Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1265.Charbonneau et al.90-11-19 ONTARIO EMPLO Y~$ DE LA COU,qONNE ""~ :";ii: ~'',' C~OWN ~P~O~S ~E L'O~O ~ GRIEVANCE' CpMMISSION DE S~LEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO. ONTAFlfO. M5G ;Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHoNE. (4~6~ 326-7388 180, FlUE DUNDAS O~IEST, BUREAU 2'fO0, TORONTO r. ONTAR,~OJ, MSG lZf~ FACSJMILE/TEL~COPIE : (4 15) 326- 1396 1265/88 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Charbonneau et al) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) Employer BEFORE: M. Watters Vice-Chairperson J. McManus Member D. Daugharty Member FOR THE R. Stoykewych GRIEVOR Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lenn°n Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE' L. McIntosh EMPLOYER Law Officer Crown Law Office-Civil Ministry of the Attorney General HEARING: April 19, 1989 October 12, 30, 1989 July 4, 5, 19, 1990 I This proceeding arises from twelve (12) grievances filed by employees at the Brockvilte Psychiatric Hospital (B.P.H.). All of the grievors are Recreation Therapists and are classified as Instructor 2, Recreation and Crafts (I.2 R,C.). They each claimed that they were improperly classified. The Instructors, Recreation and Crafts Class Series is appended hereto as Schedule 'A' The only grievor to give evidence was Mr. Daniel Newcombe.. We were informed that his grievance should be treated individually as the parties had been unable to agree he was to stand as a representative grievor. For this reason, this award is restricted to the narrow issue as'to whether Mr. Newcombe was properly classified as of the .filing of his grievance in November, 1988. Evidence was not led with respect t.o the remaining grievors. Consideration of their claims was deferred until after the release of the instant award. B.P.H. is a four hundred and ninety (490) bed facility serving Eastern Ontario. It is comprised of twelve (12) wards, eight (8) of which are focused on patient rehabilitation. The others are designed to treat persons whose stay in the hospital will be for the longer term. Care and treatment is provided by a cross section of disciplines 'including psychiatrists, ' psychologists, social workers, nurses, pastoral care workers, and recreation therapists. The grievor, who is thirty-one (31) years of age, has worked in the Recreation Department at the hospital since his hire in November, 1980. Between 1980 and 1984, he was. "linked" with wards 4A and G. The former was a tong-term unit for patients~ hospitalized for substantial periods of time. The latter was a psychiatric admission unit for persons from the Ottawa area. In September, 1985, the grievor moved to Community Placement (Ward" SA) on a pant-time basis, Within a short-time, he was positioned there in a full-time.capacity. The objective of Ward 5~ was "to return people to their home community within 12 months of admission to the program, with the skills needed to maintain' themselves with minimal reliance on mental health facilities "(exhibit 21). Up to the date of the grievance, the ward'served as the psychiatric rehabilitation facility for individuals re¢erred from other treatment centres in Cornwall and Leeds and Grenville County. The grievor was transferred to the Elmgrove Unit in late ~986. That ward treated persons experiencing crisis or acute illness. Patients therein would normally be short term. After their release, they 'would either return to their homes or to other facilities, including Ward SA, for further rehabilitation. The grievor also worked in 'the Residential Rehabilitation Unit for periods in 7987. He ultimately returned to Community Placement and had been stationed there for approximately one (1) year as of the date of the grievance now before us. 2 The position specification for Recreation Therapist dated November 1, 1988 is appended hereto as Schedule 'B', The evidence of the grievor was to the effect that it accurately described the work he was performing in November, 1988, This assessment was ~ot seriously disputed by the witnesses called on behalf of the Employer, The grievor testified extensively about his duties and 'responsibilities subsequent to his placement on Ward SA in late 1985. He also described his work in the Recreation Depalrtment prior to such placement. Generally, it was his position that his job had changed over the years in a qualitative sense. More particularly, the grievor asserted that this change occurred as a consequence of a modification to ,the hospital's mandate. Both parties agreed that as of late 1985, the B.P.H. committed itself to the objective of community re- integration. The grievor stated that this change of focus had a significant affect on his work after 1985. The Board elects to initially describe the grievor's duties as they developed in the period 1985 to 1988, It is these duties which must be assessed in order to determine whether the job falls within the scope of the class standards. We will then detail the changes which the grievor experienced over his entire period in the Recreation Department. At the outset, we wish to make clear that the mere fact of change does not in itself justify a reclassification. It is incumbent on the party retyi,ng on a change of duties to show that they have qualitatively 3 ~'f'F-ected the.pos;~',c,n s:.~ch ..... ~r~,=C if_ ~'$ nC.'. ~anguage .c 'bne - ~ss .stsndar'ds. L~sb!y, such ev'idence ,~r~t while hhe job of Recrea't~on hav'e changed, i't continued to be properly R.C. level. As o-? .-September, 1985. the 9r~evof was ass'~gned to ~_.he Community Placement ward. At that time, the '~ard ~as c. or, s'~da-red t.o be some~,~haZ of :~ n'ile% project ir, that it ~as ~;~- tha- ,:)f hhe hospital's commitment to commun~t.y re--'integra'tic, n. ,~ere ~ed bo believe ~hab a similar emphasis ~as assumed by the other re~a~li'ha~'ion ,Cards approximately one (i) year after' establishment of ~lar'd 5A. l*lhi~e ~n that ~ard, the gt{e-;'or 'e;~.c~usive~z with the pabients ~¢ho were residing therein. kesi:~f'ied that he spen{ abou'h eighty per'cent (80~{) of his es'i:-(;?abed .that on ~y h~¢en'~y per'cent ('20%) of his t~,-ne w,';~:~ .~¥'...;,~:.e~2 o'f t{me was spent in ,~ha~ was r'eferred to as "hospital-wide activities" which ~ou~d include patients ~rom o'ther' war'ds. gr-~evor' ~as bhe sole Recr-eablon Therapist on blard SA. He testi¢ied that he ~,orl,.ed with ~pp, oxim~eiy ¢'{fi-teen (i5) pa't.-:ents as of the dale of hhe grievance. He was given an office o¢, ward 'be- ~ac{~itate h'is ,~ork hhere~n, it would appear that similar ar'r-angement e,'isted {n respect o~ the griever's ~.,¢or-k the Etmgrove and Residential RehabilitAtion Units. While the former unit had an activity centre, most of his efforts were focused on the formulation and execution of individual treatment plans, of which more will be said below. The above-described situation was contrasted with that existing prior to 1@85. It was the grievor's evidence that he then delivered recreational services out of the West Activity Centre. There were several similar centres located throughout the hospital. The grievor, and the other Recreation Therapists working in the centre, did not have offices at that location. The grievor stated that groups of between twenty-five (25) and forty (40) patients, from a number of wards across ~he hospital, would be escorted to the centre to engage in pre-set activities such as pool, shuffleboard, table games and crafts for periods of up to three (3) hours. This group of patients would include those persons who had been specifically referred to the grievor by the psychiatrist for the ward to which the grievor had been "linked". The grievor described the activities occurring in the activity centre as having a diversional objective At the ~ 'i conclusion of same, the patients would be escorted back to their I respective wards. It is apparent to'us that the program had a custodial element as the centre was considered to be a "secure area" Additionally, a "sharp count" was undertaken before the patients departed for their wards to minimize the possibility of subsequent injury to residents or staflf. 5 The grievor testified that he was an integral part of the ward treatment team while in Community Placement. That team included the professionals previously referred to. While it was conceded that the psychiatrist had the ultimate responsibility for treatment, it was the grievor's assessment that the team functioned on the consensus model. He testified that all of the team members' opinions would,be solicited and respected. From his perspective, all of the care and treatment providers had an equal amount of input into the development of the treatment plan for a particular patient. The ward treatment team wou.ld conference weekly to review its existing caseload and to familiarize itself with new patients' It was the grievor's evidence that any of the disciplines in attendance, including the Recreation Therapist, could elect, to work with an individual patient. More specifically, he,stated that he would decide if recreation therapy could be employed to satisfy the particular needs exhibited by a patient on the ward. This decision Go intervene did not require the prior approval of, or a referral from, the psychiatrist. While a revised referral form (exhibit 12) was in place as of October, 1985, it was the grievor's recollection that its use decreased with the passage ~f time. Indeed, he asserted that patients were not generally referred to him by the psychiatrist. Rather, he would initiate involvement during the ward treatment conference. In addition to isolating the needs of particular patients on the ward, the team would meet regularly to monitor their progress and to discuss the general direction of the rehabilitation program in view of the current mix of patients. Zt also would deliberate vis a vis patient discharge. In summary, the grievor stated that he, as a Recreation Therapist, operated as a peer or professional equal in terms of the work performed by the team. The grievor,.distinguished the above-descri.bed role from his. earlier involvement in the interdisciplinary treatment conferences. It was the thrust of his evidence that the physician-psychiatrist would generate a referral to the Recreation Therapist through the completion of a referral form (exhibits 8, 12). This form would indicate, albeit +not in great detail, the purpose of the referral; limitations affecting recreational activities; and long and short-term objectives relating to potential discharge. The grievor stated that, generally, direction was given therein as to how he shoul.d work with the patient. He would then accept the referral in most instances and would proceed to carry out the plans set out by the psychiatrist. He viewed this role as that of a subordinate. The grievor testified that, after his placement in Ward 5A, he was extensively involved with the development and- implementation of the recreation component of individual treatment planS..· The initial stage of this process required that he engage in an interview with the patient to complete a ten (10) page Leisure Assessment Form (exhibit !3). This document, which 7 was first imp]emented in the spring o?' 1988, had four (4) components, these being: (i) Client Interview & Interest Survey; (ii) Assessment-Observation; (iii) Creation of An individual Recreation Plan; and (iv) Honitoring and Evaluation. The first stage of the process served to ~so]ate the patient's interests in areas such as sports activities, past-time activities, spectator activities, arts, crafts, hobbies, clubs or group activities, and trips and travel. The aforementioned interview would permit the grievor to survey the patient's interests in these a~eas and would allow for the development of rapport necessary to the ultimate success of the treatment plan. The Recreation Therapist would next place the patient in one or more of these activities in order to observe and assess their social interaction, emotional expression, cognitive performance and abilities, and physical performance. Following %his assessment, the grievor would then formulate a series of treatment goals. The resulting treatment plan would be canvassed with the pat.ient to ensure that they were willing and able to become fully involved with same. The ward treatment team would also be apprised of alt of the developments throughout this process. Indeed, to be effective the recreation plan had to be coasistent with the overall treatment plan devised by the team. The patients progress in treatment was continually monitored and charted. This could result in some modification to the recreation plan. 8 The grievor expressed the opinion that the primary function of the Recreation Therapist was to assess the patient 'and to thereafter prepare and implement the recreation component of the treatment plan. He stressed that such plan was individualized in that it would add'ess the peculiar needs of a given patient on the ward. The grievor suggested that this type of responsibility was materially different, in both a quantitative and qualitative. way, from that engaged in at the activity centres when he worked with larger groups. He conceded that the types of activities available to patients were similar during both periods. He emphasized, however, that after 1985 the program selected was tailored to the individual needs of the patient. ~t was the grievor's assessment that his work in Ward 5A and in the Elmgrove Unit was si.gnificantly more therapeutic in comparison to the tasks performed within the activity centres. As noted above, he characterized the latter work as~diyersionary in nature. The grievor testified that the refocusing of the'hospital's mandate towards community reintegration ~nd deinstitutionalization had a marked effect on his activities within the community. He asserted that this change in approach required that he 'interact with the local community in a number of different ways. Firstly, he was called upon to "net work" and develop new relationships with external agencies serving their common client base. For example, he liased with the Friendship Centre and Phased Housing in the development of programs for 9 those released from the hospital. Steps were also taken to open up certain hospital programs to people from these agencies. Secondly, he would take individuals, or small groups of patients, into the community for purposes of implementing some aspect of the treatment plan These informal trips were contrasted with the large groups that had formerly gone into the community on organized field trips. Thirdly, the grievor was required to engage in follow-up work with patients released from B,P.H, In this capacity, he served as a link between the treatment team and the community. He noted that such was not undertaken while he was in the activity centre.' Ne would not then see the patient after their release unless they were readmitted. This follow-up work included visits to the patient's residence to see if they were effectively meeting the challenges'of living independently in the community. It also ensured that the patient was connected to appropriate service providers. The knowledge gained by way of ail of these endeavors gave the grievor'the necessary insights so as to be in a position to advise the treatment team on suitable community placements. It was the thrust of the grievor's evidence that the changes in his job, as outlined above, occurred as a consequence of the change in the mandate of 8.P.H, All of the additional duties assumed were designed, in his estimation, to assist patients develop the life style necessary for them to cope once they were reintegrated into the community, 10 Mr. John Shorey was the greivor's supervisor from 1985 to the date of the grievance. This encompassed the grievor's tenure in Ward 5A, the Elmgrove Unit and the Residential Rehabilitation Unit. His posi'tion of Recreation Supervisor is within the bargaining unit. Mr. Shorey confirmed the grievor's descr.iption of %he type of:programs conducted in the activity centres. Similarly, he viewed the activities as being more diversional than therapeutic. It was Mr. Shorey's evidence that he closely supervised the.:Recreation I~structors (this being the former position title) while they worked in activity centres. /his supervision included the provisi'on of instPuctions relating to programming. He stated that the supervision was then "very hands-on". He testified that a change occurred in 1986 with the appointment of Ms. Julia Niblett as Director of Recreation. Mr'. Shorey advised ~that, thereafter, the Recreation Therapists, including the grievorF were responsible for planning the recreation programs for individuals on the wards to which they were assigned. He noted further that the therapists took on additional responsibilities in the community. This transition affected the nature of his supervision. Mr. Shorey stated that his supervision of the grievor, while he was in Ward 5A and on the Elmgrove Unit, was only general in nature. Additionally, Mr. Shorey had ]ess Contact with the area of programming. Indeed, he expressed the Opinion that the Recreation Therapist was responsible for' the entire recreation plan and for all decision making in respect of same. From his perspective, the grievor was expected to show,greater initiative once he became ward based. Ms. Sheila Millar has been a Head Nurse at B.P.H. since 1983. At the time of the grievance, she was working on Ward 5A. Ms. Millar was involved in the initial creation of that ward in 1985. Her evidence with respect to the objective of Community Placement, and the responsibilities of the Recreation Therapists working therein, was substantially similar to that given by the- grievor. Ms. Millar testified that gKeater weight was placed on. the opinion of the therapist after 1985. While Ms. Millar agreed that the psychiatrist was ultimately responsible for medication and establishing the "privilege level", she suggested that every discipline had a significant responsibility as part of the team. She stated that the "exclusive territories of any one discipline tend to get blurred." Ms. Millar stated that Ward. SA was unique in 1985 in that it was the first ward to change the thrust of its approach to rehabilitation. Professor Adrienne Gilbert, a Lecturer in the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies at the University of Waterloo, gave evidence'on behalf of the Union. Her vita, which was reviewed at some ]en'gth, was fi]ed with us as exhibit 18. Professor Gilbert was accepted by the Employer as a person who was eminently qualified to speak on the subject of therapeutic recreation. Professor Gilbert described the development of therapeutic recreation over the course of the past twenty (20) years. She 12 also testified as'to the necessary elements of therapeutic recreation. In"response to a hypothetical question posed by counsel for the Union, she stated that a recreationalist at an institution who Worked as a member of a treatment team, participated in the creation of individual treatment plans, engaged in comprehensive assessments of patients, counselled patients for recreational purposes, and engaged in activity ahalysis and follow up, would be practising therapeutic recreation. She further stated that the Leisure Assessment Form (exhibit 13) referred to earlier in this award was reflective of the type of form used in this field. Professor Gilbert was also asked to review the 1.2 R.C. class standards. After so doing, she advanced the opinion that a person performing the range of duties contained therein woutd not .be engaged in the field of therapeutic recreation. Rather, wac her assessment that Such person would primarily be involved in "diversional activities". In so concluding, Professor Gilbert emph&sized that the. class standards did not refer to assessment, evaluation, and follow-up. In cross-examination, the witness conceded that she did not read the preamble to the class series prior to rendering her opinion. After considering same, she agreed that the definition of 'Recreation and Crafts Service' included the word "rehabilitation" and the phrase "assessed and grouped". With respect to the former, Professor Gilbert agreed that the word could be'synonymous with therapy. With respect to 13 the latter, she testified that some assessment appeared to be contemplated, although it was unclear to her who would actually be performing same. She further noted that the class standards did not make reference to individual treatment plans. The Board accepted this evidence from Professor Gilbert over the objections of counsel for the'Employer. In our judgment, such evidence was admissib]e in that it was sufficiently removed from the u]timate. issue requiring our dec~sion. Ms. Julia Niblett was the Director of Recreation Services at 8.P.H. between April, 1986 and October, 1'989. At the time that she assumed this pqsition, Ward 5A was already in place as a pilot project. Ms. Nib]err testified that it's development, which continued throughout her tenur&, reflected the change which had been occasioned in the hospital's mandate. As stated earlier in this award, B,P.H. had committed itse]f tO an enhancement of its rehabilitative programs. This process commenced first on Ward 5A with the placement of the Recreation Therapist on the ward and the creation of mu]ti-discip]inary ward teams. These changes were designed to better equip the patients for their eventual return to the community. Indeed, community reintegration was the predominant objective in Ward SA. This change in focus was subsequently implemented in the other rehabilitation wards. 14 Ms. Niblett, in her evidence, assessed the changes which had occurred in the grievor's job between April, 1986 and November, 1988. She noted that the location in which he performed his work changed in late 1985 with the move to the ward from the activity centre. This development continued in respect of the other rehabilitative wards commencing in the fall of 1986. From Ns. Niblett's perspective, the physical relocation from activity centre to ward di'd not produce a significant change in the rote of the Recreation Therapist. In her estimation, such role remained the same in the sense'that it continued to require the delivery of recreation services. Ms, Niblett considered it immaterial, that:'the change in location resulted in the proyision of such services on an individual basis while previously they had been delivered in a group context. Ms. Niblett testified that Recreation Therapists ~iased with a clinical team in 1986. She appeared to suggest that they were not then considered to be an integral part of such team. It was noted that they then received referrals from the psychiatrist by way of the 'Recreational Services Referral Form' (Exhibit 12), Ms. Niblett agreed that the number of written referrals decreased with the relocation to the wards. She attributed this to the fact that oral referrals would be made while the Recreation Therapist was present on the ward and at the ward conferences. It was her understanding that the same information would be exchanged between the psychiatrist and the therapist albeit on an 15 oral basis. Ms, Niblett stated that suQh a referral could be rejected for the same reasons as previously, these being patient condition and the existence of behavioral problems. Ms. Niblett stated that the medical model prevailed throughout the period being considered. In her judgment, the psychiatrist cemained primarily responsible for the patient notwithstanding the existence and contribution of the interdisciplinary team. Ms. Niblett noted the reverse side of exhibit 12 contemplated that the Recreation Therapist would interview the patient and devise a program plan. It was her evidence that these same functions were performed when the grievor became ward based. Ms, Niblett agreed that the grievor had a more. comprehensive guide available for this process on the implementation of the Leisure Assessment Form. She believed, however, that the use of the form made his'job easier as it provided for the accumulation of greater detail in a systematic fashion, She did not consider the interview process to be more complicated as a consequence of the use of this form. Simply put, Ms. Niblett was.of the opinion that the purpose of the interview remained constant throughout %he period in question. She believed it was designed, and did in fact, produce information upon which to construct a recreation plan. Additionally, it served to create the rapport necessary for successful work with a patient. Ms. Nib]et% felt that the development of a trusting relationship was an essential element 16 of the therapist's job both while on the ward and while at the activity centre. She did not see the emergence of a fundamentally different relationship between the patient and the Recreation Therapist on the move to the wards, It was conceded, however, that such relationship might have become more intense as the therapist spent more of their time with individual patients. Ms. Niblett concluded that the types of activities that a Recreation Therapist could resort to in order to construct a recreation plan were the same in 1988 as they were in 1986. More specifically these activities which were both community and hospital based fe~tl within the following broad categories: (i) physical and sporting activities; (ii) educati.on and life skills; (iii) social and cultural activities; and (iv) hobbies, arts and crafts. Ms. Niblett was prepared to agree that more time was spent in community activities after the shift to ward based programs. She'estimated that prior to this development, approximately twenty percent (20%) to thirty percent (30%) of a Recreation Therapist's time could be spent in activities involving the community. This range increased to thirty percent (30%) to sixty-five percent (65%) subsequent to the aforementioned Change of focus. Zt was her belief that the grievor was at the high end of this continuum while placed on Ward 5A. Ms. Niblett also stated that the type of monitoring and charting of patient progress had not altered significantly since her arrival at B.P.H. 17 In summary, Ms. Niblett asserted that any changes which had occurred in the grievor's job were not qualitative in nature. She appeared to believe that the grievor's responsibilities fell within the scope of the existing class standards. Ms. Heather Hall, Manager of Personnel Standards in the Human Resources Branch of the Ministry of Health also gave evidence on behalf of the Employer. Prior to assuming this position, Ms. Hall had worked in the same Branch as a classification specialist. She informed the Board that the class standards now before us were not written in factorial terms; that is, they do not isolate such matters as knowledge and ski]] required, judgment and complexity, and accountability or impact. Rather, they are task or responsibility based, Ms. Hall expressed the opinion that standards drafted in such fashion are somewhat inflexible and do not'easily permit a determination as to whether they remain appropriate. Ms. Hall had some prior history with the instant class standards. In a memorandum dated April 5, 1988, which was authored for the signature of D. Butt, Director of the Pay and Classification Branch of the Human Resources Secretariat, she stated: " Last year, the Ministry participated with the Secretariat and other concerned ministries in a review of the proposed Care and Treatment Worker Standards. At that time the Ministry advised that the continuing equivalency between Recreational Instructors and Psychiatric Nursing Assistants is 18 not supportable in factorial terms (e.g. scope for judgment, program accountability, academic preparation). The role of Recreationists has become considerably more complex and sophisticated since the class standards (and pay relationships) were established. A similar sentiment was expressed in her subsequent letter dated June 24, 1988 to Ms. L. Eckert, Acting Regional Personnel Administrator at B.P.H. This letter included the following comment with respect' to concerns raised by recreation staff as to their compensation level: We advised that, in our analysis, the issue appears to be the inability of the existing class standards to recognize actual distinctions in skill and responsibility levels in factorial terms. We have recommended new standards development be a priority. The above-mentioned letter was in response to Ms. Eckert's earlier correspondence dated June 15, 1988 to Ms. Joyce Ward, Assistant Birector, Personnel Standards Section. In Such 'correspondence, Ms. Eckert outlined the concerns of the Recreation Therapists as to their salary level and classification. In the course of so doing, she made the following comments: - By way of background there is no doubt that the focus of treatment for psychiatric patients has shifted during the past few years with a move towards therapeutic and rehabilitative treatment and away from custodial care. As a result of this shift¢ the recreation department staff have been called upon to take a more active role in the treatment process. Although I do not support their contention that these changes constitute a 19 basis for reclassification, I do recognize that the duties and responsibilities of the job no longer conform to the traditional 'jock' image. The second concern expressed by the staff and shared by me is the fact that the Class Standards for this series have not been updated since 1969. I recognize that this is a matter over which Human Resources practitioners in the ministries have no control; however it is difficult for individuals 'on the front line' to justify class allocations against outdated Standards. Ms. Hall in cross examination testified that information such as that received from Ms. Eckert led her to suspect that the standards might not be adequate for %he position. She noted, however, that she did not have any first hand knowledge as to the actual duties of a Recreation Therapist at 8.P.H. It was the position of the Union that the grievor was improperly classified at the 1.2 R.C. level. We were asked to issue what has come to be known as a ~ order. This would compel.the Employer to find, or create, a more appropriate classification for the grievor's position. It was the thrust of the Union's submission that the job had changed qualitatively such' that it no longer fit within the assigned standards as of the date of the grievance, if not before. In presenting this argument, counsel focused on three (3) separate, but interrelated, aspects of the job performed by the grievor. Considerable emphasis' was placed on: (i) the transfer of the grievor from the activity centre to Ward SA; (ii) his 20 participation as an integral member on the clinical ward team; and (iii) his assessment of patients for purposes of formulating and executing an individual treatment plan. It was the submission of the Union that the relocation to Ward 5A triggered'a number of changes iD the grievor's role at the hospital. From its perspective, the 9rievor became increasingly involved in the development of individual treatment plans. Counsel suggested that significantly ]ess time was spent placing the patient into pre-set programs of a diversional nature and that more time was then devoted to meeting the specific needs of individual patients on the ward. It was asserted that with the move to Ward SA, the grievor's responsibilities were directed towards the objective of therapy to a much greater extent than had been the case when he worked out of an activity centre. More specifically, it was argued that the grievor's efforts became focused on the successful placement of the patient back into the community. Counsel submitted that this increased emphasis on therapy was reflected by the change in Dosition title which occurred in 1988. Previously, the position title was Recreation Instructor. It was the further submission of the Union that the grievor's integration into the clinical team placed him in a different configuration of roles than contempla'ted by the class standards. Counsel emphasized that the grievor was treated as a 21 "peer", and that the team operated on the consensus model, He · argued that the grievor was no longer subordinate to other health professionals, Ne were asked to find that, short of the physician's "final word", "there was a vast area of judgment and independent action to be exercised by the grievor" It was suggested %hat the enhanced role of the Recreation Therapist led. tea qualitatively different relationship with the other health professionals on the team. Similarly, counsel argued that the grie,vor's responsibility for assessing patients and formulating and executing individual treatment plans'placed him in a different relationship with the patient. Counsel submitted that the assumption of these mew responsibilities created a relationship substantially different from that existing when the therapist simply implemented the psychiatrist's prescription for the patient. He argued that the change in the therapist-patient relationship was clearly reflected by the use of the Leisure Assessment Form (exhibit 13). This form constituted a more comprehensive tool for assessing the needs of the patient. Additionally, it generated significantly greater 'information in respect of' the patient being treated. Counsel submitted that this increased contact with the patient, for purposes of assessment and the creation of a treatment plan, materially altered the nature of the position of Recreation Therapist. It was the position of the Union that the current class standards were outdated as they had not kept pace with the 22 , qualitative changes which had occurred in the Recreation Therapist position. It was submitted that these changes could not be captured' bY the use of catch-all words and phrases such as, "assist in the partial or complete rehabilitation"; "participate ...... in any or all phases of the recreation programme..."; ~nd "co-operate fully with medical, professional and other institutional staff," as found in the standards. Reference was made to the definitions of 'Recreation and Crafts Service' and 'Therapeutic Occupational Therapy Service' contained in the preamble, to the class series. The former speaks of mentally disabled patients '"who have been assessed and grouped in order to have a. common level of mental and physical ability and potential" Counsel submitted that this language described a "primitive'" approach to recreation. From the perspective of the Union, it did not capture the changes which had occurred in the job of the Recreation Therapist as a consequence of the hospital's change in mandate. The latter definition refers to a "course of therapy professionally prescribed ...... ". It was suggested th&t these words provided for a relationship between the therapist and' the psychiatrist which no longer existed. More specifically, counsel asserted that the grievor actively participates in the formulation of a course of therapy as an equal on the ward team, rather than passively receiving same by way of a prescription from the physician. In short, it was argued that the grievor, as at the date of the grievance, experienced a fundamentally different relat, ionship with ~he other 23 health professionals at B.P.H. in comparison to that which existed prior to 1985-1986, It was also noted that the class standards did not describe the 9rievor's assessment function. We were asked to conclude that the broad ]a'nguage contained within the second paragraph of the 1.2, R.C. class standard did not contemplate the type of Comprehensive assessments engaged in by this grievor. Further, it was submitted that the standards were silent on the sub3ect of community Fe-~ntegFation amd the duties which flowed therefrom. Counsel suggested Chat the extensive community work performed by the gr~evor, as described earlier in this award, cut to the core of the purpose of %he 3ob. He stated that the duties or common act'ivities ]~sted in the class standards were internally focused and dJversioDa] in nature and d~d not adequate]y describe the nature of the grievor's contact with the community. It was further argued that the class standards failed to make reference to the follow-up fumctio~ exercised by the grievor. The Board was referred to the {ollowin§ awards in support of the Union's position: 0unninq, 1574/88 (Gorsky); Fenske, 494/85 (Verity); Arbuckle et al, 1502-1509/87 (Fisher); and B~]e, 0675/85 (Brandt). It was the position of the Employer that the existing class standard describes the duties of the job as of the date of the 24 grievance. It was further submitted that any changes which may L have occurred had not materially affected the duties of the position, Counsel for'the Employer did not deny that the focus of the job has shifted towards therapy and rehabilitation and away from custodial activities. She noted, however, that there was always a rehabilitative aspect to the job and that it was never exclusively diversional in nature. It was suggested that there has simply been some movement along this continuum. Counsel also noted that certain wards were always more therapeutic than others given their patient base and ultimate purpose. She emphasized that Ward 5A had the highest degree of community re-integration. Counsel also recognized that there had been a change in setting in terms of where the required work was performed. Such change had two (2) components. Firstly, the grievor moved from the activity centre to the ward. Secondly, the focus shifted from in-hospital programs to community programs, with respect to the former aspect, it was noted that the grievor was linked to specific wards while in the West Activi.ty Centre. Further, counsel emphasized that a number of Recreation Therapists actually worked out of activity centres which were located on particular wards.' 'It was, therefore, submitted that the grievor's relocation to the ward was simply a change in setting which did not effect a corresponding change in the nature, of his 25 responsibilities. With respect to the second aspect, counsel stated that, on the evidence, there had'previously been a range of community programs prior to the introduction of Ward 5A. Ms. Nibtett had estimated that twenty percent (20%) to thirty percent (30%) of the therapists' time was devoted to such work depending upon the objective of the ward. As stated earlier, this range increased with the modification in the hospital's mandate. It was the Employer's assertion that Recreation Therapists had always been part of the clinical team. Counsel described the development which occurred as being "a change from involvement to more involvement." She suggested that, previously, the therapist was not simply handed a plan to implement in respect of particular patients. On the Employer's reading of the evidence, the Recreation Therapist was the creator of the recreation component of the treatment plan both before and after the movement to the wards. Simply put, it did not believe that the change was to the degree suggested by the Union. Counsel arguedlthat the system of referrals remained essentially unchanged as of the date of the grievance with the exception that they were th~n made on a verbal basi,s. It was suggested that the information provided to the grievor with respect to the patient was much the same. We were asked to find that the referral forms (exhibits 8 and 12) did not constitute a prescription in respect of the type of plan to be devised. 26 Counsel noted that the Recreation Therapist could reject a referral over the. entire time frame being considered. Similarly, it was argued that the grievor gathered information concerning patients and identified their needs prior to the cremation of the Leisure Assessment Form. Counsel conceded that the form resulted in the accumulation of greater detail. She suggested, however, that the document led to a simplified process in that it could provide the necessary framework or structure for the patient interview. We were also asked to find that the Recreation Therapist had always been concerned with individual programming, It was the submission of counsel that, previously, the grievor would select from a number of in-hospital activities at different times for different patients. Counsel argued that the major change was in the placement of patients into existing community programs rather than in internal programs. It was stressed, however, that the. grievor engaged in some community Programming prior to his relocation to Ward 5A. The thrust of the Employer's position was that. the grievor was required to develop an individual patient plan both before and after the move and that the components of same included both internal and external activities. Lastly, counsel submitted that the monitoring process remained constant up to the filing of the grievance. Counsel for'the Employer noted that the class standards speak of rehabilitation of mentalrly disabled patients. It was submitted that the setting where this is done is irrelevant 27 assuming the Recreation Therapist is engaged in that task. Counsel stated that the standards did not restrict the delivery of recreation services to the hospital. It was also the position of the Employer that the Union's reliance on the definition of 'Therapeutic Occupational Therapy Service' as a basis for its case was misplaced. Counsel advised that there was no such service at B.P.H. She, therefore, submitted that the language contained within the definition was largely irrelevant to the issue placed before us. In her judgment, reference was more properly made to the definition of 'Recreation and Crafts Service' She suggested, in this regard, that the use of the words "complete rehabilitation" therein contemplated that some patients would be re-integrated into the community, tt was also submitted that the .language contained within the I. 2, R.C. class definition included the preparation of individual treatment plans. More specifically, we were referred to paragraph two (2) thereof which provides that an employee so classed will "plan and conduct programmes of recreational and/or crafts activities..." and that activities and methods would satisfy the "special needs and abilities of those they instruct." Lastly, it was ar. gued that the standard did not dictate a prescribed program of treatment which the therapist.had to implement without question. It was the position of the Employer that Professor Gilbert's evidence was'of little assistance in the resolution of this matter. Counsel.argued that the Professor's understanding and 28 description of therapeutic recreation was university based and was not in accord with the type of recreation services offered at B.P.H. She suggested, however, that Ns. Hall's evidence disclosed the real issue here in dispute, this being the fact that Recreation Therapists are grouped with other less complex jobs for purposes of salary. Counsel submitted that, in substance, the Union was asking the Board to order the Employer to prepare a class standard which would reflect the fact that the job in question is more valuable than the one with which-they have been historically compared, eg. Psychiatric Nursing Assistant. It was argued that this was an insufficient foundation for a Berry order and that any change in the pay relationships should be left for negotiations between the parties, After fully considering the evidence and argument presented by both parties, the Board has concluded that the 1.2 R.O. class standards no longer encompass certain significant aspects of the Recreation Therapist position. This has resulted from the fact that the standards, last revised in 1969, have not kept pace with the developments Which have occurred at B.P.H. since 1985. More particularly, they fail to reflect the grievor's core duties as a Recreation Therapist subsequent to the hospital's change in mandate. For reasons expressed below, we find that the institutions's committment to community reintegration led to several related changes in the grievor's job, all of which were of a qualitative nature. 29 A cursory reading of the class standards coUld lead one to concTude that they provide for activities of a purely diversiona] nature. The lengthy list of 'common activities' and the description of 'specific area' seem to concentrate on activities per se without reference to the purpose behind same. Neverthe]ess, we think it incorrect to characterize the standards as estire]y diversional in substance. The Board notes that the activities listed on page two (2) are "selected to meet the needs of the patients", Similarly, the class definition in the second paragraph states that the employee is to "adopt activities and methods to special needs and abilities of those they instruct." Further, the definition of 'Recreation and Crafts Service' indicates that persons so classified wi]] assist with "the partial or complete rehabilitation of men%ally disabled patients". /he use of such language compels us to believe that 'the standards were intended to cover positions which would be somewhat involved in rehabilitation and therapy. The 8oard is unable to find, however, that the class standards adequately describe the role of the Recreation Therapist as it developed subsequent to 1985. From that date on, %he grievor's fundamental purpose while on Ward 5A was the provision of therapy and rehabilitative services such that the patient could be successfully retursed to the community. In our judgment, the current standards fail to sufficiently describe the extent of therapy offered by the Recreation Therapist. Indeed, we are satisfied that all of the core activities of the grievor's job can De linked to a therapeutic objective. The 1.2 R.C. class ~0 definition omits any direct reference tO therapy, This omission suggests that such a focus was not contemplated to the same extent in 1969. Our conclusion in this respect was shared by Ns. Eckert in her correspondence of June 15, 1988 which is reproduced above. The trend to enhance the therapeutic Component Of the position also paralleled the emergence of recreation as a therapeutic tool as described in the evidence of Professor Gilbert, The Board has reached a similar conclusion with respect to the formulation and execution of individual treatment plans. The excerpts from the class standards cited in ~he above paragraph suggest that a certain amount of effort would be directed to matching activities to the needs of a particular patient. We have been persuaded, however, that the standards do not adequately detail the emphasis now placed on the therapist's development of the individual recreation plan. In our judgment, the grievor became considerably more focused vis a vis the individual patient after his move to Ward 5A. He was then able to work with a lesser number of patients on the ward and could determine which patients were suitable for recreation therapy. In the context Of those selected, the grievor'~ overriding objective was to assist in the formulation and execution of an effective and comprehensive treatment plan. The Board~ on a review of the class standards, is not satisfied that they contemplate a therapeutic role of that magnitude, ' We are unable to accept that such a role is captured by the statement in the 31 class standards that employees therein will "be responsible for the planning and conduct of a specific area of recreation and/or crafts activities, ..... or may participate in a more general way in the recreation and crafts programme as a whole." Such language is excessively broad in scope. We agree that this type of language including catch-all phrases, will not dictate a decision that an employee is properly classified when th~ other evidence discloses there exist certain core responsibilities which are not contemplated by.the contested standards. There is little doubt that the grievor became more involved in the assessment process on his relocation to Ward 5A. This was particularly so after the implementation of the Leisure Assessment Form in early 1988. Indeed, individual assessment became the necessary prerequisite to ~he development of a patient plan and was the base upon which the objective of community reintegration could ultimately be accomplished. The Board finds that this assesSment function is not described i.n the class standards. As noted earlier, the sole reference to same is found in the definition of ~Recreation and Crafts Service' which provides that recreation and crafts will be used to assist in the rehabilitation of patients who have been "assessed and grouped in order to have a common level of mental and physical ability and potential" We accept the Union's submission that it is unclear from this language as to who performs the assessment. Even assuming that it contemplates the therapist will be involved in such process, the language does not sufficiently describe the 32 type of comprehensive assessment performed by this grievor. The ~ assessment, as previously stated, is designed to allow the therapist and the other members of the team to devise a comprehensive and consistent treatment plan. In our judgment, the assessing and grouping referred to in the class standards is not clearly directed to that type of objective. It is particularly material that the ~lass standards do not touch on the type of-extensive community work performed by the grievor. Zn our opinion, the evidence clearly demonstrated that the change in mandate at B.P.H. led directly to greater involvement in the community. This was reflected, inter alia, by the grievor's liasing with community groups, the use of community activities as a form of therapy, and the follow-up Of patients in the community after their release. Quite clearly, the community became a vital focus for the work of the Recreation Therapist. Indeed, it can be fairly concluded that the bulk of the grievor's efforts were designed to return the patient to the community and to ensure they had access to the necessary support systems once there. The class standards, as presently worded, do not contemplate such a role. They are virtually silent in respect of contacts with the community with the exception of references to certain activities which might occur in that setting such as "field trips". The Board has little hesitancy in finding that the class standards fail to capture the kinds of community work engaged in by this greivor as of the date of his grievance. 33 The Board is also inclined tO accept the submission of the Union that the change in the hospital's mandate led to the creation of qualitatively different relationships between the grievor and the clinical team and the grievor and the patient. While the therapist'was involved with the clinical team prior to the movement to the wards, this involvement became considerably more intense thereafter. There is no reason to reject the §rievor's assertion that he was treated as an integral member of. the ward team and that its deliberations were conducted on the consensus model. Zn our judgment, the class standards before us do not provide for the type of role that the Recreation Therapist played on the treatment team. It is significant that there is no mention of such team in the standards. We do not think that the reference therein to cooperation with "medical, professional or other institutional staff" adequately describes the relationship between the 9rievor and the treatment team. Similarly, the Board is satisfied that the 9rievor's relationship with the patient became more intense once the change in mandate occurred. Such relationship focused on the individual rather than the group. His efforts were all aimed at successfully reintegrating the individual patient back into the community. We have been persuaded that this'objective required the development of a substantially different relationship than that which existed when work was performed out of the activity centres. The Board is not convinced that the definition of 'Therapeutic Occupational Therapy Service' is all that helpful to 24 the resolution of the instant dispute. Firstly, as noted by the Employer, there is no such service at B,P,H. Secondly, the definition does not describe the type of individual programs contemplated. The 1.2 R.C. class definition fails to provide any additional eDlightenment on this subject. Lastly, the definition is directed to patients requiring a course of therapy "professionally prescribed" Such language does not describe the process engaged in by the clinical team in the isolation of appropriate treatment plan. In any.event, the emphasis on "more individual programmes", as contained in tbs definit'ion, suggests that the Recreation and Crafts Service would not be involved in same to any great extent. As stated above, we have determined that in'dividua] programming was at the heart of the Recreation Therapist's role oD Ward SA. The Board has not been persuaded that the move to the ward system, in and of-itself, requires that the grievor be reclassified. We would agree that a simple change of location is generally an insufficient foundation for a claim of improper classification. What is significant, however, is that the change in location was accompanied by other material changes brought on by the refocusing of the hospital's mandate. We are satisfied that these developments in their totality qualitatively changed the job of the grievor such that it no longer fell within the language of the class standards. The Board is also satisfied that the posit~on~ as it emerged, required the exercise of more skill, judgment and initiative than was previously the case. 35 a conseqsence of the t!-,eFapist's mor-e ir;tense re],'.~t~ons~k.,'ip ~o~h"- ~ -, 'the p, at ~ antand the trea'bment, temm for p~ur:~ose:s, . o'~, constructing and ~mp~emen~ng an effective t. reat. ment. p~an. Hail, ~n ~he memo ~hich she prepared for D. Burr dated 1988, recognized ~ha~ "'bhe ro]e of Recrea~on~s~s has become consider'ably more comp]ex and sophisticat~ed ~ince ~r~e s~andards. , .were es~.abllshed."' _T,n summary, 'ti;e Board concludes 'Chat this grie,,:)r' improper'ly classified as of the date of lshe 9rievan~ce. from the evidence that Ward 5A was subsequently closed in er' about March, 1989. Zt folflows from our decision th:~t 'is entitled to' the benefits of reclassification commencing twe:'~t? (20) days prior t.o the grievance. This entitlement ,..~nti~ his depar-tuFe'fron~ Ward qA and bo any p,~riod the?e&Ft~?: which he performed du~ies sdbstantial~y sim'~ 8;r to thc;se in on that ward. The evidence adduced dc)es ~c,t Femn'~t any precise judgmenb as bo Lhe scope of additional The Employer- is theFe'FOFe ordered to find oF cr-e;a'Ce Appr'opriate classification for bhe 9rievor. We remain seized of the mabter %o ensure khis ~s e'Ffec'bed within a rea;son~b~e o'F i;ime and for purposes of addressCng r~n',y difficult'ies m~ghl_, arise from the (mplement, abion of this r~wr=r'd -~ncl:.ld4r~g, but no'~ ~imit. ed t~o , ~le question oF compensabion. As noted at the outset, our award is only effective in respect of Mr. Newcombe. The grievances of the remaining Recreation Therapists, who worked outside of Ward 5A, were deferred pending release of this decision, Hopefully our comments herein will assist the parties in the resolution of the other grievances. Lastly, the Board wishes to express its appreciation for the complete and able presentations of both counsel. For all of. the above reasons, the grievance is allowed. Dated at T&~aato ,Ontario this '19ch day of Novembe£ 1990. M.V. Watters, Vice-Chairperson J. MGMan~, , Member D.~ ~ m DaJgh a r~y ,~~~~ Member 37 50485-89 PREAMBr~, INSTRUCTORS. RECP~EATTON AND CRAFTS CLASS SERIES This class series covers positions, almost all ia the Department of Health, of employees engaged on a full time basis, ia any or all aspects of the broad fields of recreation and crafts as defined. DEFINITIONS: Recreation and Crafts Service Activities in this area are designed to use recreation anti'crafts primarily to ~assist in the partial or complete rehabilitation of mentally disabled patients who have been assessed and grouped in order to have a common level of mental and physical ability and potential. Therapeutic Occupation_al_ Therapy Service Activities in this area are designed to benefit~patients requiring more individual progranwaes and a course of therapy, professionally prescribed according to individual needs, S~e cific Area In this series, this term refers to assigned groupings of responsibilities. The nature of these groupings is dictated by the scope of the progra~ae of the Service and the needs of the residents of the given institution, but they are made up of related aspects of recreation and/or crafts. Typical examples of s~ecific areas are: responsibility for the total progran~e of gymnastics, calisthenics and----'~ody-building; responsibility for the total progra~ne in conventional sports e.g. hockey,, baseball, soccer, basketball, volleyball, table tennis etc.; responsibility for the total programme in musical instruction, bands, glee clubs, orchestra etc.; responsibility for the total programne in painting and allied skills e.g. oils, water colours, silk screen lithography, sketching etc.$ responsibility for 'the total programme in ceramics, figurines, pottery, tile-work . etc.; responsibility for a swimming pool and all associated activities, instruction, water safety, swim meets etc. A .specific area of responsibility sufficiently large in scope to require the support of four or more assistants, in order to provide an effective programme, is a responsibility at the instructor 3(a) level. A specific area of responsibility requiring the support of leas than four assistants is a responsibility within the scope of the Instructor 2 l~vel. Exclusions Positions in the area of what is generally known as "Industrial Therapy" are covered by other series and are excluded from the Recreation and Crafts Instructor series. In the Industrial Therapy workshops, while some of the same articles may be produced as in the crafts programme, the empha, sis is on fitting the patients to return to useful productivity in an industrial setting. These workshops simulate the milieu of industry and emphasis is on production, punctuality, assembly-line processes etc. 50485-89 - 2- Positions o.f employees who may have 'patients a-ssi~ned to them as pa rt of the vocational training ~herapy progrsam~e (e.g. laundry, kitchen, offices) are excluded from this series. Positions of employees who may from time .'.o time be assigned to assist in recreation or crafts activities, bu~ who are normally o~herwise employed are also excluded from this series. NOTE: New appointees to positions aT ~he Instructor 1. 2 and 3 levels may be required to successfully complete an approved in-service training programme during their first year of service. Those who fail to successfully complete the course will be released o.~r ar ~he discretion of mn_~agement, may be assigned to other positions which are vacant and for which ghey can qualify. NOTE: Ail employees in positions covered by this series are required to work on shifts, i.e. days or evenings, as assigned. Con,non Activities The following is a list of activities con~aonly found in a Recreation and Crafts Services programme. The activities are selected to meet the needs of tabe patients and, while t~e list is comprehensive it is not all-inclusive and does no.._~ preclude a requirement for Recreation and Crafts--i~structors to participate in activities not listed. A.B.C.'s and arithmetic (as needed); amateur nights; ar~; baseball; basketball; band concer~s; basket weaving; bands (concer~, rhythm); bingo; billiards; bowling; Boy Scouts; broomball; Brownies; building blocJ;s; bus trips; camping; calisthenics; card games; carpentry; cartography; ceramics; .-.hoirs; choral groups; checkers; chess; clay modelling; cooking; cook outs; corn roasts; concerts; collage; copper work; crocheting, costume making; crayon colouring; croquet, Cubs; curling; dances; dancing; de corating; decorations; dome stic art--; dramatics; 'drafting ;- drawing; dressmaking; educational toys; embroidery; fel~cra£t; finger p~inting; field days; floor hockey; furniture repair, re-finishing; glee clubs; ~irl Gui. des; golf; gymnastics; harvest parties; hobby clubs; hobbies; hockey; home economics, home- making; horseshoes; buck weaving; jewellry; knitting; leathercra£t; lettering; linoleum prin~s; modelling. (clay etc. ) ;. mosaic work; movies; ,msic; needle craft; orchestras; outings; papier-mache; painting (oil, water colour etc.); paper sculp,~ure; peg-boards; plays; posters; potter-% work;picnics; puzzles; rug weaving; re-tinishing; sculpture; sewing; shows; sign ~inting; sulk screen processes; sketching; sing songs; singing; softball; soccer; socials, skill-cr~fts; sleigh- rides; swimming; swings; slides; table-tennis; ta~ting; tile-work; toys; ~oy making; trips; volleyball; water sa£e~y; weaving; weiner roasts; wood burning; wood carving. Also involved may be instruction in commo~ domestic skills and homemaking; the social graces, personal behaviour and hygi.~ne, maintaining an inventory and coun~ of equi~ent, especially of sharp objects; use of projectors; maintenance of records; pricing and selling articles; directing; lect~Aring or. instructing othe~ sta£f, volunteer help etc. January 1969. 50486 INSTRUCTOR 2, RECREATION AND CRAFTS CLASS DEFINITION: This class covers positions of employees, usually in the Department of Health, who participate on a full time basis, .tn .any or all phases of the recreation and crafts programme, either in the Recreational and Crafts service or in the therapeutic Occupational Therapy service of a departmental institution. They may be held responsible for the planning and conduct of a sDecific area of recreational and/or crafts activities, including the direction of up to three assistants~ or they may participate in a more general way in the recreation and crafts programue as a whole. _ These employees plan and conduct programmes of recreational and/~r cr~f~s activities and demonstrate and give instruction to patients or residents. They '. are required to co-operate fully with medical, professional and other institutional staff; to adopt activities and methods to special needs and abilities of those they instruct and to' provide technical direction to such other staff as may be assigned~ from time to time to assist in ~he programme, as well as more junior instructors ~ and volunteer helpers. They arrange, or assis= in arranging special events; : schedules of games or other activities; field 'trips away from the institutions and } they may be responsible for ~he care and safek,;eping of the patients or residents during the periods they are in their charge. They may requisition supplies and maintain all required records and reports. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 10 education, preferably Grade 12, a working knowledge of recreation . facilities and methods and/or demonstrated competence in at least one specific area of the arts or crafts or successful completion of the Departmental Occupational Therapy Ass~sta,ut s course OR an equivalent course. 2. At least one year of experience as an Instructor 1, Recreation and Crafts OR acceptable previous experience such aStra ay be obtained in the Armed Forces~ Y.M.C.A. or community recreation work OR an acceptable combination of formal training and experience. 3. Willingness and ability, to work with the mentally or otherwise handicapped; willingness to work unconventional hours; satisfactory physical condition; tact; patience. NOTE:The experience qualification (Item 2) is waived for successful graduates ~f the 2c~upation~l ?nerapy Assistants or Equivalent course. January 1969. 50487 INSTRUCr0R 3'(a), ~CREATION AND CRAFTS CLASS DEFINITION: This class covers supervisory positions .of employees who are responsible for ... planning .and implementing.a ~Decific area'of a large and active recreation and crafts programme including the supervision of at least four subordinate Instructors, Recreation and Crafts. Under the general supervision of an Instructor 4, Recreation and Crafts~ employees in positions in this class instruct and assign duties to subordinate instructors; requisition the equipment and supplies required for their specific _ area; give instx~lction in recreation and crafts; observe participants and compile progress reports as requiredl co-operate with professional staff by initiating and modifying recreation activities and patient participation~ to meet the needs of the overall therapeutic progrmm~e, and maimta~ all required records. Also included in this class is the position of the emPloyee in the Department of Correctional ~ervices who instructs juveniles for rehabilitative ~purposes and is responsible for the production of figurines and supporting models for the Deparunental and institutional exhibitions and displays. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 10 education, preferably grade 12 mid a demonstrated knowledge of recreation facilities and methods and/or of arts and crafts. Preferably successful completion of a recognized fo~,~al course in recreation and/or crafts such as the Occupational Therapy Assistants course or its equivalent. 2. Two years, acceptable experience. - 3. Ability to plan and supervise; demonstrated ability to successfully promote participation in the relevant activities; initiative; tact; satisfactory physical condition. January 1969. ~ --~ Position specification & Cia~ Ailocetlon-CSC 61 (Refer ~ b~ of fo~ for completion Ina~u~ons) r~rlO For CSC ~ Ol~e ~v~ Pt~i~s ~ial num~ ~ ~ ~r~&l ~m~ I .~-'=~ecrea[ton [nstruc=o~ 0~-9145-05 ~ec~eattan C~af[s 50486 ~al~h Otrec~ Services ,..n[ai Heat[h B~ockvt[te Psychiatric Hospt~a~ 3650t 13 I Recreation Supervisor 0~-9145-05 To ~tan and implement an approved :~erageuttc recrea[ton service for tn- preterits and out-~attents of a rated 490 bed psychiatric ~osptta[. Provide a com~reheflstve, Individualized, recreation program for referrers, patients on ~ssigned ward. - resPonsz~te to regularly participate aS an active member of the multl- discioltnary clinical team~ - to discuss referrals, formulate recreation treatment goals, report on clients* progress and provide ~ppt tn discharge planning; - 9altering information for Recreation programming goals by reviewiAg charts, attending Kardex meetings', conducting client interviews and consultation with other disciplines; - conduct leisure assessment for identification of leisure needs for assigned caseload according to departmental standards and policies; - develop individual recreation treatment goals and program according to information gathered durtn9 assessment process[ - plan and conduct Individual or group ~leisure education classe~, 8~ fl~ne~s, tife skills training and leisure development programs tn accordance with the tre&tment plant- - maintain a consistent ongoinq caseload; according to departmental standards; - monitor, evaluate and revise accordingly, individual programs as -" per departmental standards; -documen[ patients~ progress reflecting goalsjp~ans according to de~&rtmen%ai standards;' - facilitate clients re-Integration trite community resources; - pro~ote networking wtt~ community outreach programs; CflNTTHLIFn $, Skillt and kfl~l~p requir~ tO ~ofm job at full wo~i~ le~l, (t~e mmn~mr¥ mm~en~l~ ~ li~, if T~orough kno~iedge of the devetopment, tmpXementatton and evaluation of ~eisure programs normaIIy acquired through a recognized degree of CAAT nip[oma in Recreation or related field. Demonstrated ebtIity to instruct, assessment p~og~m~ and tn ~abIlsh effective CONTXNU£D Assistant Adm/nistra~or, Clinical Servl Instructor 2 Recrqatton & Crafts J 50486 1C018 OX Plans and tmp[ements therapeutic programs tn a specific area of recreattona[/leisure activity requiring sound knowledge of, and training ~n recreation or related field. " Judgement ts required In development of programs, participation mulCt-disciPlinary teams, preparing reports and determining appropriate ; level and nature of tndlvtdua! programs. Confirms curren$ c~asstftcatton. OUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (Continued) -prov~ae follow-up for discharged patients a.s applicable. .-I - maintain an ongoing updateU bulletin ~oarq of recreation information both in ~ospital and .in the community on assigned ward; - participate tn planning and implementation of hospital-wide acttvttes and special events; - works evenings and weekends tn accordance to program neeUs. Participates in the operation and liaison of Recreation Programs: - recoras dairy QuaZity Assurance statistics and maintains Q,~atlty Assurance standards set for leisure programs; · - adheres to all administrative and departmenta! policies and 1) procedures; - provide presentations in and out of hospital as part of ongoing education and pub!lc relations in respect to recreation services; - maintain liaison with hospital and community resource 15% personnel; - participate in scheduled department meetingso committees and staff development activities; - submits requisitions for recreation supplies and maintenance for supervisory action; - monitors and assists in the orientation and evaluation of summer students and volunteers, assigned to area; - ensures recreati'onal areas In hospital and community are properly maintained and safe: Other Related Duties - acts as supervisor as required in accordance with OepartmentaX policy; 5~ - keeps abreast of recent trends and practices In t~e field of recreation, - drives aospital car or bus for program as required; SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE (Continued) working relationships with hospital staff and community agencies. Knowledge of psychiatric' an~ medical terminologies, good organizational, interpersonal and communication skills. Must have valid 'driver's license.