Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1060.Atchison.89-09-21 ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE I.~ COURONNE CROWN EMPL 0 YEES OE L'ONTARIO GRIEYANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT Ri=GLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8-SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/T~.L~PHONE 180, RUE DUNOAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG 1Z8- BUREAU 210(; (416)598-0688 1060/88 IN T~E MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION under THE CROWN EMpLOyEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before TEE GRIEVANCE SETtLEmENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Atchison} Grievor - and - The Crown in' Right of Ontar'io (Ministry of Health) Employer Before: E.J. Delisle Vice-Chairperson T. Browes-Bugden Member A. Stapleton Member For the Grievor~ N. wilson - Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors For the EmpLoyer: M. Failes Counsel Winkler, Filion and Wakely Barristers & Solicitors ~earing: March 3, 1989 Award The grievor complains that she is improperly classified as a Field Worker 1 and in the grievance as filed she asks to be reclassified as a Rehabilitation Counsellor 2. At the hearing it was agreed that the matter-would go forward simply as a grievance that she was improperly classified. Counsel argued for alternative remedies:that a declaration be made that she is improperly classified with a direction to management that they classify her properly or a re-classification to Field Worker 2. The grievor is 'a Homes for Special Care Worker in Eastern Ontario. She was appointed to this position,with classified status,in March of 1987.This program services patients who are discharged from Brockville Psychiatric Hospital into the community. These are people who can no longer profit from the psychiatric treatment that is provided at the hospital but who do need care. The patients are discharged either to Residential Homes or to Nursing Homes. They are discharged to the latter if they require nursing care. There are 16 Residential and 20 Nursing Homes in the area. The grievor has 130 patients in Nursing Homes and 70 in Residential. The Field Worker's general responsibilities were described by her supervisor, the Chief Social Worker, Peter Carter. According to him those responsibilities are to review criteria for admission, place patients in care, visit and assure proper care, monitor and assess the care being provided and prepare annual reports for licensing of the homes. The Field Worker is expected to observe the 2 care being given, interview the patient and ensure that clothing purchased for the patient is actually there. The Worker is also to ensure the patient is protected from abuse and has access to as best a quality of life as possible. The Worker is expected to encourage the homeowner to engage the patient in as many activities as possible. Mr. Carter described the grievor as "very energetic,good ideas,very receptive,deals tenaciously with problems and handled delicat" problems". The grievor was referred to the Class Standard for .Field Workers(Exhibit 2). This Class Standard was prepared in 1969. She allowed as how this document did partly reflect her duties but complained that it did not reflect them all. The major deficiency, according to the grievor, was the lack of emphasis on .her responsibility for program planning. She testified that she would identify the needs of her patients and focus on developing a program for them. This program might be vocational, recreational or gaining job training. The grievor described going out into the community to recruit jobs for her patients. She noted that when she first came to the job her clients were very bored as there was nothing going on. She also described seeking funding for some of her programs and how in one instance she advert'ised and ~hired someone to supervise a program she had developed. She testified that she counselled patients with regard to family problems and with regard to their dissatisfaction with their homeowner. She described her involvement in crisis intervention: being called in by the home-owner if the person was becoming actively ill, calming th~ 3 person and gaining treatment. The grievor described performing an advocacy on behalf of her patients,e.g, on behalf of those who are in a Nursing Home environment who don't need to be. She testified that she engaged in discharge planning to prepare the patient. The grievor's main complaint may best be summarized when she referred to the existing Class Standard:" it speaks to a warehousing approach to the job--I take a pro-active stance to my Job".When referred to the Position Specification(Exhibit 6) she noted that while it did describe her Job it did not fairly emphasize the time spent by her promoting activities for the patients. The Position Specification states that this occupies 10% of her time while in fact, she maintains, this actually occupies 50% of her time. The focus of the Position Specification, and of the Class Standard, for that matter, is on assisting and inspecting the home-owners whereas for the grievor, her focus clearly appears to be on the patient~ Is the grievor's approach to her Job beyond what her employer requires or is it regarded by the employer as part and parcel of the same? The grievor was evaluated in March 1988. Her Performance Appraisal was filed as an exhibit(Exhibit 8) and Mr. Carter agreed that the grievor was evaluated with respect to her ability to develop programs and her ability to counsel. The Performance Appraisal reads in part: 4 INITIATING ~EW PROGRAMMES On Standard Ms. Atchison has developed programmes for various homes and individuals. She has developed a student placement programme and has been active in recruiting placements (St. Lawrence, Cornwall Campus). She has been active and involved in I.P.P. case consultations with M.R. residents. She has been observed in these situations and has .been relevant, appropriate, helpful, and responsible for.some of the items of the I.P.P. Ms.Atchison has devised programming for the Gilmour Home. COUNSELLING/SIGNIFICANT EVENTS On Standard Significant/counselling events have been recorded and ongoing contacts documented'for the duration of the crisis. Standard to be revised for next evaluation period. We have no difficulty in deciding that the tasks performed by the grievor are in fact seen by her employer as part of her job requirement and not just the volunteered extras of a conscientious employee. The Class Standard for Field Worker, Homes for Special Care, was written twenty years ago. Times have changed. Attitudes toward the treatment and care of the mentally unwell have, thankfully, 5 changed as well. There is no question but that the classification of the grievor's job, as done and as required to be done, is not appropriate. The Class Standard describes a police function to ensure that the homes do the job and that they conform with the regulations. The language does not reflect the reality. The only solution is to direct the employer to re-classify the grievor and to thereby recognize the greater responsibility and sophistication required of her. The greater responsibility and sophistication needs to be recognized in a higher classification and consequent remuneration. We would expect that the employg~ would accomplish this task with all due dispatch and we will remain seized of the matter should there prove to be any difficulty in implementing our award. Dated at Kingston this 2.!:.~ d~y of ~Sept., 1989. R.J. Delisle, Vice-Chairperson