Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1643.Traviss.91-05-08 ONTARI(~ EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 780 OUNDA$ STREET WEST, SUITE 2'I00, TORONTO, ONTARF.~). MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONE/TEL~-PHONE: -(416~, 226- 1385 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO.h MSG 1,78 FACSIMILE/T~LI_ECOPlE : (416) .326-1336 1643/90 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE' CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTI~q~ BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEV;tNCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPS'EU (Traviss) Grievor - and - The Crown-in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community & Social Service) Employer BEFORE: W. Kaplan Vice-Chairperson D. Wintermute Member D. Halpert Member FOR THE R. Wells GRIEVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE C. Samaras EMPLOYER Counsel Legal Services Branch Ministry of Community & Social Services HEARIN~ February 1, 1991 April 5, 1991 2 Introduction By a grievance dated July 5, 1990, Marilyn M. Traviss, a Duty Nurse employed at the Prince Edward Facility ("the Facility") grieves that she has been improperly classified. Ms. Traviss is currently classified as a Nurse 2. In pleadings exchanged by the parties a number of grounds were advanced by the Union in support of this grievance. When the case proceeded to arbitration the Board was advised that the Union was relying solely on a class standards argument: namely that the grievor was improperly classified because her duties and responsibilities did not fall within .the Nurse 2 classification. Thi~ Classification is reproduced belows. The central issue in dispute is whether or not the grievor works, as required by this classification, "under direction of a supervising nurse, physician or other institutional officer," and if not, whether it can still be said that the Nurse 2 class standard ap~ties. By way of relief, the Union sought a Berry Order. For its part, the Employer argued that the grievor is appropriately classified and that the Nurse 2 class standard accurately reflects the grievor's position specification as well as her daily duties and responsibilities. The Evidence Most of the evidence was not in dispute. The grievor is a Duty Nurse employed by the Facility since June 1982. Prince Edward Heights is an institution for developmentally handicapped adults, 3 with a population of approximately two hundred. The grievor works rotating shifts from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and from 7:00 p.m.-.to 7:00 a.m. The grievor's supervisor, who is also a nurse, works Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The grievor works in an area known as Craig 1. Craig 1 contains offices and two Wings of clients on the ground floor. The infirmary is one of these Wings and is home to patients requiring full-time care, that is to say developmentally handicapped individuals who are also suffering from various physical disabilities. Of the twenty-four beds in the infirmary, twenty- one are designated for these individuals. The other three are for individuals from the general population requiring nursing'care. The other wing is known as Area D, and it has thirty beds. Most of the residents of the Facility live in an area called the village. The village contains a number of houses. The Facility also services the general community, but only in unusual circumstances would' individuals from the general community receive health care from the infirmary. In addition to the ~grievor, some Health Nurses 3 also provide nursing services, and they have responsibility in the infirmary, Area D and the village. These Health Nurses work Monday to Friday between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. On the night shift and on week- ends there is generally only one nurse on duty, and this nurse is a Nurse 2. After 4:15 p.m. and u'ntil 8:30 p.m. during the week 4 the Facility is managed by a Facility Charge. This is a rotating position occupied by members of management approximately once every ten weeks. After 8:30 p.m. during the Week until 8:30 a.m~ and on week-ends, there are permanent Facility Charges on duty. There are three permanent Facility Charges and:they rotate the position. None of these three is a nurse. With respect to the 4:15 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. shift, it is only occupied by a nurse when the grievor's supervisor, Judy Callaghan, is occupying the position. In the six months prior to the hearing of this matter. Ms. Callaghan occupied the position twice. Other than these two occasions, no nurse acted as the Facility Charge between 4:15 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. The grievor's schedule is largely fixed, and a copy of her schedule was introduced into evidence. Suffice it to say that because of the different shifts, for approximately two-thirds of her time on the job the grievor works~in the absence of any supervisor. During the daytime part of her shifts, the grievor carries out active nursing functions. Most patients go to bed around 9:00 p.m., and after this point nursing functions continue, although they are less active. If anyone anywhere in the Facility requires medical attention after approximately 4:00 p.m. the grievor is responsible for providing that attention, and for making medical decisions. The Facility Charge would, for example., be responsible for arranging the transportation of a medical emergency to the local hospital. The grievor is responsible for making entries into the shift to shift report, the Infirmary Serv~.ces Communication Book and the Physician's Report. The shift to shift report records any unusual ihcidents, the Infirmary Services Communications Book records medical services performed in Area D or in the village, while the Physician's Report contains any comments or questions which the Duty Nurse would like to bring to the attention of a patient's physician. Ms. Callaghan gave evidence on behalf of the employer. Ms. Callaghan testified that she read the various reports cgmpleted by the grievor. Following this review, Ms. Callaghan would, if necessary, contact the Duty Nurse in order to follow up. There may also be occasion for follow-up between the Duty Nurse and Health Service Nurses, but this is not material to the instant case in that the Health Service Nurses do not exercise supervisory functions over the grievor. Ms. Callaghan testified that the Facility Charge must be kept. informed of any actions taken by the Duty Nurse, and is responsible, moreover, for ensuring that the clients in the Facility are receiving appropriate care. Ms. Callaghan advised the Board that the .Facility Charge spends most of his or her time travelling around the Facility. His or her office is in the village approximately two' kilometres from the infirmary, but he or she can be paged as necessary. In general, the Facility Charge would visit · the infirmary twice between 4:00 and 8:00 p.m. and three or four times between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., although he or she could and 6 would visit the infirmary more often if this were required. One reason why more frequents visits might be required would be if 'staff in the infirmary were having difficulties with a patient. Ms. Callaghan testified that this waslrare. The Facility Charge might also, as previously noted, be needed to call an ambulance, and might also take a more direct interest in someone's work if, for example, there had been a request from that person's supervisor for information about performance. This has not taken place in the instant case. Ms. Callaghan expressed a very high regard for the grievor's job performance. Ms. Callaghan advised the Board that her j.~b is to ensure that the clients of the Facility are receiving~effective nursing care and to intervene as necessary. When Ms. Callaghan is on duty she is aware of the procedures being carried out and serves as a resource. Bedside and personal care of the patients .is done by staff such. as the grievor. Ms. Callaghan testified that between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. the Duty Nurse gives out medicine and prepares the patients for bed. After the patients have gone to sleep the Duty Nurse continues to care for them, turning patients, cleaning them, dealing with toilet accidents, changing bed linen and so on. The Duty Nurse also clean patients' personal clothing using an on-site washer and dryer. In cross-examination, Ms. Callaghan testified that there have been 7 examples of a nurse taking some direction from the Facility Charge. Ms. Callaghan did not describe these examples to the Board, but she advised that such occasions were extremely rare, "probably one percent." Ms. Callaghan further advised the Board that the grievor has never called her for assistance or direction. In Ms. Callaghan's words the grievor "was an excellent nurse." In this regard, Ms. Catlaghan noted the existence of a Policy and Procedures Manual, but told the Board that these policies and procedures did not eliminate the DutY Nurse's responsibility to exercise professional judgement. Finally, Ms. Callaghan indicated that all staff at the Facility are required to have first aid training, but that i~ there were an emergency in the village at night, the Duty Nurse would come to the scene and take charge. Argument It is useful to set out the Class Definition for the Nurse 2, General. It is as follows: Employees'in positions allocated to this Class perform a variety of professional nursing duties for patients in Ontario Hospitals and in infirmaries of provincial' schools and institutions. Their duty hours are usually rotated between any of three shifts. Under direction of a supervising nurse, physician or other institutional officer, they record and carry out physicians' instructions on treatments and transfers, administer medicines and hypodermic injections as authorized, obtain patients' confidence and encourage their interest in activities, watch for patients' symptoms or reactions and take remedial action as required, assist in or supervise patient feeding and ward housekeeping, assist patients with their personal needs and care, record patients' conditions and report unusual incidents to superiors. They may accompany patients to special treatments or on transfers as required and provide information and counsel to patients' relatives as authorized. In addition, these employees may also make arrangements for preparation, sterilization and issuing of surgical and operating room supplies,, ensUre aseptic conditions of operating rooms, assist in surgical procedures and provide pre or post-operative nursinq care of patients. In some positions, where these employees may be on twenty-four hour call as required, principal duties of employees in this class may be provision of first aid, clinical and infirmary care under,direction of a full or part-time physician, i Employees in this class may assist in or supervise the assignment of duties and check the work of subordinate staff on the same shift. Depending on factors such as the hours of duty, the size and amount of active nursing required in the administrative unit, they are responsible to a supervising nurse for all or part of the nursing and personal care in an administrative unit as assigned. They may, on occasion, relieve supervising nurses. Qualifications: 0 1. Registration as a nurse in Ontario; preferably completion of post-graduate certificate courses from a university of recognized standing. 2. Ability to obtain cooperation of staff and patients; ability to follow and to pass on verbal instructions on patient care; good physical and mental health (emphasis ours). This class standard is dated December 1962. Union Argument Counsel argued that the only issue in dispute was the question of supervision. Counsel pointed out that the grievor works rotating shifts of twelve hours, and that for a significant part of her work week, two-thirds in fact, the grievor is the only nurse on duty. With the exception of those rare occasions when the grievor"s supervisor.aCts as a Facility Charge between the hours of 4:15 p.m. and 8:30 p.m., none of the other Facility Charges is a nurse, although they all have first aid training. While the grievor is situated in the infirmary, she is responsible for all two hundred residents of the Facility. She works alone, and if called to a medical emergency in the village she would take charge. Counsel agreed that the grievor was not without guidance in the sense that there was a Policy and Procedures Manual. However, that was not critical; what was important was the requirement that in assuming medical responsibility for the entire Facility the grievor was not working under supervision, but was working on her own and in that process was. exercising considerable prQfessional judgement and discretion. Counsel drew the Board's attention to the' Nurse 2 Class Standard and argued that it required a nurse so classified to work u~der direction and supervision. In counsel's submission, the standard should be read so as to require a Nurse 2 to work "under direction of a supervising nurse, supervisin~ physician or su~ervisinq institutional officer .... " Simply put, counsel argued that the word "supervising" applied not just to the function to be carried out by the "nurse," but also to the function to be carried out by the "physician" and by the "institutional officer," and that it only made sense to read the sentence in this way. There was, counsel submitted, absolutely no evidence in this case of any supervision at all for two-thirds of the time. The Nurse 2 class 10 standard, accordingly, did not fit. To further bolster this argument, counsel pointed out that the third paragraph of this class standard required Nurse 2's to be '!responsible to a supervising nurse for all or part of the nursing and personal care in an administrative unit as assigned." There was, in counsel's view, absolutely no evidence of any~ such responsibility for a significant proportion of the grievor'~s working hours. Counsel also argued that the requirement that nurses classified as Nurse 2 actually work under direction and supervision is highlighted by the requirements of the Nurse 3 classification. The Class Definition for the Nurse 3, General is as follows: Employees in positions allocated to this class provide ° professional supervision of the nursing and personal care of a group of patients in an infirmary, ward or administrative unit of an Ontario Hospital or other provincial institution. Most positions in this class are found on the day shift. In such positions~ these employees schedule duties, arrange the rotation of shifts and counsel and discipline staff as required. Although employees in this class receive direction from supervisory nursing, medical or institutional staff, they are required to exercise some independent judgement and initiative, particularly in emergenc~Les. They oversee treatment procedures, review charts, prepare reports, maintain records, ensure general maintenance and cleanliness of ward facilities, order supplies, supervise the provision of food services to patients and assist in staff training programs. They may conduct clinics or provide outpatient orthopaedic or emergency care. Qualifications 1. Registration as a nurse in Ontario; good knowledge of professional theory and practice as applied to institutional nursing~ preferably completion of a post- graduate certificate in nursing administration. 2. Minimum of two years of acceptable graduate nursing experience, preferably related to the duties to be performed. 3. Ability to supervise ward or infirmary services; ability to meet the public and to provide counsel to staff and to patients' relatives as required; initiative; good physical and mental health. Counsel submitted that this class standard generally described nurses who were providing professional supervision, whereas the standard for Nurse 2 generally described nurses who were receiving it. The grievor, counsel submitted, was in between and this was another reason why the Board should grant a Berry order. In counsel's view, the Nurse 3 standard explicitly recognized that exercising independent judgement is a compensable factor, while'the Nurse 2 class standard did not. Since the grievor was required to exercise such judgement s~e should, th~ argument went, be classified with this important fact kept in mind. Counsel argued that the core function of.the job was nursing and at the heart of the Nurse 2 classification was the requirement that' this nursing be done under direction and supervision. In counsel's submission, the grievor'spent her time acting as a nurse, but doing so completely independently. The grievor made professional judgements as required and had responsibility for a two-hundred- person facility and this, counsel argued, brought her out of the Nurse 2 class standard. Counsel referred the Board to the decision of Andrews et al 188/89 (Samuels). This is a classification case involving nurses working at outpatient clinics of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre in Toronto. In this case the Board found that one of the grievors was not properly classified. In making this determination the Board observed that the grievor "receives virtually no direction from her head nurse .... "(at 5). The Board also found, on the particular facts of that case, that the g~ievor "exercises a much greater degree of independent judgement and responsibility than is contemplated .... "(at 6). In counsel's view, by working alone for such a significant period of time,: and as a result of the responsibility the grievor had for after-hours medical care at the Facility, the grievor too could be said to be exercising a much greater degree of independent judgement and responsibility than is contemplated. Employer Argument Counsel for the employer began his submissions by referring the panel to the Board's decision in Avsec 1.589/89 (Low). In this' case, the Board held that to obtain a Berry order "the Grievor must satisfy this Board that there is a substantial difference between the duties performed and those referred to in the classification standard...It is sufficient that there be a substantial variation either in the nature of the duties or in the scope of the duties that the employee is required to perform" (at 6). In counsel's submission there was no difference between the duties referred to in the class standard and those performed by the grievor, let alone any substantial difference. Accordingly, on this basis alone 13 counsel urged the Board to deny the grievance. Counsel for the employer also led the Board through a very careful examination of the Nurse 1, Nurse 2, and Nurse 3 class standards. His detailed argument can, however, be summarized, and it was to the effect that the three class standards, read together, encompassed all nursing activities. In counsel's view, the Nurse 2 classification should be read to the effect that Nurse 2's worked under direction of a supervising nurse, physician or other institutional officer, but that this nurse, physician or institutionai officer need not give constant supervision. Indeed, 'in counsel's view, there was no need for this individual to be medically trained, and counsel submitted that the institutional officer in the instant case was the Facility Charge. Counsel submitted that the grievor did work under the direction of the Facility Charge who visited the infirmary some six times a .night, and who could be reached at any time should his or her services be. required.. counsel also argued that the grievor could be said to be under direction and supervision in the sense that the grievor's supervisor 'was present during the day and the direction and supervision given at that time would have a spill-over effect in the evenings and at night. .Moreover, the supervisor's telephone number was posted, and any time the grievor required further direction and supervision she could telephone the supervisor in 14 order to obtain it. In addition, by reviewing the grievor's shift to shift reports Ms. Callaghan could also be said to be supervising her and giving her direction as she would follow up on any matter of concern. In counsel's submission it was not necessary, in order to meet the requirements of the class s~Zandard, for the person giving direction and supervision to be Physically present. The word "supervision" should, in counsel's view, be read so as to describe the person, i.e., the grievor's supervising nurse, not the function of supervision by a nurse, physician or other institutional officer. Counsel referred the Board to Nichols 778/89 (Knoph) and Gervais 392/89 (Dissanayake), Lwhich dealt with th~ interpretation of the Nurse 2 classification. Counsel also cited the Andrews et_al decision referred to by the Union. Counsel pointed out that the Board found in that case that: "one would expect that a qualified registered nurse would always be exercising a measure of' 'independent judgment and initiative in carrying out nursing duties" and that it was not by inference necessary for this expectation to be reflected in the Nurse 2 class standard. In counsel's view, this is exactly what was happening in. the instant case, and as a result, a Berry order was not warranted. Decision We read the words "under direction of a supervising nurse, physician or other institutional officer .... "as "under direction 15 of a supervising nurse, supervising physician or other supervising. institutional officer .... " In our view, supervision is essential to the class standard, and our reading of the Nurse 1 and Nurse 3 class standards emphasizes the point. Nurse l's receive "professional supervision"; Nurse 2's work under direction of a supervising .... " and Nurse 3's do significant supervising themselves, (but are still under some supervision). One salient sentence of the Nurse 3 classification, which we will discuss below, reads: "Although employees in this class receive direction from supervising nursing, medical or institutional staff, they are required to exercise some independent judgement and initiative, particularly in emergencies." In the instant case, the grievor receives no supervision for two- thirds of her time on the job, and has, moreover, medical responsibility for the entire Facility. We are also of the view that the "institutional officer" referred to in'the Nurse 2 class' standard cannot be the Facility Charge, because if the paragraph is read to its conclusion it is clear that the supervising nurse, physician or institutional officer will be supervising medical procedures, and while an institutional officer may, for instance, have general or indeed executive supervision of a hospital, it is hard for us to see how an individual who was not medically trained could in a relationship, such as that suggested by the Nurse 2 classification, "supervise" the administration of medicines and hypoder~ic needles to give two examples from the list of nursing t6 activities described in the class standard. We are in general agreement with the test to be applied as set out in the Avsec case, and in our view this test has been met. The presence of direction and supervision is critical to the Nurse 2 classification, and the agreed facts are to the effect that the grievor works approximately two-thirds of her time without either. In this regard, we find that the daily review by Ms. Callaghan of the grievor's shift to shift reports and such other reports as she might make does not constitute supervis~ion as set out in the standard. In our view, supervision requires the presence of the supervisor, or in this case, a physician or appropriate · institutional officer. Obviously a nursi'ng professional such as the grievor does not require immediate and constant supervision. The grievor is a highly trained individual able to work largely on her own. In a case of this kind supervision need not be direct, but it must, however, be readily available, and this requires the presence of a supervisor as is the case during the daytime when the grievor's supervisor is present. If there is no supervisor present the grievor cannot be said to be working under supervision. In the Andrews et al decision the Board found that the exercise of judgement is part of nursing whether it is written in the class standard or not. We are in complete agreement with this finding. What is relevant in the instant case, howew~r, is that the exercise of this judgement is mentioned in the Nurse 3 classification but 17 not in the Nurse 2. The Nurse 3 classification is a higher classification with higher compensation. The exercise of this judgement is considered a compensable factor. In the instant case, the grievor exercises judgement, but~ in our view she exercises much more judgement then can be simply inferred from any professional classification. She is working alone for a large part of her working hours. She is responsible for the infirmary and for any medical emergencies in the entire Facility. This working alone and this responsibility takes her out of the Nurse 2 classification. Her duties and responsibilities do not, however, fit within the Nurse 3 class standard, and that is why a Berry order is the appropriate.remedy in this case. As in Andrews et al; 'we find on the facts that the grievor is exercising a much higher'degree of independent judgement and initiative than is generally the case in the performance of nursing ' duties as set out in the Nurse 2 class standard. While the tasks~ that the grievor performs during the evening and night shifts may not be that much different from those performed during the day, there are two critical differences. The first is the presence of direction and supervision during the day, and'its absence in the evenings and at night. Had the grievor worked without direction or supervision for only a small percentage of her time on the job our finding in this case would likely have been different. And the second is the responsibility the grievor has for the medical~' needs of the Facility when she is the only medically trained person on site. These factors, combined with our finding that th,.: presence of direction from a supervising nurse etc. is integral t~ the class standard leads us to the ,con(:lusion that the grievanc~·. .:, must be upheld. Ve~ simply, the .req%~irement for direction and su9e~ision is e~sential, and its absence combined with the responsibility o~ the grievor ' ~ position justifies ~. reclassification order. In the result., the Employer is ordered ~eclassify the grievor. The usual twenty-day rule applies with respect to retroactivity and payment of interest. We retain Jurisdiction over the implementation of this award. Dated at Ottawa this 8th day of May 1991. ""// William' Eaplan Vice-chairperson D. Win~ermute Member I dissent. Dissent Attached. D. Halpert Member Ministry of Community and Social Services, Board File ~1643/90 ADDENDUM I have read the Dissent in this matter, and feel compelled to offer the 'following comments. Given the Class Definitions for the nursing staff at this facility, it is the Board's task to determine, on the evidence before ~t, whether the grievor was improperly classified. The nature and the degree of supervision received by the nursing staff is, in my view, an integral part of the three classifications. The undisputed fact is that the grievor works without any supervision for approximately two-thirds of her time on the job. She works alone, -independently, and exercises considerable professional judgement during that time° while a facility charge is available, there was absolutely no evidence tn show that this person supervises the grievor in any way. In fact, the Board was told that even when the nursing supervisor~ Ms. callaghan, acts as facility charge she does not engage in any nursing care or nursing supervisfon. The evidence was that i~ an emergency sit%~ation, the grievor would take charge and make independent decisions. In fact, Ms. Callaghan herself testified, on behalf of the employ~r,'that the facility charge does not mak~ all of the decisions concerning the facility; she stated that that person should be informed of' any decisions made .by .staff. members. Finally, and most importantly, it ~as Ms. Callaghan~s evidence that very rarely, perhaps 1% of the time, would a fac~!~ty charge di~.'uct or supervise nursing functions. In her words, a facility charge was available for "support" By way of example, ~he Board was told that .in an emergency hSalth care s'ituation, the facility charge might call an ambulance, or ensure that the ambulance arrived at the proper location. The Duty Nurse is expected to attend and take'charge of any health care situati'ons that arise at the ~aci. lity. Furthermore, I do not accept that the av.~ilablity o~ a nursing supervisor by phone constitutes "under the direction of a supervising nurse.., etc'" in my opinion, the evidence.before this Board is clear. While Mr. }{alpert's observations concerning the nursing profession are interestin9, in my view they have nothing to do with the evidence before the Board. Dated at Kingston, this 26th day of April, 1991 D. Winterm~te, Member GSB 1~43/90 - Arb%f ration betweem OPSEU (:?raviss) and Ministry~ of Commu~ity and Social ServiCes, I hays read the ~3~'aft award on the above-noted matte~ and, with resp~.:t, I must d i='~eot. The facts in this case are not but th~ degree of s,lpervision received and the interpretation "under direction ~,~ a supervising nurse, physician or institutional offi~', r" are mat~erz which lead me tu a different In discussing the e',,idencs of thi~ case tl~: majority say that "for approximately two-thin-ds o~ her time on the ~ob the gri.'ver works i~ the absence of any superviaor". The award ~ce~ on to say "if anyone anywhere in the facility requires m~dical attention after app~oxi~tely 4:~0 p~m, the griever is responsibl~ for providing that attention, and fo~ ~king m~ical decisions." The g~ i~v~rs' supervisor, Ms. Ca]],.gban testified that "the grisver could refer to policy and procedure manuals and pati.nt care plans but this did not eliminate the nur~ 's =ezponsibility to exerc].se professional judgem, nt, The union's argument was t~a6 the only issue' in dispute was the gu~tlon of supervisi~,~'~. Since the griever was the only nurse on duty two-thirds of the t.im~, she assumed m degree of respunsib]lity greater than that envisioned in the Nurse 2 classification. Counsel for the union went on to a~gu~~ that Nurse 2 classification required that this nursing be done under c~inical direction and supervision. I do not accept these arguments as valid. The Nurse 2 classification is a fully oDerational professional registered nurse. In fact, the summary specification g~es b~yo~d basic registration .a~ a nurse to suggest "D~eferably completion of 9o~t graduate certificat~ c~urses from a university of recognized ~tanding", Nurses are independent professional health care practitioners in their own right. Their clinical activities need nQt be ~nstantly ~upe~vised by another nurse or doctor, Ms. Ca!laghan testified that a management presence i~ always on site in the form of facility ~upervisor or' other managemea~ personnel'. She went on to say that they were confident in the .registered nurse's ability to do their job~ As for "assumi~g medical responsibility for the entire faci. lity'i~ a nurse can only act within the prescribed medical plan laid out for- each patient. She cannot assume medical responsibility beyond hsr level o~ t~aining and compet~nc~. As ~or emergency situation~ the evidence was that all personnel who worf{ at this facility are. · qualified in first aid and CPR. The oursinq Drofession is a twmnty-four hour a day responsibility. Many nurses work late shi~t in the absence of thei~ head nurse, or ~ physician an~ only r'O~ call" acoesz to assistance for clfnical or management qu~stions which may arise. I d~ not accept the union's submission that the "othmr institutfonal o~fic.r" must be a doctor o~ nurse. The class standards set out in the seriem nurse, my op£nion~ a very clear de~inition~of the various classification wozk~ "under pro~essional supervision", This clear reference ~o t~ requirement fo: clinical su@ervisio~ by a gzaduatiom o~ a nursing cour~ o~ at leas~ tw,o yea~m duration. Nurse 3 classiEication require~ a profesa~.onal registered nurse; preferably a completion o~ a Dost ~raduate certificate, minimum two years graduate nuzSing expezlence and the ability to supervise ward or ~n~irmary nursing service~. Thi~ i~ clearly a workin~ ~u~se who accepts re~ponsibit[ty ~ mup~r¥imion o~ others ~n he~ ~eographic area. The Nurse 2 classification describes a registered nurse, able to operate independently within her t~vet of competence ~s described in the qualifications. A review o~ recent oases supports l:he employers position. In (i~89/89) "the ~riever seek~ a BERRY ORDER. To satisfy the met before such an order will be made~ the griever mus~ satisfy this board that t}]ere l~ a substantial difference between the ~uties performed and those re~erred ~o in the cla~sification standard". The employer's position is that thole is Mo difference between the dutie~ pmr~o~med and. the speci~ication set out in the $tandards, let alone ~ubstantial. ~f one interprets the nature of supervision required as I have, one would acce~t that argument. In NI~EO5~ Es A~, (778/89) the Nurse 2 position is interpreted to amsume c%inical ~spon~ibitity on the o{{ shif~ "thus, it is clearly Dart o~ a Nurse 2 G~nezal's essmntial respon~ibil[%y to bm able to and to act in the role which has been assiqned to a charge nu~e at this ~acility. Thu~, we have not been satisfied that the grievors' performed ~unctions which g~es beyond th~se expected o~ a Nurse 2 ~al or a Registered Nurse". This case is very similar to Traviss, in that nurses were seeking recognition for. working alone at night and on weekends, The grievance was denied as it was clearly within the Nurse 2 classification desuziption. This is th~ same issue as Nichols et al and Gervais et al (392/8~). Th~ grievers were all r~gistered nurses working under lc. ss direct su~e~vi~ion nights or weekends, They were se~king recognition for the mdditiull~l responsibility of this duty. ~n each case, the panel concluded that "these charge nurse~, lack an institutional recognition, hy way o~ premium ~ay o~ otherwise, for the~ additional resp~nsi~ilities". Both panels went on to sugqest that th~ part~s, in negotiations put their minds to this.question. They concluded, in weekends is clearly within the Nurse 2 specification. A Be~:~ type order in this case is inappropriate. The three levels of nursing classification ~nvision the full ~ange of nursing duties from new grad to supervising nurse, tt would be inappropriate and artificial to r~quire th~ parties to negotiate yet another level, especially when the duties are transitory!and., across the provlsca, could De applicable in anywhere ~rom ten i pe~'~ent to over ~ty-stx percent of a nurses schedules. It would seem more appropriate ~or the parties to turn their minds to some type ~f :e~ponsibility pay given a clear dsfinition o~ that assignment. For these reasons, ! dissent from this majority award. I would have Dated at CHATHAM this ~nd day of APRIL, D. Ha 1 ge r t Member