Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0319.Weir & MacKay.92-09-08 DNTAF~IO EMPLOYES DE L~ COUPONtvE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE ~ ONTARtO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS ~gO, ~L'E ',DL~)AS Of. JEST, ~.L,'~E,AL/, 2~00 TO~ON'I'-O '©~',"'~,~iO,~ 'vISO ;Z.:? =.c~S,',' _5 -E.ECC; = .: ~ .'~ ,.,. 319/91, 336/91 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN CUPE 3096 (Weir/MacKay) Grievor and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Housing) Employer BEFORE: W. Kaplan Vice-Chairperson D. Wintermute Member M. O'Toole .Member FOR THE J. Lynd GRIEVOR National Representative C~3PE 3096 FOR THE C. Peterso~ EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HEARING: August 7, 1992 Introduction On June 15, 1990 Bev MacKay and Gall Weir, Application Representatives with the London and Middlesex Housing Authorityl filed grievances claiming that they are improperly classified. Both grievors now seek reclassification from "Administrative Group 8" to "Administrative Group 10". The parties agreed that Ms. MacKay would serve as a representative grievor and that thE; decision in her case would also apply to Ms. Weir. A'hearing convened in Toronto at which time the representative of the union reviewed the background to the dispute. In 1989 the parties agreed to implement a classification system, and this agreement was reflected in the collective agreement. The collective agreement covers all housing authorities in Ontario, and they range in size from.'two to three employees to 270 employees. Some of these employees work i,n maintenance, and others, like the grievors, work in administration. The new classification system was introduced into evidence. It is useful to briefly describe this system for its approach is much more complicated and sophisticated than that usually found in GSB classification cases. The system identifies six compensable factors: knowledge, skill, judgement, accountability, group leadership and community leadership. Point values arE; assigned for each factor, and they increase as the level of each factor increases. Total points in all factors determine placement in the Administrative Group series. Simply put, the more points assigned to a position, the higher the placement and the greater the compensation. The system sets out a number of steps to be taken in measuring a position. 3 Of relevance to the instant case is the step requiring evaluation from the bottom up: "Working from the lowest level, compare each factor in the subject position with the factor level definitions at each successive level until a 'match' is identified." A number of examples are provided indicating the appropriate application of the standard. By and large, the implementation of this system has gone extremely well. Some 450 positions have been classified under the system. Eighty employees availed themselves of an opportunity to informally appeal the classification assigned to their jobs. Of these eighty employees, forty were satisfied with the outcome of their informal appeals. Grievances were filed in the remaining forty cases, and thirty-six of them were resolved in the grievance procedure. As a result of the informal appeal process the grievors moved from AG 6 to AG 7. As a result of the grievance process, the two grievors in the instant c~se moved from AG 7 to AG 8. The two 9rievors were stil~ dissatisfied with their classification and along with two other employees, their cases were referred to this Board. At the outset, Mr. Lynd indicated that the grievors believed that the system had inaccurately measured their positions in three areas: knowledge, skill and judgement. Following the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Lynd indicated that the union was withdrawing its claims with respect to knowledge, the grievors being satisfied that they had been accurately evaluated in this area. Accordingly, it is only necessary to set out that part of the evidence dealing with skill and judgement. The Evidence Ms. MacKay testified on behalf of the union, and she was the only witness in these proceedings. Ms. MacKay has worked for the Housing Authority (the "employer") for eleven years, and has been an Applicant Representative for two years. Ms. MacKay testified that her position had been assigned to level two in skil, and that she believed that it qualified for level three. Level two provides: Requires skills to: -Communicate/discuss/explain detailed adminstrative procedures orally or in writing; -Compose routine correspondence Such as acknowledgements, covering letters and memoranda following standard guides and/or transcribe, using acceptable grammar, spelling, punctuation and appropriate terminology; -Detect errors in a volume of drafts, 'input forms and documents for typing, processing or keying, and either making minor corrections or returning to source; -Sort, index, classify, store and retrieve a variety of types of information/records, using filing systems and related indices, (electronic or manual); -Apply arithmetic processes includiqg the use of fractions, decimals and percentages in areas such as balancing cashier journals, calculating price extensio ns and discounts, or maki.ng .employee payroll calculations. 5 Level three provides: Requires skills to: -Explain orally or in writing on specific detailed matters such as new or changed regulations, procedures or "exceptions to the rule", which may require use of specialized terminology (e.g. legal, technical); -Compose complex correspondence/reports requiring the conceptualization and expression in writing of general instructions received from principal(s); -Set-up/adapt suitable involved filing systems for the work unit to meet local requirements for information coding and filing; -Apply arithmetic principles and procedures in areas such as complex accounting and statistical calculations. Referring to each of the points in le~! three, Ms. MacKay testified that she believed that her position qualified for level three because she needs good oral skills to communicate information effectively, including matters such as new regulations, changes in files, and detailed matters such as the requirements for "in situ" housing where clients remain in their own homes because of disability or illness and a rental supplement is required. Moreover, Ms. MacKay told the Board that she is called upon to prepare complex reports, and she testified about the weekly "Report on Vacancy of Units" which she prepares for her supervisor indicating which units are vacant and explaining why. Ms. MacKay testified about setting up a filing system for referrals to non-profit housing, and the creation of a supplementary filing system for unusual files or files that need to be quickly accessed. Finally, with respect to arithmetical skills, Ms. MacKay testified that she has to calcuate different figures for determining the supplemer~t in the in situ situations, as well as for the determination of income levels for files submitted to non-profit housing and cooperatives. This job requires considerable accuracy for it is imperative that no income source be missed. One of the additional reasons why Ms. MacKay believed that the skills of her position were properly rated at level three was because of one of the examples of model classifications that appeared in the new classification manual, and she testified that this was also one of the reasons why she wished her case to proceed to arbitration. Example 14 is a position specification and classification for a "Home Visitor" position. The skills required for this position are: "Good interviewing and analytical skills. Ability to communicate with tact and diplomacy. Ability to objectively observe and evaluate housing needs. Ability to Prepare clear and concise written reports." In the example, these skills are assigned level three. Ms. MacKay's position specification requires almost the identical skills, but they are only assigned to level two. This suggested to.her that she was not receiving appropriate credit for her skills, particularly when compared to the credit received by the Home Visitor in example 14. With respect to judgement, Ms. MacKay testified that she had been assigned a level two but believed that she should receive level three. Level two provides: Decision-making involves selecting the most suitable procedures/methods within comprehensive guidelines and precedents. Work assignments, accompanied bY general procedures, are carried out under general supervision and normatly are subject to only limited checking by supervisor or others upon completion. 7 The employees solves routine work problems, seeking advice if needed and referring to the supervisor unusuat matters not covered by established procedures and guidelines. Level three provides: Decision-making involves selecting from a wide range of choices of action the best approach to accomplish assigned objectives. The employee is frequently required to interpret policy and administrative directives and to adapt procedures/methods to resolve on-going difficulties and work problems. The employee is expected to make all work-related decisions, referring to the supervisor only matters that deviate radically from established guidelines or policy. Referring to each point in level three, Ms. MacKay testified that it was a better fit for her position because she requires good judgement in selecting clients for housing units. It is very important that clients receive housing appropriate to their needs, and in dealing with difficult clients it is essential to take into consideration their feelings and needs. In performing her job, Ms. MacKay testified that she must interpret policy and administrative directives in dealing with files and clients, and deal with changes that occur. Finafly, Ms. MacKay told the Board that she works independently, and that she signs all of her own ~orrespondence. She works with minimal supervision and only goes to her supervisor with an unusual problem about once every month. In cross-examination, Ms. MacKay was asked some questions about her job as compared to that of the Home Visitor profilbd in Example 14. She testified that the knowledge she required was different but that the core skills as set 8 out in her position speciiication and the Home Visitor position specification were the same. Ms. MacKay agreed that the Home Visitor attends at the homes of prospective clients to obtain informationl and that this information is later forwarded to the Applicant Representative,. who uses that information to assign housing. Eligibility for housing is determined, in almost every case, by the Home V~sitor, who assigns different points for different factors such as income, number of persons and so on. Ms. MacKay agreed that the Home Visitor worked in a different~setting than she did and performed different functions than she performed. Ms. MacKay agreed that the Home Visitor had the same ultimate classification as she did, the only difference being in the composition of that calculation. Where Ms. MacKay had a level three in knowledge, the Home Visitor had a level two. Where the. Home Visitor had a level three in skill, Ms, MacKay had a level two. Ms. MacKay was asked some questions about hei skills, and she agreed that when she was asked questions about different issues she looked the answers up in comprehensive manuals if she did not know the answer as a result of dealing with the particular issue on a daily basis. If a particular issue "fell between the cracks", for example if a person was just a few months away from the age eligibility for seniors' housing, Ms. MacKay would consult with her supervisor. Ms. MacKay agreed that her job involved the placement of persons in housing and that the parameters of that job were set out in manuals, She agreed that she was not responsible for creating policies but interpreted them by reading them and applying them. If there was a problem she would bring it to the attention of her manager: A number of samples of corresponden'ce were introduced into evidence. These were form tetters offering, for example, accommodation to clients. Ms. MacKay agreed that this is the type of correspondence that she signs and 9 sends, and further agreed that she is not required to prepare complex correspondence. A sample of the "Report on Vacancy of Units" prepared by Ms. MacKay was introduced into evidence. This report is a Iisting of available units, and it also indicates the number of days the unit has been vacant and provides in another column a summary statement of the reasons for the vacancy. Ms. MacKay was asked about the filing sv,tem she testified about in chief, and she agreed that she inherited a filing system with the job, and that the filing system she estabfished involved her segregating some files for particular issues such as rent supplements. With respect to the job's mathematical requirements, Ms. MacKay testified that she did not do any statistics, but did do rent calculations for in situ and other supplement clients. Most other rents were established with the assistance of a computer. Finally, Ms. MacKay was asked some questions about the level of judgement required in her position, and she agreed that her job involved placing persons in vacant housing according to priorities established by others and that she did so pursuant to manuals and guidelines. Ms. MacKay testified that in doing so, however, she exercised judgement albeit in the framework of the guidelines. For example, she would exercise her judgement to place a person in one building rather than another if hearth reasons indicated that the second building was preferable. The evidence having been completed, the matter proceeded to argument. Union Arctument In the union's view, the evidence e~taldlished that the levels assigned for skill and judgement were too Iow and in the result, Ms. MacKay was being undervalued by the classification system. The whole point of that system, in the union's submission, was to ensure that employees were properly classified and compensated, and the evidence was to the effect that in these two areas Ms. MacKay was neither. Mr. Lynd pointed out that Ms. MacKay was not saying that she did the same job as the Home Visitor. Rather, what she was saying was that her job and that job had tl~e same skitl requirement, but that her job only received a level two and that job -eceived a level three. This was significant evidence of a failure in the classification system. In the union's Submission, the examples in the classification manual were there for a reason. They were there to act as a guide and to be followed. Accordingly, Ms. MacKay should receive the same level for the same skills indicated in the example. With respect to judgement, Mr. Lynd submitted that the evidence established ' that Ms. MacKay was called upon to exercise a significant degree of iudgement and did Jn fact interpret policy and administrative directives. Accordingly, she fell in a higher level than that assigned to her by the employer. Employer Argument Employer counsel argued that in reviewing the classification assigned to the grievor it was essential to keep the operation of this classification system in mind. It mandated starting at the bottom of each level and working one's way up as the duties and responsibilities of a position were compared to the, different levels in each factor. Turning to the skills part of the ciassification system, it was clear, counsel agreed, that the skills enumerated in level one did not apply to the grievor; they were basic and rudimentary. Accordingly, the system requires one to move to the next level, and when the skills set out there were compared to the skills the grievor 11 exercised, it was clear that there was a match. If one then went to level three it would be clear that the gr[evor was out of her depth. Referring to the evidence, counsel argued that it established that the things the grievor did felt directly within level two. She communicated policies and composed routine correspondence, she used an established filing system and applied arithmetic processes in the calculation of rent and in situ supplements. She did not, however, prepare complex correspondence and reports, establish filing systems or conduct complex accounting and statisticaf calculations. Accordingly, there was, in counsel's submission, no doubt but that level two was appropriate and that level three was not. Example 14 complicated matters, counsel agreed. However, the important point was not to look at the skills required and level assigned for that position in isolation. Rather, both had to be considered in the context of the job as a whole. And when they were it was clear that the Home Visitors, while requiring the same type of skills as the grievor's, exercised those skills at a much higher level than the grievor did. The fact that the Home Visitor, unlike the grievor, attended at homes and regularly interacted with clients confirmed this fact. Turning to the evaluation of judgement, employer counsel argued that here too the evidence established that the grievor was properly classified. It was clear that she was not at levei one. It was equally clear, in counsel's submission, that she was not at level three. Almost everything that the grievor did was provided for in one of the manuals. She was. not required to exercise the kind of judgement contemplated by level three. That fact that 12 Ms. MacKay worked with minimal supervision did not take her to the highest level of judgement, for level two explicitly contemplated employees working on their own. In conclusion, therefore, counsel argued that the evidence established that Ms. MacKay was properly classified in terms of skill and jugement, and that these being the only two areas in dispute, the grievance should be dismissed. Decision Having carefully considered the evidence and arguments of the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this grievance should be dismissed. The evidence clearly establishes that Ms. MacKay is a knowledgeable and conscientious employee who knows her job well and who is performing a valuable service for the employer. It does not, hoWever, establish that she is impropbrly classified in either the area of skills or judgement. It is understandable why the grievor would question the level assigned to skills for her position given example 14 in the classification manual. However, after hearing the evidence and considering the position specifications for the Home Visitor and Applicant Flepresentative jobs it is clear that the Home Visitor is called upon to exercise his or her skills at a much higher level than the grievor. The more immediate contact with clients of the Home Visitor is an important difference in th'e two jobs meriting the higher skills level. We are also satisfied on the evidence before us that the types of functions performed by Ms. MacKay clearly fit within level two of the skill category and not within tevet three. Ms. MacKay does not, for example, do complex accounting; she does do arithmetical calculations. Ms. .: MacKay has not created a filing system, nor does she conduct complex 13 correspondence. Her activities are, in our view, accurately encompassed by skills level two. We reach the same conclusion with respect to judgement. Ms. MacKay knows her job and works without supervision. But this is contemplated by judgement level two. Judgement levef three, the highest in the series, involves selecting between options and interpreting policy and adopting procedures. It cannot be said that the grievor does this, although she clearly exercises judgement within the established parameters of her position. We find, therefore, that the grievor has been properly classified with respect to judgement. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Ms. MacKay's grievance. As the parties were agreed that Ms. MacKay would serve as the representative grievor, the grievance of Ms. Weir is also dismissed. DATED at Ottawa this s dayof September, 1992. William Kaplan Vice-Chairperson D. Wintermuto Member M. O'Toole Member