Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-0212.Youden.87-12-07Between: Before: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD For the Grievor: For the Employer: OPSEU (M. Youden) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Government Services) E. K. Slow Vice Chairman J. Solberg Member H. Roberts Member C. M. Dassios Counsel Gowling and Henderson Barristers and Solicitors D. N. Brown Counsel Crown Law Office Civil Ministry of the Attorney General Grievor Employer Hearing: September 9, 1987 .J DECISION This is a classification grievance. The Grievor holds the position of Records Clerk in the Ministry of Government Services. The job is classified as a Clerk 2 General. She grieves that for a period of approximately two years, between December, 1984 and December, 1986, the actual duties entrusted to her are more properly classified as a Clerk 3, General. She asks for the pay differential covering that period. The Grievor's job is in the Information Services Branch of the Ministry. That branch operates the central . switchboard which fields calls coming in to the Ontario Government. The main function of that switchboard is to channel inquiries to the appropriate person in the Government. This switchboard handles some 20,000 telephone calls per day. It is essential that the switchboard operators have at their fingertips completely~up-to-date information so that calls can be properly channeled. Up to December, 1984, the largest component of the Grievor's job involved the updating of the "visual index", an archaic manual system of providing the switchboard operators with the necessary information. In late 1984, a new supervisor took over and began to update this system. In the process, more of the Grievor's time became freed up to do other tasks. Instead of spending 75% of her time updating - 2 - the visual index, she began to spend only about 40% of her time updating the various books and manuals provided to the switchboard operators. She began to take an active role in preparing various payroll and personnel reports for her branch. These reports essentially contained information gleaned from the daily attendance reports. It became one of the Grievor's jobs to cross-check the computer printouts generated by the central attendance reporting system (CARS), to make sure it was accurate. The Grievor also had a number of auxiliary duties which it is not necessary for us to describe in detail. The Grievor's position specification form was rewritten in early 1986, and it represented something of a change from the 1980 specification. On paper, the new specification does not represent a quantum leap beyond the old specification, although it is obvious that some of the duties are different. We are being asked to~conclude that the job actually being performed by the Grievor during the relevant period more closely fits a Clerk 3, General than it does the Clerk 2, General class standard. It is useful to set out the basic class definition for each of these two standards: - 3 - CLERK2,GEtJERAL Employees in positions allocated to this class normally perform a number of clerical tasks of limited complexity according to established procedures, where the prime responsibility is for accuracy and an acceptable rate of production. Decision-making consists of determining whether material conforms to specific, set-out procedures or standards and requires little background knowledge of regulations or statutes. Employees may initiate standardized letters involving little original composition such as form letters, acknowledgements, reminders, etc. They may also assist with the training of junior staff. Assignments of unusual difficulty are preceded by detailed instructions or are carried out under close supervision. The work is reviewed for adherence to procedure and acceptable standards of accuracy and volume. CLERK3,GENERAL Employees in positions allocated to this class, as "journeyman clerks, perform routine clerical work of some complexity according to established procedures requiring a background knowledge of specific regulations, statutes or local practices. Decision- making involves some judgment in the selection of alternatives within a comprehensive framework of guidelines. Initiative is in the form of following up errors or omissions and in making corrections as necessary. Doubtful matters now covered by precedent are referred to supervisors. Much of the work is reviewed only periodically, principally for adherence to policy and procedures. Typical tasks at this level include the preparation of factual reports, statements or memoranda requiring some judgment in the selection and presentation of data; assessment of the accuracy of statements or eligibility of applicants, investigating discrepancies and securing further proof or documentation as necessary: overseeing, as a Group Leader, the work of a small subordinate staff by explaining procedures, assigning and checking work. This is a terminal class for many positions involving the competent performance of routine clerical work common to the office concerned. - 4 - We were pointed to certain differences between the two standards, and it was Submitted to us that in each case the Clerk 3 standard was more appropriate. LIMITED COMPLMITY vs SOME COMPLEXITY It was suggested to us that the Grievor's job involved clerical work of some complexity, as the Grievor had a responsibility to follow-up errors, order office supplies and supervise the destroying of obsolete files. In ours view, the degree of judgment actually required to perform these tasks was not so great as to take them out of the category of limited complexity. LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF REGULATIONS OR STATUTES VS A BACKGROUND MOWLEDGE OF SPECIFIC REGULATIONS, STATUTES OR LOCAL PRACTICES It was suggested that the Grievor required some background knowledge of the Fublic Service Act and the Collective Agreement in order properly to distinguish between those employees of the branch who were in the classified service and those in the unclassified service. It is 'true that the Grievor had to know who was classified and who was unclassified, and in the case of the latter what the nature of the contract was. It is also true that the Grievor had to have some basic understanding of the benefits provided by the Collective Agreement. ‘However, we do not agree that any significant background knowledge of statutes or regulations - 5 - is required. Neither class definition refers to knowledge of the Collective Agreement. One does not really have to look at the Public Service Act or the regulations thereunder to find the limited amount of information that the Grievor requires in preparing the reports. STANDARDIZED LETTERS VS INITIATIVE IN THE FORM OF FOLLOWING UP ERRORS OR OMISSIONS It was suggested that the Grievor's tasks in the area of checking for errors in the CARS printout, as well as her occasional responsibility for reconciling taxi charges, is more consistent with the Clerk 3, General standard. While that is probably so, the types of errors which the Grievor follows up do not necessarily arise as a matter of initiative. It is her job to check for errors. It is not so much a matter of taking initiative for errors that arise in an unexpected context. DEGREE OF SUPERVISION It is suggested that the Grievor works with minimal supervision. This is no doubt true. However, where an employee's tasks are repetitive it is natural to assume that he or she will require minimal supervision once the job is learned. It seemed apparent to us that the Grievor is very good at what she does. However, the fact that the Grievor receives minimal supervision is more a function of her innate ability than it is of the exigencies of the job. j ., . . . . - 6 - REVIEWED FOR ADHERENCE TO PROCEDURE VS REVIEWED ONLY PERIODICALLY It was suggested that the Grievor's work was reviewed only periodically. This is true. However, there does not seem to be all that much of a distinction between the two standards in respect of the frequency of review. PREPARATION OF FACTUAL REPORTS This is a task associated with the Clerk 3, General standard. It wassubmitted to us that the forms prepared by the Grievor are in the nature of factual reports. In our view.the type of factual reports referred to in the standard involve the seeking out of data, that is, a degree of fact finding. In the case of the Grievor, she is basically transferring the information from one raw source, namely the attendance reports, and putting it into a different form. This does not appear to us to fall within the type of factual reporting that is referred to in the Clerk 3, General standard. INVESTIGATING DISCREPANCIES This is a phrase found within the Clerk 3, General standard. It is suggested that many of the Grievor's tasks involved investigating discrepancies. This is so. - 7 - ACTING AS GROUP LEADER It was suggested that because the Grievor occasionally acts as a backup for group leaders, that it is consistent with the reference in the Clerk 3, General standard to "overseeing as group leader . ..". As far as these occasional acting group leader assignments are concerned, counsel for the employer urged us not to be influenced because it would inhibit the employer from occasionally entrusting employees with these assignments if it were to lead to a right to be reclassified. We agree. In assessing an employee's promotability, the employer must occasionally test the employee beyond his or her immediate responsibilities. If the employee performs well when given additional responsibility, his or her career potential is enhanced. It is probably a matter of degree as to how much additional responsibility can be placed on an employee before his or her job has actually been changed. In this case, we do not believe that the acting group leader responsibility occupies a sufficient amount of time to amount to a qualitative difference. If there is a quintessence to the Clerk 3, General standard, we find it in the phrase "decision making involves some judgment in the selection of alternativeswithin a comprehensive framework of guidelines." In our view, this is decidedly lacking in the Grievor's job. It appeared to us - 8 - that there were very few alternatives available to be selected, which limits the amount or degree of judgment to be employed. The Grievor told us about certain occasions when she went beyond the expected approach to her tasks, and took some initiative. Again, this seems to be more a function of the individual than of the job. While the employer certainly benefits from having a bright and perhaps over-qualified person in a particular job, it is not up to the employee to re-classify the position merely by performing it excellently and undertaking work above and beyond the call of duty. In the result, we find that the Grievor's job during the period of December, 1984 through December, 1986 was not improperly classified, and the grievance is dismissed. Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of December, 1987. CL /c L.L-A.- CL /c L.L-A.- E.K. SLONE E.K. SLONE - VICE-CHAIRMAN - VICE-CHAIRMAN "I dissent" (Dissent attached1 "I dissent" (Dissent attached1 J. SOLBERG . - J. SOLBERG . - MEMBER MEMBER DISSENT I simply cannot agree with the Board ’ s interpretation of the evidence nor its conclusions regarding the application of the class standards. To my mind, the grievor's testimony about her job and how it had changed was most compelling. Prior to 1984, she had been engaged in a tedious daily routine of updating and re- typing telephone numbers; after 1984, that kind of work took up far less of her time. Instead, she was assigned the additional duties of compiling and checking attendance records, preparing reports for premium Andy holiday pay , and a myriad of other office jobs that entailed a higher degree of responsibility, judgment and accuracy. Moreover, she did this work with little direct supervision. Frankly, it's just too. self-serving of the employer to come before this Board with a unilaterally revised position specification indicating a workload so inconsistent with the grievor's own evidence. And, perhaps more importantly, it's too late in the day for this employer (and this Board) to suggest that the grievor is merely an example of an over-qualified and over zealous employee. By their allocation of duties, and tacit compl i ante with her init.iatives on-the-job, this employer has effectively assigned the gri~evor work of a higher classi'fication. And that ought to have been recognised in compensation as well as in fact. "J. Solberg” J. Solberg