HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1439.Georges.93-02-09 ONTARIO EMP£OY~$ DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMPL OYE£$ DE L'ONTARIO ~
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
t80 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE2100, TORONTO, ONTARR:~, MSG 1~.8 TELEPHONE/"r'~'/..~PHONE: (416)326-1388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). MSG 1Z8 FACStM;LE/T~L~COPIE : (416) 32E-1396
1639/90
ZN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRAT[ON
Un6er
THE CROWN EHPLOYEES COLLECTIVE B~RG~[N~NG
BeEo~e
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
~. OPSEU (Georges)
e=~evo=
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health)
Employe~
BEFORE M. Watters Vice-Chairperson
W. Rannachan Member
M. O'Toole Member
FOR THE K. Whitaker
GRIEVOR Counsel
Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE B. Humphrey
EMPLOYER Counsel
Stringer, Brisbin~ Humphrey
Barristers & Solicitors
HE]%RING May 31, 1991
November 27, 1991
April 16, 1992
June 9, 1992
September 29, 1992
The grievor, Ms. Mary Anne GeOrges, is the Librarian at the
Queen Street Mental Health Centre (Q.S.N.H.C.). She has served
in that capacity since May, 1976. She is classified as a Library
Technician 4. By grievance dated December 11, 1989, the grievor
claimed that she was improperly classified. At the hearing, it
was the position of the Union that the grievor performs duties
substantially similar to those performed by Ms. Karen Gagnon, the
Hospital Librarian at the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital (K.P.H.).
Ms. Gagnon commenced employment in'that position in July, 1990.
At the time material to this dispute, she was classified as a
Librarian 2. The Union did not advance an argument based on the
class standards. Rather, it relied exclusively on , what has
come to be known as, the usage test.
As noted, the grievor has served as the Librarian at the
Q.S.M.H.C. for a considerable period of time. Her formal
qualifications include a two (2) year Librarian Technician
Diploma from Lakehead University. In contrast, Ms. Gagnon holds
a Masters of Library Science Degree from McGill University. Her
prior experience as a Librarian is limited to two (2) years in
the Reference Department of the Health Sciences Library at that
same University. Her current job at the K.P.H. is Ms. Gagnon's
first full-time position following her receipt of the Masters
Degree.
Both of the above-mentioned facilities are administered by
the Ministry of Health. The Q.S.M.H.C. is a full service mental
health care facility. It is the largest psychiatric'hospital in
the Province of Ontario. The hospital has five hundred and
sixty-five (565) beds and also serves approximately three
thousand (3000) out patients. The full-time staff numbers about
twelve hundred (1200). ThCs figure includes sixty (60)
psychiatrists and doctors and six hundred (600) nurses.
Contract and part-time staff are also utilized at the facility.
The K.P.H. is a general service adult psychiatric hospital. It
is the largest hospital of its kind in Eastern Ontario. Its
catchment area encompasses nine (9) counties. K.P.H. has a
resident capacity of four hundred (400) beds. Additionally, it
serves about two thousand (2000) out-patients. Ms. Gagnon
advised that there are approximately seven hundred (700) full-
time Staff employed at the hospital.
The Library at the Q.S.M.H.C. is self-contained and occupies
about eighteen hundred (1800) square feet. Its holdings are
comprised of the following: three thousand (3000) book titles;
one hundred and eighty (.t80) journal subscriptions; two hundred
(200) video cassette tapes; and three hundred (300) audi_o tapes.
The Library at the K.P.H., which is also self-contained, occupies
fourteen hundred (1400) square feet. Its resources include three
thousand (3000) books; one hundred (100) journal subscriptions;
approximately one hundred (100) video tapes; and about two
2
hundred (200) audio tapes. Both o'f these Libraries provide
services to in-house staff, including students on placement, and
to mental health practitioners in :the immediate area. Neither is
designed to serve as a patient Library.
The Library at the Q.S.H.H.C. is part of the Department of
Educational Services. This department; has a complement of seven
(7) employees. It is staffed by a Coordinator, who at the
material time was Ns. Janet Nezan;' four (4) Assistant
Coordinators; one (I} secretary; and the grievor. Ms. Nezan
served, in this capacity, as the grievor's direct supervisor
during the period from October, 1988 to February, 1990 and again
fFom June, 1991 through the hearing. Ms. Nezan has no work
experience or formal qualifications r()lating to the operation of
a Library. She candidly admitted thai; her knowledge of libraries
has been garnered from her own experience as a user and by
watching the grievor exercise her dut:!es within the Q.S.M.H.C.
Indeed, the grievor is the sole library professional in the
institution. Further, she is the only permanent staff member
working in the Library. Two (2) patients provide assistance
within the Library. The grievor is responsible for their
selection; work assignments; and review and evaluation. This
latter function is performed in conjunction with the Director of
Hospital Services. The Library also employs summer students.
The grievor's role with respect to same includes the review of
applications; scheduling and conduct of interviews; selection of
3
the successful candidates; assignment of work; supervision; and
evaluation.
The Library at the K.P.H. is part of the Staff Development
Department which is also comprised of seven (7) members. Its
complement includes a Coordinator, who at the material time was
Ms. Rita Jackson; one (1) A.V. Technician; two (2) Instructors;
one (1.) secretary; an'Employee Health Nurse; and Ms. Gagnon. Ms.
Jackson, like Ms. Nezan, has no work experience or formal
training in library services. Hs. Gagnon testified that the
Coordinator relies on her judgment in respect of library issues.
The Library employs one (1) out-patient and one (1) Co-op
student. The former works five ($) hours a week, while the
latter works three (3) hours per day, five (5) days a week, for
the duration of the placement.
The grievor acts as the Chairperson of the Library
Committee. She is responsible for calling meetings, determining
the agenda, soliciting agenda items, arranging for meeting rooms,
sending out the relevant notices, and conducting the actual
meeting. The Committee is composed of the Director of Hedical
Education, the Director of Laboratory Services, and
representatives from the fields of nursing, psychology, social
work, rehabilitation, and educational services. This body meets
four (4) times each year or more frequently, if necessary. We
were told that it serves as an advisory body on issues affecting
4
the Library. It may also make recommendations to the
Professional Advisory Committee. Such recommendations would be
presented to that Committee by the: grievor.
A Library Advisory Committee 'also exists at the K.P.H. This
Committee, as its title suggests, performs an advisory function.
Additionally, it provides input into, and reviews, policy
relating to the Library. As in the case of the Committee at the
Q.S.M.H.C, this Committee is structured on an interdisciplinary
basis. Its members include the Director of Medical Education,
the Psychiatrist-in chief, and representatives from Planning and
Management, Nursing, and Psychology and Allied Help. While Ms.
Gagnon sits on this Committee, she does not chair its
deliberations.
The grievor testified that she meets annually with her
Coordinator for purposes of discussing goals and objectives for
the Library. She stated that, apart 'Prom these sessions, she
meets informally with Ms. Nezan about once per week in order to
discuss matters relating to the Library. The grievor described
their relationship as being "centered on the sharing of
information." Ms. Nezan substantially confirmed this aspect of
the grievor's evidence. It was her testimony that she meets with
the grievor, in a formal sense, on a quarterly basis. She stated
that she informally "touches base" with the grievor once every
two (2) weeks. The grievor uses these latter exchanges as a
5
means to inform the Coordinator of outstanding Library concerns
or issues.
Ms, Gagnon also described her relationship with Ms. JacKson
as being informal in nature. She stated that she meets with her
Coordinator on a fairly regular basis, This was estimated to be
once every.three (3) to four (4) weeks. Ns, Gagnon testified
that these meetings are used to update Ms. Jackson on the
operation of.the Library, including any perceived need for change
therein.
A substantial amount of evidence was presented during the
course of the proceedings relating to the duties and
responsibilities of the grievor and Ns. Gagnon. Their respective
position specifications are appended to this award as Schedules
'A' and 'B'. The former was prepared by the 9rievor in 1990.
She testified, that it accurately describes her job as of the date
of the grievance, This assessment was confirmed by Ms. Nezan. A
review of the two (2) documents discloses considerable overlap in
terms of duties and related tasks. It was the grievor's
evidence, in chief, that she performs all of the duties listed on
Ms. Gagnon"s job specification. Ms. Nezan expressed the same
opinion. Indeed, she testified that the two (2) job descriptions
are "fairly similar." Ms. Nezan conceded, however, that a job
description does not specify how a job is to be performed. She
further acknowledged that she is not fully aware of the tools
which might be used by a Librarian: in organizing and
administering a Library. In cross-examination, Ms. Gagnon was
taken through the list of duties contained within the grievor's
position specification. Counsel fOr the Union, while engaged in
this exercise, referred merely to each of the individual duties
in sequence. He did not then stipulate that his questions were
premised on the content of the aforementioned specification.
Simply put, Ms. Gagnon agreed that virtually all of the
identified duties form part of her jot). She added, however, that
many of the tasks, which are routine in a Library, have both a
professional and clerical aspect.
Given the extent of the acknowleclgment made by Ms. Gagnon in
cross-examination, it is unnecessary a~t this stage to repeat her
evidence as to the duties common to both she and the grievor.
The acknowledgment captured virtually all of the duties listed in
the grievor's position specification. In our judgment, it is
more productive to focus on the following duties: (i) developing
and maintaining a collection, including acquisition and culling;
(ii) policy development, including the setting of goals and
objectives; (iii) quality assurance; and (iv) the preparation of
a budget. It was the Employer's position, briefly stated, that
Ms. Gagnon's performance in these areas, as a Librarian, is
qualitatively different from the grievor's performance of the
same generic duties as a Library Technician.
7
It was the grievor's evidence that approximately fifty
percent (50%) of the Library's acquisitions are based on input
received from the users in the various departments of the
hospital. She testified that these users initially channel their
requests through Department Heads. If the Head is supportive of
the request, it is next taken to the Library Committee for
review. It would seem that there are also cases in which the
Head will speak directly to the grievor concerning the desired
acquisition. Assuming the request is favourably received, the
grievor commences the requisition procedure. The grievor
disagreed with the suggestion that this process constitutes
selection by Department Head. From her perspective, "the users
primarily choose the books" In addition, the grievor purchases
the remaining fifty percent (50%) of the books on her own
initiative. She stated that her choices are based on
recommendations from other Librarians; gaps in the collection as
identified through reference questions; publications literature;
and materials observed at conferences and conventions. It wasI
the grievor's evidence that she consults with members of the
Library Committee and with users in the departments to ensure
there is a real need for a prospective acquisition, She asserted
that a similar form of consultation is utilized to identify
future needs within the departments.
The grievor testified that Ms. Nezan has always signed her
recommendations for purchase. She stated that the Coordinator's
concern is not the content of the recommendation but, rather, is
the value of the purchase. More specifically, the concern is
whether there are sufficient funds~available to permit the
acquisition. Ms. Nezan stated that the acquisition form has been
changed so as to dispense with the:need for her signature. It
was her evidence that her signature is. redundant after the
grievor and the Department Head have indicated their approval.
Hs. Nezan confirmed that, up to the time the form was modified,
she had never refused to sign an acquisition request advanced by
the grievor. Ms. Nezan further confirmed that the grievor
frequently prepares acquisition forms without input from a
department. This would be done in insurances in which the grievor
exercised her own judgment to acquire a particular work. She
conceded that, at the time material to this proceeding, the
grievor was not conducting an empirical analysis of the use of
the collection in support of acquisitions. The grievor also
described the culling exercise which she performs. She stated
that she makes recommendations as to v~hat materials should be
discarded. The departmental representatives then consider her
recommendations and arrive at a final decision based on same.
The grievor indicated that the initia'l decision to cu~ is
premised on the usage and age of the book. Ms. Nezan was aware
that the grievor culls, or weeds, books on an annual basis
following a review of records of past use. She noted that
materials are discarded if out of date. Ms. Nezan conceded that
she is not conversant with all aspect~ of the culling process.
9
Ms. Gagnon testified that selection and acquisition of books
is an integral part of developing and maintaining a collection.
She stated that she is responsible to ensure that the collection
meets, and continues to meet, the needs o~ the users. Ms. Gagnon
indicated that she reviews the minutes from the various hospital
committees~ including those from the'Library Advisory Commi'ttee,
in an effort to determine which materials.will'best fit the needs
of the collection development policy at K.P.H. She advised that
the members of the Library Advisory Committee do not make
suggestions to her in a formal sense with respect to
acquisitions. Rather, the Committee is there as a forum for
consultation and advice. It was her recollection that, to date,
she has never taken a specific request for a book purchase before
the Committee. Ns. Gagnon told us that she speaks to everyone
she can, including professional staff and others, to gauge their
present and future needs. She stated that she considers staff
requests when making acquisition decisions. She maintained,
however, that the final decision is hers as to what resources
should be purchased. Ns. Gagnon informed the Board that, in the
past, she has refrained from acquiring a book notwithstanding the
fact it may have been requested by a staff member. Ms. Gagnon
further indicated that she utilizes publishers' blurbs, book
lists, book reviews, and other peoples' acquisition lists in this
process, With all of this data at hand, she attempts "to match
up what people need with what is available." It was Ms. Gagnon's
evidence that ninety percent (90%) o~ the collection is selected
10
by her through the above-described exercise. She testified that
the remaining ten percent (10%) of acquisitions are based on the
recommendations of Library users and on requests. Once a
decision is made to acquire a particular work, Hs. Gagnon
prepares the requisite forms and forwards same to the Purchasing
Department. Like the. grievor', Ns. Gagnon also engages in a
culling function. Materials that 'are not used, or which are
outdated, are removed from'the collection. As of the hearing,
she had not culled books from the Library at K.P.H.
It was the grievor's evidence that she is involved in policy
development vis a vis the Library. She stated that relevant
policies are developed and implemented in conjunction with the
Library Committee. Reference was made to policies in respect of
circulation, audio-visual materials, external borrowers,
overdues, and copyright. The grievor acknowledged that these
policies, with which she has been involved, are largely
"technical guidelines." She noted further that final approval
for new guidelines must be obtained through both her supervisor
and the Centre's Administration. Ms. Nezan confirmed that the
grievor is engaged in policy development. She testified that the
grievor would consult with her and use her as a "sounding board"
with respect to new policies affecting the Library. Ms. Nezan
stated that she has never vetoed a policy initiative proposed by
the grievor.
11
Ms. Gagnon testified that it is her role to identify the
need for policy and then tO formulate and implement same.
Similarly, she stated that she evaluates existing policy to
determine if any. change is required. In this regard, we were
advised that she has created a copyFight policy outlining the
extent of Permissible photocopying. Additionally, Ms. Gagnon has
modified the borrowers and after hours access policies. Ms.
Gagnon asserted that it is her job to ensure that policies are in
place so that the Library is able to achieve its goals and
objectives.
The grievor stated initially that the responsibility for
implementing a quality assurance program rests with the
Administration of the Q.$.M.H.¢. She suggested that in several
areas, including the purchase of books, quality assurance is
accomPl'ished at the departmental level. She referred, for
example, to the fact that departmental representatives on the
Library Committee determine or assure the quality of books
ordered by selecting those that the users want. The grievor
emphasized that the representatives base their decisions, in
large part, on input provided by the,users within their
departments. She, therefore, questioned the need'for a formal
user satisfaction study in this area.
The grievor testified that the accumulation of statistics
forms the basis for the quality assurance program within her
12
library. She stated that statistics are kept on a daily basis
with respect to the quantum of the~following transactions: books
borrowed; reference questions answered; inter-library loans;
photocopy requests; computer searches; literature searches; and
bibliographies compiled. It was the grievor's evidence that
these statistics reveal the need for change to the goals and
ob3ectives of the Library, She indicated further that user
satisfaction with library services is measured informally by way
of discussion between the users and Library staff. The.grievor
noted that when 'people experience a problem with the Library,
they are ready to comment on the perceived deficiency. She
acknowledged that these comments, which could lead to change, are
usually initiated by the user. The gr'ievor testified that
informal techniques form the basis for' the quality assurance
program within the Lfbrary. We were ~ed to believe that she
responds to issues raised Dy users'through their verbal or
written comments and/or suggestions. The grievor was prepared to
concede that the area of quality assurance also has a more formal
element designed to measure qualitative, in contrast to
quantitative, factors. She stated that she has discussed the use
of more formal too]s, such as a user satisfaction survey, with
her supervisor. We were ]eft with' the impression that the
grievor, to date, has not seen a rea] need for the regular use of
this type of qualitative device.
The grievor testified that she has on on one (1) occasion
resorted to a user survey in aid of quality assurance.
Approximately two (2) years ago, she developed a-survey relating
to journal usage. The grievor stated that her plan'for the
survey was veted with, and apProved.by, the Library Committee.
The survey, as stated, was designed to record client use of
journals. Users were asked to make a notation when particular
journals were accessed. The grievor agreed that.the survey, in
substance, addressed the issue of quantum of journal use.
Ms. Nezan readily acknowledged that quality assurance within
her department is in a "developmental phase" Nonetheless, she
indicated that the grievor is responsible for the development of
such a program in respect of the Library. Hs. Nezan referred to
the compilation of statistics, mentioned earlier. It was her
evidence that these statistics are used to examine trends and
services within the Library. She noted that a decision, premised
on such data, was taken to keep the Library open during the lunch
period. She asserted that the statistics permitted the grievor
to assess when people made use of the Library such that she could
subsequently determine the proper scope of staff coverage. Ms.
Nezan also alluded to the annual assessment of journal holdings.
She advised, in this regard, that a list of journals is
circulated within the departments ~n order to decide whether they
should be continued or deleted. From her perspective, the users
perform a "preliminary analysis." The grievor is %hen required
14
to compile the results and assess Whether the requests can be
satisfied under the current budget. Fls. Nezan asserted that this
process compels the grievor to establish relative priorities
between the various 3ournal holdings. She agreed that a similar
system is not in place with respect.to books contained within the
Library. Ms. Nezan testified that the, grievor has prepared a
draft of a user satisfaction study relating to Library services.
Users wi]] be asked to comment, in narrative form, on the ]eve]
of current services and on any future services they would like to
see implemented. Last]y, Ms. Nezan conceded that she is not
aware of statistical surveys that a Librarian might employ to
assess whether user needs are being met. She agreed that she
does not possess the experienoe to determine whether such an
analysis is preferable to simply asking the user for their
comments on library services. Ms. Nezan concurred with the
suggestion that both qualitative and quantitative measures are
necessary to ensure a successful program of quality assurance.
Ns. Gagnon described quality 'assurance as a means through
which she can determine how we]] the Library provides information
services in Support of patient care, research and staff
education. It was her opinion that this process requires a
Librarian to adopt an appropriate too] for purposes of the
evaluation. While Ms. Gagnon agreed that informal eva]uation,
such as direct feedback from users, is useful, it is her opinion
that a more formal form of eva~uation has to be employed in order
15
to comprehensively assess whether library services are meeting
the needs of the user community, She suggested that this latter
type of evaluation is more prdactive than reactive. Ms. Gagnon
agreed that two (2) Librarians c6uld differ in their judgment as
to what is the most appropriate too! to evaluate a particular set
of circumstances. She maintained, however, that a system of
formal evaluation must be employed in any attempt to discover
whether services are matching needs. She asserted that
individual feedback provides an incomplete picture, at best. Ms.
Gagnon stated that informal evaluation may be helpful in learning
whether a more thorough evaluation should be undertaken.
The Board was provided with two (2) concrete examples of the
type of evaluation utilized by Ms. Gagnon. The first was a
Journal Evaluation Study dated November 12, 1991. Its stated ,
purpose was to determine if the journals were then satisfying the
need of the Library users. The answer to that question would
provide some guidance as to what journals could be cut to bring
the cost of journals back within budget. This eight (8) month
study evaluated the collection based on the following four (4)
components: (i) usage of the journal; (ii) user opinion; (iii)
cost of the journal; and (iv) relevancy between the journal and
institutional interests. A weighting factor was used for each
component in order to weight their importance. Alt data was then
computer analyzed using a statistical analysis package. This
process resulted in a true index value for each journal out of
16
one hundred (100) points and a relative index value. Further
feedback was subsequently solicited from users with respect to
those journals tentatively targeted for possible cancellation.
At the end of the exercise, ten (10) ,journals were cancelled and
ten (10) new titles were purchased,.all of which was achieved
within the existing budget. Ms. Gagnon acknowledged that a
further evaluation, of a similar nature, would not be required
for a number of years.
The second example of the type o'F study engaged in by Ms.
Gagnon is the Monograph Evaluation, tt3e preliminary report of
which is also dated November 12, 199t. Phase 1 of the project
involved an examination of the following: (i) the total number of
books in a specific subject area; (ii) the circulation rate for
this subject area; and (iii) the number of books purchased for
the subject area. This data was then compiled and percentages
were calculated for each subject area as a percentage of both the
collection and the circulation. Phases two (2) and three (3) of
the study had not been completed as o'F the date of hearings. The
entire evaluation, once completed, will assist in the acquisition
and culling of books. Hs. Gagnon, in her evidence, referred to
several other evaluation projects which she plans to embark on in
the future. Zt was the gist of her testimony that this type of
evaluation is necessary as it discloses those areas of service
which should be changed or expanded. From her vantage point, a
Librarian needs to be in a position from which they can
anticipate change.
17'
The grievor stated that she is responsible for preparing the
Library's annual budget. She testified that she uses the prior
year's budget as a foundation. She then determines, in part
through the assistance of a jobber, the inflation factor, postal
hikes, costs of subscriptions and increases in journal costs.
The grievor indicated that she tries to ensure that sufficient
monies remain'to permit the purchase of new journals. It was the
9rievor's evidence .that she completes the budget document and
that she must justify the requests contained therein. The
document ultimately is given to the Coordinator for incorporation
in the departmental budget. Ms. Nezan confirmed the grievor's
evidence relating to this aspect of her.job. She stated that
"unofficially", she gives the grievor full responsibility 'for
maintaining those elements of the budget pertinent to the
Library, even though "in theory" she has the final authority
given her role as Coordinator. Ms. Nezan expressed the view that
the grievor has effective authority and accountability in respect
of the Library budget. She stated that, in the time frame
relevant to this proceeding, she had not amended any o¢ the
grievor's budget requests.
MsL Gagnon testified that she had only prepared one (1)
budget for the Library as of the date on which she gave evidence.
That budget was constructed without the assistance of her
supervisor. Ms. Gagnon stated that, in the budget process, she
must assess "where the Library wants to be" and then take the
18
steps necessary to acquire the approPriate funds to support the
services, She added that it is her responsibility to justify the
.:
amounts sought, inc]uding those required as a consequence of new
initiatives.
Ms. Mary Lu Brennan, a Librarian., and member of the 'Task
Force On Roles And Responsibilities Of Librarians And Library
Technicians', gave evidence on behalf of the Employer. Ms.
Brennan has considerable experience in the field, including work
in special, public and academic libraries. The report of the
Task Force, which was comprised of both Librarians and Library
Technicians, was submitted to the Canadian Library Association
Council in July, 1988. The mandate of the Task Force was as
icl 1 ows:
"to investigate the roles and responsibilities of
librarians and library technicians with the objective
of producing a CLA position paper for the guidance
of educators and employees.
Ms. Brennan supplemented this by saying i;hat, ultimately, the
purpose of the report was to investigate "who should be doing
what in a 1 i brary."
The report breaks down the services offered in a library
into four (4) areas: (i) administration; (ii) public services;
(iii) collection development and maintenance; and (iv) technical
services. These areas are then further subdivided into specific
tasks that have to be performed within each of the areas. The
19
report follows with a statement of which tasks are appropriate
for a Librarian and those which should be undertaken by a'Library
Technician. The conclusions reached on the appropriate division
of labour are premised on the background and education of
Librarians vis a vis Library Technicians, the experience of the
various members of the Task Force and, lastly, on a review of the
relevant literature.
Ms, Brennan expressed the opinion that there is a
fundamental difference between Librarians and Library
Technicians, In her view, the latter are task oriented and are
more narrowly focused on the day to day functioning of the
library. She suggested that they generally react to developments
as they occur. For example, Ms. Brennan indicated that a Library
.Technician would acquire a particular book following a request
for same made by a user. In contrast, she stated that a
Librarian would see the need'for the same book before anyone had
initiated a request or even knew that they might want it. Ms'.
Brennan testified that Library Technicians are not equipped by
education or background to be'proactive. She contrasted this
with the training given to Librarians. It was her opinion that
such training enables them [o look at the broader picture. She
stressed that Librarians have tess concern with the day to day
operation of the Library and that they are more inclined to lead
or direct the events occurring in a library through research,
evaluation and analysis. Hs. Brennan suggested that generally, a
2O
Librarian has the greater responsibility for decision making and
the exercise of judgment.
Ms. Brennan disputed the suggestion that the Canadian
Library Association is an organization designed to promote the
interests o¢ Librarians rather than those o¢ Library Technicians.
She noted that both occupations are represented on the
Association. It was conceded that more Librarians play a
"leading role" in the Association's governing council. Ms.
Brennan asserted, however, that the Association's ultimate
objective is to promote professionalis,m for both Librarians and
Library Technicians. Ms. Brennan also denied %he a~egation that
the Task Force Report was commissioned because there was a
'"blurring" of the respective ro~es. Rather, she maintained that
the Task Force examined these roles with a view to delineating
the appropriate tasks for each of the positions for the benefit
of employers, educators, and career co:~nsellors. She expressed
the opinion that there is insufficient understanding of the
relevant "differences" outside of the library profession.
The drawing up and defending of a budget is delineated as a
Librarian's task in the Report. Ns. B,rennan testified that a
Library Technician with basic qualifications would not be able,
in her opinion, %o complete such task. Further, she did not
believe that additional training, through short-term courses or
on-the-job training, would equip the Technician with the
21
requisite expertise. Ns. Brennan also stated that "picking up
where the last budget left off" is not the equivalent of drawing
up and defending a budget. From her perspective, a budget must
be based on an identification of user needs. She asserted that
this type of needs identification requires preliminary research
of the type normally undertaken by Librarians.
Ms. Brennan stated that, generally, Library Technicians do
not have the "final say" in matters of hiring. She indicated
that if a Library Technician is undertaking what is, in essence,
a Librarian's task, they would be doing something less than what
a Librarian would do in respect of the same task. In her words,
the Technician would be performing the work but "not to the full
completeness of the task."
counsel for the Union noted that certain tasks contained
within the report provide for an identical role for both the
Librarian and the Library Technician. For example, the report
indicates that both positions participate in the process of
promotion, transfer and termination of personnel. Ms. Brennan
was not prepared to concede that the use of identical language,
vis a vis the respective roles, meant that the Librarian and
Library Technician engage in equivalent tasks. Ms. Brennan was
willing to acknowledge the existence of a degree of overlap in
job function.
It was the position of the Union -Chat the grievor and Ms.
Gagnon perform work which is substantially similar and, for that
reason, should have the same classification. Counsel suggested
that even if a task by task comparison is used in this instance,
it would disclose that the two (2),employees in question engage
in an identical set of work assignments. He disputed the
submission of the Employer that the Union must show that the
grievor performs the essential and distinct duties of a
Librarian. Counsel asserted that it i~) irrelevant as to whether
the work is that of a Librarian. Rather, it was the Union's
position that the threshold issue is whether the grievor performs
work substantially similar to that of Ms. Gagnon. In this
regard, counsel submitted that it was appropriate to select a
single comparator. He noted the Employer did not argue that Ms.
Gagnon is improperly classified. There was also no evidence led
to suggest that she was appointed on an underfill basis. It was
the Union's argument, therefore, that it does not matter that Ms.
Gagnon was newly hired into her position. Counsel submitted that
the Employer could not rely on the argument that Ms. Gagnon, in
future, may develop into a more complete Librarian. We were
urged to find that such argument, if ac:cepted, would destroy the
integrity of the classification sTstem.
Counsel in his submissions focused on a number of features
relating to the two (2) facilities and to the jobs performed by
the grievor and Ms. Gagnon. He asserted that these features
supported the Union~'s claim of substantial similarity. Refe~-ence
was made in this regard to the following: the nature and purpose
of the institutions; the parallel nature of the two (2)
departments vis a vis their purpose, structure and staffing; the
physical attributes of the respective Libraries and the
similarity in holdings; the nature of the supervision received
from the Coordinators; the purpose of the respective Library
Committees; the fact that both employees are the only full-time
staff in the facilities with Library experience;land the overall
identity of roles that the grievor and Ms. Gagnon fulfill within
their departments. In summary, it was the Union's position that
these two (2) individuals provide the same services and meet
identical needs within a similar context. More particularly,
counsel asserted that the purpose of the' two (2) positions are
identical in that both the grievor and Ms. Gagnon must satisfy
the needs of the professional and management staff within their
respective facilities. Counsel noted that the grievor's position
specification sets out four (4) principle categories of job
duties, these being: (i) administrative services; (ii)
specialized reference and research services; (iii) provision of
information and cataloguing and circulation services; and (iv)
audio-visual resource services. He stressed that, when the
specific .tasks under each of these headings were brought to Ms.
Gagnon's attention in cross-examination, she agreed they all form
part of her job. Indeed, counsel asserted that there is not a
single discrete task contained within Schedule 'A' that Ms.
24
Gagnon does not also perform in her work at the K.P.H.
Similarly, he submitted that all of Ms. Gagnon's duties, as
described in her examination-in-chief, fall within the duties
listed in the grievor's position description.
It was the position of the Union that the grievor and Ms.
Gagnon both are involved in assessing the needs of their user
communities. Counsel suggested, however, that these two (2)
employees have simply selected different tools to complete the
task. The grievor, as noted, has utilized an informal approach
whereas Ms. Gagnon has employed more formal methods of analysis
such as the journal and monograph evaluations. Counsel claimed
that given the grievor's experience in the position, in contrast
to Ms. Gagnon's relative lack of experience, it was unnecessary
for her to select a formal toot to assess the needs of her
community. He referred, in this regard, to Ms. Gagnon's
statement in cross-examination that there may be a number of
distinct tools to accomplish this task and that the choice of a
particular tool depends on the specific problem confronting the
librarian. She had further stated that there is nothing wrong in
using an informal tool if that is what the circumstances require.
Counsel claimed that the Employer's case rested solely on the use
of a different tool. 'He submitted that this distinction is
immaterial as both employees are involw~d in the performance of
the identical task. Ultimately, it was the Union's position that
the difference merely reflects the different ways the two (2)
25
employees exercise their judgment in selecting a vehicle to
assess community needs. Counsel asserted that the task remains
the same, even if the tool selected by Ms. Gagnon proved more
effective.
Counsel' submitted that the evidence of Ms, Nezan
corroborates that given by the grievor with respect to job
assignments, extent of responsibility exercised, the level of
decision making, and the degree to which the latter exercises her
judgment.' Further, it was argued that Ms. Nezan's testimony
demonstrates that she relies on the grievor to make significant
decisions with respect to the operation of the Library at the
Q.S.M.H.C.
Lastly, it was submitted that the Task Force Report is
irrelevant to the question before this Board. Counsel repeated
his position that we are required to here determine whether the
grievor performs work substantially similar to someone placed in
a higher classification by the Employer. He suggested that
little weight should be accorded to the Report. Firstly, it was
asserted that the document is not an empirical study by an
independent body. Rather, we were asked to conclude that it is
"slanted" towards the interests of Librarians. Secondly, counsel
submitted that the report does not say that the Library
Technician does something less than the Librarian when performing
the same task. Zndeed, he suggested that the report does not
26
address how the delineated tasks are to be performed by the two
(2) types of library employee~.
The Union relied on the followling awards in support of its
position: Bahl et al., 891/85 (Samuels); Wallace and Jackson,
2?4/84 (Gorsky).
In response, it was the position of the Employer that the
Board must determine whether the grievor performs the distinct
and essential elements of the job of a Librarian. Counsel
asserted that, however described, the test is both onerous and
exacting. It was submitted that we should be extremely cautious
in allowing any interference with the classification system,
particularly in a situation, such as here, where the 9rievor is
seeking "an upgrade" outside of her own class series. Counsel
expressed concern that the Union had selected a relatively new
employee, and not a more experienced Librarian, as its sole
comparator.
It was submitted that the respective class standards
contemplate some overlap in the duties of a Librarian and a
Library Technician. Counsel argued that this overlap encompasses
functions that are not part of the distinctive and essential
elements of a Librarian's job. It was argued that these
functions include the following aspects of both positions; the
responsibility for being "in-charge" of the Library; cataloguin9;
27
inter-library loans; clipping services; preparing lists of
journals; provision of instruction on use of the Library;
monitoring; literature searches; and circulation desk work.
8imply put, it was asserted' that ithis sort of overlap is
contemplated by the class sta~dardsl. Counsel submitted,
therefore, that the grievor's performance of such work does not
support a conclusion she is engaged lin the essential and
distinctive functions of a Librarian.
Counsel argued that a Librarian, such as Ms. Gagnon, must
continually evaluate services, the collection and library systems
to ensure they respond to the changing needs of the user
community. She stressed that this on-going responsibility
requires the Librarian to act in a proactive fashion. Reference
was made to Ms. Gagnon's evidence wherein she stated that the use
and development of formal evaluation tools is essential for this
task.. Ns. Gagnon further testified that the level of evaluation
required of a Librarian cannot De done exclusively Dy informal or
reactive responses. Counsel submitted that the journal and
monograph evaluations undertaken by Ms. Gagnon are illustrative
of the type of tools a Librarian must employ to ensure the
provision of relevant and appropriate services. She suggested
that this is not a case of the grievor using different tools, as
claimed by the Union. Rather~ counsel argued there was no
evidence before the Board that the grievor uses any tools or that
she turns her mind to the selection of formal or informal methods
of, evaluation, From the Employer's pe.-spective, the grievor
merely responds in a reactive sense to problems brought to her
attention.
It was submitted that Ms.. Gagnon, unlike the grievor,
engages in a qualitative assessment wi'~h respect to the
development and maintenance of the collection. Counsel stated
that Ms. Gagnon selects approximately ninety percent (90%) of the
required books premised on her global assessment of user needs.
It was her position that the grievor does not engage in a similar
exercise even in respect of the books which she personally
selects. Reference was made to the grievor's testimony wherein
she advised that she relies on various book and publication lists
as a guide for acquisitions. Counsel noted, again, that projects
such as the journal or monograph study are not "in the grievor's
scheme of things" The Employer's position was that the grievor,
in contrast to Ms. Gagnon, does ~ot see herself as being
accountable for the appropriateness of the collection.
Counsel fur%her submitted that the grievor has only a
minimal understanding of quality assurance. She argued %hat the
grievor's involvement in this area is 'limited to the keeping of
statistics. This was contrasted with the efforts of Ms. Gagnon.
Counsel stated that Hs. Gagnon clearly recognizes that she must
assess how well the Library provides services in support of
patient care, research snd staff educal;ion. It was submitted
29
that this employee has developed various systems to evaluate .the
cOmponents of library services. These efforts were juxtaposed
with those taken by the grievor. We were asked to conclude that
the 9rievor relies solely on user input. Similarly, it was
submitted that the grievor does not. possess a broad understanding
of the full process of preparing and defending a budget. Counsel
stated that this process includes more than simply factoring in
cost increases to the prior year's budget. She noted that Ms.
Gagnon views the budget process as "identifying where the Library
services want to be and acquiring the funds to get there," In
substance, it was the Employer's understanding that Ns, Gagnon
attempts to further the objectives of the Library by way of the
budget.
In summary, it was the position of the Employer that the
grievor does not carry out the distinctive and essential elements
of the Librarian's job, as described above. Counsel emphasized
that the grievor is not involved in the type of evaluative
efforts which are necessary to assure the quality of the various
library systems. She suggested that, unlike Ms.'Gagnon, the
grievor is singularly involved in maintenance of these systems.
Counsel acknowledged that the case now before us does not turn on
the content of the Task Force Report. She suggested that it is,
nevertheless, helpful in that it identifies the distinct
functions of Librarians and Librarian Technicians.
30
The Board was provided with the following awards in support
of the above position: Lynch, 43/77 (Adams); Brick, 564/80
(Samuels); Aikins, 603/81 (Draper) M__aitland, 388/82 (Brunner);
Rea, 289/83 (Verity).
The Board accepts the submissions of the Union that the
proper test to apply in a usage case is whether the grievor is
performing duties substantially similar to the comparison
employee in the higher classification. This standard was
employed in both Bahl et al. and Wallace and Jackson, as
previously cited. The Board in the former award between pages 4
and 5 makes reference to the decision in Beals and Cain, 30/79.
The panel in that instance made the following pertinent comment
on the purpose of the classification system:
" It may be assumed that .among the objectives
of the employer's classification system are the
achievement of uniformity in policy and
consistency in practice throughout the public
service, and equitable treatment of individual
employees. It follows that it is an abuse of the
system and unfair to employees where the positions
of employees who are merform'in~ substantially
similar work are placed in different
classifications. By intervening where that
condition is found to exist ~bhe Board, rather than
frustrating the intent or undermining the
operation of the classification system, is
preserving the legitimacy and the credibility of
that system.
The employer is clearly entitled to create
whatever classifications it deems necessary to the
effective organization and direction of its
employees. But the employer must accept to be
held to the consequences of departures, in
particular cases, from settled policy or practice.
It is not open to the employer, for example, to
fix the duties or to direct the work of incumbents
31
of positid~ placed in one classification so as to
require or permit them, in effect, to perform the
duties of positions placed in another
classification,
It is well established that in position
classification cases, the Board must direct its.
inquiry to the questions, first, whether or not
the work actually performed by the employee is
that set out in an appropriate class standard an__q~d
second, whether or not he is performinq work
~ubstantiatly similar to that being performed by
an employee whose position has been placed in
another classification. In the first instance the
employee's work is'meaSured against class
standards and in the second it is measured against
that of an employee in a position that has been
differently classified. The purpose is to
establish either that the employer is conforming
to its classification standards or that the
employer has, in effect, modified those
standards."
(emphasis ours)
This Board fully adopts the reasoning contained in the above
statement. We are, accordingly, disinclined to accept the more
restrictive test advanced by the Employer.
The awards relied on by the Union also state that reference
may be had to a sole comparator. The. prevailing jurisprudence
suggests a comparison to a single employee in a higher
classification is sufficient unless it can be established that
such employee is wrongly classified. 'The Board in Bahl, after a
review of numerous awards', concluded:
", ............ It is clear from the review of the
jurisprudence we have considered here, and from
the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in
the Lowman case, that there is no requirement that
the Union go beyond showing that one employee in
a higher classification performs the same work as
the grievor.. This is enough to succeed in the
claim for reclassification, unless perhaps it can
32
be shown that the comparison employee is wrongly
classified." (page 11)
The Employer in this case did not allege that Ms. Gagnon was
improperly classified at the material time. We conclude,
therefore, that the Union is entitled I;o restrict its comparison
to Ns. Gagnon, even though she was a recent hire. The fact of
her being a relatively new employee is not, in our judgment,
determinative with respect to the issue before us. The length of
her tenure, and the breadth of her experience, is simply part of
the larger question, this being whether' she and Ms. Georges
perform work which is substantially similar in nature.
The Employer, as noted; indicated that the class standards
for the Librarian and Library Technician Class Series contemplate
some overlap in the duties performed. The following comment is
found on page 3 of the series:
"Due to the nature of Libraries in the Provincial
Government service, employees in the Library Technician
series may perform some duties typical of the Librarian
series, and vice-versa. Also employees in positions
allocated to lower levels in either series may perform
some duties typical of positions a,t a higher level, but
these are not, in themselves cause, for a change of
allocation to the higher level."
The Board accepts that there may be a degree of overlap between
the work of a Librarian and that of a Library Technician. The
excerpt from the class standards refers to "some" over]ap, After
considering the respective submissions, we are satisfied that
there must be some limit to the extent of overlap. It is
33
unnecessary for us here to define exactly what that limit should
be. The Board concludes, however, that overlap cannot defeat a
usage based claim if it renders the jobs substantially similar.
To hold otherwise, would serve to undermine the very foundation'
of the usage test as recognized by this Board, In the final
analysis, despite the existence of an area of permissible
overlap, the Board must still determine if the work performed by
the two (2) employees is substantially similar. If the answer to
this question is in the affirmative, it does not then matter that
the class standards contemplate certain tasks as being common to
the two (2) classifications.
As stated earlier in this award, Ms. Gagnon acknowledged in
cross-examination that she performs virtually all of.the duties
listed in the grievor's, position specification. More
particularly, she agreed that she engages in the following tasks;
conduct of literature and computer searches; the preparation and
processing of requisitions to purchase books, journals and
subscriptions; responding to reference questions; preparation of
bibliographies on specialized subjects; classification,
cataloguing and processing.of new acquisitions; preparing library
catalogue cards, charge out cards and book pockets for new books;
maintenance of card catalogue and a verticle file; monitoring of
the physical condition of the collection and arranging for
necessary repair or replacement; discarding or relocation of
outdated materials; maintenance of statistics relating to
34
inventory and completion of annual inventory; conduct of library
tours and orientations for visitors and new staff; instruction to
patrons on use of library resources; provision of a clipping
service; dissemination of information on new acquisitions;
forwarding of overdue notices; communication with other libraries
with respect to inter-library loans; maintenance of loan records;
photocopying in cases where others are unavailable to complete
the task ;processing of requisitions to purchase audio-visual
material; monitoring of spending on audio-visual 'items;
cataloguing and indexing of audio and video tapes; arranging for
inter-library loans for audio-visual material and maintenance of
related records; and maintenance of circulation system for audio-
visual material. On the evidence before us, the Board is simply
unable to find that a qualitative difference exists in the way
the grievor and Ms. Gagnon perform these duties.
The Board is similarly unable to isolate any material
difference between the two (2) employees with respect to their
work in policy development and budget preparation. It is clear
that both the grievor and Ms. Gagnon are responsible for the
development and subsequent implementation of library policy, as
needed. The grievor testified that her efforts in this area
related generally to "technical guidelines". We have not been
persuaded that the type of policy development undertaken by Ms.
Gagnon is of a more complex or sophisticated nature. Further, we
have been left with the impression that neither employee is
35
autonomous in matters of policy. The'grievor's initiatives
require the approval of the CoordinatOr and the Centre's
administration. Ms.'Gagnon'$ efforts in this area are reviewed
Dy the Library Advisory Committee. We reach an identical
conclusion with respect to their role .in preparing and defending
a budget. The evidence discloses that both the grievor and Ms.
Gagnon are primarily responsible for this task. Ultimately, both
employees must isolate the needs of their libraries, establish
priorities between these needs, quantify the cost of meeting
same, and, then, justify the level of their requests to the
Coordinator and others within the institution. We cannot find in
the evidence any support for the assertion that Ms. Gagnon's work
on bhe budget is somehow conducted at a higher level.
It is apparent from the evidence that the grievor and Ms.
6agnon are involved in the acquisition and culling process. The
objective in both cases is to satisfy the needs of their
respective user communities. There are, however, certain
differences in the way they exercise this responsibility. The
evidence suggests that at the Q.S.M.H,C., the Library Committee
and departmental representatives have greater input in the
decision making process. The role of the comparables at the
K.P.H. is more indirect. For example, Ms. Gagnon testified that
she reviews the minutes of the Library Advisory Committee. This
information is then factored into her acquisition decisions. As
a consequence of this greater involvement of the Committee and
36
the departments at the Q.S.N.H.C., the grievor does not acquire
resources on her own initiative to the same extent as Ms. Gagnon,
The difference in percentages of such acquisitions has been
'referred to earlier in this award. Simply put, there is no doubt
that the actual users of the Library at the Q.S.M.H.C. play a
larger role in acquisition and culling decisions. In contrast,
Ms. Gagmon is the primary decision maker at the K.P.H.
Nevertheless, it is clear that in varying degreeS, both the
grievor and Ms. Gagnon exercise their independent judgment in
acquiring materials needed to fill perceived gaps in the
holdings. When they engage in this function they both rely, to a
greater or lesser extent, on the same sources of information
including user opinion, specific requests, and publishers'
literature.
The more problematic issue arises with respect to the area
of quality assurance, The Board is satisfied from the evidence
presented that both employees are involved in this function. It
is clear, however, that quality assurance methods have not been
developed to the same extent at the Q,S.M.H.C, We think this is
reflected by the fact that, to date, the grievor has not utilized
the type of formal evaluative techniques which have been employed
by Ms. Gagnon. Without doubt, there are significant differences
in the methods utilized by the grievor and Ms. Gagnon in their
efforts to improve the quality of service. It is, nevertheless,
apparent that their objectives are much the same; that is , both
37
employees strive to isolate aspects of library services ~hich
need to be implemented or changed in Order to more effectively
satisfy the needs of their user communities, Having assessed the
evidence, we are inclined to accept the Union's submission that,
while their respective objectives are=similar, the employees have
resorted to dissimilar vehicles to achieve their ends.
Additionally, the Board finds that the methods utilized by the
grievor were designed to make quantitative, rather than
qualitative, assessments of library services. This variance in
approach, in our judgment, constitutes the most significant
difference in the work performed by the grievor and Ns. Gagnon.
The Board accepts that the two (2) Libraries here in
question are designed to provide similar .services to their users.
While no% determinative of the ultimate issue before us, it is
also clear that the facilities are roughly equivalent in terms of
their size and the nature of their holdings. Further, the
structure of the respective departments is markedly similar.
Lastly, we agree that both the grievor and Ms. Gagnon work under
the same level of supervision. These factors suggest to the
Board that these two (2) employees undertake their duties and'
responsibilities in a similar context and with an identical
purpose.
In this award, we have documented the many areas of
similarity in the work performed by the grievor and Ms. Gagnon.
38
After considering all of the evidence, the Board is unable to
find that the differences referred to above relating to.
'collection development and evaluation support a conclusion that
the work'of the two (2) employees is substantially dissimilar.
To the contrary, we have been persuaded that their work is
substantially similar. Zt, therefore, follows that the Union's
claim, premised on the usage test, must succeed.
In reaching our conclusion, the Board has considered~the
evidence presented by Ms. Brennan relating to the Task Force
Report. While her credentials are impressive, we have elected to
give greater weight to the evidence of the duties actually
performed by the grievor and Ms. Gagnon. We also do not intend
to minimize or downgrade the work performed by Ms. Gagnon at the
K.P.H. To the contrary, this Board was extremely impressed by
the .knowledge, competence and professionalism exhibited by both
employees during the course of their evidence. Finally, it
should be clear that the result in this case i8 not based on the
content of the class standards. Rather, the Board has compared
the'duties of the employees and has found them to be
substantially simtlar. This,. pursuant to the jurisprudence of
the Grievance Settlement Board, supports the reclassification
sought. Given that our decision is founded on the dist4nct facts
of this case, our ultimate conclusion is necessarily limited to
the work performed by Ms. Georges and Ms. Gagnon.
39
For all of the above reasons, the grievance is allowed. The
Board retains jurisdiction in tine event ,~ifficu]ties arise in the
implementation of this award.
Dated at Toronto ,Ontario this .Otb day of February ,1993.
M~V. Watters, Vice-Chairperson~
4O
- - Position ~:~clflcatton & ~ ~,~ 61~
{ L~ar~ [ 05-9770-20
~g~t s~f.
pl~ for ~e
~ 1.2 ~lop~ ~/or ~vis~, ~1~ ~ ~r~
~rat~ s~stics ~ ~r~ ~age, ~s~le a~isi~on of ~ks ~ jowls,
de~t ~.
p~ ·
.... ~nt ~u~ ·
~=~ ~ici~ 4 ] 07946
re~ch s~i~s ~ s~j~ s~ialties d~ly re!at~ ~ ~e ~ofessio~l ~rk
of ~e Brach.
G S~s ~id~le ~ ~ ref~ ~ res~ch activities.
c. ~e~es compreh~ive re~r~ ~d bibli~raphies, fr~ a wide v~iety of so~ces.
'$~lr',~tur* 01' yJtho~ize<~vlt,Jltor D~Im Ty~ ev~l~tot'l ~'~
~. ............ / I * I 'to Jo~~
Librarian - Job Suecif~cat__~
SKILLS'AND KNOWLEDGE (cont'd):
research and reference requests; ability to develop and maintain
effective working relationships with users, professional staff and
departmental officials; good communication skills; knowledge of
medical and psychiatric terminology; familiarity in the area of
mental health, and th~ functions of'a psychiatric facility an
asset; typing skills b~t not to C.S.C. ~tandards; initiative and
resourcefulness. :
SUM)~ARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (cont'd):
1.$ preparing, typing and processing requisitions to purchase
books, journals and subscription renewals; following up
with outstanding orders by correspondence, telephone and
maintaining record of expenditures.
1.9 developing, implementing computer program for library
functions.
2.0 Provides specialized reference and research services to
clients by:
15%
2.1 carrying ou~ literature searches, arranging for computer
searches on such subjects, as example, the relationship
between head injuries and the development of schizophrenia,
AIDS or MIV incidence in chronic mentally ill, mental
illness and family burden, uses of ECT, ethics committees
and their functions in a hospital (psychi~.tric), use of
valproic acid in geriatric populatio~, urinary inoontinence
in chronic psychiatric patients, aggression and the
elderly, self mutilation and assault, etc.
2.2 rep;onding to reference questions fo]: statistical and other
lacuna! data by researching in-hous~e sources, contacting
other libraries and agencies' e.g. provide a list of
treatment centres for alcoholics i~ Toronto, numbers of
psychiatric beds in various Canadian cities, biographical
information on medical/psychiatric people, publication
information o~ books and journals, drugs/medication
historical information on QSMHC/Canadian psychiatry, etc.
2.3 preparing bibliographies and requested on specialized
subjects such as schizophrenia, psychosomatic illnesses,
mental health etc. using /n-house sources and resources
from other libraries, agencies, etc.
3.0 Provides information to patrons and cataloguing and
circulation services by:
catal~9%li~g new books and journals by classifying the
material according to subject and author utilizing the
Library of Congress Classification.
preparing library catalogue cards, charge-out cards, book
pockets for new books.
3.3 labelling, stamping and filing books and journals.
3.4 establishing and maintaining card catalogue.
3.5 establishing and maintaining a kardex system for recording
periodical acquisitions and holdings.
3.6 ordering and distributing book "tools" e.g. dictionary,
COMSOC direction for Centre-wide usage.
3.7 maintaining a vertical file of pamphlets, photocopies etc.
by sub~ec%.
40%
3.8 checking condition of collection and repairing or arranging
for repair or binding.
3.9 discarding or relocating out-dated publications to storage.
3.10 taking annual inventory of all library materials.
3.11 conducting library tours and orientation tO new staff and
visitors.
3.12 assisting library patrons to locate material using subject
knowledge, knowledge of library and bibliographic
procedures and rules.
3.13 s~anning daily newspapers and clipping pertinent articles
regarding the Centre for Administrator's information.
3.I4 disseminating information to the Centre by listing
awareness publications, preparing bulletins and
announcements, compiling current awareness lists of books
and periodicals of special interest to staff, producing
acquisitions lists, compiling an annual journals list and
preparing and sending our overdue notices.
3.15 establishing and maintaining contact with other psychiatric
facilities, Clarke Institute of Psydhiatry, University of
Toronto, general hospitals, government libraries to
facilitate interlibrary loans, and exchange materials and
information.
3.16 circulating library materials, maintaining loan records and
ensuring materials are returned by preparing and sending
out overdue notices.
3.17 photocopying and distributing journal tables of contents.
4.0 Provides an audio-visual resource service by:
4.1 preparing, typing and processing requisitions to purchase
audio-visual resource material, following-up with
outstanding or~ers and maintaining record of expenditures.
10%
4.2 cataloguing, indexing tapes,
4.3 establishing and maintaining an audiovisual catalogue.
4.4 labelling and filing the tapes.
4.5 ensuring adequate storage and f~ecurity methods are
followed.
4.6 arranging for interlibrary loans by contacting
of Toronto by telephone or correspondence, arranging for
delivery and returning to lender.
4.7 maintaining an adequate circulation system by ensuring
tapes are signed out, and lender is entitled to view,
maintaining loan records and ensuring tapes are returned.
5.0 Performs other related duties by:
5.1 monitoring usage of photocopier and collecting fees when
5% required.
5.2 as assigned.
flEV~SEQ
~osp~tal Mbravi~ ; 'LtbrarJa, 2 ~ '07932
Health ~ental H~alth
Xental Health ~e~ations. ~.P.~. Box 603~
e~t[nu[n8 edu~t~o~ oF a~Z h~p~ta[
~i~s~fessi~aZ L~ra~ ee~l~e au~ ~:
policies, p~a~s, ~les ~d
= a~/nisteuing these ~llcies, pl~{ w~ki~d ~d .t~liahing ~Jovtti~
in p~fessl~al
- disc~ding o~ mlocatin{ to st~a~ out,ted
- ~sp~din2 to ~ader$' ~quests F~ inf~ti~ (by teleph~e, lette~,
- ~vttytng b~l/o~hic tes~ipti~s of p~licationa;
= c~piling s~eet, b~li~phles (~adlng lists) as ~qui~d;
- m~in8 t~f~ti~ ~ail~ls to staff ~ avail~le metrics ~ ne, lib~ a~ditie{, e:c,;
-- ~alninE ~d su~ioln8 assayed help ~d vol~teevs;
- keepin~ atatiati~ a~ ~aw
- ~aintaiutni liats~ wt~ c~l~ lfbr~les ~d libu~lana;
- ~ai~i~8 it~ ~ c~ind ll~era~ se~es;
- ~tntat~inZ of pam~lets~ clippt~, et~. in Veetlcal Inf~atlon rile;
~ SKILLS AND ~NDWI EDGE flEOUIHED TO PFRFORM TI4E WORK ~T[ c~Ir,o~, ~H*~aG, Exa~alE~CC
)~lioF~hic app~at~ - inae~, ~c~ies, ~o~, etc. ~lli~ to a~apt this
L. ~ve . {R.~. ~oon, Hospital idmlnfet~to~
A55 Ai I CR:A3 ION
L~b~a~l,~ ~ } __ ~n3~ ......... { :.s2:0s:',. ..:... :~-:o~t~ ~t:i~_
Performs professional librarian duties under the direction of the Director of Clinical
Records, who is respons%~e for the ~sp~tal ~fb~ry.
Responsib]e for classifying and cataloging u variety of difficult
fnfo~tfon files.
~es not have staff dlrect]y supervised bu~ has ]im{:ed superv{sory responsfbl]{ty for
te~o~ar~ly assigned help and volunteers.
__ .............
~5% - ci~latin~ ~, ~our~a~, audiovisual ~aterials. e~c.; ~
- ma~ntaJp]n~ lo~ ~co~s, sendJn~ o~rdue not~cem and col3ectlng' ~lnes ~hen' nece~.~
- arranging f~ photOeopAee o~ articles aa requested~
- a~e~Le~u~ ~he ~-shelvinp, of ret:~ned lib~ b'ooks ~d library ~ater[a~,
3. ?erfo_rms othe~ re~_a, ted dut:[ea as
07~32
$,' As~elsttne', '
HAVE RCAD AND' UNDI~RSTAND TIII$ SPECIFICATION: