HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-0088.Connelly et al.92-11-09
.",r ,- "
'I:"
{.~ ONTARIO EMPLOYÈS DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL'ONTARIO
1111 GRIEVANCE CPMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD . DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2 roO, TORONTO, ONTARiO. M5G IZ8 TËLEPHONEITELEPHONE' (4Iõ) J25-IJ88
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, 8UREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G IZ8 FACSlrAlLf iTELÈCOPIE r415) J25- I J95
88/90, 89/90, 90/90, 262/90
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Connelly et all
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health)
Employer
BEFORE M. Gorsky Vice-Chairperson
J. C. Laniel Member
A. stapleton Member
FOR TBE W. Whitaker
GRIEVOR Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman
Barristers & Solicitors
POR THE M. Failes
BMPLOYBR Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
BEARING August 3, 1990
September 28, 1990
December 14, 1990
, May 22, 24, 1991
February 13, 1992
May 29, 1992
I
.
If
1
DEe I s ION
There are five grIevances before us, all dated December 1,
1982 with all of the Grievors, at the material times, being
employed by the Ministry of Health in the O.H.I.P. Oshawa District
Office, located at 44 Bond Street West. Two of the grIevances,
being those of Andrea E. Christie and Charlotte A. McGahey, were
heard together by agreement of the parties. Accordingly, there
were four separate hearings involving the adducing of evidence and
the presentation of argument, which, if the grievances were to be
decided on their merits, would result in four separate decisions.
The grievance of Ms. Connelly originally came on for hearing
before a panel of the Board chaired by Vice-Chairperson N. v.
Dissanayake on October 25, 1989. At the outset of that hearing,
counsel for the Employer raised two preliminary objections to
arbitrability which we understood were intended to apply to all of
the cases before us. The first was an objection to the Board's
jurisdiction to hear the grievance on the basis that it had not
been processed through the grievance procedure provided for in the
collective agreement. The second was a submission that the Board
should decline jurisdiction to hear the grievance on its merits
because of undue delay or laches. Counsel before the Dissanayake
panel agreed that these issues should be determined before dealing
with the merits of the grievance. In the result, the Board
disallowed the first objection to arbitrability and concluded, at
'-
--
2
p.14, tha.t: "Given this outcome, the Board does not feel a need to
determine the 'laches' Issue. This dismissal does not preclude the
grIevor from making a subsequent reference to this boa'rd if this
dispute is not resolved throughout the grlevance procedure. If it
does come before the Board, that panel will have to deal with the
'laches! Issue. "
The Grievors have now made references to the Board. The
laches issue has again been raised by counsel for the Employer, and .
it was agreed that it was being raised with respect to all of the
grIevances. It was further agreed that we would first hear the
evidence with respect to all of the grievances followed by argument
on the merits and on the laches Issue.
We will proceed to render our decisions with respect to the
grievances referred to.
Grievance of AQne Connelly
Ms. Connelly, who has a seniority date of 1969, was initially
a Clerk 2, Filing in the Central Records Office of OHIP, on .Overlea
Boulevard in Toronto. In 1975 she was transferred to the office l.n
oshawa, where she was the successful candidate in a competition for
a group leader position as a. result of which her classification was
changed to Clerk 3, Filing, and her position title became Senior
Records Clerk. As a Senior Records Clerk, Ms. Connelly supervised
four file clerks. At the time of her grievance she reported to Mr.
..
"
3
Jang Hong, the Supervisor, Support Services, who reported to Mr.
Noel Armstrong, Manager, Administrative Services, who, In turn,
reported the Director, Oshawa District, who at the time was Mr.
Arman Arkellian. Mr. Hong remained in the position of Supervisor,
Support Services for approximately four months after Ms. Connelly
filed her grIevance, and his position remained unfilled for
approximately eight to ten months thereafter.
Ms. connelly gave evidence that: .
(1) The file unit dealt with the correspondence from units In the
office, preparation of files, addition of material to existing
files, the preparation of files ~n accordance with a pre-
determined colour coding system, cull ing files after two and
a half years and sending the culled files for recyc ling.
Employees In the filing unit attended to requests for files
based on pull card orders received from different areas and
arranged for the removal and replacement of files. Log cards
were prepared, recording the name of the person requesting a
file, the name of the unit where they worked. the date the
file left the unit, along with particulars of the file.
( 2 ) Some of the different types of files found in the unit were:
(a) Doctors' files, which were given a six-digit number, which
files contained correspondence received by the claims clerks
from doctors. (b) Subscriber files, which included such
I
.~
"
4
matters as correspondence from persons who had previously had
group coverage but were now unemployed and were required to
,
pay premiums directly. These files could also contain
requests for information as to when the subscriber was last
covered, information concerning movement between jobs, address
changes, additions to subscriber's fami! y, and changes In
marital status. (c) Clinic files, which included documents
related to payment to physicians. (d) Alpha files, which
included letters sent without an identifying address. These
letters were' kept In an alpha file until some identifying
information, such as an address, was obtained, when the alpha
filés would be pulled and the file. placed in the numerical
system. (e) Out-of-province files, which involved claims
relating to persons out of Ontario.
(3) There was a tracer system'employed in the file unit to keep
track of files that had been taken out of the filing area.
The status of files removed was reviewed every Monday and the
system tracked the location of all files. If files taken from
the unit were not returned within three weeks, Ms. Connelly
arranged for someone to communicate with the person to whom
the file had been given and an appropriate notation was made
In a log book and the log card kept in the filing cabinet.
( 4) . Files were culled after two and a half years, based on the
date of the last correspondence. After culling, files ·were
.
.
5
boxed and sent for recycling with a record being kept of the
number of files sent from the unit.
(5 ) The four clerks who reported to Ms. Connelly divided the work
of the unit between them. The clerks proceed to the unit to
obtain a file folder and check the appropriate cabinet to see
if it IS In. Correspondence is then attached to a card. Files
were opened In accordance with the numerical system In
operation.
--
(6 ) Twenty-five to fifty per cent of a clerk's time would be spent
in carrying out the above-described duties, depending on the
volume of work. The balance of a clerks' time would involve
obtaining files for the claims unit upon receipt of the
appropriate requisition slip. Some of a clerks' time would be
involved in obtaining microfiches from the microfilm cabinet
for the microfilming unit. The microfiche would be pulled and,
copies made and, forwarded to the claims area.
( 7 ) Ms. Connelly did not normally perform the work above
described, which was the responsibility of the four clerks who
. reported to her and whom she supervised. Among her
responsibilities were the preparation of production reports
(daily, weekly, and monthly) relating to her unit. Production
measured included a physical count of every piece of paper
that passed through the unit and the time spent l.n other
.
~"
. 6
areas. The production report recorded such information as the
-
number of pIeces filed away, new files opened and requests
for files and microfiches. On an average day her unit
processed: 250 pIeces of correspondence along with requests
for 25 files and 20 microfiches. The functioning of the file
unit in Oshawa was said to be "more or less the same" as the
one with which she was familiar when she worked at the Over lea
office In Toronto. Ms. Connelly was familiar with the
functioning of the leader position at the Overlea .
group
office, as she had served as an acting group leader l.n the
absence of the incumbent. The complexity of the work in the
filing unit at Oshawa and at the Overlea office was said to be
much the same. Production reports kept at the Over lea office
measured similar matters . as did those maintained by Ms.
Connelly at the Oshawa office, although she acknowledged that
she was not personally responsible for the preparation of
production reports at the Overlea office. She did, however,
note that she had periodically examined the production reports
at the latter office, and was also familiar with them because
of her experience as an acting group leader. When she left the
Overlea office in 1974 or 1975, there were two group leaders
and ten clerks assigned to each of them.
( 8 ) Proportionately, each clerk In the file unit at the Oshawa
office was said to have performed more work than a clerk In
the same unit at.the Overlea office. Ms. Connelly estimated
.
.
7
that, at the relevant time, there was almost the same volume
of work for the filing clerks at the Oshawa office as there
was for the filing clerks at the Overlea office.
(9 ) .<\fter Mr. Hong left his position, Ms. Conne 11 y dea 1 t directly
with Mr. Armstrong concerning matters that would formerly have
been referred to Mr. Hong. She only consulted with Mr.
Armstrong in connection with what she described as "big
problems. "
( 10) Ms. Connelly trained new filing clerks by physically
performing the work of a clerk, explaining each step as she
performed it and, later, when a clerk was given actual work to
perform, monitoring the work on a day-to-day basis until she
felt confident that the employee was capable of performing it
up to an acceptable standard. She was also involved with the
scheduling of the the clerks who reported to her, including
the scheduling of vacations. In the latter case, she provided
input to her supervisor.
( 111 As the senior clerk, Ms. Conne II y was responsible for day-to-
day work assignments to the clerks under her; dealing with
work related problems as they arose, as when files were
reported lost, and checking, on a periodic basis, to see that
the clerks were properly carrying out their responsibilities.
I
¡
0;.
8
(12 ) She also had a role In the periodic appraisal of the clerks
under her. She f i 11 ed out, in draft form, deta il s relating to
work appraisal on the forms used for that purpose, which she
then submitted to her supervisor who might add comments and
make changes before the appraisal was typed In final form.
She' was also involved in the formal appraisal review meeting,
along with her superVIsor.
<13 ) As part of her supervisory responsibilities, Ms. Connelly was
involved In counselling the clerks under .her. When a clerk
appeåred to be having a problem, she would intervene to try to
discover what it was, and she would offer her assistance,
depending on the nature of the problem. An example was given
of .the case of a clerk who had a mental illness, where Ms.
Connelly attempted to acc:onunodate some of the problems
experienced by the clerk. Ms. Connelly never had occasion to
remonstrate any of the clerks under her because of apparent
deficiencies in their work performance.
(14 ) She felt that she had a responsibility to intervene when one
of her subordinates was late for work. She endeavoured to
assist them in dealing with problems that might interfere with
their regular and on-time attendance at work. when her
efforts to assist an employee did not result in improvement,
she informed them that if the situation did not improve she
might have to discuss the problem with higher supervision.
,~
.
.
9
( 15) When a review of the statistics kept by her disclosed that one
of the subordinate clerks was not performing at an acceptable
level, she would bring this matter to the attention of her
supervisor for inclusion in the periodic appraisals.
( 16) She regarded the contents of her positio(l specification and
class allocation form (Exhibit 2 ) as being "generally
accurate. " Exhibit 2 IS annexed as Appendix 1. The purpose of
her evidence In reviewing her duties and responsibilities was
to demonstrate that she performed at a higher level than her
present classification, 'and to add deta íl s of duties and
responsibilities said not to be covered in Exhibit 2.
Mr. ~ang Hong was the Supervisor of Support Services from 1979
to 1982, and Ms. Connelly reported to him, from the time she moved
to the Oshawa office in 1975 until he left in 1982 for a position
with the Ministry of Revenue. He testified that:
(1) The production of reports concerning the work being performed
in the records area was the responsibility of Ms. Connelly.
( 2 ) Because of the passage of time since he left his position as
Supervisor, Support Services, he could not recall the number
of files that were kept ~n the records section, however he
estimated that there would be approximately 10,000.
·
".
10
( 3, ~ He would, as part of his responsibilities, attend at each unit
In Support Services between two to three times a day.
(4 ) At the relevant time, he had working under him, three typists,
one senior records clerk 01s, Connelly~ , a senIor microfilm
operator (Mr. Teeple, one of the Grievors), four record clerks
who reported to Ms. Connelly, 'a senIor mail clerk, a stock
clerk, a receptionist and a switchboard operator, and two
microfilm operators, the Grievors McGahey and Christie. He
was also responsible for additional staff made up of
unclassified employees and summer students. Of the summe r
students, one worked In the mail room and the other In the
microfilm room. There were also forty-two data entry
operators not shown on the organization chart (Exhibit 4) , who
directly reported to him through two or three group leaders.
This arrangement was changed approximately three months before
he left the Ministry of Health on December 31, 1982, when the
data entry operators were transferred to the Claims Section.
On average, he spent about an hour a day with the data entry
group leaders.
( 5 ) Because of, the passage of time since the grievance was filed
in 1982, he had difficulty in remembering the format of the
reporting records kept by Ms. Connelly, and could not reca 11
the amount of work processed under her supervIsl0n. He was,
however, able to remember the kinds of job duties that Ms.
~
.
11
Connelly performed, and he did not disagree with her
description of what she did.
Noel Armstrong, who was at the material times the Manager of
Administrative Services also testified. However, his evidence
dealt with the grievances of certain of the other Grievors and none
of his evidence conflicted with that of Ms. Connelly.
As noted above, although Mr. Hong indicated that the passage .
of time had affected his ability to reca II some details relating to
the duuties and responsibilities of Ms. Connelly, he did recollect
what function she carried out, and there was no dispute concerning
her carrying out of the following duties and responsibilities:
(1) She was immediately responsible for the operation of the file
unit on a day-to-day basis, and in that capacity supervised
four clerks classified as Clerk 2, Filing.
( 2 ) The filing unit that she supervised was responsible for a
variety of different kinds of files, and for processing each
file through a range of functions: creation, filing of
documents, storage of files, responding to field . ..
1nqu1r1es
concern1ng files, manag1ng the circulation of files,
destruction/culling of files, and preparation of statistical
reports concerning files on a regular basis.
,
~
12
( 3 ) The actual work in carrying out the above described functions
was performed by the four filing clerks under Ms. Connelly's
superVlSlon, and she was responsible for the preparation of
the daily, weekly and monthly statistical reports.
(4 ) Ms. Connelly functioned in a supervisory capacity and did not
perform the same work performe~ by the four,Clerk 2' s, Fil ing,
I
except in a training capacity~
I
.
(5 ) Ms. Connelly had a responsibility for the. training of filing
I
clerks, assigning work to the~, monitoring their performance,
preparing I· , I and appraisals for Mr. Hong,
pre lmlnary assessment
I
I
for signature and approval. The final appraisal was that of
I
I
her superVIsor, who could alter the draft appraisal when he
I
felt it was necessary to do I She also prepared preliminary
so.
I
!
schedules for vacation leave.,
I
I
( 6 ) Ms. Connelly did not discipli~e employees. When her attempts
I
to deal with difficulties arising out of the behaviour of an
I
employee could not· be settled between herself and the
I
employee, the matter was submitted to her supervisor for
I
further action. I
I
I
I
I
7. Although Ms~ Connelly's repdrting relationship was to Mr.
I
Hong, he was not involved, td any considerable extent, with
I
the day-to-day operations of ¡the filing unit. Ms. Connelly
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
.
13
would only infrequently attend upon him for advice and
direction. His periodic visits to the filing unit were brief
and usually involved Ms. Connelly's indicating to him that the
unit was functioning properly.
It was the position of counsel for the Union that Ms.
Connelly's duties and responsibilities best fit within the Clerk 4,
Filing, classification.
.
The Clerk 3, Filing and Clerk 4, Filing class standards are as
follows:
CLERK 3. FILING
CLASS DEFINITION:
Employees in positions allocated to this class are
responsible for the day-to-day functioning of medium-
sized filing operations requiring from two to nine
subordinate employees. These units are either self-
contained filing units or sections of larger operations.
These employees are responsible to senior filing
superVlsors or other administrative officials to whom
they refer the more difficult or unusual problems and
make recommendations for major changes in procedure.
Employees train new staff, assign and supervise the
work of their unit, solving most of the filing problems
that arise. They participate in the regular work of the
unit and search for files which cannot be readily located
by their subordinates. They scan or read new
correspondence, classify it and code it for attachment to
the appropriate file. They deal with superVlsors of
units requlrlng files or documents, investigate
complaints, or conduct searches for missing files. They
interview members of the public if the unit contains
records available to the public, answer telephone calls
and written enquiries, supply information from the files
where appropriate. They establish or reVIse index
systems, relabel or re-arrange the filing cabinets. They
open new files as required, inspect and repair used files
and arrange for destruction of dead files. They may
I
:¡
~
14
prepare summar~es or reports concerning work performed,
files ~n movement, files destroyed, total number of
files, etc. Incidental duties may include the operation
of office equipment, the maintenance of a small
stationery supply, sorting, screening and distributing
mail, and supervising a messenger service.
QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Grade 10 education, preferably Grade 12.
2. At least two years' filing experience or equivalent
combination of education and experience.
3. Initiative, tact, supervisory ability; abil i ty to
communicate orally and ~n writing, personal
suitability.
~ -
CLERK 4. FILING
CLASS DEFINITION:
Employees in positions allocated to this class are
supervisors of large filing operations requiring ten to
fourteen subordinates, or are assistant supervIsors of
very large records units involving in excess of fifteen
employees. These employees assign and supervise the work
of the filing staff, resolve routine disciplinary
problems and refer to their own supervisor such problems
as staff performance and staffing requirements. Although
these employees participate ~n the regular work of the
unit, they spend most of their time supervising the day-
to-day operations, and exerc ise initiative in determining
allocation of work load, solving problems of morale and
discipline, dealing with other supervisors of the branch
or department. They maintain proper control records, and
supervise the preparation' of new files, the repa~r of
worn files and the destruction of dead files, revising
the filing system or rearrangIng the filing cabinets,
maintaining the equipment used by the unit, and directing
the clerical procedures ancillary to the work of the
unit.
They supervise special searches for files which
cannot be readily located and search the filing system
for specialized information which cannot 'be readily
related to a category within the system, or l.S to be
found under a variety of categories. They may on
occasion prepare statistical summaries or reports based
15
on information ln the system, or concernIng the filing
system itself.
Incidental duties may include the supervISIon of
duplicating operations, the maintenance of a sma 11
stationery supply, superVISlon of a messenger serVIce,
answerIng the telephone and interviewing members of the
public.
QUALIFJ;CATIONS:
1. Grade 10 education, preferably Grade 1')' a
'" ,
knowledge of office practices, filing and clerical
procedures.
2 . At least three years' filing experlence and'
preferably-some general office experience.
3 . Proven supervisory ability; ability to communicate
both orally and in writing; initiative; alertness;
dependability; personal suitability.
Examinining Ms. Connelly's duties and responsibilities in the
light of the Clerk 3, Fil ing class standard we find:
(1) She was an employee in a position "responsible for the day-to-
day functioning of medium-sized filing operations requiring
from two to nine subordinate employees."
( 2 ) The filing unit was a section "·of a larger operation. II
( 3 ) she was "responsible to . . . other administrative officials to
whom [she referred] the more difficult or unusual problems and
[made] recommendations for major changes in procedure". The
nature of the problems are not spelled out In the class
definition, a,nd glven the nature of class standards, which
~
.
16
tend to be general In scope, they could include matters
requiring policy considerations whi¿h went beyond the merely
technical operation of the filing unit. Ms. Connelly
acknowledged that, on a small number of occas~ons she had to
take up unusual problems with Mr. Hong.
(4 ) Shé was responsible for the training of new staff, the
aSSlgn~ng and supervision of the work of her unit where she
solved most of the filing problems that arose. .
-
( 5 ) She did not, on a regular basis, perform the filing
responsibilities which were carried out by her four
subordinates. We are satisfied, however, that she was
involved In the actual filing functions described by her In
unusual cases.
(6 ) Although she did not usually "scan or read new correspondence,
classified and coded for attachment to the appropriate file,"
which function was carried out by her subordinates, she did
deal with supervisors of units requ1.rIng files or documents 1.n
cases requiring her intervention and she was responsible for
investigating complaints and, 1.n special cases where her
subordinates were unable to locate missing files, did become
involved.
( 7 ) She did not interview members of the public.
·
17
(8 ) Any change ln the indexing system would requIre her
involvement, although the work of relabelling or rearranging
filing cabinets would be left to her subordinates.
(9 ) She "prepared summaries or reports concerning work performed,
files and movement, files destroyed, total number of files, et
cetera. "
Examining Ms. Connelly's duties and responsibilities In the
light of the class standard for the Clerk 4, Filing, we find:
(1) She was not the supervisor of a large filing operation
requIrIng ten to fourteen subordinates, nor was she an
assistant supervisor of a very large records unit involving in
excess of fifteen employees.
( 2 ) she assigned and supervised the work of the filing staff,
howeve r , this function 18 equally applicable to the class
definition for the Clerk 3, Filing position.
(3) While she endeavoured to resolve difficulties experienced by
her subordinates, she could not be said to have had the
responsibility for resolving routine disciplinary problems.
This function IS not referred to in her position specification
and class allocation form which provides that she is to refer
"problem cases" to her supervisor for counselling, which she
;
18
apparently did. If she endeavoured ,to resolve routine
disciplinary problems, there was no evidence that this
function had ever been assigned to her. She' referred problems
relating to staff performance to her superivsor. There was no
evidence that she had referred staffing requirements to him.
(4 ) Ms. Connelly only rarely participated in the regular work of
the unit, but spent most of her time supervising the day-to-
day operations. The language of the Clerk 3, Filing class
definition IS sufficiently broad to incorporate a similar
statëment.
( 5 ) There IS room in both the Clerk 3 and Clerk 4, Filing class
standards to find that employees In both classifications
exercise initiative in determining allocation of workload,
however, the Clerk 4, Filing position is more specific in its
reference to the exercising of initiative In "solving problems
of morale and discipline." Ms. Connelly did exercise iniative
in these areas.
(6 ) There was no evidence to indicate that Ms. Connelly had a
responsibility to deal with other supervisors of the branch or
department, except ln cases where supervisors of units
required files or documents or had complaints, which
responsibility lS also found in the Clerk 3, Filing class
definition.
·
19
(7) .'\1 though Ms. Connelly maintained "proper control records and
[supervised] the preparation of new files, repaIr of worn
files and the destruction of dead files [and] revised the
filing system or [rearranged] the filing cabinets," these
duties and responsibilities also appea r , In somewhat different
language, in the Clerk 3, Filing class definition.
(8 ) Under the Clerk 4, Filing class definition, there IS reference
to the preparation of statistical summaries and reports, which
responsibility can also be found in the Clerk 3, Filing class
definition.
While Ms. Connelly's duties and responsibilities are not a
perfect fit with either of the Clerk 3, Filing or Clerk 4, Filing
class standards, fundamental to the Clerk 4, Filing standard is the
requirement that an employee allocated to this class be a
supervisor "of large filing operations requiring ten to fourteen
subordinates. " An indication as to what is meant by large can be
gathered from the number of subordinates supervised. It would too
much of a stretch to regard the filing operation for which Ms.
Connelly was responsible as falling within the large filing
operation envisaged in the Clerk 4, Filing class definition. She
does, however, fit comfortably within that part of the class
definition for Clerk 3, Filing, which indicates that employees
allocated to this class "are responsible for the day-to-day
functioning of medium-sized filing operations requiring from two to
"
20
,nine subordinate employees." There may be some aspects of Ms.
Connelly's duties and responsibilities that fit better into the
Clerk 4, Filing class standard, however " on balance. we regard her
duties and responsibilities as fitting reasonably comfortably In
the Clerk 3, Filing classification, and the major difference noted
by us 18 sufficiently substantial so as to cause us to conclude
that she was properly classified as'~ Clerk 3, Filing.
This IS not a case where the duties and responsibilities of
Ms. Connelly are so different from those described in the Clerk 3,
E i ling class standard so as to warrant the Issuance of a Berry
order.
Àccordingly, Ms. Connelly's grievance is denied.
Grievances of Charlotte A. McGahey and Andr~a E. Chr il:;¡t ie
Both Ms. McGahey' and Ms. Christie were, at all material times,
classified as Operators 2, Microfilm, and each of their grievances
claim reclassification as Operator 3, Microfilm, with retroactivity
to January 1981. It was agreed that Ms. McGahey would be the only
Grievor to testify and that her evidence would bind Ms. Christie.
Ms. McGahey and Ms. Christie, as Microfilm Operators, reported to
Mr. Teeple, the Senior Microfilm Operator who, in turn, reported to
Mr. Hong, the Supervisor of Support Services. Both Ms. McGahey and I
21
Ms. christie operated a number of pIeces of equipment which were
located In a self-contained room. These were:
(1 ) Two Kodak rotary cameras, models #700 and 600, being automatic
feed rotary type cameras. The cameras were described as being
large and were placed on a stand, designed for that purpose.
The cameras were described as 'being of the automatic kind,
capable of accomodating more than one document at a time and
used make microfilm of variety of .
were to exposures a
documents.
(2) A Kodak - planetary (or flatbed) automatic focus camera with
a pre-set aperture, which was located in a darkroom within a
self-contained room. This camera was used to take single,
manually-fed exposures of documents of different s~zes, shapes
and types, where it was not possible to use a Kodak rotary
camera.
The Grievors also operated:
(1) A document shredder which shredded microfilm and paper
documents.
( 2 ) A Bell and Howell reader/printer, which was used to scan rolls
of microfilm to select a particular document for printing and
enlarging.
,
I
'.
22
The Grievors revolved between two types of jobs. One of them
worked for a week on the rotary camera while the other performed
the remalnlng tasks, after which they exchanged responsibilities
for a week.
Ms. McGahey described the duties and responsibilities of
herself and Ms. Christie:
(1) Four types of batched documents were received from the control .
area in the mornIng: a) claim cards (boxed and stacked in
cupboards) , b) re-submissions, c) source documents, and d)
print-outs, which were contained In a basket which was sorted
and processed during the course of a day.
(2 ) She and Ms. Christie did not receive instructions as to what
to do on a day-to-day basis from either Messrs. Teeple or
Hong, and they orgariized the work and completed it without
direction.
( 3 ) Ms. McGahey described the work that she and Ms. Christie and
performed uS1ng a. rotary camera. Claim cards, submitted by
doctors, being 3 inches by 8 inches, representing a single
visit, were received in the morning in batch form the control
unit. The camera was prepared for use by disassembling and
cleaning each part: feeder, printer etc. First the feeder and
printer were removed. The back of the camera was then opened
23
and the glass guides for the cards were removed. The camera
unit was then removed and cleaning was accomplished through
the use of a vacuum with special brushes for the camera
mIrrors. This task took from 15 to 30 minutes. The glass
guides were then cleaned and the camera re-assembled. The
person assigned to the operation of the rotary camera for the
week would then remove the boxes of claim cards for filming
from a cupboard where they were kept. Filming was commenced
.
and the film documents numbered. Claim cards were edited and
the operator's ten-digit number entered. Steps were taken to
ensure that nothing interfered with the legibility of the ten-
digit number. Cards with such defects as ink blots or staples
were pu 11 ed from the batches and left to the end of the day
for return to the claims department. Filming was performed
sitting in front of the camera. Batches were picked up on the
right-hand side, and the cards were fanned and put through the
camera after being numbered. Most of the day ( from
approximately 8 a.m. to approximately 3 p.m. ) was spent
filming. In an average day, 50,000 to 60,000 cards were fed
through the camera. The batch cards, as they were
photographed, were placed on the left hand side of the camera,
and it was up to the control unit to remove them.
Film was changed five to six times a day, with the camera unit
being taken to the dark room and the film replaced with a new
cartridge. Film exposed to the end of the day was prepared
24
for mailing to the office on Over lea Blvd by placing it in a
plastic box and taping it. At the end of the day the
cartridges of film were placed into a larger box with an
authent~cation printed at the end of each one. Each time the
film was changed, the operator had to clean the glass guides.
In case of camera breakdown, a Kodak repairman was called by
one of the Grievors without prior permission being obtained
from anyone. On occasion, where service personnel were not
, available, the Grievors would try to effect minor repairs such,
as replacing belts and bulbs, cleaning wheels and setting the
wheels.
Four types of batch documents and printouts were referred to:
1) claim cards, 2 ) resubmissions, 3 ) source documents
(batched) and (4)printouts. Resubmissions came from the
claims unit and were delivered by the control unit.
Resubmissions were documents requIrIng corrections on the
claim cards. The procedure for dealing with resubmissions was
the same as that for the microfilming claim cards, described
above. On a busy day there were between 25,000 and 30,000
resubmissions, and on an average day 10,000 to 15,000.
Source documents, identified as correspondence and receipts
submitted by subscribers who had attended upon physicians out
of Ontario, were said to come In all colours and textures,
25
from tissue to cardboard and from small to foolscap SIze.
These would include photographs, birth, death and marrIage
certificates, and ultra-sound readings. The source documents
came in a folder and were not batched. Approximately 400 to
500 of them were photographed each day.
Documents were edited prior to processing by removIng staples
and making repairs. Crumpled documents were straightened and
small documents were taped to regular sized pa pe r . The
filming of resubmissions, source documents and printouts
engaged the Grievors approximately one half hour a day, with
some additional time being required for the editing process.
(4 ) The flatbed camera, described as being approximately three
feet by three feet, contained two lamps, was vertically
mounted with the lens pointing down. Window cleaner was used
to clean the flat part of the camera.
The Grievors took simple voltage readings. If a reading was
not correct they would open the camera and adjust it in order
to obtain the proper reading. . An ~mproper reading could
result in the need to re-film documents. The Grievors, in
using the flatbed camera, would place a document on the table
within the boundary lines, centre it, and then press the pr int
button. If the day's filming was not completed, the camera
was turned off, authenticity was placed on the current day's
';
26
work, and the work was then completed on the following date.
Printouts, being sma II slips received from the claim clerks or
their managers, were documents required to be placed on
microfilm. On .an average day, approximately 1500 printouts
were handled and sorted for logging.
( 5 ) The Grievors used the Bell and Howell reader/printer by
.
feeding separate loads of microfilm into it, scannl.ng to
-
-
identify the portion to be photographed ~ ' then printed it.
These documents were then sorted and prepared for mailing to
the claims unit managers at satellite offices. '
( 6 ) Shredding was performed whenever the Grievors had a few
minutes to shred their film, microfiche and paper. In the
case of microfiche and film, a set time was established for
destruction.
(7 ) TheGr ievors received a daily report on the previous day's
films from the Overlea office, which resulted in the re-
filming of documents where the quality was poor. They kept a
log with respect to such documents.
Where re-filming was required, the Gríevors would re-locate
the origînal, documents, check them over, repal.r theM where
necessary and re-shoot the film.
27
( 8 ) Rush requests were frequently received. In such cases. the
Grievors would have to stop what they were doing in order to
attend to the requests.
( 9 ) Approximately two to three times a week, the Grievors trained
summer students and cross-trained persons whose regular work
was not microfilming. Students included those paid under the
Futures program sponsored by the Ministry of Community
Development. The amount of training given to students depended
-
-
on how long they would remain with the Grievors. As part of
the training process, the Grievors gave the persons being
trained work to do, which they would later check. The did not
have any responsibility for training Microfilm Operators.
(10 ) Mr. Teeple was in the office where the Grievor's worked only
about an hour a day and was not involved in any significant
supervision on a day-to-day basis. On occas~on, when they
experienced a problem with equipment, he would try to assist
them. On rare occas~ons, when they were very busy, he
assisted them by operating a camera, but he did not review
their work for quality or quantity.
(,11 ) Periodically, Mr. Hong would come to their office but he
rarely said more than "good morning." He might ask them how
things were going, but never asked them what they were doing,
nor did he review their work.
l
..
28
02 ) Periodic appraisals of the Grievors took place in Mr. Hong's
office with Mr. Teeple being present.
(131 The position specification (Exhibit 9) applicable to her and
to Ms. Christie (annexed as Appendix 2 ) was generally
accurate, but she regarded their duties and responsibilities,
as above set out, as being greater and involving more
,
responsiblilty than those contained in Exhibit 9.
.
(14 ) Production records kept by the Grievors made it easier to re-
locate film.
(15 ) If the Grievors 'wished to take time off or to arrange for
vacation scheduling, they initially cleared this with Mr.
Teeple.
( 16) The Grievors did not use a densitometer, which instrument lS
used to ensure that exposures are correct by checking voltage.
This function was performed at the Overlea office.
(17) Although the Grievors operated the cameras, the development
process occurred at the Overlea office.
Mr. Teeple's evidence with respect to his own grievance will
be dealt with below. However, some of his evidence was relevant to
the grievances of Ms. McGahey and Ms. Christie. He testified that:
29
ll) He had been appointed Senior Microfilm Operator In July of
1976, and held that position at the date of the grievance. He
stated that he supervised the Grievors, and that he had
trained Ms. McGahey.
( 2 } He drafted the appraisal forms with respect to Ms. McGahey and
Ms. Christie, with the actual appraisals being conducted by
Mr. Hong, with Mr. Teeple being present.
(3 ) . His work In the microfilm unit involved training and
supervision, and he was involved with the training of a number
of different summer and co-op students.
(4 ) He only performed the work described by Ms. McGahey during
lunch hours and on breaks and when there was an overload.
( 5 ) Certain files came to his department from head office, which
he opened and inspected. He was responsible for overall
quality control.
( 6 ) He was responsible for cleaning the reader/printer.
(7) The Grievors would come to him when there was a problem that
they could not handle, such as a paper jam. When the problem
was beyond his competence, a service person was called in.
30
(8 ) He referred to the employee with psychological problems who
worked in the records area who was the subject of testimony
from Ms. Connelly. He stated that when Ms. Connelly could not
"take the pressure" she would call him and he would attempt to
provide work for this employee.
(9 ) He only had to instruct the Grievors McGahey and Christie
about ten per cent of the time, as they were very familiar
with the routine that would be followed on a day-to-day basis. ..
--
About 50 per cent of his time was spent in,the microfilm unit,
the balance of his time bieng taken up in mostly unrelated
duties outside of the microfilm unit. At different times,
while giving evidence, he estimated the time he spent outside
"'<
of the unit unit, as being approximately 75 per cent.
<10 ) Except for microfilm, which was destroyed almost daily, other
records were destroyed approximately every three to four
months. The destruction of material was performed by himself,
Ms. McGahey. Ms. Christie and by the students above referred
to.
Mr. Hong testified that:
(1) He monitored performance. in the microfilm unit by visits,
obtaining feedback from the user group and from the log
reports.
31
( 2 } Whenever a three-day backlog occurred, he would take such
measures as were necessary, including helping out, to reduce
the backlog.
(3 } Although Ms. McGahey and Ms. Christie worked quite
independently, they knew that their supervisor, Mr. Teeple,
was always available in the event of problems arls~ng which
they could not deal with.
.
The class standards with respect to the Operator 2, Microfilm
and Operator 3 , Microfilm are as follows:
OPERATOR 2, MICROFILM
CLASS DEfINITION:
Employees ~n positions allocated to this class
operate elementary microfilming equipment under general
supervision to produce miniature film reproductions of a
variety of documents, not involving high preCISIon and
not normally involving adjustment of the focussing,
usually for file or reference purposes.
They ensure that the material to be microfilmed is
free of extraneous material, and repair torn documents,
load the film, insert the document and expose the film.
They check the quality of developed film and locate
wanted records by using the microfilm reader. They may
produce copIes of wanted documents from the microfilm
negative using a printer or enlarger.
They may maintain records of documents processed,
dispatch film for processing and may check quality of the
processed film remicrofilming where necessary. They
clean the equipment and may mix chemical solutions. In
some positions they may channel work to other personnel,
destroy old files or operate auxiliary equipment such as
shredding and baling machines, editing and splicing
equipment, and may operate photocopying equipment.
These employees may train and/or superV.lse an
assistant or filing clerk.
I
..
32
QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Grade 10 education, or Grade 8 plus equivalent
combination of education and experience.
2. One year's experience in the operation of microfilm
equipment.
3. Ability to understand and follow instructions,
alertness, accuracy, ability to maintain a
satisfactory standard of quality and production.
OPERATOR 3. MICROFILM
CLASS DEFINITION: .
Employees in positions 1n this class operate
microfilm cameras of the planetary type to produce
miniature film reproductions requiring a high degree of
precision and involving the application of a high degree
of skill. These employees process a variety of documents
differing in shape, SIze, colour, and general condition,
and presenting problems In terms of tears, wrinkles,
folds, poor print, extraneous materia I, etc. These
documents might include engineering drawings, blueprints,
maps, charts, survey field notes, certificates; old vital
statistics records, legal documents.
These employees insert the document, and make the
necessary adjustment to lighting, voltage, aperture, and
focus, and may employ a densitometer to ensure precisely
, accurate exposure, taking exposure readings at intervals.
They load film into the units and are responsible for
minor maintenance of the cameras. They may develop,film
for test purposes or make copies and enlargements using
such equipment as printers, enlargers, dryers, editing
and splicing equipment and photocopying equipment. They
check the quality of' film "returned from the processors
re-microfilming where necessary. These employees refer
only major technical problems and may be required to
train junior personnel.
This class also covers positions of group leader
operators who ~n addition to operating microfilm
equipment, supervise two or three operators engaged In
routine microfilming work. These employees provide
technical guidance to their subordinates, assign work and
check quality of the work, keep records of documents
processed, and requisition supplies.
t
I
.
33
QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Grade 10 education, or Grade 8 and equivalent
combination of education and experience.
') At least three years' progressively responsible
... .
experIence as a Microfilm operator.
3 . Demonstrated abil i ty In microfilming processes,
instructional ability, accuracy and dependability.
On a review of the actual duties and responsibilities of Ms.
McGahey and Ms. Christie, we conclude that they might fit within
.
either of the two classifications, neither of which represents a
perfect fit. They were in a position where they were required to
"operate elementary microfilming equipment . . . to produce miniature
film reproductions of a variety of documents, not involving high
precISIon and not normally involving adjustment of the focusing,
usually for file or reference purposes." Although it was suggested
that they carried out their responsibilities with little
superVls~on, the evidence of Mr. Teeple indicated that there was
sufficient supervision so as place them under his general
superVISIon.
It was suggested by counsel for the Union that they fit more
comfortably within the Operator 3, Microfilm class standard as they
were said to operate "microfilm cameras of the planetary type to
produce miniature film reproductions requiring a high degree of
precision and involving the application of a high degree of skill. tt
Although they did operate a planetary type camera, in addition to
the rotary type cameras, the evidence did not disclose that this
I
34
work required "a high degree of precision" or involved "the
application of a high degree of skill. " The evidence disclosed
that, for the most part the work performed by the Grievors did not
involve "adjustment of the focusing. " The eviòence of Larry
Patrick, a Microfilm Supervisor for the Ministry In Kingston,
supported this conclusion.
In support of the position that the Grievors ought to be
,classified as Operator 3, Microfilm, reference was made to the
second sentence of the class definition. It was submitted that the
Grievors processed "a variety of documents differing In shape,
SIze, colour and general condition, and presenting problems 1n
terms of tears, wrinkles, folds, poor print, extraneous material,
et cetera, " and that they did, "ensure that the material to be
microfilmed [was] free of extraneous matetial, and [repaired] torn
docume{1ts. "
The Operator 2 class def ini tion provides that an incumbent
checks "the quality of developed film and [locates] wanted records
by using the microfilm reader, " which IS what the Grievors did.
Although they made a relatively minor voltage adjustment they did
not "make the necessary adjustments to lighting . . . aperture,·and
focus" and did not "employ a densitometer to ensure precisely
accurate exposures" nor did they take "exposure readings at
intervals. " Therefore, in the latter area, the better fit IS
within the Operator 2, Microfilm classification.
35
As the Grievors loaded film into the units and were
"responsible for minor maintenance of the cameras," this portion of
the Operator 3, Microfilm class definition is more applicable than
than the Operator 'J Microfilm class standard which contains
.. , reference to the cleaning of equipment.
The Operator 3, Microfilm class definition indicates that
incumbents may develop film for test purposes, which the Grievors
did not do. What they basically did was .. load the film, insert the
document and expose the film. .. As IS also provided for In the
Operator 2, Microfilm class definition, they checked "the quality
of developed film and located [wanted] records by uSlng the
microfilm reader. ..
The Operator 3, Microfilm class definition provides that
incumbents "check the quality of film returned from the processors
re-microfilming where necessary. .. In the case of the Operator 2,
Microfilm, the class definition on the same subject IS very
similar, and the Grievors did "dispatch film for processing" and
did "check quality of the processed film re-microfilming where
necessary. "
The Grievors did, as is set out in the class definition for
the Operator 2, Microfilm, "destroy old files" and did "operate
auxiliary equipment such as shredding machines "
. . . . . . .
36
The Operator 3, Microfilm class definition indicates that
incumbents only refer "major technical problems. " The evidence
disclosed that the Grievors were only involved 1n dealing with what
we regard to be very minor problems with the equipment, and we do
not regard them as having had a significant responsiblity to deal
with technical problems. Clearing mInor paper Jams, replacing
light bulbs and putting a belt back in place are not indicative of
the fact that only major problems were referred by the Grievors.
Teeple's evidence was that he had to deal .
In fact, Mr. with paper
--
jams for them.
The Operator 3, Microfilm class definition refers to an
incumbent being "required to train junior personne 1, " while the
Operator 2, Microfilm refers to the incumbent training and/or
supervising an assistant or f il i ng clerk. The reference to
assistant could apply to an Operator 1, Microfilm. The Grievors
did not trained or superv~s anyone who could fall within the
meaning of assistant. We do not regard the training of students who
were not employees as fall ing within the ambit of either the
training of an assistant or the training of junior personnel. To
the extent that the Grievors gave training to persons outside the
,
microfilming unit, there was no evidence to show that they were
junior to the Grievors.
37
The Grievors did not fall within the category of "group leader
operators" as described In the Operator 3, Mic rof i lm class
standard.
Mr. Teeple's evidence was that the Grievors received some
supervision from him. This IS more consistent with the language of
the Operator ') Microfilm class standard than that of the Operator
- ,
3, Microfilm, which does not refer to an incumbent being under
supervision.
Where the duties and responsibilities of grievors fit within
their current classification, as comfortably as do those of the
Grievors, the Board should not be quick to find a misclassification
because they might also fit within a higher classification. There
would have to be some significant basis for preferring the higher
classification. In some respects the duties and responsibilities
of the Grievors point in favour of their present classification and
In others in favour of a re-classification to Operator 3,
Microfilm. On balance, however, the difference is not sufficiently
significant to warrant a f indin,g that the Grievors were
misclassified.
Although the fit within the Operator 2, Microfilm
classification 18 not perfect, it is not sO imperfect as to require
the issuance of a Berry order.
·
-,
38
Accordingly, the grIevances of Ms. McGahey and Ms. Christie
are denied.
Grievan¿e of Wayne Teeple
Mr. Teeple, whose position title is Senior Microfilm Operator
and who is classified as an Operator 3, Microf ilm, claims that he
,
is misclassified and requests a Berry order. It was submitted that
his position specification and class allocation form (Exhibit 11)
-
-
does not ,adequately describe his duties and responsibilities, as he
claims thåt, in addition to the duties and responsibilities-there
set out, at least 50 per cent of his work took him outside of the
microfilm unit and outside of his classification. He testified that
he was engaged in a variety of technical work involving the
serVICIng and repair of equipment in other units, including the
servicing. and repaIr of computers. film equipment, reproduction
equipment, doors and furniture.
Mr. Teeple, who was trained as a millwright In Quebec, and
later studied general technology, mechanical technology and
business administration at Durham College, has a great interst in
things mechanical. He gave evidence describing:
(1) Duties that involved him in the testing and repair of a many
kinds of furniture and equipment including computer equipment.
39
( :2 ) His servicing and repairing equipment in the microfilm unit,
including the two rotary cameras and the planetary camera.
l 3) Working along with the Kodak technician who left him certain
tools and parts to assist him In performing repaIrs and
adjustments. Major repaIrs had to be performed by the outside
technician.
(4 ) His involvememt In:
(a) repairing furniture.
d
(b) operating a Gestetner machine.
(c) repairing a Gestetner machine.
(d) making overhead transparencies.
(e) ordering parts and repairing a 16 rom. film projector In
the stock room.
(f) splicing film.
( g ) repairing fans, kettles etc.
(h' stripping, cleaning and re-wiring a number of different
kinds of electric motors.
( j ) repairing and maintaining microfiche equipment
and reader/printers in the records area. Referring to the
reader/printers, he stated that they sometimes fail to
function because of paper jams. In the case of the
reader! printer, if a major repair was required he would
call the service person.
(k) repairing filing cabinets in the records area.
I
·
40
(1) repairing desks in the records area.
(m) installing casters and fixing hinges on a door in the mai 1
room.
(m) servicing and operating an imprinter machine. ~
(0) taking a postage meter to the post office to be ref i Iled.
(pI cleaning a letter opener machine in the mail room.
( 5 ) A number'of duties in the claims area involving: the mainframe
computer that was linked to the Kingston office of the
--
Ministry; repair and servlclng 'of a high speed printer,
photocopier and microfiche reader.
( 6 ) Cleaning, repairing and ordering parts, such as glass
guides and light bulbs.
( 7 ) Servicing and repairing a paper shredder and a microfiche
shredder.
( B) Maintaining doors leading into the claims area, involving
the tightening of screws.
( 9 ) Repairing and maintaining desks with typewriter additions
in the claims area.
(10 I Adjusting the air vent system so that it would not blow
directly on employees.
,
,
41
( III Performing simple repairs on VDT's when requested to do so by
one of the Grievors, Ms. Jane Waller, the Registry Clerk.
If the repalrs were too complicated, he called ~n a service
person.
(12 ) Working 1.n a liason capacity with employees ln Kingston, when
he was requested to run tests ,on a computer keyboard after
problems' arose with the computer system. He stated that he
also programmed the high speed printer linked to the .
-
-
mainframe.
(13 ) Devising a security code that prevented unauthorized use
of the mainframe terminal.
(14 ) furnishing computer access codes to a number of
managers including Messrs. Hong and Armstrong.
,
(15 ) His responsiblity for changing paper in a high speed
printer and servicing the daisy wheel associated with it.
(16 ) His work in the inquiry area repairing and servicing a
VDT and off-printer.
(17 ) Performing repairs to, and servicing photocopying
equipment, a security cabinet and the security bar
associated with it, as well as a dual swing door located
.
42
in the inquiry area. This included keeping supplies
available for the proper functioning of photocopying
equipment.
,
.
(18l Performing typewriter repairs up to the point where it
was necessary to call in a trained service person.
<19 ) Providing assistance during a power failure, when he
.
checked breaker panels.
- -
(20 ) His perioidic review of files for the claims manager.
.
Our examinination of the evidence satisfies us that he
performed many duties additional to those in the microf ilm unit.
...
We are also satisfied that he only dealt with very minor technical
problems both within and without the microfilm unit. This applies
to all of his duties, including his involvement with computers.
When his evidence is closely examined, while we do not doubt that
his services were valuable and appreciated, he functioned as a
handyman and not as a tectinician~ at a level of technical
competence no higher, and very likely lower, than when he carried
out his duties in the microfilm unit.
Mr. Hong gave evidence and stated:
I
43
(1) It was not unusual for him to call on Mr. Teeple to assist In
performing minor repaIrs and the minor servicing of equipment
outside of the microfilm unit. However, as far as he was
concerned, Mr. Teeple was not expected to be involved In
.
activities outside of and unrelated to the mic rof i 1m unit
without prior authorization.
(2 ) He did not believe that Mr. Teeple had the training' or ability
to perform other than fairly low level repair tasks at the .
level of skill expected of a handyman. This is borne out by
Mr. Teeple's evidence.
( 3 ) He believed that Mr. Teeple had taken it upon himself to
respond to requests from areas outside the microfilm unit to
perform the additional duties described, and that he neither
knew of or had authorized Mr. Teeple's assuming the role of
general handyman except on the limited basis described.
( 4 ) Neither he nor Mr. Armstrong expected Mr. Teeple to engage In
activities outside of the microfilm unit for more than five to
ten per cent of his time. Mr.Hong and Mr. Armstrong regarded
the enlargement of Mr. Teeple's duties outside of the
microfilm unit as having been undertaken without their
knowledge or approval. If they had been aware of the extent of
his activities as a handyman outside of the microfilm unit,
they would have put a stop to them.
.
,
44
Although we find that Mr. Teeple spent a considearable amount
of time outside of the microfilm unit, performing duties such as he
described, we find that he was then usually responding to requests
from non-supervisory personnel without the knowledge or prior
approval of .his supervisors. It IS evident that Mr. Teeple very
much enjoyed performing the variety of duties that he was engaged
in outside of the microfilm unit. How'eve r , we do not regard most
of his work outside of the unit as having been assigned to him as
part of his regular duties and responsibilities, and there was no
expectation that he should perform it, except when called upon to
do so by hìs supervisors. In Hoffman-Fritz, 293/91,2787/91 (Knopf) ,
at page 9, the Board stated:
Thus, In making the following analysis and com~ng to the
following conclusions, we have done so on the basis of the
duties and the expectations of the positions . . . .
The microfilm unit functioned so smoothly that Mr. Teeple was
.
able to seek out work that he found more interesting. He is
obviously a "people person," and his assuming the role of handyman
furnished him with an opportunity to obtain greater personal
satisfaction ~n the workplce. It ~s not surprising that his
frequent absences from the microfilm unit would not be noticed and
that the extent of his assuming the role of handyman would not be
appreciated by his supervisors given the size of the operation in
Oshawa. We are satisfied that if his supervisors had known of the
extent of his handyman activities, they would have taken action as
described by M.r. Hong.
45
It is one thing for an employee's supervisors to lead him to
believe that he has been glven certain new duties and
responsibilities. In such case, if the employee carries out those
duties and responsibilities, it would not sit well for his
supervisors to rely on the fact that they are not listed J.O his
position specification. Where, however, as here, some limited
handyman duties and responsibilities outside of the microfilm unit
were expected of the Grievor, and he then took it upon himself to
expand this role without keeping his supervisors informed, he
cannot claim that he was expected to assume the expanded role.
In the circumstances of this case, it would be proper to
consider some five to ten per cent of the time that Mr. Teepl spent
on hanyman's duties outside of the microfilm unit as representing
part of his duties and responsibilities. Such involvement would be
insufficient to affect the applicability of the Operator 3,
Microfilm class standard to him, and we find that his core duties
and responsibilities fit very well into that portion of the class
definition which states:
This class also covers positions of group leader
operators who in addition to operating microfilm
equipment, supervise two or three operators engaged ln
routine microfilming work. These employees provide
technical guidance to their subordinates, assign work and
check quality of the work, keep records of documents
processed, and requisition supplies.
Mr. Teeple, by his own admission, did not dea 1 with major technical
problems, and his duties and responsibilities ln this regard are
well covered by the class definition: "These employees refer only
I
.
46
major technical problems. " In addition, as 1S set out in the class
definition for Operator 3, Microfilm, he was: "responsible for
minor maintenance of the cameras."
We are also satisfied that Mr. Teeple was a resource person
for Ms. McGahey and Ms. Christie when problems presented
themselves, which, admittedly, was rarely the case. He would assist
them in dealing with problems related, to the operation of the
cameras and other equipment. .
For all of the above reasons, Mr. Teeple's grievance' is
denied.
Grievance of Jane Waller
I
Ms. Waller was, at all material times, classified as a Clerk
3, General and held the position title of Registry Clerk. She
claims re-classification to Clerk 5, General, or, ln the
alternative, for a Berry order.
Ms. Waller has. a seniority date of August 7 , 1973, and was
first employed as a Claims Clerk in Kingston. She was transferred
,to Oshawa ln September of 1976. At the time the grievance was
filed, her supervisor was Mr. Arkellian, the Director of the Oshawa
district.
,.-
47
Her position specification (Exhibit 14) IS annexed as Appendix
3, and she testified that it did not accurately reflect her duties
and responsibilities. Ms. Waller testified:
(1) About the absence of any reference to her involvement in the
work of the adjudication support section.
( 2 ) About the insufficient reference to the extent of her
involvement with positions in a number of areas.
--
(3) About her involvement with the registration of physicians,
clinics, groups and practitioners for payment under the Health
Insurance Act.
(4 ) About her involvement in the registration of physicians etc.,
from the time they commenced practice after being licensed to
do so.
( 5 ) About her involvement with clines and physicians who reqUIre
pre-authorization prior to any surgery being performed.
( 6 ) About her further involvement on the registry side with
physicians, clinics, non-physician practitioners and
hospitals. Physicians, practitioners and clinics had to first
be first be registered with the Health Resource Registry in
order to be paid.
l .
·
"
"- 48
(7 ) About her receiving registration information .from persons and
entities entitled to bill the plan. She reviewed the
appropriate forms to see if they contained such necessary
information as the correct specialist designation," year of
graduation, institution graduated from, age of the applicant,
OHIP number, address, status with the plan, payment option
(physician or subscriber).
(8 ) .1\bout her obtaining information for updating and recording at
the Overlea office.
(9 ) About the number of types of other interactions that took
place between herself and physicians and non-physician
practitioners relating to their registration. In addition to
giving advice over the telephone, she furnished information on
a walk-in basis. The average time spent giving advice during
such yisits was one-half hour.
00 ) About her meeting 'physicians and non-physician practitioners
in the customer service area.
(11) About her involvement when forms were sent out by her to
physician and non-physician practitioners for completion.
Such forms were frequently returned marked to her attention,
and she reviewed them for compliance with statutory and other
relevant requirements. When her review disclosed that a form
·
49
had not been properly completed, she communicated with the
applicant in order to furnish advice.
(12 ) About her submitting advice to the registration department, ~n
Toronto, through the use of a three-part memo containing
information relating to physicians and non-medical
practitioners. In the case of clinics, group application
forms were used involving a number of physicians.
(13)- About her involvement in amending and updating information on
-
file. when necessary, she would directly call physicians,
non-medical practitioners or their secretaries In order to
advise them how information must be submitted and verified.
(14 } About her involvement when clinics opted out or a physician
was leaving a clinic. She was responsible for meeting with
representatives of clinics to obtain information for entry on
the appropriate forms and informed the Toronto office by
memorandum.
(15 ) About her involvement In advising registrants about relevant
sections of applicable legislat:i:on. She frequently told them
about the various options that were available, and of the
effect of each option. These included options for a
subscriber to pay the physician directly or to have payment go
directly to the physician.
I
.
.
50
( 16) About her responsibility to furnish advice as to who was
entitled to payment for performing certain tests. Under the
that applied the time, I ' department of
agreement at on 1 y , a
I
radiology could bill under the name of its department head. I
I
Other departments had to bill in the names of the individual
physicians responsible for the tests. The billing by
radiology department heads only' applied to hospitals and not
to private diagnostic clinics.
(17 ) About her preparation and submission of machine-readable
magnetic tapes, in mèrnorandum form.
(18 ) About her advising individual practitioners (frequently over
the telephone) as to why their claims had been rejected and
how to make corrections prior to re-subrnission. Reasons for
requiring re-submission might be data error, damaged tape, or
the absence of necessary information about a physician or non-
physician practitioner being licensed.
(19 ) That her duties as set out in the position specification and
class allocation form took up approximately 85 per cent of her
time.
( 20) About the adjudication support section, headed by Dr. D. Clark
M.D., with the assistance of Ms. Roberta Hegney, which had the
responsibility for assessing unusual medical claims requiring
,
51
independent consideration or pre-authorization before surgery
could be performed. Her role in advising physicians in this
~
area took up approximately fifteen per cent of her time. On
average she spent every third week involved in adjudicative
support matters. Dr. Clark and Ms. Hegney frequently
requested her assistance In adjudicative support, and she
worked along with them in carrying out this function. She had
been initructed by Mr. ArkeU ian that she was to serve in a
.
backup and support role for Dr. Clark and Ms. Hegney.
--
( 21l About Exhibit 15, which IS a "Request for Authorization of
Proposed Reconstructive Surgery, " which had to be approved
before payment could be made. She reviewed the procedures
referred to with the medical consultants to determine if they
met the requirements (statutory and Ministry policy) for
payment.
( 22) About the comments portion contained ~n the request form
(Exhibit 15) which she prepared for submission to Dr. Clark,
which comments indicated the basis for paying the benefits,
using appropriated code references.
(23 ) That during her employment with an emergency department at a
hospital in Kingston, pr~or to being employed by the Ministry,
she became familiar with a number of medical procedures. This
knowledge in identifying what was involved In a particular
>.
¡ .
52
procedure assisted her in carrYlng out her duties and
responsibilities. She referred to the second-last document In
Exhibit 15, being a request for authorization for proposed
reconstructive surgery on an eye lid, and stated that her
preVIOUS experience enabled her to identify whether the
procedure was merely cosmetic. Among the requests in Exhibit
15 were ones relating to a. bilateral reduction mammoplasty,
external and septal deviation hypertrophy of turbinate,
septorhinoplasty and ostiotomies, rhinoplasty and reduction .
with respect to a gross nasal deformity and nasal obstruction,
tattoo excision, blepharoplasty - bilateral.
When it was not clear that a surgical procedure was for non-
cosmentic purposes, as when there was no indication of an
airway blockage ln a request to perform septal rhinoplasty,
i
from the physician. I
Ms.Waller would obtain further information
She reviewed the various applicable considerations that
applied In each of the cases testified to by her so as to
differentiate between those that were exclusively cosmetic In
nature and those intended do de?l with a physical problem.
(24) About her familiarity with the guidelines in force as well as I
medical po I icy bulletins. After reviewing a request to
perform surgery, and concluding that it appeared to be
justified in accordance with relevant legislation and policy
guidelines, she completed the comments section found at the
.
J
53
bottom of the form, entering the appropriate codes and other
necessary informat io'n. The completed form was then submitted
to Dr. Clark for review and signature.
(25 ) That when she concluded that there was inadequate information
contained In the request form, she would write to the
physician requesting additional clinical information. If Dr.
Clark was present, she would advise him of the steps being
taken by her. when he was not present, she sent out requests .
--
for information on her own.
(26 ) About her involvement in independent consideration cases. An
example given by her was of a case where extensive suturing of
a laceration was required with considerable detention time
(which she referred to as constant care). Questions relating
to a claim were submitted to her for review through the claims
unit, with supporting documents from the doctor justifying the
time spent with the patient. She would frequently have to
reVIew a patient's medical history before submitting her
recommending for payment to Dr. Clark.
( 27) About her assessment of claims for payment in units of
detention time. An example given was when a patient was
unconscious in an emergency ward with multiple injuries.
.
.
54
(28 ) That when Dr. Clark was present, she might ask him if he
wished to write'directly to a physician or whether a request
should be made to the claims assessor to obtain a patient's
medical history. If Dr. Clark was absent, she communicated
with physicians directly by phone or letter.
(29 ) That a patient's medical history for the purpose of rev~eW1.ng
claims included anything on the patient's file relating to
claims paid or pending, and which had been entered into the
--
,computer. The computer rec'o rd disclosed medical procedures
that had been carried out in the past and paid for by the
plan.
( 30) That upon receipt of a medical history, she would first reVIew
it and then submit it to Dr. Clark. Her reVIew was for the
purpose of furnishing Dr. Clark with the information ,he needed
to make a final assessment, and she would highlight
significant information for him. Highlighted portions
included any medica I information coverIng the period around
the date of the claim, whether another physician was involved,
and whether there were any claims by other physicians. In
some cases she ordered microcopies of other claims.
^"
( 31> That she was familiar with and referred to medical po lie y
bulletins containing questions sent by the Ministry to a
committee of the Ontario Medical 'Association relating to when
·
,
55
a procedure qualified for payment. Approximately 100 bulletins
a year were issued and retained as a set. She prepared an
index of medical po I icy bulletins on her own for ease of
reference.
(32 ) About Exhibit 16, which is a medical policy bulletin
representative of those used by her in adjudication support.
The particular bulletin concerned out-of-province claims
containing guidelines and fee schedule codes for payment. She
sometimes had to refer to medical policy bulletins when faced
with an out-of-province claim involving transplant surgery.
( 33) About Exhibit 17, which is the Ontario Health Insurance Plan
Schedule of Benefits for Physician Services, which she
referred to in order to deal with enquiries from physicians or
their secretaries concerning claims.
( 34) That she was familiar with the guidelines found at pages 113-
14 of Exhibit 17, and used them in carrYIng out her
adjudicative support duties. An example given was guideline
18 found at page 114 of Exhibit 17.
( 35) That she was familiar with Ontario Medica 1· Association
sched'ule of fees (Exhibit 18), which she referred to because
many medical specialists did not participate in the plan and
.
.
56
sent bills to their patients In accordance with the OMA fee
schedule. She also frequently broke down a claim when a
-
physicians inserted a lump sum claim.
( 36} That there were instances when a physician would call her and
make reference to a fee set out In Exhibit 18 and not to the
GRIP schedule of benefits. In those circumstances, she
referred to both documents.
.
(37) That, periodically, she had to . refer to Claims Services
Communications updates as well as to additions to the fee
schedules and guidelines issued by Professional Services at
head office.
(39 } That Dr. Clark was ill for a good deal of the time In 1982,
and would be off work for six- to eight-week stretches. In his
absence, she had access to the medical consultant at the
Kingston head office with whom she communicated one or two
times a week to deal with unusual problems. She also had
occasion to deal with Dr. Deegan, who was located at the
Toronto office.
(40 } In the absence of Dr.. Clark, she would submit claims to Bobbi
Hegney for approval or submit them to medical consultants, as
above noted.
,
.
57
Ms. Hegney, who at the time of the grievance was the technical
assi~tant to Dr. Clark, testified:
(1 ) She was responsible for the approval of forms relating to
reconstructive surgery and dental surgery. She would review
claims and refer contentious ones to Dr. Clark or a medical
consultant. The majority of claims were straight-forward and
could be dealt with by following the available guidelines and
the preamble to the fee schedule, and she was able to approve
-
approximately 95 per cent of the claims and apply a stamp
with Dr. Clark's signature to the Request for Authorization of
Proposed Reconstructive Surgery forms (Exhibit 15) . Only five
per cent of the claims that had to be adjudicated were
physically signed by Dr. Clark.
( 2 ) Ms. Waller worked in the adjudicative support area (a) when
Ms. Hegney) was on vacation or ill in order to assist the
persons who replaced her and ( 2 ) during lunch breaks.
( 3 ) In cross-examination, Ms. Hegne~ was. asked whether Ms. Wa 11 e r
assisted her in performing adjudicative support functions
relating to reconstructive surgery claims forms. She stated
that this might be the case but could not remember if this was
so because of the length of tim~ that had elapsed between the
filing of the grievance and the hearing. In referring to
claims forms, she acknowledged that Ms. Waller might have
I
I
.
I
. i
. i
58
prepared the adjudicative claim forms for Dr. Clark which he
later signed. She later stated that when she was not present
Ms. Waller dealt with reconstructive surgery claims and might
have assisted Dr. Clark with the claims forms. She did not
know how much assistance Ms. Waller gave to Dr. Clark. I
I
i
We are satisfied that Ms. Waller's description of what she did
while working in adjudicative support services was accurate. Even
though Ms. Hegney experienced some difficulty in recalling events
In 1982, she did not seriously challenge eMs. Waller's version of '
the facts~
In argument, counsel for the ,Union examined the duties and
responsibilities of Ms. Waller In the light of the class standards
for Clerk 3, General and Clerk 5, General. The class standards
with respect, to Clerk 3, General are as follows:
CLERK 3. GENERAL
CLASS DßFIN¡TION:
ì Employees in positions allocated to this class, as
"journeyman clerks", perform routine clerical work of
some complexity according to established procedures
requiring a background knowledge of specific regulations,
statutes or local practices. Decision-making involves
some judgement 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 in the selection and presentation of data;
1
þ
59
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 sma II subordinate staff
by explaining procedures. assigning and checking work.
This is a terminal class for many positions
involving the competent performance of routine clerical
work common to the office concerned.
OUALIFIC.ð.TIONS:
1. Grade 12 or an equivalent combination of education,
training and experience.
2. About three years satisfactory clerical experience.
3 . Ability to understand and explain clerical
procedures and requirements; ability to organIze
and complete work assignments within prescribed
time limits; ability to maintain good working
relationships with other employees and the public
served.
The class standard with respect to Clerk 4, General IS as
follows:
CLERK 4, GENERAL
CLASS DEFINITION:
Employees l.n 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
judgment l.n dealing with variations from established
guidelines or standards. Normally, employees receive
specific instructions only on unusual or special problems
as the work l.S performed under co'ndi tions that permit
little opportunity for direct supervision by others.
Matters involving decisions that depart radically from
established practices are referred to supervisors.
Tasks typical of this level include the evaluation
or assessment of a variety of statements, application,
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
I
~
·
60
group of " journeyman clerks" or a larger group of
clerical assistants by explaining procedures, assigning
and checking work and maintaining discipline.
OVALIFIC.i\TIONS:
1. Grade 12 education or an equivalent combination of
education, training and experience.
2. About four years' of progressively responsible
clerical experience or an equivalent combination of
experience and higher educational qualifications.
3. Ability to communicate clearly both orally and 10
writing; ability to instruct and supervise the work
of subordinates.
The c lass standard for CI erk 5,' Genera 1 IS as fo llows:
CLERK 5, GENERAL
CLASS DEFINITION:
Employees 1n positions allocated to this class
pe rform responsibl eel er ica 1 work reqUI rIng detai led
knowledge ·of a body of regulations, statutes or local
practices, together with a thorough understanding of the
objectives of the work unit. Decision-making involves
judgment in the interpretation and application of policy
or administrative directives to problems where the intent
of existing instructions IS obscure In specific cases.
This frequently necessitates modifying work processes or
the development of new methods. Al though the work is
carried out with a large degree of independence, it 1S
reviewed for consistency of decision-making. Difficult
technical ques~ions, or those involving policy
determination are referred to supervisors.
Tasks typical of this level include responsibility
for a significant non-supervisory, clerical. or clerical
accounting function involving the interpretation,
explanation and application of a phase of departmental
legislation or regulations and requiring the ability to
make acceptable recommendations or provide functional
advice: supervising a group of "journeyman clerks"
performing clerical duties of varying complexity or a
smaller group engaged In more specialized work by
planning, assigning and reviewing work, deciding
priorities, maintaining production levels and carrying
out responsibility for the total performance of the unit.
·
,
61
QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Grade 12 education, or an equivalent combination of
education, training and experience; preferably
completion of additional training such as related
correspondence and university extension courses;
thorough knowledge of office practices and
procedures.
.2 . About six years progressively responsible clerical
experlence or an equivalent combination of
experience and higher education.
3 . Ability to evaluate the effectiveness of clerical
procedures and staff performance; ability to
superVIse the work of other employees; ability to
interpret regulations and instructions into
procedu res -- and practice; ability to prepare
effective correspondence, înstructions and reports.
On a review of the Grievorfs duties and responsibilities, we
find that her best fit is within the Clerk 4, General class
standard. The duties assigned to her amounted to more than the
performance of "routine clerical work of some complexity according
to established procedures. " Rather, she performed "a variety of
responsible clerical tasks. " We also find that she had to have
more than "a background knowledge of specific regulations, statutes
or local practices." Rather, she had to have "a good background
knowledge of specific regulations, statutes or local practices."
We also find that her decision-making involved "judgment 1n
dealing with variations from established guidelines or standards"
in a significant number of cases rather than merely exercls1ng
"judgment in the ,selection of alternatives within a comprehensive
framework of guidelines."
.
", J
I
62 I
I
We satisfied that Ms. Waller received "specific I
are I
instructions only on unusual or special problems. " As she
frequently worked when (1) Ms. Hegney was away, and (1 ) Dr. Clark
was absent because of illness, she often performed her duties
"under conditions that [permitted] little opportunity for direct
supervIsIon by others."
While it could be said that much of her work was "reviewed
only periodically, principally for adherence to policy and .
procedures" as IS provided In the Clerk 3 , General class
definition, In many cases much of her work was accepted without
~
question in both the claims and adjudicative review areas, except
where problem cases arose, which was rare.
She was responsible for the preparation of "factual reports,
statements or memoranda" but this required more than "some"
judgment in the selection and presentation of data, particularly ~n
the fifteen per cent of her work In the adjudicative support area.
In the registration area she was required, as ~s provided for
in the Clerk 3, General class definition, to assess "the accuracy
of statements or eligibility of applicants, invest iga t i ng,
discrepancies and secur1ng further proof of documentation as
necessary". In that portion of her work involved in adjudicative
support, she was engaged ~n the "evaluation or assessment of a
variety of statements, applications, records or similar material to
.
.
-
63
check for conformity with specific regulations, statutes or
administrative orders, resolving points not clearly covered by
these instruments, usually by authorizing adjustments or
recommendlng payments or acceptance. "
If Ms. Waller's duties and responsibilities had been limited
to her registration functions, we would regard the evidence as
being rather evenly balanced between finding her best fit as a
.
Clerk 3 or Clerk 4, General.
We do not regard duties her and responsibilities while
carrying out registration or adjudicative support functions
required the "detailed knowledge of a body of regulations, statutes
or local practices" as is set out in the class definition to the
Clerk 5 , General class standard, nor that her decision making
involved "judgement in the interpretation and application of policy
or administrative directives to problems where the intent of
existing instructions is obscure in specific cases. to She did not
have to modify work processes or develop new methods.
We conclude that a significant portion of Ms. Waller's duties
and responsibilities were within 'the adjudicative support area so
as to tip the balance in favour of finding that her best fit was as
a Clerk 4, General.
.
I
·.~
to
64
Counsel for the Employer referred to Brooks/Whitney, 1816/90,
1817/90 (Dissanayake) at p. 10:
. . . in our Vlew, for classification purposes not much weight
can be attached to the evidence that an employee fills 10 for
an incumbent In a higher class during the latter's absences.
Those acting duties are irrelevant In deciding the appropriate
classification of [the grievor'sJ own position. The collective
agreement 1n article 6.1.1 provide.s a form of acting' pay
"Where an employee IS assigned temporarily to perform the
duties of a position In a classification with a higher salary
maX.lmum, " provided the assignment IS for a period of [sic]
excess of five consecutive working days. We have no evidence
as to whether {the grievorJ met the prerequisites for acting
,pay on those occassions. Nevertheless, the fact that the
co 11 ecti ve agreement makes special provision for acting pay
supports our cone lusi-on that acting asignments do not go to
determining an employee's classification..
We do not disagree with the above statement which deals with,
an employee assigned to perform the work of a higher rated
classification on an acting basis. Howeve r , there was no evidence
disputing that of Ms. Wa 11 e r that Mr. Arke11 ian had assigned her to
perform the duties that she described in the adjudicative support
area on an ongoing basis and not just for a temporary period. Such
an assig~ment was not "temporarily to perform the duties of a
position in a classification with a higher salary maximum" as
envisaged in article 6.1.1, but permanently to perform them, In the
sense that they became part of her regular duties and
responsibilities. The effect of this permanent assignment of new
duties and responsibilities was to add additional duties and
responsibilities to those described In Ms. Wa 11 e r ' s position
specification and class allocation form. As noted above, when her
actual duties and responsibilities are examined in the light of the
·
65
General Clerical Series, the best fit IS within the Clerk 4,
General classificatIon.
We do not regard the duties and responsibilities of Ms. Waller
as being sufficiently unrelated to those of the Clerk 4, General so
as to warrant the issuance of a Berry order.
Because of our decision, it lsunnecessary to deal with the
arguments made on behalf of the Employer based on laches and the'
prejudice that would affect it In presenting evidence because of
the some eight year delay between the filing of the grievances by
Ms. Connelly, Ms. McGauhey, Ms. Christie and Mr. Teeple.
We have not found that the delay materially affected the
Employer in its ability to adduce evidence with respect to the
cases of Ms. Waller. Nor do we find that Ms. Hegney's memory of
events was materially affected by the delay so as to prejudice the
Employer in presenting its case.
We hereby direct that Ms. Waller be reclassified as a Clerk 4,
General, retroactive to 20 days prior to the date of the filing of
her grievanee. She shall be entitled to retroactive compenstion,
including interest calculated on the basis of the formula set out
by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in Hallowel House Limited,
<1980 ) OLRB Rep. Jan. 35. The Board remains seized in the event the
parties encounter difficulty 1n implementing this decision.
, _.
.! . -,
':: \
66 /
Dated at Toronto this 9th day of November, 1992.
~Pt:f-?~I-~
, M. Gorsky - Vice chairperson
//J- ~
~)f~d'
J.CLaniel - Member
-
(¿ . ~0~.1£ -~~ !
A. Stapletøn - Me er
.
--
Appendix 1 .
® 1'OSIT'--' SPECIFICATION AND CLASS ALLOC4TION FORM 'OftTtOfl £.J.)O' .
~
VUOO/U" "......,,~ ...'.'.~ .., ..~ -~. ..... .... ;""i<, ~
... ,. "''''511~ ""0 '''I C"",~",,"O' '''1 CI" ~ n~"'CI '010"'1&10 .. 05-8254-74
ONl....UC' .:J....c ..111'111(1 .
I ... ~ ..... ~ ·..."'1···0... 'I'Lf 'HIS pOil r 10.. It.
...... ..-t...
SENIOR RECORDS CLERK r 1)C Ilt... I::'I.!)
.PA"l'Vi~OSltfON ""LI C'L.An "'''l.1 W'ü-'lôo. 'OI"IQ..,. coot
SENIOR FILE CLERK I CLERK 3, FILINC -..L 51024 J 05-7257-18
1;¥i:DU'l'~ sU"i~v io~-i tI',~ì _____._. -___ _...___,_,____ _. ___u ...__._ 'oliTtO,. tOOl ---.. ..--.....
SUPERVISOR, SUPPORT SERVICES -.--1 05-8254-72
.~i1, ""I ... -, - ...-. --- --:---'---~--_·""----Ô~V.IIO'" .~..__._~-- .------....----...---
HEAl TH HEALTH INSURANCE
I~""CH --- ilcf,6~---·· --- Lo.';"ióiO i"õõ~iiiÏ' Bond To';;érš',- --+---
~FERA!lONS NDKIN.StRVIC~S 44 Bond St. ~.. '3ra Floor,
õi- ;;"~"ï¡-;;;'ï1 'O'IT'O'" 51,1'1."'110 ,,,cü¡¡õfÑ,i,v.iovIŠiõ Oshava. Ontario. LIH 7Rl
I al.....etL" rHOI...fCTI,.'" OUIllI[Cl'I.Y rHO' IIIIfl:'H.'"
1 -- -- 4 --
2, PURPOSE. OF POSlnON,"";. DDU T"IHDlITIO" Uln' IT''TI''D..~lO'J(eTI\IU tTe"
To co-ordinate the day-to-day filing and micro retrieval activities of the District, and to
provide training and guidance to staff.
3, SU~lt.~t. R Y OF DUTIES .AND RESPONSI81~ IT I ES ""OleAn ",AC!~fA"l D' T'''! S'l~' 0" lAC.. Ile.."'c..... ,,,,HCllD".
INUIc.:.1l 5C('I"[ tUUI't.lf N'. 'I'IIIO" (ING COlltOlTIONS Vtr. USlJA" 't A1UAlS. tle.1
1. Co-ordinates and controls unit activities by: training new staff. instructing staff in new
or altered procedures, ensuring adherence to established procedures/schedules, equalizing
I ~ork distribution to ensure optimum work out-put by all staff¡ investigating and re~olving
I ?foblems reierred by staff, or by su?ervisor (e,g. file requests by unauthorized personnel,
I file de (acemen t, "lost" HIes, at c. ): co-ordinatins purgins of files, cross -reference cards,
,40% and computer records according to established procedures/schedules; advisinS supervisor of
potential problem areas (e.g. lack of (iling spsce. lack of staff to perform functions
i adeq uately) and sugges ts so Iu tions -to these problems; sorting "nev mail", file reques ts.
, and files for re-filing and distributes to appropriate file clerk(s).
12. Co-ordinates unit sorting and distribution of in-proce's and micro retrieval documents by:
I assigning tasks, aistributing work, ensuring continuous work flow within priorities and
30% schedules established by Supervisor. advising unit leaders of schedule changes. Instructs
new staff in detailed work procedures; provides continuing advice and guidance to unit staff.
Assists Supervisor in performing administrative tasKs, e.g. recommending overtime. assisting
in the preparation of eurplo)'ee evaluations, reporting .ny discipline problems.
3. Consolidates and maineains daily input/output figures. by typeof work. Compiles District
Office productivity reports for Head Offiee and District Office use. Compiles District
115% Office statistics, i.e. daily productivity figures. month comparisons, status of d3ily ~ork
I participates in work unit; performs other related duties as assiqned;
!4. ^~5ists 1n supervision of unit staff by:maintainlng and completing bi-weekly attendance 1
I report for submission to Supervisor. scheduling vacations and/or casual time off (e.g. docto
appointments) according to established guidelines;
15% under the quidance of the Manaq.r responsible for the completion of periodic I
F.~ployee Appraisal & Development Guides; period~CallY checkinA staff vork, bringing ~rrors
to the attention of the staff melllber(s). refernnq "problem cases" to the Supervisor for
counsellinq. Suqqests improvement/alteration/elimination of standard procedures to
Su?erv~sor or relays sU9gestions by staff to Supervisor. Participates in group/unit meetings,
'WI L lS' .:.NO Kl'lèWU OGE'Rt:!J\j1 II t: L)'10 p~AFOA"" T'HE'\lIUR K IST..n lOYC... '1'10"" I~AI~I~G. O~l~.l..u ftC" -
FiIins and micro-retrieval e~perience; demonstrated initiative. supervisory abilicy and
good oral and written communications skills.
T. J, R AOE:R
,.¡;~. v>4'\..
OATI Wi'Þlll.t.utU 1£:1'" ISTIU TOPS, g...,.
--.----, L~~_ ¡;Mr~___~... f. CiA. wo. ~ "f1,
~_--1_":'_L_.-
I..... "'" ..........t.... t '1'
A. J. Arkclian. Director, OHIP Oshava D. O. T. J. Reader. Executive Co-Ord., District Ops.
I . . ?, -.... ,.,..... I~ - P"..' - .-.- ........... -. -- .. - \. p C --.
~~,~~/"OCA ¡;;~' "'~ '.-; ,".' ;: , .' '., ,,;' ,·~s,,:;...;: '~~'~ì'::¡'''-' .."
..._.. ~l_~:.~_~ !:l_:~_~._~.__._..... ,._ .___,:. .__l.,~_~~_~~______ _, _ ,~S_.~~.. . òt l ¿;~ !¿~
, ........-f Cl. ,,:'::tLlfU holtl IIQ$lhUN UNO'" AUTtolOll'lf". Oh.IGATtD 'c: ...·1 ." ''''I CINT'" ..,,,,,Sf'" &"0'''' .C~O"O"NC. "ITM TMI C'IY~L sri ll vlCl C-O.......·tU'o'-ro
C:l.J.SSI~ I~" llOfill '5' .i.NØ"'''01 , 0" 'HI 'O,"-L.OW1NC IIl'....SOIltlS
Responsible for day-to-day supervision of a self-contained medium-sized f 11 i n'"
A operation.
. Supervises 4 subordinates.
, Participates in ....ork of the unit.
;~-_..._---~~- ,
,
~. 1·~·,"''''.n.i!'Q. (> 'I IDATI 1M.-;;-1;;:.....-1.·.. ,....... ---'j
1 D.. 1..0 I ... I
! ."J t..".. ~':'I o,¡,,;: 14 C'1 p, R.F. Rey
- [...., ..,¡" ,M ';...
. .
- --
! Appendix 2
,X C\~c.. ~ ,.... S~ '"""\ rv"\c.~~
~ ..,....; f ...,' f\' 'ç . ,·..;U
"~I^"''''U'''ll''1.il'''L1 ~\ \ c. 1(,...:) - - \ L(,,(~'_... ._.,,_
PAnT 1 "'O:;.'IOl ll ll~'lC! ~ TUtSru-:';fIQHI'S;
__ _ :-.~gT~OFILH OPlJUTOR ËI ~~~tSEO
. "''''1;:\1Ii"'''''5 '011T10"" 'It....: 1 "I:I,.AS' fJT.... CI..AII C.001 "C1SHIO... ~õõ.
'U"'DI~Tl 5""".'so,,'."'TLI;:<;'c". ~ ~ I I'ÕiiTiõÑ cool
1:100 "rdc S'.pqni&Qr , . /- - u ! 05-7257-2f>
-i,IINI~III" ÓWï;'OH
Jì.,;;:,l Lh Health Insurance
' lI....,NI,,~' - -.. Sll:CTION ~O¿¡'¡ON1Åòön-~::':lJ ----...-- -
In~ill'ancc Claims Oshawa Dist. Oshawa
"nt.. ..C:VMI.ll."N. ".1 rO~I-rIO"'; - $~t;'r;n";iiiÕ ~;'¡¿ùMoì;;¡ti"iv~~~~$"io
OlnL:CTl.... IIN01n1:c.n.v ouucU.'f 1~"'OI"'ICT1..Y
J - - - -
'2 :pu: ¡;>'" s È' 6i,' ròsl~T'iÖÑ~~HY DOES THI' .OSI T ION E x,m 51" Tl~~AU OIJEe TI';;;;;~.
'~'o I.')¡'~)Xlr~ and microfilm documents for record retontion. To operate reader-printer
..::qUl.¡;'11cnt.
. .
3. ~,-,;,;MARY Of OUTl ~S AND RESPONSIBiliTIES lINOICAre 'EAC~NTAÇ~ OF mol. '.ENT ON EACH SI(\N"ICANT FUNCTION.
1""~)iC" f& SCOII(;:, eUUIPMe~T. WOA (JNC CON'OITIONS UNUSUAL l:(A Tl)A'$ ETC.] I
..);~ 1. Prep.:¡res and nù.croíilms .vario\.:.s doc\.1JlÌents, W1der general supervision, by:
- preparing documents for filming by removing staples, patching tears, checking
legibility and clarity of original;
- o~rating either a Rotary or Planetory Microfilm Camera to film records such as
claims, letterhead accounte~-etc.; ,
- lOfidin~ camera with film, adjustin~ voltage as necessary),
- referring exposed films to Head Office for processin~;
- conforming to microfilm standards, as determined by Head Office Microfilm Section.
ho,~; 2. Opcl':ltC:; a reader-printer by:
- in:;cl'ting film cartridGo;
- scanning fi~n and producing print-out of document, as requested)
- returning film cartridge in correct sequence.
10':; 3. Haintains equipnent by:
- performinG minor repairs and /Inking minor adjustments on all microfilm equipncnt¡
- clean:!1lg mechanisms, lenses liglt. sources, ate. at periodic intervals.
5;'~ 4. Pcrl'orlll~ ol:.her related duties at: aZ3icned.
1
".; :i::', 1~;~;,-^~tÜiZÑOWlEDGE REQUIReD TO PERFORM THE WORK IST-.TI Eout#.TtON. TMININO. Ul'(RIENClITC,1
Gl':}.:.!U 10 education. At least one year IS experience in òperation of microfilm equipnent.
I A.:llity to understand and. fallow instructions. Alertness, accuracy, ability to maintain
I s:,"~::":Jr;lC'~ory standards of production.
'U,::~;'1Üï1ES ~
. MINi Tn... 0'" ^\r. OAT"
, ' "''',,,''''OOn'''''llO'' _ I 0... c:~ 1:~~'H·' " ,- '.._ I 'g' I '2 U:
~t""""" '-r.'. ...._tr..'" '.. _.... ... - t...... ........ .nlc~·. ~.. ....I
t.... ...., .._.._ ..---
.........-
, G, ('. .. ,I'LLt,":^';ION ,..,____,_. . -... , t. '
I ...____........_ ._. _.. . .,~_.- C'L^....euor -- IbCCU'A.T'ON~I~ n"..,,,,"'''''''. 1'1'''1..1'' .....11
~4 . c...... .. '. "I
, '1',\1,,(':~, U'Lcrc.XilJn .. \ ~¡:'~i:¡:; \ C~ - ~I ".' -!-,"~...~: ! 'l~
1.1'.\ ," ".:,":: I. ;. .IliI:: "II::.lltÞN lIti111.' ^UI~n"u, 't nrlL:1iÞt'tlO '0 M-L UV ..IU lJ-l:.t'1J(Y ,.,N1::;'lU ^Nl,Þ IN ACCUttlJANC:£ WI,n '.UII c;l"t... $LIIVK:ll ,aM....t..~
"1.:...\.. "I,·.T..n·..·~ :.IA""ilAl'U;:; rl.JtllllG ,"O\.\.OWIHO nEA'IQH:Þ;
J:.~~';.ltc:; microfilming equipnent. under genero.1 supervision.
.. ¿"I.;;"¡~·C:;; documents to be filmed are clear, lesible, patched, etc.
" '.' .1,,0""; l;IJ[,jr;:J on microfilm reaùer.
I I ... I~. _ _ .".. .... c. ......~I
·@, Appendix 3 X¡-J .
'l"""'" too. 1 ~
~OSlfIO~ ~ECIr¡C^ TION MoIO CLASS ALlOCA.l tON 'ORM
1,.1..( \,11""" "'t..., t'1." 1~IJ llt1/' 1C',"'ru"~""'l.......t-1 u·'Ult·...u.'-lAf..- II '...'1" OSA82S4·26
_Iþ('~" "'1 ~ ....0 Jut c......þlll....... 0; f l ' (r..'~ It~....c, ,,,,,¥IllII",.llJtIII
I
:'i'!~,.,. ~~ 1." ""~I'~\ ___, .-. . .... -. - , .._,IiI'..r;:"'....:T;.,...~:1-.._. ~
-. - ...----
...n I 1 ~ 1 I~I Ill'"
RlGI S 11n CU.R ( I J lI~v'UO
'.YIUU-S "~":Itl(~" Illdi t.....,.1'""" C\."tOul ...... '. .·......,i...-:;;..........'
NrW I I I
..
lilt (I, ... I.. ".~. ". ,,".1 "'. I, t 1 . "e,'1Ið.. ~uvf
UISIHICT OlMEC1UR I 05-8254-01
"'I.'~' .. ,. - at'l'1~......
II Cf\ L 1lI lIEAL1H INSURAIICE
I""'C" ..- -...... He'.;'" .' . ...... \0(""0" IAO 'l.A(,U .... ,. _..._.. _..... __ua --.-
UI'(f!ArIOUS OSI!AWA 0,0. Bond Towers.
''''('''",,,,,, I""'''O~' ~\"(."$I0 '''eu''f/_'lll''f~''SlO 3rd floor. 44 Bond St. W,.
lIu~fl.." f'''Ot.."e,..., O··l('"" r-U11li. 0(.; '... " OshawJ, Ont. Llfl 7Rl
1 . . . -
--
'u " I ',. t lJ r rli~ II UN ,..... COli Tlhl .,"', ",.. I.'sr' Ih r I GC~lHl.Jle "VH Fl e I
10 rag1ster, physicians, clinics, groups. practitioners, etc. In the Oshawa District
ror payment, under the Health Insurance Act.
šW','''' Il, ur' ¡"U i I~S ¡IIG Ãtš~ÛÑši8il.IT Id "~,,,,~ii~r.F' õ;;;;ì¡;i;;;;;~~ï.ë;;;;; (A_r '....cr,O.. --
,"'t;or."., " "1 ..... ..·.......~"",·"¡"Il~þtuClJ,..O..,'O...,U"\,I1..,..L '..1UtllC..'C,Þ
1. 1' O(E'~SI?S additions/changes to reqhtriltions, eligibility files arId records by:
e~¡tlng appl1catlon forms to ensure that data provided (address, specIalty. pay
OPtion, clinIc organiutlon,ttc.' complies with the Ilealth Insurallce Act;
10!. )ðthisiug r(l9¡~.tranls on relevant sections of the ^ct~repilr¡nlJ and submittIng
'-lJI"IJU tll'r tn¡lut fOrlllS 't i nves t 1911 t ¡"\I and I'(lSublll it II rI\I '·(!Jp.cted datil, contact I n9
({'Ill, al rC\llstr'y, Professional ScrviCl!S Urallch("to re\olve difficult or ullusual
c,,~~~, a'ld physichns, clinics. etc.">io resolve and advlst on registry matters¡
ildvt~itlq yroup leadersl chims processing clerkS of registry information as
rpllull'ed. ,
'0\ 2. Mll1ntainS u~i"try record! on file by accusing terminal to verify Health Resources
Ile~iatry dau.
1;\ 3. f'I'OC~O$"'lII ul~uest.J tor d..JlII card. .ud other OHIP' supplies linq¡¡iry forms,
pan'phlets, He, I by rehrrjng rf!que,t l:n stt/ell: roo/ll fQr Iction. monitoring use
of addleu plat.es. controlling' th~ handling ,lnd stonge of same I assisting in
t h~ prodllctlon of claim cards du unq peak periods 41 require<!.
5. 'I, f'crt'lrIl\9 other I.hted duties all ...ign.d..
,
šKiï¡ Š á;ö KimVl"liôëfÃIOuiAiõ'iõH¡i'oñM Till WURK,sraU 'D\JW'ON,ItU.,~',IO( .UJt'lIllCl UC.l
rrov!'n clerical uperlene. (r.llled OllJr preferrl!d). Ability to correspond in writing
alld CO'"l1unlcate by phone. Good or9ðldzatlonal skills. row edge of relevant legislation.
T)pll1ll not ~Chll Servfce Conlntssion standords. '
;..: .. -.~'. ,.IIt~U U_'_.. rnc 01"
,1{¡rUII Ullt!> . " , .. ' ,'. OAO.
.,,(..'0', 'U'f~ e, co "0. ""1' ..,..,$1.'(1" IA . , or~ 0."
I IIC. g".. ..., __ .... Il TI" . . ..... _, '..
~ . - 002'" __I, _.1...:.1...".:.... ~ '79J2 -.- ,L__L,__L._.
~'.." "'fÉB t 7 Ir_' ~ '1" -
i..J. ^"~el 11, trectol'. 01111' Osha",,) 0,0. I T .J. Rea cr. ElIee Coord. Districts Ops ,
::-_.. _ :-. ...::~..~:.~ ~ ~,~.~ l; '!: 'A~:~ _!(;~"~j '~~'. "~~ .~. .t;:.'. .~. ~'"& 1 -.~ :.:~~ ~ ~.;:J: ~~1l. J:; 1~~~ .I" .-¡".". ".:+" ,
~~"'::" "Ll(,¡I.ATIY'.
· '''It -...-,... - _... . ._--~-- h¡i,tue' --_. r;¿¡'OÒIÀl.êi/ldtJiiO -- r .·'~c'·.r Oa'1 --
I .... ..n .-.
.Cl~rk ), G~ner~,l.. ....,'.. _ .510~4, ,." . CS-Ol". ø J 10 '4..lr 1.
.', , t ' ~'.' '1" I' ''''S ~~'~"'l1'o .....t',,, allt",,,,,, T l'lLIG" HI:' 10'" U too' DI"'" T "''',SIl'' ~"O'" aCCUl!f)AltCt ..'h. 'Iff CI\OII. ""'OC( toOOA' ,,,,,..
':J·~I· ., .. 'I~'" ,fANO"¡'HO$ ; un 1'" f 01. LORI"" .f.."....,.
PC[ror~s routine eleriçal work of some e~nplcxity aeeordino to establ1$hcd
pIocedures rcqu1r1nç a backgl'ound knowledoe of thn Hoalth Insurance Aet and
01111' poliCieS.
lIt'··isiuh-maldfJ'J involves 101l1C Ju<lQClllcnt in the ð:loD('·~Slllcnt. of the ðccuroC'y of
S l 'lll.'lltCIl t!\/~ pp11eat 10115" th~ invl!stigntion of di sC'rcpilnelos and soeur Hy of
fur Lher proof or docwl1entat1on.
Dou~ttul mattec5 reterrod to .upcrvl~or.