Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1561.Lechocki.94-08-30ONTARIO EMPLOY& DE LA COURONNE CR0 WN EMPLOYEES DE L’ONJARIO GRIEVANCE CQMMlSSlON,DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD ( DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUIJE~IOO, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MEG fZ8- T&EPHONE/TiL$PHONE: (4 16) 326- 1388 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU2100, TORONTO foNJARI0). M5G 1Z8 FACSlMiLE/T~L~COPlE : (416) 326-1396 1561/93 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under ( i THE CROWN EMPLOYiES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before i THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD - Iti ,I, ..,.. BETWEEN I CUPE (Lechocki) , Grievor - and - I i The-Crown in Right of.Ontario (Workers' Compensation Board) Employer 1 BEFORE: ' L. Mikus Vice-Chairperson ,, E. Seymour Member M. Milich Member FOR THE GRIEVOR FOR THE EMPLOYER R. Carnocale National Repres'entative. i Canadian Union of Public Employees , P. Pasieka Counsel Filion Wakely & Thorup Barrister‘s 81 Solicitors HEARING i April 19, 1994 This grievance concems a claim by the grievor, Ms. Olga Lechocki, that \she has been improperly denied differential pay from the period from January 18th to April 8th, 1893, while she was classified by the Wqrkers’ Compensation Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘WCT) as a Vocational &3habiitation Caseworker trainee. She asks that she be paid retroactkiy the ‘differential pay between her salary as a Telephone Inquiry Clerk and that of a Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworker (hereinafter referred to as VRC”), ix-t accbrdarice @h the Collective A@eement. I The parties elected to proceed by way of the following agreed statement of fact: . ’ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. .A?. 8. 0. 10. Aureed Statement Of Fact r \ The grievor commenced working at the W&em’ Compensation Board on or about October 14, 1086. At all relevant times, the grievor was cla&led as a Telephone Enquiry Clerk (005) out of the ThunderBayRegtonalOiBce. I At the end of 1992 the Workers’ Compensatkm Board pvited employees in Thunder Bay to apply to train to be able to act astemporav replacements fix Vccational Reh&Utation Caseworkem who were absent due to vacation or short t* absences dmiug 1093. , -The grievor was one of twc employee8 who were chosen to attend &g for the purposes of being capable of performing these back-ups. On or about January 13,1093 the grievor was offered ti oppcrhmity to at+nd Initial Caseworker Raining. The grisvor accepted the ofI& and commenced tra@ing on or &out Januaxy 18,1903. The training p&ram consisted of six weeks of lectures and &weeks of practicum. During pacticum, the paxtictpants were adgned new vocational r ehabiUationreferM3and main~edacaseloadof10to20claims. Allworkwasmonitoredbythetrainer,EvieBooPhand alnd the Technical &visor, George El&h. There were seven participants ln the trahiug program conducted in Thunder Bay &om January 18, 1993 to April 8, 1003. Two of the parMpant& one of whom was the grievor, were trained fix purpose8 of back-up or replacement. Four of the participants were training for regplar Boddtfnna ’ ofvocatlonal RehabiWtion Caseworker. Employees class&xi as Vocational F&habfUtation Caseworkers Me&By have case loads of 45 to 50 ’ ’ ~~butatparticulartybusytfmesmayhavecaseloadsofupto90toO8faes. _~---. / F, , ; I / -. .-.---~ --“-y”--yT 2 J From January 16, 1993 to April 8, 1993 the grievor was @d at the rate. amAicable to her ~claa&catio@ of Telephone Enquiry Clerk Evahmtio~~of the capabilities of the participants in the program were conducted by the trainer once . in the middle of the training program and after the CompIetfon of the program FromAprill3,1~93toApIil3O,1993,the&evorwasasafgnedacaseloadof10to20claims ‘working on the West T&m in‘ Thunder Bay. The grievor during this time also assisted other caseworkers with activa$ons and clerical work Work during this period of time was m?nitored by , the Technical Advisor. Commencing April 14, 1093 the grievor was paid differential in accordance ivith Art&e 10.01(l). The grievor received pay‘tin a weekly basis. Pay cheques disclose the rate at which she was paid during ihe trainiug period. 16. The grievor &st applied for differential pay on li&y 19, 1993. 11. The grievor filed her gri&vance with respect to this matter on. May 31, 1993. The parties advised the ioard that, m paragraph’8 and 13, where there are references to the caseloads’, they are not in agreement .as to the number of’claims assigned to the grievor during the relevant period of time. -With that exception, the facts as set out in the : _,, agreed statement of fact accurately represent the circumstances of the case. By way of background, the WCB in the Thunder Bay Regional Office decided in 1993 that, it wanted to pride back-up support for the Vocational Rehabilitation Ca$eworkers L (hereinafter referred to as VRC’s)’ to cover absences due to vacations and short term .> absences of thirty days or less. Staff were invited to send their requests and resumes to the Human Relations Specialist. Six people applied for consideration. Those candidates were tested in the categories of language skills, reading com&rehension, decision making, ‘. form checking and reasoning skills. As a result of that testing, the grievor and Ms. Suzanne Cuerinwere selected to enter the training program. The grievor was advised.on ,3 January 13,1993, that, effective January 181993, she wouldL.begin a training program that ’ - would provide her with the policies, roles, goals and activities of a caseworker. The program was also to include five weeks of on-the-job #racticum. The memo went on to advise the grievor, that following the training period, she would be temporarily assigned for vacation relief and/or short-term absences. As it states in the Agreed Statement of Facts, the grievor did begin her training on January -. 18,1993, and completed the program on April 8,.1993. She continued to work for a two- _ week period as a temporary replacement and, during that two-week period, was paid the appropriate differential rate of the VRC. On May 26,1993, Ms. Lechocki discussed with 1 , her immediate supervisor a claim for diEerential.pay from the rate of.Telephone Inquiry T Clerk to‘VRC for the period of time she was in the training program. She was advised by a memo that same day that the payment of the differential was dependant -on performance of the “core functions and essential duties of the position”. The WCB, took the, position that, since she was functioning in a training~environment, the differential pay requirement under the Collective &reement did not apply. , . The relative -provision of the Collective Agreement reads as follows: . . Article 19 TEMKIRAKYASSIGNMENTS 19.01 (1) Where an empkwee is assigned @uxndly to perform the duties ofapositionfnadasdfbationwithahlghersalary~~they aha& after working three (3) consecutfvedaya,bepaidaratefn I i accordance with the promotion rules outliued in Schedule ‘A’. Should the tempomy assignmsnt exceed three (3) con8ecutive days, then the employee shall be paid the higher rate for all work I in the hfgher class@catian from the date of the a#Qnmentr ,- : .* I ._ I / , . 4 : Paid leave of absence of up to ten (10) days taken during a‘ temporary assigknent will be-at the higher rate. Paid leaye of absence of more than ten $10) days for reasons other than approved vacation or Union leave will be paid at the rati3 applicabp to the classffication from which the employee was asnhmd. . The WCB took the position that the grievor must establish that she was performing the core duties of the position in quantity ti well as level of responsibility. The twelve week training period involved several hours of classroom training and constant monitoring by a trainer. In the circumstances of this case, the WCB argued, Article 19.01 does not apply. ’ : Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworkers work with injured workers to attempt to re-establish an earnings profile. They work with the injured worker, and the employer where possible, -. -. to design and complete a vocational rehabilitation plan that would ensbre progression to that goal, that is the rebstabliihment of anesrnings profile. They work with the client to identify a vocational objective that is dtabie, available and sustainable. A VRC .is , expected to handle a caseload of up to 74 claims, to demonstrate effective communication ., end counselling skills, to conduct effective interviews, to record accurate, and pertinent information. for vocational rehabilitation planning and statistical gathering, as well as .. identify and effectively apply vocational rehabilitation policies, services, evaluations and programs. . - c The. training course was stictured to include six weeks of classroom and six weeks of &ticum training. It was designed to accommodate ten participants at a maximuin. The - ” / P .: .a . . ,-. : .: _.- .’ .-- - I .5: ..’ < training specialist inthis case was Evie Roopchand. She has been employed by the’WCB I for fiti years and, during 1992 and 1993, -was the Vocational Rehabilitation Training _ : J ‘1 Specialist. It was her responsibility to &i&vise staff training for .the newly hired . employees. She was responsible for the training program in Thunder Bay from the period , . of J&uary to April of 1993. The prograni outline was distributed to the participant on the first day of training. For the first ten days of the program, all training took place in a classroom setting and was intended to teach the participants about the’ W&’ i tirnpensatlon Aot RS.0. 1990, CL W-l 1, the computer, the progress of- a claim, re- _ :, ,employment, job preparation, the preparation of vocational rehabilitation plans “and counselling~technigues and interviewing. -On the &n$day of the program, 20 files were . . assigned to each participant Days 14 through to 19 were scheduled as practicum days and, on days 21 to 25, a practicum week was scheduled during which 20 new claims were ’ to be assigned Weeks number 7 through to 1.1 were assigned as practicum weeks as. - well andi during each of those weeks, additional files were to be. assigned’ to the participants until they had -reached a. total of 74 active files., Week. number 12 was identified as developmental .week and dealt with subject matters such as difficult behavio.ur, chronic pain, case conferencing and community resource projects. On day 5 . there was a Gnal test on the application of the program and in week 16 and 17 the evaluations were completed, files were reviewed with the trainee. and individual meetings were held with the trainees to review the program. Ms. ‘Roopchand’s evidence was that to a large extent the actual program conformed to : _- . . : ,’ ., i. -. /: : : 2 ! 6 the topics and times set out in the outline. Ms, ‘Roopchand attended at the training sessions for all of the classroom periods, but was not there when the. cases were actually assigned to the participants. Her only instructions to the person assigning the’files was th$ the trainees should not be given. complex files involving issues not yet covered in the ” ,. training. It was her evidence that the training program the grievor completed ,vvas ’ identical to the one utilised for a newly hired VRC and, as far as she ivas aware, if an employee were transferred or,hired into the position of VRC, (s)he would-be paid the rate of aVRC during the training period. It was her evidence that; notwithstanding the fact that _ the training program anticipated the’assigment to, each participant of 74 files, that was not the case in the Thunder Bay office. She assumed the reduced numbers of files was _. 1 attributable to the fact that there were not enough files to fill the, quota As far as she was I ., aware, no trainee was gfven 714 fries during that traimng.progrem. :. : . i , Ms. Roo&hand also testified that when a new caseworker was hired into a VRC position, . he or she would not be expected to perform,the core functions of the job initially, but ,’ would be expected to function at a fulllevel after the training period. Ms..Roopchand testified that there are various levels of delegation within the job description of a VRC and _’ that, at the level of a trainee, a VRC would not have the authority to, sign off on an approved program without a, second signature.. Neither would (s)he be authorised to submit anything to the file without approval. That level of supervision and close monitoring would continue for at least three months. It was her evidence that, between 6 and 12 months, after the training program, a VRC would get the first level of delegation __ h . -.- / ‘I ii‘ -. I- I 7 which would allow him/her to submit information to the file without ap@oval: \ _* Ms. L&a Mosley was the Manager of the West End Team in the Thunder Bay office -. ’ during the relevant time. Her job responsibilities included supervision of claims and - .adjudication staff as well as responsibility for a work base in Dryden which included three \ caseworkers. She was not involved in the trsining program, nor was she involved in the assignment of cases to the trsinees, except to the extent-that she discussed the level of complexity of the files with the various manage,m. . I _ She prepared a summary of vocational rehabilitation caseload sixes and closures for January throuyh April of 1993. -Her documents show that there were six trainees during that period of time: S. Stesco, 0. Lechoclci, S. Hogan, T. Tikka, .L; Kauvel and W. Hukezalle. The caseload for these trainees over the relative period of tinire was& follows:, ‘Feb. ‘92 ,’ tiar. 31 Apr. 30 L S. Stesco 6 ‘18 28 0. Lechocki 5 12 2. S. Hogan. 6 12 15 T.Tikka ‘. I 9 22 .. 0 L. Kauval 7 ., 20 ,28 ’ W. Hukesalle 7 20 31 .. i‘ In cross-examination, Ms. Mosley was asked about the &cifrc caseloads of the / , permanent VRC’c. .For example, she was asked why S. Lake had been assigned 91 files for the week of February 28th whereas D. Moore had only been assigned 32 files. She explained that D. Moore was new and, as a result, was just beginning to build files in the I- \ .. : , : .* . /- c _ 8 i 0 Dryden’ office. She- agreed, however, that both VRCs would be receiving the same ,rate i of pay. It was also pointed’out to her that L. DeGagne had responsibility for only 56 cases and she replied that, although L. DeGagne had been employed as a VRC for four years and had, at times, been assigned as many as 89 files, at that time the caseload was down, to 66 files. She acknowledged, however, that all of the WCs received the same rate of pay, irrespective of the number of flies they were assigned ../ Mr. Hukezalle, who was a newly hired VRC, participated in the training program at the _ I . . same time as the grievor. Four of the trainees were transferred from’the Ministry of Health and Ms. Mosley was unaware of their rate of pay because they w&e paid through that Ministry. Also Ms. Mosley’s evidence that Ms. Lechocld was not assigned the 74 files outlined in the training program because there were: not enough tiles to allow for it. The grievor’s evidence was that she completed all aspects of the training program as outlined, including the assigned responsibility for between.20 - 26 files. As well; she - testifled.she was asked to assist with the Dryden caseload/due to the fact that she had a . ’ reduced- workload. 2 ~ During cross-examination, the grievor was asked specifically whether she could have 1 I performed the typical duties of the job description of a Vocational Rehabilitation i Caseworker during her t&kg period. For example, she was referred-to the job description of the VRC and was asked whether she could have assisted workers to / _ ._.._, . _?I .+ ‘. : ’ ._ ..-. -_-’ 7 -I‘ ,: a’. )‘. ” -, ,: . . ,._ : I . -.g . _‘. achieve employebiiliiy by assessing vocational skills, collecting vocational and earnings data and obta&ing job descriptions where required,.acted as a se&d[co-ordinator z&d I participated in case conferences as required She acknowledged thatshe could not. She was asked whether, during .her training period,. she could have negotiated with .the employer and worker to discover comparable or suitable employment. ,She responded J - 1 that she could not. She was asked. whether she could have ensured the, continuation of 1. the vocational rehabilitation plan by monitoring and adjusting time frames and objectives, providing basic social and.vocational rehabihtation.counselling, providing basic guidance _ and monitoring job search activities. Her response was that she could not. She ‘was s : asked whether she could have assisted -in presen@ng job readiness programs to injured i workers in receipt of VR services withinthe local area Her response was that she could not. Shk &as asked wheth&-‘she could haA Ejarticipated in the ,164 employkent campaign, as required. She responded that she could not.: She was then asked whether, , by the end of the twelve-week training period, she would have been able to perform all of those duties. ,JIer answer was yes, that she would have been capable: of performing all - , of the duties set out in the job descri&ion by the end of the train&g program. ._ The grievor acknowledged, in cross-examination, that, during the weeks of practicum, . counselling and Iadvice was available to her. through ‘Ms. Roopchand and/or other caseworkers and that the expectation was that she would ,request assistance from those / people as necessary. ‘. / L. - ‘I ) .._ .* _I. .’ I- ._ : i I : I. , : - :, ._. ,’ - . : : -, ., _. ,,’ : . ’ . , ..,’ .I” .,. . . ’ -, ‘IO (. :. ; ‘_ -1 : ARe;vaaoseaT :_ _ .‘- ,. ’ ‘: _. ,_’ : ,- ,, , .’ -. . . ( ^ ’ Article 19.01, ,asserted Mr. &rno%le for the Union, is clear in its terms. It states that : when an employee is’ assigned temporarily. to perform the duties of a, position in a ; .’ classification with a higher salary maximum, (s)he should be paid a rate in accordance .- .- / II II with ,the promotion rules. o&&d in Schedule A. Schedule “A! states that the classification of vocational rehab&alion casetiorkx is (Oil). The’salary rate for that .‘ : ,, &ssific,aticn is higher than the rate the grievor .was receiving as a Telephone InQuiry _’ clerk For that reason she,was entitled to be paid the rate of the. higher paid classification .< : for the period of time that she performed the duties -of ‘that classification. : The Union contended there was.no dispute.on the facts. On January 18,1993, the grieyor .1,,1 . was &signed- to a training program .as a Vocational Rehabiitation Caseworker. She _ . applied for end’was selected from a list of candidates and there can be no, question but : ; that she was &signed to those duties. Her evidence was that she .performed ,#. of the :- 3 . duties assigned to her and that the duties she performed qtti, April 18,1993, the day that ,.,, she. completed her training course and those she performed for the following two weeks _ : when she temporarily replaced an absent caseworker were nc different. She was paid . . the salary rate of a VRC during that two week replacement. : The training program outlines the duties the trainees were expected to’perform and the ’ grievor’s and Ms. Roopchand’s evidence was that the trainees did, m fact, complete all . * .,, ‘: : ‘- . .’ _ . ‘. I ./ : c I I 11 of the job functions as outlined in that training schedule. Ms. Roopchand’s evidence was / . that the same training schedule is used to train newly hired permanent caseworkers and that, while a newly hired employee is undergoing training, (s)he is paid the rate of pay specifie’d in the Collective Agreement for that classification. One of the, participants of the trafning.program at the time, Mr. Hukezalle was, in fact, a permanent employee who underwent the s&e training program as the grievor and was paid at the caseworker rate during that training.. ‘The grievor’s evidence was that while, at the beginning of the program she would not have-been capable of performing the majority of the functions of the job, by the end of the program she could, -and. did, in fact, discharge those responsibilities. , , ’ The Union pointed out that there is no training rate in the Collective Agreement.. The salary schedule simply sets out the classification and the rate for that classification.’ Once the grievor was moved into the position of Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworker, she was entitled~to be paid the rate of that classification for all time spent in the classification, that, ‘.. is from January 18 to April 18, 1993. -. \ / Ms. Pasieka, for the WCB,; took the position that the grievor was not assigned the duties of a Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworker between January8 and April 181993. She was assigned to learn those duties. Most of that time was spent .in ‘a classroom setting and during that time the grievor’aclmowledged that she could not perform most of the duties ‘set out in the job description. -. . . i .-1 . ‘. - -. 12 - The WCB attempted to devise an innovative approach to the long standing ‘problem of qualified replacement workers. It was understood that people who completed the training program would be available for temporary replacement; There was .no promise of a permanent job, or even a temporary job, simply an offer of future assignments should the occasion arise. The implication in that promise was that, if they were assigned to cover for absences, they would be paid according’to the Collective Agreement. The fact is that, during’the period of time that the grievor was a trainee, she was not performing the. core functions of the Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworker. The job duties set out in the job _ description are an amplification ,of the core functions that the! grievor herself aclmowledged she was not capable of performing. That should be the,end of this inquiry. . If she could not and did not perform the core functions of the position, she is not entitled \ to the differential pay. :, , : A review of the training program, asserted Ms. Pasieka, confirms the position of the WCB. i It was not until the third week of the training program that the grievor was assigned’any files. When she was assigned those files, they were fewer in number than those assigned \ to any other. caseworker and she was closely supervised. The fles ‘assigned to the trainees were vetted so that they would not have to deal with complex.issues, nor would they be expected to deal with issues that they had not ‘yet been covered in the, training program., &en when they were in theirpracticum weeks, argued Ms. Pasieka, the number of flies .: \ 13. assigned to the trainees was much less than those assigned to the regular caseworkers. During that time they were superyised closely and were not accountable1 for errors. Their level of designated authority was very low. Their work.was constantly reviewed by the trainer and other .caseworkers. On the facts before it, the Board must find that the grievor did not perform the functions of the job of a VRC and, therefore, is not entitled to be paid at the rate for that classification. . In support of its position, Ms. Pssieka referred the Board to the case of Zwioker et al and ~ the Mini&y of Health (March 4, 1981), unreported (Professor P.G. Barton). In that case five employees grieved the failure of the employer to pay. the proper rate of pay of Attendant I from July 1917 to June 1978. All five grievors had responded to a posting advertising a position of Re@&ed Nursing Assistant trainees that stated that the salary rate was to be $4.88 per hour. It further stated that the applicants would be required to i enrol in Georgian College full time in the RNA Program. and that tuition costs end / , salaries would be paid by the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre’while they were attending the course. The posting also stated that the graduates would be employed at the Oak Ridge or Regional Division at the hourly rate specified. The five grievers signed ’ , the Memorandum of Understanding that stated that they would ‘be employed at the ,: Penetsnguishene Mental Health Centre as Psychiatric Nursing Assistants. They agreed in writing to spend ten months taking the RNA. course at Georgian College and agreed to continue in the employ ‘of. the Government of Ontario for at least one year after ’ graduation. \ . r- .i -_ ’ -- _I’ 14 ‘According to the Board of Arbitration, what in fact happened was the employ&es worked in the Oak Ridge. Centre during thy summer of 1977 on normal shift rotation. It found that ” more of that time was spent keeping an eye on prisoners than on instruc$on and training. The.Board determined that.they performed most of the same duties as other Attendants. In the fall of 1977 they began full-time attendance at Gebrgian College, which involved ’ taking instructions on a H-time basis at Penetang. During the Chr$mas break they continued with their duties at Oak Ridge and between January and April of 1978 they retuned to classes. Following that -period, they attended a Psychiatxit: Nursing Course _ taught in Penetang. They became aware that the trainees in the group that -enrolled the year after them were being paid,at the rate of an Attendant I rather than as a Nursing Assistant L The explanation by th6 employer kas that the Georgian College course had been extended to two years, but on a two-day a week basis rather than full time. ,The qecond trainee group, according to the employer, spent 80% or more of its time acting as Attendants on the wards. The grievors felt that they were entitled to ‘extra pay for the time r they spent on the wards during their traking year and filed the grievances. The Board found that the grievors were not entitled to the higher rate for the time spent in classes _ because the risks inherent in working with patients was not .incurred at the time. The Board did decide, ho&ever, that they should be -paid for ‘the time .they were ‘actually working on the wards- The Board noted that, although @e gdevance was not advanced ’ as a classification grievsnce peree, the grievon’ classifications fdr the period prior to their becoming Attendant n, was’ properly Nursing Attendant I. On that basis they weti on a j temporary assignment to a higher classifkation and FIB entitled td be paid the higher J. . . . . ‘. ; --:--.~~&.‘.. f . ._ .1 ,- : i . ~_ 18 I_ rate. D33CSSIQN i There is no dispute about the facts,of this case. The grievor did perform as a Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworker trainee ‘during the period January 18 to April 18,1993. During that time her .training involved a combination of classroom and practical teaching as well as a component of hands-on responsibility for files. The evidence-was also clear that, _ although it was expected that the trainees would receive as many.files as the permanent caseworkers, the fact that they did not is attributable not to their ine$Ality to handle a , ‘, larger number of ties, but to the unavailability ofthe files’themselves. _ .I The WCB has taken the position that the grievor .did:not perform the core duties of the job and therefore is not entitled to the pay of the higher rated classifications While I agree in I c general with the’ position of the employer that the’grievor was incapable of performing many of the-duties of the position, there are some inconsistencies with its position that are troubling. For .exkple, the evidence is uncontradicted’ that a new employee hired , permanently into the classification of the VRC would have received the same training program for the same ‘period of time and would have been paid at the rate of pay of a , I WC during that training. As w&the number of files assigned to the various k’s varied ~_ from a low of 20 to a high of’91. It was not suggested that a caseworker’s rate of pay was dependent upon or afkted by the number of iiles assigned to them or accumulated oFr \. - I .J ‘_ 1 :- 16, ’ _’ : . ._ time. The number of files a’VRC is responsible for depends entirely on the workload in ar particular area. -I&d there been files avail-able, the grievor would have, during the last weeks of her training, been responsible for 74 files. It would be difficult, in those’ circumstances, to suggest that she was not ‘ fu%lling the core functions ‘of the job. Further, and more troubling, is that the fact that there is no salary classifiction in the Collective Agreement for a Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworker Trainee. Presumably, if a new classification were to be developed by the employer, it would be subject to .( negotiation between the Union and the employer. It would appear that what the WCR’has done in this case is create‘s trainee position with varying rates of pay, depending on the ,; : pr&ious classification of the participant. The,inequality is apparent when one notes that the six trainees could be receiving six d&rent rates of pay for doing the same work. That t means that if someone came to the trainee position from. a higher rated classific,ation; (s)he would be entitled to be paid his/her at hi$her higher rated classification during the -_ training period. Creating a classification with such uncertain and varying salary rates is : inconsistent with the principles of the classification system and salary schedule in the 6ollective Agreement. ; - _ \ ’ I accept Ms. Pass&a’s assertion that the employer was merely attempting to find an \\ :I innovative method of dealing with the long standing problem of’relief during short term absences. That plan, however, must conform to and be consistent with the terms of the ,- Coll@ve Agreement. In this case, it is the view of this Board that the unilateral Creation ,. I I -_ \ I J _’ . 1 . . .* .; ..---y-y’c”.“P .s . ‘. I I : ._ .. _’ 17 of the Ijosition “trainee” with an uncertain and variable salary rate is not consistent with the terms of the Collective Agreement. If there is no trainee rate in the Collective beement, the issue then is what should the ‘\ grievor have been paid during the time that she assumed the position of Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworker trainee. It is clear that during the training period she did not perform the duties of a Telephone Inquiry Clerk and therefore should not have been paid at that rate during the training-‘period. She did, however, .fi.mction as a Vocational _ Rehabilitation Caseworker, albeit ‘on a less inclusive basis. Nevertheless, the expectation i was ‘that at some point during that training program she would assume responsibiity for . a full caseload. There is simply no rationale for paying a permanent employee in a painins program a higher s&y thanthe grievor in the same ‘taining program ‘doing the‘ -. same work for the same period of time. ‘. / It is therefore the view of this Roard that the grievor did, in fact, perform the functions as assigned to her as a Vocational Rehabilitation Caseworker during the training period and, as such, she was entitled to the higher rate of pay for that period of time. The grievor is t to be paid at the rate of a VRC from the January 18 to April 8, 1993. The Board will remain seised in the event the parties encounter difEcuhy in implementing Signed this 3Othday of &gust, 1994, in Toronto. L’oretta Mikus, Vice-Chair E. Seymour, Union Member . I Dissent *'Dissent to. follbw" i _, _--------_---_--_---------- M. Milich, Employer Metier , / ., I I