Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1872.Annis et al.92-05-11 .' :..:., · . ,: ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE  CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE S rrLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2~00, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG 1Z8 TELEPHONE/T~L~:PHONE: (4~6) 326-~8 RUE DUNDAS OUE~T, ~UREAU 2~, T~O~O fONTARIO), M5G tZ8 FACSJMILE/TEL~COP/E ; (416; 326-~396 1872/90 ZE ~ ~g~ O~ ~ ~Z~ZO~ On,er T~ C~O~ ~MP~E8 COLLECTI~ B~ININ~ ACT Before T~ GRIEV~CE S~TTLE~ BO~ BE~EN OPSEU (~nis et al) 9rievor The Cro~ in Right of Ontario (Minist~ of Co.unity & Social se~ices) Employer BEFOg: J. Roberts Vice-Chai~erson T. Browes-Bugden Me. er ' M. O'Toole Me~er FOR THE K. Hughes GRiEVOR Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Shilton Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE J. Smith EMPLOYER Counsel Legal Services Branch Ministry of Community & Social Services HEARING September 20, 1991 January 17, 1992 AWARD This is a classification case. On June 28, 1990, the four grievors filled essentially identical grievances claiming that they were improperly classified in the classification of Field Worker 2. Thereafter, in a statement filed pursuant to the procedure of the Board in classification cases, it was indicated that the grievors were seeking "an appropriate classification pursuant to the decision of OPSEU (.Berry et al) and the.Ministry of Community and Social Services G.S.B. #217/83." The grievors also claimed retroactivity to Mar~h 2, 1990, but later in the proceedings, the claimed ratroactivity date was amended to April 4, 1990. For reasons which follow, the Board allows these grievances and grants the requested relief.. The facts of this case are somewhat unusual, in the sense that the four grievors occupy positions of a hybrid nature. According to evidence from Ms. M. Anchida-Smith, the Employment Support Initiatives (ESI) Co-ordinator for the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, out of a total of 17 counsellors in the ESI program, only the four grievors are provincial employees.. The remainder are employed by Metropolitan Toronto. All 17 are supervised by Ms. Anchida-Smith who, as indicated, is also iemployed by Metropolitan Toronto. 2 Ms. Anchida-Smith further testified that she designed the ESI program. According to her testimony, the program actually started in July, 1982 but became official in Janulry, 1983. Because it was a joint-program between the Ministry and Metropolitan Toronto,'~he Ministry seconded to the municipality four provincial counsellors. These counsellors were to psrform the same duties and responsibilities as those employed by the Municipality. When she found out that these employees would be provided, Ms. Anchida-Smith said, she determined that it was important to haveas 'little discrepancy as possible between the salary levels paid to the municipally employed counsellors and those of their provincial counterparts. This need for parity, she said, was recognized and recommended by' the municipality. As a result, it was decided to place 'the provincial employe~s in the ~elfare Worker 2 classification, which was the closest, salary-wise,'to the salaries being paid to municipally employed counsellors. Since that time, Ms. Anchida~Smith said, there has been a widening gap between the salary levels of the two groups of employees. Several factors contributed~to this, including the intervention of different negotiations with different uni6ns and the application of different pay equity schemes. She stressed, however, that despite this the counsellors still do exactly the same work. 3 It was agreed between the parties at the outset of the hearing that the testimony of one of the grievors. MrD Dorothy Hurlehey, would be taken as representativ~ of that of all the grievors. Ms. Hurlehey testified that the goal- of the ESI program was to encourage sole support parents who were on welfare to improve their employability. As such, she testified, the ESI program was not a welfare program. A welfare program, she explained, provided an allowance for living expenses such as rent, food or clothing. The ESI program, on the other hand, only assisted people with expenses while they were preparing themselves for employment. Its major component was counselling and advocacy to prepare clients for a future of self-sufficiency. Expanding upon the differences between welfare and ESI, Ms. Hurlehey indicated that for 9 1/2 years before becoming an ESI Counsellor in 1987, she was a Welfare Field Worker or, in current parlance, an Income Maintenance Officer (IMO). In this capacity, she said, she took applications for assistance under 'welfare programs provided by the General Welfare Assistance Act and the Family Benefits Act. Her job was to verify the information given by the applicant and ensure that the entitlement was correct. The only counselling'she would do.in this capacity, she said, was ko counsel clients regarding the welfare payments and other similar assistance to which they might be entitled. Further, she said, the 4 IMO's in her office carried 300 to 400 cases at a tim~ while the case loads of the ESI Counsellors were maintained at 100 per counsellor. As to the counselling ~unction of the ESI Counsellor, Ms. Hurlehey said, she actually called herself an Empl.oyment Counsellor. There were two kinds of Counselling involved: vocational and employment counselling; and, (2) supportive counselling. The latter, she said, involved counselling regarding anything in the client's personal situation acting as a barrier to accomplishing her employment goal -- health, problems with her spouse, problems with her children, poor housing, lack of self- confidence, cultural problems., racial problems, and literacy problems. Vocational and employment counselling, on the other hand, Ms. Hurlehey said, involved assisting the client to make a realistic assessment of her needs at that particular time. It involved assessing her interests, abilities, values, and motivation to begin the process. Ms. Hurlehey stressed that advancement to employability inuolved ~n most cases considerable time and courage on the part of the client. She would present options to the woman and then, in line with her interests'and abilities, make an action plan setting forth short and long-term goals. 5 On average, Ms. Hurlehey testified, she works with each client for a period varying from a few months to a number of years. She cited the case of one women who c~me into the program~ learned English, upgraded her education, completed a complex course, received a diploma and is now employed at a good salary. The whole process, Ms. Hurlehey added, took this client six years. Ms. Hurlehey further testified that the advocacy role of the ESI Counsellors was limited to intervening when an error or misunderstanding occurred. She gave as an example her intervention when an error apparently occurred with an OSAP application of a client at a university in Thunder Bay. As another example, Ms. Hurlehey cited one of her clients who was about to be dropped from a training program due to a lateness problem. Those who ran the program, apparently, did not understand that the reason for her lateness was that even in the winter she had to walk her children to day care and school with a stroller prior to reporting for work. The client did not speak English well enough to convey this message, and as a result, no one knew. The ESI program, Ms. Hurlehey got the client a new stroller and made arrangements regarding the delivery of her children so that she could report to work on time. Another aspect of advocacy, Ms. Hurlehey said, involved rehearsing clients as to what might be said by administrators of various programs regarding their eligibility for various kinds of benefits, including things like OSAP or day care. Ms. Hurlehey also differentiated between the IMO and ESI positions on the basis of discretion. As an IMO, she.said, she had very little or no discretion. The information is gathered from the client on a form and the IMO is guided by budgetary outlines based on the number and ages of the children, the rent, the hydro and heat costs, and any income the client might receive from pension or support payments. As an ESI Counsellor, however, Ms. Hurlehey stated that she possessed discretion to disburse funds for the'cost of preparation' for employment such as transportation, funding for school Supplies, etc. T,his funding, she said, was provided within guidelines set forth in the ESI manual. The ESI Counsellors thereafter submitted to their Co-ordinator, Ms. Anchida-Smith, their client information sheets showing the level of funding support the counsellor had decided upon. Generally, these were routinely approved. The. ESI Counsellors, Ms. Hurlehey said, also played a considerable part in obtaining day care or other types of support for the children of their clients. She said that in an initial assessment, an ESI Counsellor would discuss various types of day care options with the client such as Metro-operated day care 'centres, private day cares, babysitting in private homes or, possibly, the choice of one 'of the client"s friends to act as a babysitter funded under the ESI program. Once the client chose the option she preferred, arrangements would be made. In this regard, Ms. Hurlehey noted~ there were 1,000 ESI - earmarked day care spaces in Toronto. ~ The ESI Counsellors also provided for before and after school programs for the children of clients, Ms. Hurlehey added. This might be either formal or informal care. None of this, she said, was provided by Welfare Field Workers or IMO~s. The ESI Counsellors also were e×pected to perform a variety of administrative and public relations functions, Ms. Hurlehey said. She referred to their 'participation in committees such as the Manual ~Committee and the expectation that the counsellors would bring forward proposed changes to the policy ahd procedures in the ESI Manual. ESI Counsellors were also called upon, she said, to make presentations to new IMO's about the availability of ESI program for their clients and also update provincial units. As to public relations, Ms. Hurlehey noted that as ~art of her job she had spoken to many groups outside the Ministry, J. ncluding a program at George Brown College and parent-child groups. 8 Ms. Anchida-Sm£th, who was the only witness called by the Ministry, gave evidence indicating that, for the most part, she agreed with the~evidence of Msl Hurlehey regarding the duties and r~sponsibjlities of an ESI Counsellor. She added that ESI Counsellors also followed up on their clients in order to ensure that they remained motivated to complete their programs. In this regard, she said, the counsellors saw to it that the problems of the client were taken care of. This might involve, she said, a telephone call, a home visit, or a collateral visit to an institution, agency or Program. Ms. Anchida-Smith also agreed that the focus of the counseliing was on employment and career. This, she said, was totally different from the focus of an IMO, which was to d~termine eligibility, for welfare. The witness indicated Ghat, in her estimation, 10% of the work of an ESI Counsellor was administrative, 75% was assessment and counselling; and 15% was community involvement, in the sense of community networking, inter-agencY meeting and keeping, on top of new programs and resources in the community to refer to their clients. Ms. Anchida-Smith confirmed that ESI Counsellors dealt with a wide range of issues going well beyond financial welfare matters.' She said that ESI Counsellors dealt with issues involving abused 9 women and s~helters, issues involving referral of teenagers and children for counselling, health issues, .low self esteem problems, problems of isolation resulting from being left alone in the home, nutrition issues, and immigration issues. As to the public relations aspect of the ESI Counsellors' job, Ms. Anchida-Smith agreed that they were expected to speak to community groups such as those mentioned Dy Ms. Hurlehey. She added that they were also expecte6 to contribute to a newsletter that was circulated among ESI clients. The newsletter, she said, listed all kinds of upcoming events for-the clients and included articles describing things like no~%-traditional jobs, discipline, safety, and how to deal with problems of children. This newsletter, she said, was produced quarterly ~d the duty to produce, it rotated among teams of ESI C~unsello~s. · When they wer~ asked to comment upon the class standard for Welfare Worker 2, both Ms. Hurlehey and Anchida-Smith indicated that it was far from a perfect fit, and this perhaps was not surprising in light of Ms. Anchida-Smith's earlier testimony that the classification of Welfare Worker 2 was initially chosen because it was the class standard that essentially provide~ for parity between the salaries of the provincial and municipal counsellors.' This class standard, along with the class standards for Welfare Field Worker (probationary) and Welfare Field Worker 1, is attached to this award as Appendix "A". To illustrate the basis upon which both witnesses formed this opinion, it seems h~lpful to reproduce as follows the most important part of the Welfare Worker 2 standard, i.e., its class definition: Thi~ is'welfare field work carried out from the District Offices of the Department of Public Welfare involving the investigation and obtaining of information as to the eligibility or continuing eligibility of applicants for assistance under the Welfare Allowances programmes and the counselling and guidance of applicants on financial matters, job opportunities, rehabilitation, child guidance, held facilities, etc. The worker will be required to develop satisfactory relationships with applicants and aqencies, to carry out the. practices and 'techniques of case work and to maintain adequate social histories. At least forty percent of · duties must concern counselling and case work. As can be seen, the class definition calls for "welfare field work,, where-the employee carries out an "investigation" to determine "eligibility" of applicants for welfare assistance and "counselling...appticants...on financial matters, job opportunities, rehabilitation, child guidance, health facilities, etc." Counselling and case work must be involved in "40%" of the duties. Ms. Hurlehey testified that the ESI program did not have anything to do with "welfare field worE".. The goal of welfare field work, she said, was to provide expenses for living while the ESI program was an incentive or opportunity program. Ms. Anchida-Smith also indicated that the work performed by the grievors did not fall within 'the definition of welfare field work. She said that the grievors were not dealing with welfare and, further, that she took issue with the use of the word "welfare" in the context of social programs in the 1990's. As to whether ESI Counsellors performed investigations to determine eligibility of applicants for Welfare, Ms. Hurlehey testified that this was entirely foreign to the duties and responsibLlities of an ESI Counsellor. She said that there was no investigation into the financial affairs of ESI clients and that there was no reason for such investigation because all of the clients were already on assistance. ~ Moreover, Ms. Hurlehey testified, the welfare allowance programs referred ~0 in the class definit.ion were those under the General Welfare Act or Family Benefits Act, and the ESI Counsellors had nothing to do with respect to these statutes-, Ms. Anchida-Smith agreed. She said ESI Counsellors do not investigate, as in investigation of eligibility for welfare. Their focus was upon employment or vocational counselling, in which they explored the potential for the client by inw~lving the ciient with them. She emphasized that the type of case work of the ESI Counsellor was entirely different from that of the IMO. The IMO, 12 she said, determined eligibility for welfare. The ESI counsellor, on the other hand, determined how to help their clients develop career goals so that they could go on to self-sufficiency. As to the percentage of their duties that involved counselling or case'work, Ms. Hurlehey said that 70 to 80% of the duties of an ESI Counsellor fell into this category. Ms. Anchida-Smith tended to agree, saying that about 75% of the duties of an ESI counsellor were involved in counselling while about 40% of the duties of an IMO fell into this category. Finally, both Ms. Hurlehey and Ms. Anchida-Smith referred to the fact that the class standard ~for Welfare Worker .2 was establish.ed in May, 1961'. This was about 22 years before the ESI program, came into existence~ At the conclusion of the hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the grievors that the core duties of the ESI Counsellors Qere never contemplated by the Welfare Worker 2 class standard. This class standard, it was submitted, addressed the core duties of welfare workers who determined eligibility for welfare allowance programs. This, it was submitted, was the job of an IMO and not that of an ESI Counsellor. In this regard, it was stressed that all sorts of issues were dealt with by ESI Counsellors 'that were not dealt with in the 13 determination of welfare eligibility. These included, it was said, vocational counselling, counselling of abused women, immigration counselling, health counselling and a wide variety of other community issues. Even the idea behind the ESi program, it was submitted, was the antithesis of the concept of a welfare program. The goal of the former was to get clients off welfare while the goal of the latter was to provide welfare to eligible recipients. They were, it was submitted, philosophically opposed° Moreover, it was submitted, there were several roles of the ESI co-ordinator that were not'and couldlnot have been contemplated by a class s~andard established in 1961. These included the training rol~ and community resource roles of the ESI Counsellor. Also not contemplated, it was submitted, was the intensive commitment to counselling of an ESI Counsellor, comprising 75 to 80% of his or her duties and responsi~ilitie.s in contrast to about 40% of those of an IMO or Welfare Field Worker. In support of these submissions, counsel referred the Board to Re Tomassoni and M~nistrv of Community and Social Services (1989), G.S.B. #807/86 (Verity), .where the board issued a Berry order rather than reclassify the qrievors into a claimed classification because there was at least a 10% difference between the jobs. The board said it agreed "that a 10% difference in job does not demonstrate substantial similarity." I~d. at p. 18. By the same token, then, counsel submitted, it would be improper to retain the grievors in the Welfare'Worker 2 Class standard if at least .10% of the job of ESI Counsellor fell outside it. In thi~ case, it was submitted, significantly more than 10% fell outside the four corners of the class standard. on the other'hand, it was submitted on behalf of the Ministry that the core duties of the grievors fell squarely within the class d~finition of the Welfare Field Worker 2 class standard. Broadly interpreted, counsel submitted, the welfare allowance programs referred to in the class definition would include the program~ administered by the grievors.. As far as the duty of investigating eligibility for a welfare'allowance program, counsel pointed out that the class definition also called for £nvestigating continuin~ eligibility. This, it was.submitted, precisely fit what the · grievors did when they monitored their clients to determine whether they remained eligible for subsidized day care and employment- related expenses by virtue Of remaining motivated to complete the plan of action that had been established. It was also submitted on behalf of the Ministry that with respect to the core duties in the class definition relating to performing counselling, guidance and utilizing the practices and techniques of case work, the grievors once again fit within the requirement. The class definition, it was pointed out, required at 15 least 40% of duties to concern these areas and the gr. ievors met this by performing 75 to 80% of counselling. The 40% figure, counsel submitted was merely a threshold figure and not an upper limi.t upon the case work the grievors coul~l undertake. In support of these positions, counsel for the Ministry referred the Board to Re Kuhnke and Ministry of Transportation (1990), G.S.B. #989/89 (Verity). In that case, the board noted that 'Vas a general rule, Class Standards are generally worded statements designed to cover a broad spectrum of tasks and working environments." Id. at p. 11. Consistently with this, the board concluded that although the grievor was a foreman in charge of at least' three sub-laboratories within the regional laboratory at Kingston, his responsibilities fell. within the scope of a sentence in the .class definition for Technician 4 that referred to being responsible for the operation of only one.laboratory. Id. at pp. 11-12. This showed, counsel submitted, that a class standard was intended to be sufficiently elastic to allow for a difference in quantity as opposed ~o quality of a job and in this sense, the 1961 class standard anticipated a program such as the ESI program at issue in this case. We have considered both of these submissions and have reached the conclusion that in the circumstances of the present case the grievances must succeed. While we appreciate that the class definitions of class standards must necessarily define their core 16 duties in a general way so as to cover a number .of different jobs with approximately equal value, we cannot agree that express references to a particular type of work in administering specified programs can be discounted as suggested by the Ministry. The class definition for the class standard of Welfare Field Worker 2 is expressly restricted in its opening sentence to "welfare field work" involving the investigation of "eligibility or continuing eligibility of applicants for assistance under the welfare allowances programs." The evidence on behalf of both the Ministry and the grievors left no-doubt that the welfare allowance programs referred to in this sentence were those under the General Welfare Act and the Family Benefits Act, and no others. The sen%ence in the class definition that was construed in R_~e Kuhnke, supra, was far less specific than this. The intent of the drafter in specifying "a laboratory" was considerably more ambiguous ~han the sentence in this case. By specifying in the opening sentence of the class definition that it dealt with those who determined eligibility of applicants under welfare allowances programs, the drafters "zeroed in" on a very specific area. We know of no principle of construction that would allow us to'expand that area beyond those confines. Moreover, in l~ght of the fact that the opening sentence of the class definition refers only to applicants under welfare 17 programs, the references to "applicants" in the remaining sentences of the class definition must also have been intended to be ,restricted to this specific group of individuals. They cannot b~ construed as embracing those seeking to improve their employability under other programs. As the evidence amply demonstrates, the sole support parents who seek the assistance of the ESI Counsellors are not applicants under the welfare allowances programs set forth in the class definition. The ESI Counsellors do not have any responsibility for determining eligibility ~nder the General Welfare Act or the Family Benefits Act. Their clients already are, in receipt of such benef.its and are. seeking assistance in developing career goals'to get off welfare and go on to self-sufficiency. While counselling is an important part of this job, it is not the counselling of applicants for assistance under the welfare allowance programs contemplated by the class definition for Welfare Field Worker 2. It seems evident to the Board that the ].ack of correspondence between the duties and responsibilities of .an ESI Counsellor and those contemplated in the class standard for Welfare Field Worker- 2 must have been apparent at the time the position was classified but in all likelihood was deemed inconsequential because, as MS. Anchida-Smith testified, adopting it led to substantial parity between the' salaries of the municipal and provincial counsellors. 18 With the passage of time, .things have changed and it now seems necessary to fashion a new class standard corresponding to the job. The grievances are allowed. Pursuant to the Berry_award, the matter is referred back to the Ministry for the establishment of an appropriate classification. It is our understanding that it was agreed between the parties that the 'new classification would, if the Union were successful, be retroactive to April 4, 1990. w~ will retain jurisdiction pending implementation by the parties of the terms of this award. DATED at London, Ontario, this ll~h day of May, 1992. R. J.X~Dberts, Vice Chairperson M. O'Toole, Employer Member This is the entr7 az~ training class for fLeld staff of the Department of Public ,;elfare. ~mplcrfeeo inlti~ undertake ~ six weeks' training course conslstir~ of ~tensive study cf we~are le~si~tic~ ~ ~c~es ~p~te to ~e~ ~se~en% fiel~ work. ~ ca~ ~t prac- tical i~es~atlcn~ In the fieZ~ ~er close supe~sion. Upon successf~ cosmetics cf the cc~e, tr..ness ~ ~:~i~ to .~ ~stri:t Office, '~ere, ~er close zupe~.sion cf the Re~c~ ~ie~re ~-~istr~tcr, they L~es~i- gate ~a o~t~ Lr~o~tion ~s ~ all.hi.fy or ¢cntin~n~ e~i~ty, of ~c~s for assistance ~.er the ~,e~:are ~c~nces ~c~s. ~te~.ew~ in ~he~ homes, ~plic~ts for assistance ~er the Old Age ~,ce, ~lir~ ~rscns' ~ow~cee, Mcther~' ~:wances ~d Disa~le~ Persons' ~ow~ces Acts a~ reco~ on presc~.be~ fo~ ~ necess~ i~o~tion to e~ble ~c~ts, e~l~ty to be ~et,e~ne~ b7 the On be~' c~ ~he ~er~ ~ver~ent ~c~ept ~icaticns ~r Old A~ ~ec~ity. Verify ~p~cants' or ~ecipien~s' st~temen~ b7 ir. vestig~ting he.th ~ c~ records; o:t~n S~r:ga~e Co~ records, executors' star.enOs, of b~ sa~.n~s ~epcsits, statements cf cash s~ren~er v~lues of po~cles ~ ~t~te~n=s of earths f~m employers. ~~n ¢Lc~e ~son ~th local we~ agencies ~ ~i~e app~c~ts for ~ssist~ce to the most ~pprap~te sc~ce; keep ~% ~f ~=i~, ~ Loc~ we~e L~slatlcn~ ~scuss ~rrent stat~ cf ~ti=.~ cases agencies f~r ~d~ti=~ case wor~. ~ ~org~=~ ~eas, aCce~ a~ca~o~ for ~ner~ ,,%~e Assistance. up we~re ~geta, isle ~ergen~ ~ef ~uc~ers. ~prove ~ ~r~e tr~~icn f~ ~e~ hcs~it~zation cases. ~. Orate 43 e~ucati~n; ~s st~da~ (~',~) in the ~e~ar~ental 3. ~i~t7 to in:~ew succe~sfu~y. ~ct:r ~averse ~c~iti~n=; t&c%; CA%"I:GORY: AdmLn£sr. ra:£ve Services f ~O~: ~-09 Social ~roqrams -~he ~rt~nt of ~ubhc' Welfare inv~lvin~ t~e investigation ~nd obtaining ~f ~nfo~tion ~s ~a ~e eli~2bi~ ~r c~.~inuin~ eii~ibi~w of for ~ssis~ance un,er ~he t4eLfare Allo~nces prog~m~. ~ployee~ verify appl~can:s~ or rec~pAen~s' s~a~e~n=s ~y vtsicia~ ba~s in~nce co~anies. re~is:~- of~ice~ and so forth. The~ revis~ recipien:~ a: specific ~ork .on a ~y to day ~asis. JHARACT~IST [C Interview, in thezr.homes applicants for assistance under'the Old ~ssista~ce, Blin~ Persons' ~Lio~nces ~:others~ .LlL~a~ces and Persons' ALLowances .~c:s and recor~ on prescribed forms all necessa~ ~nfor~cion to e~abLe applicants' eli~b:lity :o be ~ece~ned ~y the ~pa rt men:. On ~e.aif of :he Federal ~ve~ent. accept applic~c~ons for 01~ 5ecur~ c)'. ~ Verify appl:caacs' or recip:eacs' statements b>-.:~ves::~a::?,~ health. ~d ~edicaL records; obcasn Surro~ate Court records executors' ~eta~ls of ~a~ ~vsn&s deposits, s:ate~encs ~ cas~ surrender values :n~u~ance poL:cie~ and statemen:~ of ea~in~s from employers. Maintain close [iazson ~th local welfare a~enc~es and ~ide applicants for asszs:ance to the ~o~: appropriate sou~e~ keep a~reast o~ Fe~e~L a~ Local ~ifare ie~La:~on; ~scusa current s:~s of ~r:~cu~ar oases ~tt~ local officials:' ~v offer l:~:ed counsellin~ and case '~ork service; ~ke rtfer~ls to appropr:a:e a{ency for additional case ~n~aLn caseL~d re:or~s and car~- ~ut ra~ated :Let:cai ,~or~: :ntervie~s and apppo:n:ments. in unor~an~:e~ areas accept applicat~n~ for,~eneraL ',~elfare Assistance sec up ~eLfare budgets, issue emergency relief vouchers, agpr~ve and ar~n~e t~napor:at:an for tndiSent hospitali:at~on cases. QUALI FICAT XON~: pre~i~na~ aad course 2. At [east six mentn~ e~erience as a Weifare Field '~or~er I 1' rO bat/ona~ ). { AbtC/~y t.O [ate~ie~ successfully u~tder adverse courtrooms: -- ,: tact; ~nce~r~ty: ~ood knowledge ox' the reievant Acts and Re.lac,ohs: abii:ty to drive a ~ar and an i'nrt.~r~ C~$ CO~: ~050 / CL~S OEFIS'[~[CN: . ~ci~n as %o ~he eligibility or cortcinuin~ e~i~ibility of applicants for child ~i~nce, health facili=ies~ e=c. The %~orker ~11 be re~ired 2fret co~se~lin~ and case ~-ork service co all applicators and more extensive. cou,seilin~ a.d case wo~ ~o applicznts selected by the Welfare Field 5upe?- v~sor in'conjunc:io~ ~ch the we~f~'re Field Worker as most likely :o ~enefit Represent :he Province at Juvenile and Fa~!y Cou~: hea~inis. Interview, :n :he:? homes, applicants for essa.stance unde~ :he Old .igc Assis~a:'_ , 8~nd Persons' .Al~o~,mnces, }[o~her~t an~ Dependent Children~s .~lo~ances, Disabled ~erscns' Allo~,a~ces and Jeneral We!f~re Assistance'Acts, an~ record on prescri~c~ f~.s ~Li'~ecessa~- Lnf~tio~ :~ e~bLe,~ppli, c~nts' eli~ibili~' c~ ~e de:er- ~e~ by the ~egar:ment. L'nderczke :he reka~i].itz:ion ~:' app!icancs ~' cJunseilt~- and arran(~n~ fi~anciz! assistance. ?rov:~e ~aren:s ¥i':h ~i~ance in chil~ care and C:~ ~ehalf of the rede~l gover~enc~ accept applications for Old A!e Securi~-. Verify applicants~ or tebipients~ stateme~:~ ~? investsgatin~ health and ~edica] :~nk savt~ ~e~os;t~s st~te~,ents of c~ surre~.~et and scacements of earnings from ~ploFers, ass:stance to the most appropriate source; keel> abreast of Provtnciai~ rede~l ~n6 kocal wel~re Legislation; ~iscuss current status of Local officials. .~nt~in ca~ei~d reco~s and car~ out relate~ cle~cai ~o~ a~&e iate~'iews ~nd appoin~e~ts. .. up welfare ~ud~ets. ~ssue e~er~ency relief ;'~uc~xers~ ~pprox-e ~ ar~n~e ~r~nsportat~o~ For i,~di~ent hosp~ra/L:acion case~. (Over% e.~naC~ons fo~ ~his cla~s. 2. ?h~e )-ears, e.x~eriefl=e as a ~elfa~ Field ~orker 1, 3. ~bili~ :a establish sacisfa~t~- relationships ~:h applican=s; · bili~' :o c~' ~ut prat:ices an~ ;ec~i~uea of ~ase w~; -knawl~&e ~f =he rele~flt Aces and ge~iations; abiii~' :o /rive a '..,ay. 196I.