error but the need for accuracy in a job ba.sEld on the impact that a. l ikely error would have, if it occurred. The greater the i.m.pa.ct, the greaf.e.r tl1e demand for accuracy.

Nonm!.lly, the greater the possibil ity of an error occurring, and/or its impa.ct, if .made� the greater the precautionary measures taken to reduce or negate such po8sibility and/or impact. The existe.oce and extent of error detection, safeguards, or contro.l require evaluation and generally should serve to minimi7..e the credit assigned..

Plan A Guidelines s. 5 . 1 0 . 1 goes on to identify the general considerations under tlus factor as bein.g:

o the nature of1J1e errors most likely to occur (in relation to the- duties of the position);

o the safeguards affecting commi.tta.l or impact of error;

o the poi.ut at whicb an error would be detected;

o the impact ofthe error.

Considerations (s. 5 . 1 0.2) include financial loss (minor, some, co:osfd.erable, great); interpersonal relationships (some, considerable, serious and long�lasting adverse effects on. employee, labour, or external relation$); and, work effort (miuo.r, some, consj.de:rable,

widely felt).

28

62. The Plan A Guidelines state that Degrees 2 and 3 are the most widely used and that Degree 4 "is seldom used as the type of error described is no.rmally fmmd .in j obs whi.ch are beyond Plan A's scope."

63 . The Society submits 1hat the TO position is unique in that it is tasked with a responsibility for accuracy in a manner that other O.PG pos.iti.ons are not. TI1e Society argues that a faU.ttre on the part of a TO to properly discharge hisfh.er responsibility for

preventing events that would result in an unplanned discharge, emission. o:r escape of

radioactive material from a transportation package would be widely felt and have long

lasting public a11d labour relations dfects. Th.e Society asserts that regardless of where the I.egal respo:n.sibll ity Hes (which Ol?G says is with the Class 7 Shipper) the TO positi.on

is responsible for coordinating and approving the :final release of transportation packages

which carry materials with the hi.ghest levels of radioactive activity, and that the consequence of a failure by the responsible ro to pe:r.fonn. the job properly would be ''Extremely High (affects reactor or public safety" (Exhibit #36). ln that respect, the Society relies heavily of the evidence concerning the "Roadrunner incident'', the evidence

conceming improper radiation dose rate labels, and Witzke's agreement that shipping a. package 'Without the required TO signature on the Verification Sheet would constitute an incident reportable to the CNSC. The Society also relies on the assigoment of a TO to

accompany shipments of irradiated fuel .

64. OPG says that tbi.s facto1; evaluates the impact of errors of inaccuracy or poor judgment by looking at fmancia.l loss, the impact on employees, labour and. externaJ bodies and the work effort that would be required to rectif-y the error. OPG submits that

TO responsibi.lity for judgment or decision errors falls short of Degree level. 4 significance.

· 65. T am satisfied that the TO position .is properly rated at Responsibility for. Err.ors Degree level 3 . The TO j ob function i..s driven by detailed established regulatory and OPG procedural requirements. 111e;re is very JjttJ.e scope of independent judgment. Either a regulation or procedure has been complied with or. it has ,�.ot. Further, the Plan. A Guidelines suggestion that the Degree level of error "normally" lies with positions wb.:ich are beyond the scope of Plan A strongly suggest that the type of error wbich a TO may be accountable for does not reach that leveL Nothing .in the evidence about the "Roadnmner

· jnci.deJlt'', dose rate labels, or reportable evidence suggests otherwise. J\nd. the TO "ride

along" function serves only to put a second person jn the truck cab (which should always

.l.1ave been so) in order to assist driver communication and to maintain shipment surve1l lance while the driver takes breaks. On the evidence, this does not require any par.tjcular expertise.

'! l b b t:! b :J .:J b .:J �Ut<!JYKUW�Kl

29

(b) AM�e.nt.AgiW!st Qther Jobs �Chl, ao.4..� .. �<!-��f¥�0�lm��J" ... .%£U

66. The parties made written submission with respect to the application of steps (b)

a.ud (c) in Plan A s. 5.4. The position comparators offered for consideration by the Society (.8.T.I.d their salary band level. ratings) are «Employee Communicatio:o.s Manager" (M.P6), L'Corporate Citizenship Pr.ogram Manager" (MP6), "Senior Advisor - Business

Development" (MP6), uSe.uior Officer; Conduct of Operations" (MP6), "Environmental

Advisor" (MP6), "Sr. Advisor - Work Protection" (MP6), «Team Ldr - Payroll & Accou:tJ.tin.g Services" (M:P3), 'Training Officer" (MP4), aod "Sr, Advisor Eve.nts

Officer" (MP5). OPG subrohs that the appropriate comparators are FLM. Civil Maintenance (MP3), FLM Contr:oJ/l'vfechan.ical. (MP4), and FLM Radiation Control

(MP4) positions (I did. hear some evidence about), and. the Field S.bi:ft Operating Supervisor (LLFSOS" - also MP4).

67. T .have :read the parties' extensive written submissions and supporting comparator Job Identi'f:1catio:n Data Gob description) and other documentation with care.

68 . I agree w1tb the Society that tb.e assessments uod.et steps (b) and (c) ar.e a necessary part of the job rating process. After all, that is what s. 5 .4 specifically says. As such these steps serve as a sort ofrelati.v.i.ty check on the step (a) assessmeut. ln my view, that is particularly the case when tb.e step (a) result brings the job close to the demarcation line between MF levels. T also agree 'With the Society that the step (b) and (c) comparisons should only result in a change to the job rating and resulting salary grade

detenniua.tion uo.der step (a) in exceptional drcumstances. That is, the step (b) and (c) comparisons should only give pause when the step (a) result is clearly out of whack the

established job and salaty organizatio.nal hierarchy.

69. Even if the TO position is sui gen.eris (i.e. unique) as the Society suggests, that does JJ.otblng to a.dva.uce the analysis. In an.y event, there is no direct comparator. But as OPG points out in its written submissions OPG' s workforce consists of many highly

specialized responsible, and in many ways unique, positions. The difficulty that this presents for the reqttired compar.ison is illustrated by the parties� submissi ons.

70. The Society' s approach to the step (b) and (c) assessment is to compare the Job

Identification Data descriptions for the TO position to those of the comparators it has selected. for each of the 4 factors jn dispute. The Society has also chosen to compare the TO position to different positons for each job factor in dispute. I do not consider this

approach appropriate or particularly helpful. It seems to me that the approach contemplated by Plan A s. 5 .4 steps (b) an.d (c) is a "big picture'' relativity cb.eck which

l l i � I I L�1 4 � � : 8 8 4 1 5 b B 5 9 3 5 3 SURDYKOWSKI. PAGE 31

30

contemplates an overall organizational and hierarchical rather than a point�by-point

"cherry picking" comparison. Further, .ifthe point-by-point approach is taken, surely al.l job factors an.d not just the ones in dispute for the position in issue ha:vlil to be compared

in order that the true "flavour" of the comparison is revealed. That 1s, under steps (b) and

(c) the question is whether the rating arrived at in step (a) clearly does not make

organizational or hierarchical sense.

7 l . A detai.led examination ofthe comparator evidence or submissions would require many pages, and no purpose would be served by delving into such an analysis . l ha:ve considered all of the proposed comparators. .I am not satisfied that rnaintainiu.g the TO positon at the MP4 salary band level creates any clear organizational or hierarchical

anomaly which justifies moving the position to the MP5 salary band level.

72. TO is a signi:ticant speciali?-ed knowl.edge-based position which. is prit.narlly .respons)ble for providing au important quality assurance function, and its current Pla.n A job rating brings it very close to the «neutral point" div:iding line between its current MP4

salary band ar.td the MP5 salary band level . Plan A s . 10 sets out the point ranges per salary (i.e. MP) grade, In addiii.on to specifying the point range for each salary level, it

speci:fies the ''neutral point" point score whi.ch identifies the dividing line between MP levels. Note #2 states that: "Jobs wbich faH on the neutral point are placed in the salary

grade above or below the neutral point, by the M&P Job Evaluation Committee, on the

basi s of comparison with other j obs."

73 . T·:T.owever, I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to require an adjustment of band level to MP5 much less MP6 on either a factor degree level assessment basis (Plan A s.

5 .4(a)), or a job or sa:Iary grade comparator basis (Plan A s. 5.4 (b) and (c)) .

74. The gr.ievan.ce .is therefore dismissed.

75. I shal.l remain seized for rectification purposes.

DATED AT TORONTO TillS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014.