HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1579.Dickson & Rea.90-11-05 ONTARIO EMPLOY£S DE LA COURONNE
~ CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONT, CR[O
GRIEVANCE CpMMISSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
;80 OUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G 1Z8 - SUITE 2100 TELEPHONE/T~_-LL~'PHONE
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, TORONTO, (ONTARIO) MSG 1Z$ - BUREAU2100 {416) 598-0688
1579/89
· IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEFANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
,BETWEEN
OPSBU (Dickson/Rea)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board)
Employer
BEFORE: W. Kaplan Vice-Chairperson
E. Seymour Member
F. Collict Member
FOR THE C. Paliare
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE A.P. Tarasuk
EMPLOYER Counsel
Central Ontario Industria!
Relat ions Institute
HEARING: May 1, 1990
October 2, 1990
kward
By grievances dated November 7, 1989 Laura Dickson and Eileen Rea
seek reclassification from Clerk 3, General to Clerk 4, General.
On the first day of hearing Laura Dickson testified on her own
behalf and that of Eileen Rea. The employer did not call any
evidence, and the parties proceeded directly to argument on the
second day of hearing.
The Evidence
Laura Dickson and Eileen Rea ("the grievors") are employed by the
Teachers Pension Plan Board ("the employer") as Payroll Clerks
within the payroll department. Dickson has been employed by the
employer since May, 1988; Rea since 1984. The grievors are
currently classified as Clerk 3, General. The grievors were
formerly classified as Clerk 4, General. However, as a result
of a classification study undertaken by an outside consulting
firm, the grievors were reclassified on April 1, 1989 to Clerk 3,
General.
It is useful to set out the class' definitions at issue in this
case.
CLERK 3, GENERAL
CLASS DEFINITION
Employees in positions allocated to this class, as
"journeymen clerks", perform routine clerical work of
some complexity according to established procedures
3
requiring a background knowledge of specific
regulations, statutes or local practices. Decision-
making involves some judgment in the selection of
alternatives within a comprehensive framework of
guidelines.. Initiative is in the form of following up
errors or omissions and in making corrections as
necessary. Doubtful matters not covered by precedent
are referred to supervisors. Much of the work is
reviewed only periodically, principally for adherence
to policy and procedures.
Typical tasks at this level include the preparation of
factual reports, statements or memoranda requiring some
judgment i~ the selection and presentation of data;
assessment of the accuracy, of statements or eligibility
of applicants, investigating discrepancies and securing
further proof or documentation as necessary;
overseeing, as a Group Leader, the work of a small
subordinate staff by explaining procedures and checking
work.
This is a terminal class for many positions, involving
the competent performance of routine clerical work
common to the office concerned.
[Qualifications omitted.] .-
CLERK 4~ GENERAL
CLASS.-DEFINITION
Employees in positions allocated to this class perform
a variety of responsible clerical tasks requiring a
good background knowledge of specific regulations,
statutes or. local practices. Decision-making involves
judgement in dealing with variations from established
guidelines or standards. Normally employees receive
specific instructions only on unusual or special
problems~as the work is.performed under conditions that
permit little opportunity for direct supervision by
others. Matters involving decisions that depart
radically from established practices are referred to
supervisors.
Tasks typical at this level include 'the evaluation or
assessment of a variety of statements, applications,
records or similar material to check for conformity
with specific regulations, statutes or administrative
orders, resolving points not clearly covered by these
instructions, usually by authorizing adjustments or
recommending payment or acceptance; supervising a small
group of "journeymen clerks"' or a larger group of
clerical assistants by explaining procedures, assigning
and checking work and maintaining discipline.
'[Qualifications omitted.]
As already noted, Ms. Dickson gave evidence on beh&lf of both
grievors and she was able to do so because both grievors
performed the same job. In her examination-in-chief Ms. Dickson
testified about her duties and methodically explained why she
believed they better fit the Class 4, General than the Class 3,
General classification.
A Position Specification was introduced into evidence, and Ms.
Dickson testified that it set out in a general way the grievors'
duties and responsibilities (although she noted that not. all of
the grievors' duties and responsibilities were reflected in it).
In general, the grievors are responsible for the administration
of-a bi-weekly payroll for management employees, bargaining, unit
employees, contract employees, and Teachers Pension Plan Board
chairs, approximately 240 people in a11. Salary increases,
adjustments, corrections, etc., all fall within the grievors'
responsibilities. And each employee's payroll required specific
attention given the numerous variables inevitably involved.
Ms. Dickson testified that the grievors are-also charged with the
preparation of a yearly reconciliation of T4's and T4A's, and are
responsible for all payroll-related accounts. Ms. Dickson
expressed the view that these duties indicated a "variety of
5
responsible clerical tasks"; not "routine work of some
complexity."
Ms. Dickson also told the Board that the grievors required "a
good background knowledge of specific regulations, statutes or
local practices." In this regard, the grievors were required to
possess, and did possess, a good knowledge of the Unemployment
Insuranqe Act, the Canad~ PensioD Plan A~t, and the Income Tax
~ in order to perform their payroll functions. They were also
required to have a good familiarity with the Collective
Agreement. Ms. Dickson contrasted this knowledge with the
reference to the "background knowledge"- referred to in the Class
3, General Standard. Ms. Dickson testified that it would, be
impossible to..prepare the various, payrolls without a' "good
background knowledge" of the statutes et=., and she provided the
Board with some examples illustrating how knowledge of these acts
was essential in order to prepare properly the payrolls. Indeed,
given the large number of variables, from maternity leave and
overtime to calculation of pension plan and unemployment
insurance contributions, an extremely good knowledge of the
of the regulations, and of the Collective Agreement, not
mention the various forms to be filled out, as all of these
relate to payroll, was a pre-requisite to both grievors'
positions.
6
In her testimony, Ms. Dickson further elaborated on the grievors'
duties, and in doing so explained that they were responsible for
"exercising judgement in dealing with variations from established
g~idelines or standards." In this regard, the grievors were
required to use their judgement to decide how to handle various
problems that arose in the payroll function. One way in which
the grievors' exercised judgment was in calculating payroll
deductions in a manner which best favored the employee. There
were other ways as well.
Indeed, Ms. Dickson testified that the grievors created their own
procedure manual as an up-to-date guide for dealing with
questions that arose in performing the payroll function. This
was to be contrasted with the Class 3, General .classification,
which referred to decision-making involving "some judgement in
the selection of alternatives within a comprehensive framework of
guidelines."
With respect to supervision, Ms. Dickson testified that 'the
grievors received "specific instruction only on unusual or
special problems as the work is perfo~ed under conditions that
permit little opportunity for direct supervision by others." She
also told the Board that "matters involving decisions that depart
radically from established practices are referred to
supervisors." Her evidence was that only in exceptional
circumstances were supervisors consulted in the performance of
7
the payroll function. The grievors did not receive any specific
instructions on a regular basis, and the conditions under which
they worked were such that there was little opportunity for
direct supervision. In Ms. Dickson's words, only if something
was "very out of the ordinary" were supervisors consulted. And
given the fact that the grievors prepared and kept current their
own procedure manual, that circumstance was extremely rare.
Moreover,~ at the time of the grievance, the g~ievors had gone
some two months without a supervisor. Ms. Dickson testified that
the grievors performed a number of the tasks indicated in the
Clerk 4, General standard, one of which was the evaluation o~
overtime referred to in the Position Specification.
Ms. Dickson also gave evidence comparing the grievor$' duties ,
with those of the Accounts Payable Clerks who have the Clerk '4
designation. In brief, it was her eviaence that she performed
some Accounts Payable work.
In cro~s-examination Ms. Dickson was extensively questioned about
her duties and responsibilities. The thrust of the cross-
~xamination was to the effect that the grievors' work was
completely routine, and that in doing the work no judgement was
required. For example, Mr. Tarasuk'asked Ms. Dickson if she had
any discretion whether or not to correct an error in the payroll.
Ms. Dickson conceded that their was no discretion in correcting
an error, but she maintained that judgement was required, as well
8
as knowledge of the acts, etc., in deciding how to go about
correcting that error. Some examples were provided illustrating
this point. Ms. Dickson also maintained in cross-examination
that the payroll manual she testified in chief to writing was a
procedure manual that would be of use to anyone assigned to
performing the payroll function. Ms. Dickson was steadfast in
her evidence that the grievors' functions involved "evaluation
and assessment."
Argument
Union counsel drew the Board's attention to the ~oobie .decision
(240/84) and to the proposition that in distinguishing between
Cl~rk 3, General and Clerk 4, G~neral classifications, what is
significant is the degree of "responsibility, complexity,
knowledge, authority, judgment, autonomy and discretion" that is
required to be exercised by the person performing the position.
This principle apparently owes its genesis to Deerthuizen
(361/85) where the Board observes that the Clerk series is
"graded at the various levels by degree of responsibility,
complexity, knowledge, authority, judgment, autonomy and
discretion, more than by the nature of the tasks performed" (at
29). See also Switzer and McKenna (8-4/84, 805/84 at 11).
Mr. Paliare argued that the evidence indicated that the grievors
had a good background knowledge of the specific regulations,
statutes, etc., necessary to perform their job and that they had
considerable authority in going about their work. Counsel
illustrated this point by noting the day-to-day functional
independence of the grievors as well as the fact that for a two-
month period they worked without any supervision. In counsel's
submission there was nothing routine about what the grievors did.
Although the payroll had to be prepared on a regular basis, its
preparation involved regular changes that had to be responded to
in an appropriate way. The preparation by the grievors of their
own procedure manual illustrated the on going judgement they
exercised in performing their functions. Counsel also referred
the Board to pre-hearing submissions introduced into evidence
that compared and contrasted the Clerk 3 and Clerk 4
classifications through r~ference to the grievors' actual duties
and responsibilities. These s~bmissions formed the basis for Ms.
Dickson's. evidence, and were in fact largely reflected that.
in
evidence.
In his submission, counsel for the employer argued that the
grievors were bound by the various regulations, statutes, etc.,
in performing their payroll- function, and in the result did not
exercise any judgement or discretion with· respect to it. In Mr.
Tarasuk's view, the payroll function was straightforward; it
required calculation and correction in adherence to established
policies and procedures. Accordingly, this function better, fit
within t~e Clerk 3 classification than the Clerk 4
classification. Mr. Tarasuk suggested that the lack of
10
supervision was not because of the autonomous nature of the
position; it reflected instead its routine nature. In dealing
with payroll, he argued, minimum supervision was all that was
required because everything was in place. In his submission, the
preparation of payroll did not involve a variety of tasks, it
involved one task= the Dreparation of the payroll.
Decision
Taking the j ob as a whole, as described in the Position
Specification, and as described by Ms. Dickson in her evidence
before this Board, we find that the position is best placed
within the Clerk 4, General classification. In reaching this
decision we note 'that there was no rebuttal evidence introduced
by the employer. Moreover, we find Ms. Dickson's evidence in-
chief persuasive. It indicates that' in the performance .of their
payroll functions, the grievors exercise significant
responsibility in a job of some complexity requiring knowledge,
the exercise of judgement, autonomy and discretion. Their
authority is indicated by the fact that they work without direct
supervision, and hage on one occasion for a significant period of
time worked without any supervision. SupDorting this finding is
'
the evidence we heard about the way in which the grlevor s go
about preparing the payroll, the very good knowledge they bring
to that task, and the procedures manual they prepared to assist
themselves and others as they go about making judgments as to how
best to do their work.
While we recognize that there is significant overlap between the
classifications at issue in this case, we are persuaded that the
grievors' duties and responsibilities best fit within the Clerk
4, General classification. We are not unsympathetic' to some of
the points made by employer counsel .in his argument, but in the
absence of any evidence supporting these points, we are not
persuaded by them. Conceivably, for example, a management
witness could have rebutted Ms. Dickson's testimony by giving
evidence of the "routine" nature of the payroll function. The
employer did not call any evidence, and in any case,, we are
persuaded by the evidence that we'heard. Accordingly, we direct
the employer to reclassify Ms. Dickson and Ms. Rea to Clerk 4,
General.
At the 'conclusion of the- hearing counsel agreed that. if
reclassification was ordered compensation, if any, should begin
twenty days prior to the filing of the grievances. It is so
ordered.
12
DATED at Ottawa this 5th day of November lggO.
Kaplan
Vice-Chair Der$on
E. Seymour
Member
"I DISSENT" (Dissent attached)
F. Collict
Member
DISSENT RE G.S.B. #1579/89 (DICKSON & REA)
This Member is not in agreement with the majority in this award.
'in this respect, it must be noted that there is no question of the fact that payroll
calculations are complex, that accuracy is a prime consideration, and that
variations in the calculations occur for each different payroll {commission rs.
straight salary, hourly rated personnel, contracts, otc.) and that variations occur
from one pay period to another owing to vacations, leaves of absence, illness,
overtime, etc. Nevertheless, the payrotl activity falls into a very narrow niche.
In argument the Union relied extensively on the evidence presented by gdevors
Dickson'and plus in particular, G.S.B. #240/84 (Goobie). Let us examine each
of these individually.
G.S,B. #240/84 is readily distinguishabl~) from the subject case. In this case, the
Clerk 3 General grievors worked for O.H.I.P. and the purpose of their position was,
... to provide a comprehensive ~Servlce whereby all
written, telephone, or In person communications from
the general public, concerning all aspects of the
Ontario Health Insurance Plan and related
government programs, can be directly or promptly
resolved.
(G.S.B: #240/84, p. 8)
! I
Their activities involved general information/assistance, enrollment quedes, etc., a's
related to the general public, groups, hospitals and medical practitioners.
Additionally, they were required to investigate claims eligibilities, subscriber
eligibilities, (and communication of such to .subscribers both orally and or in
writing), pedorm cashiering ~nctions relative to the receipt of premiums, etc. and
even participating in public function such as seminar and information groups).
(See G.S.B. #240/84, page 8, 9, 10)
Hence, the reclassification of the grievers in G.$.B. #240/84 from Clerk 3 General
to Clerk 4 General was a reasonable decision.
However, that case has no applicability to the subject case. The payroll activity
has complexity, judgementai requirements in the selection of alternatives, the need
to follow-up on errors and a requirement for the preparation of reports. It even has
a requirement to follow the direction of various statutes; but 'all of these
requirements fall squarely within the description of the Clerk 3 General class
standard. These matters, of themselves, do not qualify for reclassification to the
Class 4 General classification as was reasonable in the above-noted Gooble case,
G.S.B. #240/84.
What was the evidence adduced from grievor Dlckson in direct examination and
cross examination in this case?
2
Gdevor Dickson stated that if she noticed a mistake or if a mistake was brought
to her attentidn, it was her responsibility to fix it. This, she contended, was an
illustration of 'decision-making", a significant difference between the Clerk 3
General and Clerk 4 General level of responsibility. She agreed also, however, in
cross examination, that' if an error had been identified, that she had one
responsibility -- to fix itl -No other decision was required.
Grievor Dickson said that the requirements of her job were not "routine". She then
proceeded to describe her responsibility as, regular pay calculation, overtime
adjustments, employee benefits deductions and changes with the appropriate
adjustments to an employee's pay cheque, payments-to outside insurance and
other outside agencies, preparation of records of employment when employees
terminate, preparation of T-4's and T-4A's, .etc., BUT; what could be more regular
and repetitive than this listing of payroll duties?
The above duties are narrow and germane to payroll activities. They are routine;
and other than quarterly and annual activities (eg. T-4/T-4A), they are routinely
pedormed or arise each pay pedod.
As an illustration of exercise of judgement, grievor Dickson cited the case of a
30% retroactive salary increase. She stated that once the direction was given to
her to calculate the 30% retroactive salary increase, that she had to use
"judgement" to determine what codes to use, how much tax to allocate from ~ables;
and so on. She conceded that she did not make the judger;nent whether or not to
give the retroactive adjustment.
3
Similarly, grievor Dlckson's interpretation of 'evaluation' was 'looking at
something', or "determining something'. The illustration given in evidence was that
if an expense account is claimed, the grievor had to make an "evaluation" of the
account allocation to be charged, recording in the general ledger, and application
of proper coding. This was the gdevor's interpretation of "evaluation".
With reference to the gdevor's interpretation of 'authority" that she exercised, she
stated in evidence that although she did not authorize salary increases, they were
sent to her through the Human Resources function, she was given the name, date
and amount of salary increase, and that she would then "authorize" the adjustment
to the salary. As stated by the grievor,
We determine what we shall do. We are told the day
a person is III or given a salary Increase. We do the
rest.
In the view of this Member, the above evidence adduced from the gdevor falls
short of any responsibility for decision-making, evaluation, the exercise of
judgement, or indeed, the concept of authorization responsibility.
It was stated further by Grievor Dickson that no instructions were given to her or
grievor Rea on a regular basis; that the Royal Bank booklet is a general booklet
and, that if you can follow it, you can do payroll.
What does this mean? Does this mean that. the Gdevor's activities are so
uncomplicated that they need no counsel and direction from supervision? Does
it mean that the grievors are so knowledgeable that they can function quite
independently l~ecause they have full knowledge of statutes and regulations
4
applicable to the payroll activity?
The grievor's testimony was that the supervisor of payroll was only contacted "as
a courtesy". Union counsel also argued that the Gdevors
... have a good working knowledge'or a number of
statutes that relate to their work. They are
knowledgeable re C.P.P., U.i.C., the Income Tax Act
and the Collective Agreements that apply to their
clients.
Once again, what does this mean? Many lawyers, tax accountants and staff
relations personnel are. not knowledgeable with reference to the above. How can
either a Clerk 3 General or Clerk 4 General be expected to be knowledgeable
concerning these statutes? The Payroll Clerk is instructed as to the deductions .to
be made for C.P.P. and U.I:C. as related to various income and/or earnings levels;
ahd the same is.true of tax deductions, That .is all the Payroll cerk is required to
know. The grievors are not required to counsel re eligibility for C.P.P. & U.I.C.,
when and how much, D.S.P.'s, D.P.S.P.'s, etc relative to tax matters. Grievor
Dlckson's testimony, concerning knowledge of statutes required fell far short of the
knowledge required of the OHIP statute as set Out in G.S.B. #240/84 (Gooble),
As to the matter of contacting the supervisor "as a matter of courtesy", is this to
convince the Board that such contact is not required because the grievors know
everything that is to be done? That the supervisor would be of no assistance in
any event? That the position is so complicated that no one other than the gdevors
can handle the matter at the Clerk 3 or Clerk 4 General level? Or, indeed, does
it s.upport the position that the bi-weekly calculation of payroll is so routine that not
Only could the gdevors function for two months without a supervisor but that the
5
activity is, in fact, routine, and that it fails quite comfortably within the class
standard of Clerk 3 General? This matter would conclude the latter' as well as the
fact that grievors Dlckson and Rea are e×pedenced in the highly routinized activity
of payroll calculation.
In G.S.B. #1407/89 (Le Febre-Thlesseu) it is stated at page 6 that,
... once a classification grievance reaches this Board,
the Board must make its ruling based on the
evidence we hear concerning the position and our
Interpretation of the class standards.
(underscoring added)
In this respect, and at page 11 of the majodty award in this case,.the following is
stated:
We are not unsympathetic to some of the points
made by employer counsel in his argument, but in
the absence of any evidence supporting these points,
we are not persuaded by them. Conceivably, for
example, a management witness could have rebutted
Ms. Dickson's testimony by giving evidence, and In
any case, we are persuaded by the evidence that we
heard.
As stated in G.S.B. #1407/89 above, the ruling of the Board must be based upon
the evidence presented and the Board's interpretation of the class standards. Very
clearly, this Member was not persuaded by the evidence presented by the grievor
- and further clarification could have been provided to the Board members had
further rebuttal evidence been advanced by the Employer. However, the absence
6
of that rebuttal evidence surely is not, in and of itself, fata~ to the Employer's case.
This Board still has a responsibility to assess and evaluate the evidence that was
adduced, and to interpret the class standards as presented.
it is the position of this Member that the activities performed by grievors Dickson
and Rea fall squarely within the Clerk 3 General classification. This Member would
have dismissed the subject grievance.
F.T. COLLICT
7