HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0318.Cox.92-01-08 ONTARIO EMPLOyC~s DE LA COURONNE
CROWN EMP[- 0 YEE$ DE L'ON TA RIO
GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNOA.S STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG [Z8 TELEPHONE/TELEP.qONE. (4 :5~ f12S-~388
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, EIUREAU 2100, TORONTO [ONTARIO). M5G 1Z8 FACSI~ILE,'TEL~cOP~E (4 ~5~ 32S-~39E,
318/91
IN THE I~TTER OF P,N~ITI~TION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BHRGHINING HCT
Before
THE GRIEV~NCE BETTLEMENT BO~D
BETWEEN
CUPE 3096 (Cox)
Grievor
&nd -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Housing)
Employer
BEFORE: M. Gorsky Vice-Chairperson
I. Thomson Member
D. Clark Member
FOR THE J. Lynd
GRIEVOR National Representative
CUPE 3096
FOR THE C. Peterson
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HE~RIN~: August 17, 1992
DECISION
GRIEVANCE
The Grievor is employed by the Hamilton Wentworth Housing
Authority, and during her over twenty years of employment has
worked mostly in the Tenant Placement Office as a Tenant Placement
Officer. On June 15, 1990, she filed a grievance (Exhibit 2)
claiming that she had been improperly classified as an ADM-G-08,
and that she should be re-classified as an ADM-G-10, retroactive to
July 1, 1989.
BACKGROUND
Three collective agreements were filed as exhibits, all of
them made between the Ontario Housing Corporation and all Housing
Authorities as the Employer and the Ontario Housing Corporation
Employees' Union Local 3096, Canadian·'Union of Public Employees, as
the Union, the first one (Exhibit 1) being from January 1, 1988 to
Decembers31, 1989, the second one (Exhibit 3) being from January 1,
1990 to December 31, 1991, and the third one (Exhibit 4) being from
January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1993.
There are approximately 56 housing authorities located in the
province of Ontario covered by the collective agreements, from
Windsor in the south to Red Lake in the north and from the Manitoba
border on the west to Cornwall in the east. The Housing
Authorities have anywhere from two to 270 employees, and the
2
bargaining unit in the case before us is made up of all 'of the
~mployees of the Ontario Housing Corporation and of all Housing
Authorities in the province of Ontario employed outside of the
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, except for persons who are
not employees within the meaning of clause (f) subsection 1 of
section 1 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.
Of the approximately 1150 employees who are members of the
bargaining unit, approximately 700 are classified as being part of
the Maintenance Group and approximately 450 are classified as being
part of the Administrative Group.
Prior to July 1, 1988 there was no recognized system for
classifying employees in the bargaining unit. Appendix C (ii),
attached to and forming partof the collective agreement from
January 1, 1988 to December 31, 1989, is a letter to the then
president of the Union, Mrs. J. Chrysler from V. Oster, Manager,
Staff Relations (Acting) which is as follows:
Re: New Classification System for Bargaining Unit
Employees of All Provincial Housing Authorities
(excluding MTHA)
This will confirm our recent discussions and agreement on
the above-noted matter.
As discussed, the Parties agree to implement a new
classification system .which is described in the
Classification Standards Manual for Provincial Crown
Bargaining Unit Employees, Administrative and Maintenance
Groups.
This Manual was agreed upon on May 2, 1988 with the
following amendments:
3
a) Change the title and other relevant references
to read Administrative Group and Ma.[ntenance
Group.
b) Delete the classification standard of Janitor
which appears in the Maintenance Group
section.
In addition, as discussed:
1) We will ensure that the Housing managers are
informed through bQth correspondence from
senior Ministry management and through
training seminars on How to Prepare Position
Descriptions.
2) We will strongly indicate the need to ensure
that the job description reflects not only the
Housing Authority's right to determine job
content but also the actual duties performed
by the employee involved.
3) It will be emphasized that it is essential to
have the employee's input:
a) in preparing the job description; and
b) prior to the job being submitted for
classification.
4) The parties agree that for implementation of
this classification system only, the Ministry
of Housing,. Human Resources Branch will be
responsible for classification of the job
descriptions submitted by the Housing
Authorities.
5) The union will' receive copies of all job
descriptions prepared in order to implement
this classification system.
As agreed, the effective date of implementation is July
1, 1989. In addition, in order to implement this
classification system, it will also be necessary for the
parties to negotiate wage scales for the new classes in
the Administrative Group reflected on Page 6 of the
Classification Manual (AG-I through AG-II inclusive).
We are prepared to meet in June, 1989 to negotiate the
pay scales and we will be forwarding our proposed wage
scales in the near future.
4
On behalf of the Ontario Housing Corporation
In the collective agreement from January 1, 1990 to December
31, 1991 (Exhibit 3) the same letter appears as Appendix C, at page
47, and it is under this agreement that the grievance was filed.
The Manual referred to in the above noted appendices, (Exhibit
5) is entitled Classification Standards for Provincial Crown
Bargaining Unit Employees and it contains the classification
standards for the Administrative Group of which the Grievor is a
member.
The classification standards have been developed on the basis
of a Factor Point Rating plan. At page 2 of Exhibit 5 the
followin9 statement appears:
INTRODUCTION
These standards use a point rating plan to aid in
evaluating a heterogeneous range of positions in the
Administrative Group.
Point rating is an analytical, quantitative method of
determining the relative level of positions. This point
rating plan uses compensable factors which are common to
the positions in the group. The plan defines several
levels for each factor and establishes a point value for
each level. The total point value for a position is the
sum of the points corresponding to the levels of each
factor as allocated by the classifier.
Different positions with similar total point scores may
have different "profiles" of factor levels. The total
point value determines the classification level of the
position. It is the position's requirements, as stated
on the Position Specification form, that are evaluated,
and not the particular qualities of the individual
incumbent(s).
5
COMPENSABLE FACTORS
Six compensable factors have been selected for use in the
evaluation of all the positions under this plan. While
these factors may not describe every aspect of the
position being evaluated, they deal with those major
characteristics which can be defined, distinguished and
measured in determining relative values of positions.
The six factors used in the Plan are: knowledge, Skill,
Judgement, Accountability, Group Leadership and Community
Leadership; these are defined in a following section.
POINT VALUES
Point values increase as the level of each factor
increases.
Group Coequality
Know- Judge- Account- Leader- Leader-
Factor~: ledge Skill ment ability ship ship
Level
1 40 15' 55 55 20 10
2 85 45* 115 115 50 -
3 135 95* 180 180 - -
4 190 140' ....
* Plus points for technical skills where applicable
~kO_~: It is possible that combination .Df added
technical skills'could result in a total score
higher than 800.. In this event the total
score would be considered to be 800.
The compensable factor in issue'in the case before us is that
of "Judgement."
At p.3 of Exhibit 5, there is an explanation as to the way in
which the standard is to be used.
USE OF STANDARD
The following steps are to be taken in applying the class
standards:
6
(i) Study the position specification in its entirety to
gain an understanding of the position as a whole.
This should include a consideration of the
organizational structure and location in which the
position exists.
(ii) Determine that the position meets the criteria of
the Administrative Group. This requires reference
to the group definition and the description of
exclusions.
(iii) 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.
(iv) Review comparisons also with level definitions
above and below the ones tentatively established
for each factor. Note that, while few "match"
precisely with any one level description in a
factor, the use of a "best fit" approach should
enable an allocation at the appropriate level (see
definition of "best fit", following).
(v) To appreciate more fully the relationship of the
factor/level definition to a whole job, comparisons
should be made to relevant Example Positions.
These have been included in the Standards to
exemplify the levels and to illustrate
relationships among factors (see explanation of
"Example Positions", following).
(vi) Add the point values for each factor level selected
to determine the total point value.
One of the issues between the parties relates to the way in
which para.(iii) at page 3 under the "Use of Standard" was applied
by the Employer. The Union's position is that the judgement factor
should be placed at level 3 rather than at level 2 where it is now
assigned.
The definition of "best-fit" is found at p.3 of Exhibit 5, and
is as follows:
7
"BEST-FIT" APPROACH TO EVALUATION
This approach is employed when a position meets the
series inclusion criteria but either:
- cannot be readily related to specific statements in
the factor level definitions;
- can apparently be related to more than one
statement at more than one level, and does not
fully relate to any one level definition.
The method of dealing with the problems outlined in the "best-
fit" approach to evaluation are set out at p.4 of Exhibit 5:
Faced with the first problem, the evaluator must apply
all available evidence related to the position in
question and after interpreting it in terms relevant to
the level descriptions eliminate those levels which are
clearly not appropriate, e.g. in terms of Judgement, the
position is clearly neither at level 1 (too weak) nor is
it at level 3 (too strong): the evaluator then "best-
fits" the position in terms of Judgement at level 2.
Faced with the second problem, the evaluator should be
guided by the following considerations:
The position should receive the benefit of the
doubt and be assigned the higher evaluation level
only if the higher level requirement is significant
and critical to the functioning of the position.
Determination of a "significant and critical"
requirement involves evaluation as to whether a
position would be~ substantially changed in
character if the requirement was to be eliminated.
In general terms, a requirement is generally
considered to be of less significance in job
evaluation terms if the requirement does not occupy
a significant portion of time in the work week,
i.e. at least 25% of the normal work-week. As a
general rule, minor .or occasional "higher" level
requirements should not result in an evaluation
higher than that which would otherwise have been
made.
(Empasis in original;)
8
The "Example Positions" referred to in para. (v) Use Of
Standard in Exhibit 5 are found at pp.4-5:
Example Positions
Why Example Positions are included:
- To exemplify the level of the various factors and
thus assist the evaluator's understanding.
- To illustrate the evaluation process as it is
applied to the whole position. Only by reference
to the Examples can one see the overall
relationships among the compensable factors. There
is generally a balance between a position's input
requirements (Knowledge, Skill) and output
requirements (Judgement, Accountability). The
Examples exemplify some of the variations possible.
- To illustrate the application of the various levels
of the Factor Standards in working situations.
Str~cture of the Example Positions
Each Example Position is described in terms of:
- statement of purpose,
- sugary of duties and responsibilities,
- descriptive analysis of each of the compensable
factors, i.e. Knowledge, Skill (Core and
Technical), judgement, Accountability, Group
Leadership (where applicable) and Community
Leadership.
Each position has been evaluated factorially and the
relevant point values assigned have been shown.
How to Use the Examples
NOT~; For evaluation purposes, primary significance
is attached to the factor level definitions.
The Examples are designed to supplement the factor level
definitions, and should be used to obtain an improved
appreciation of the meaning and intent of these
definitions. In no instance should a factorial
description in an Example be used to support an
evaluation which is not generally supported by the factor
level definition. (Emphasis in original.)
9
The Determination Of Class Level is found at p.5 of Exhibit 5:
The total value of job evaluation points assigned to the
position determines the class level to which the position
will be allocated. Positions which fall within a
designated range of point values will be allocated to the
same classification level~
At the lower levels, smaller point differentials between
class levels have been established to recognize smaller
differences, primarily the presence of various technical
skills. At the higher levels, where technical skills are
relatively less significant, larger point differentials
are used to recognize significant differences in the more
senior responsibilities.
The Class And Point Bands for the various levels as they
relate to the AG Class, set out at p.6 of Exhibit 5, contain 11
classe~ from AG-1 to AG-11. The Point Band with respect to the AG-
$ class is 460-524, and that with respect to the AG-9 is 525-599,
and that with respect to AG-10 is 600-699.
Commencing at p.7 of Exhibit 5 are the various Factor
Definitions which are applicable to establishing the Point Band.
In the case before us, it was agreed that the only factor that we
should consider was "judgement." The relevant portions of Exhibit
5 dealing with this factor are found at pp.17-18 under "Factor
Definition/Judgement", where the Manual states:
The "Judgement" factor is used to measure that
requirement of a position for:
- the evaluation and/or assessment of conditions
which arise during the course of the work
performed, and the making of the appropriate
decisions.
10
Factor Composition
The factor is composed of three increasing levels of
"Judgement" which are defined by:
- the (increasing) variety/complexity of
conditions/situations requiring decisions;
- the (decreasing) availability of procedures,
guidelines and advice.
The appropriate level of this factor is determined by
comparing the typical requirements of a position for
making judgements/decisions with the above definitions
and making the allocation on a "best-fit" basis.
Factor Glossary
Supervision: The position consists of tasks covered by
clearly defined requirements. Supervision is available
for resolving difficulties in completing work or for
matters not covered by the established requirements.
General Supervision: The position has duties and
responsibilities covered within a framework of guidelines
and requirements and calling for considerable functional
independence in the completion of assignments.
Practices: The customary action taken in meeting the
demands of the situation; the usual way of doing
something.
PrQcedures: A series of known steps to be followed in a
regular definite order.
Standards: Specific requirements against which work can
be measured for quality and quantity.
Criteria: Specific requirements against which actions
can be assessed for appropriateness.
Routine: Commonplace or repetitious, in accordance with
established procedures.
Comprehensive: Covering completely or broadly.
Guidelines: Indications or outlines of policy, conduct,
methods, procedures.
Precedent: Something said or done earlier that may serve
as ~n example or rule for subsequent similar actions.
11
Administrative Directive: An authoritative in:~truction
or order issued by a high level body or official.
Policy: The organization's approved course or method of
action to guide and determine present an.~ future
decisions.
The Grievor was assigned by the Employer to level 2 upon a
consideration of the "judgement" factor, and the Union claims that
she should have been properly assessed at level 3. At p.19 of
Exhibit 5, the levels with respect to judgement are as follows:
1 Decision-making involves determining whether
materials/data procedures conform with established
criteria/standards of selecting minor variations in
work procedures and sequence of tasks. Tasks are
often repetitive.
55 Work assignments, accompanied by detailed
procedures, are carried out under supervision or
are self-checking.
PTS.
Any matters not covered by procedures or
instructions are referred to the supervisor.
2 Decision-making involves selecting the most
suitable procedures/methods within comprehensive
guidelines and precedents.
115 Work assignments , accompanied by general
procedures, are carried out under general
supervision and normally are subject to only
limited checking by~ supervisor or others upon
completion.
PTS.
The employee solves routine work problems, seeking
advice if needed and referring to the supervisor
unusual matters not covered by established
procedures and guidelines.
3 Decision-making involves selecting from a wide
range of choices of .action the best approach to
accomplish assigned objectives.
180 The employee is frequently required to .knterpret
policy and administrative directives and to adapt
procedures/methods to resolve on-going difficulties
and work problems.
12
PTS.
The employee is expected to make all work-related
decisions, referring to the supervisor only matters
that deviate radically from established guidelines
or policy.
Exhibit 6 is a memorandum of settlement, dated February 23,
1989, made between the Ontario Housing Corporation and all housing
authorities as the Employer and the Union:
Classification System - New Wage Rates
Pursuant to Appendix C(i) and C(ii) of the Collective
Agreement, the parties agree to the following terms and
conditions as full and final settlement of the above-
noted matter.
1. The wage rates (as attached) to be implemented in
conjunction with the new classification system,
effective July 1, 1989.
2. Where a position is reclassified to a class with
the same maximum salary, the employee who occupies
the position on July 1, 1989 shall be paid the rate
that is closest to, but not less than, his/her
current rate.
3. Where a position is reclassified to a class with a
higher maximum salary, the employee who occupies
the position on July 1, 1989 shall be paid at the
rate that is closest to, but not less than his/her
current rate.
4. For the purpose of the implementation of this plan
where a position is reclassified to a class with a
lower maximum salary, the employee who occupies the
position on July 1, 1989 shall retain the actual
salary range of his/her former class in effect on
June 30, 1989, and will remain at that salary range
until the salary range of the new classification
exceeds the maximum of the salary range of his/her
former classification.
The parties further agree that only those employees in
the classification of Community Relations Officer, shall
receive an additional 10 points toward their total point
value under the new classification system, in recognition
of community leadership.
It was agreed that the system was not implemented until
November of 1989 as the process had not been completed in July of
1989.
Of the 450 positions classified under the new system, 370 were
satisfactory to the affected employees. The remaining 80 cases,
where the affected employees were not satisfied with the original
classification assigned, were the subject of an informal appeal
process, and 40 cases were satisfactorily resolved during that
process. The remaining 40 employees who were not satisfied with
their classification filed grievances. Thirty-six of those cases
were resolved during the grievance procedure. The Union applied to
have the remaining four cases referred to arbitration, and this is
one of those cases.
As a result of the implementation of the new classification
system, the Grievor was placed in the Administration Group 8
classification effective July 1, 1989, the class code being ADM-G-
08, as set out in Exhibit 7, being a memorandum, dated February 3,
1990, from D. Monument, Human Resources Advisor, Human Resources
Branch, Ministry of Housing, to R. Farrell, General Manager,
Hamilton Wentworth Housing Authority which stated:
As a result of a revised job description and other
information provided for the above position the
responsibilities were re-evaluated resulting in the
following classification:
14
Classification: Administration Group 8
Effective Date: July 1, 1989
A copy of the final specification for this position is
attached for your records.
The original class allocation for the Grievor was
Administration Group 7, class code ADM-G-07.
It was the position of the Union that, at the time of the
filing of her informal grievance, the Grievor was an AG-8, and at
that time the Union did not have available to it the formal job
classification system contemplated by the collective agreement. By
letter dated February 1, 1990, the Union sent a letter to all
bargaining unit employees (Exhibit 8), which is as follows:
RE: Job Evaluation Appeals Update
Late last fall when OHC implemented the new "AG
Classification System", many bargaining unit employees
were exceedingly concerned with the results for a number
of valid reasons, including but not limited to the
following:
1. Little or no training was given to Housing
Authorities Management to complete the task.
2. Little input was received from the employee
concerned in preparing the job descriptions (in
some cases no input at all).
3. The job description form was changed after the
employee had submitted it and the employee was not
made aware of the changes before submission to the
Ministry of Housing, Human Resource Branch for
classification.
4. In some cases employees were advised there was no
right of appeal at all.
15
In light of ~he confusion caused by this and in an
attempt to rectify this situation, the Union suggested
that your concerns be reduced to writing and forwarded to
the Union to see if we could get the appeal procedure in
motion. In addition to forwarding your concerns to the
Union, many of you sent your concerns to yc. ur local
Housing Authority Manager in an attempt to get
satisfaction at that level.
Upon receipt of your concerns and requests for an appeal,
in December the Union met and explained the situation
verbally to the Ministry. of Housing, Human ]Resources
Branch and also forwarded your written requests for
appeal to that branch,
Since that time the Human Resources Branch has been able
to deal with all requests for appeal that were submitted
by an employee both to the Union and to the local Housing
Authority. The employee's comments along with comments
from the Housing Authority Manager have been evaluated
and in many cases a higher AG level has been assigned
resulting in a higher rate of pay - in some other cases
the appeal procedure has confirmed the current AG rate.
For these employees who were not upgraded the grievance
procedure is another possibility (more about this further
in this letter). Unfortunately, Human Resources Branch
has not dealt with the requests for appeal that were
submitted ONLY to the Union in that they do not have any
comments to refer to from Management regarding the
appeal.
To afford everyone the same opportunity of appeal, the
Union requests that any '~f you who have not. already
submitted a request for appeal t~ your local housing
Manager do so immediately. Your Housing Authority will
then submit your concerns and any concerns they have in
writing to Mr. Don Portoghese, Senior Human ]Resources
Advisor, Human Resources Branch in Toronto, who will have
your position re-evaluated. Our hope is that in most
cases positive results will be achieved. This will be
completed as quickly as possible.
W~at happens then??? For those of you who have already
submitted your appeal and it has been denied and for
those of you who will be submitting your appeal in the
near future and it is denied, the Union is prepared to
file a grievance on your behalf if you so desire.
In order to expedite this matter the Union and OHC have
agreed to the following process to handle
reclassification grievances:
16
1. Any employee wanting to file a grievance shall
advise the Union in writing at its Toronto address,
including your current home address and phone
number and as much information as possible
justifying the grievance and what AG level they are
proposing they be reclassified to.
2. A standard grievance form will be completed by the
Union office and returned to you for signature on
all three (3) copies.
3. The signed grievance will be returned by you to the
Union for submission at Step #3 (the grievance will
be heard by someone in Human Resources familiar
with the reclassification process). Commencing the
grievance and procedure at this Step rather than
Step #1 will considerably speed up the process.
4. Grievances will be heard geographically by region
commencing in the spring. Any reclassification and
resulting upgradings will be retroactive to July
1st, 1989.
5. Everyone filing a grievance will [be] advised
regarding a hearing date once a date had been set
and also if any further information is required to
strengthen your grievance.
If you have any questions or comments, please send them
to me in writing.
On May 10, 1990, a further memorandum was sent by the Union to
all bargaining unit employees (Exhibit 9):
Re: Job ~valua~ion App~al~ Update
Further to my letter of February, 1990, please be advised
of the following:
1/ The Union has been notified from the Human Resources
Branch of the Ministry of Housing, that all appeals for
Job Classifications will be completed and returned to the
Employee by May 31st, 1990.
2/ After receiving the appeal, any Employee who is
still not satisfied with their Job Classification, has
the right to grieve. However, the deadline for the
grievance procedure (as outlined in my previous letter)
is June 15th, 1990.
17
3/ Any grievance filed ~fter June 15th, 1990, will be
done so according to the process outlined in the
collective agreement.
If you should have any questions, please contact your
Steward or Chief Steward and they in turn may contact me
through the Union office.
It was acknowledged that the Grievor filed her grievance in time.
Exhibit 10 is a letter dated December 9, 1991, from D.
Portoghese, Senior Human Resources Advisor, Human Resources Branch
of the Ministry of Housing to the Grievor concerning the
disposition of her grievance, as a result of which she became
classified as AG-9, effective July 1, 1989.
It was the position of the Union that the judgement factor
should have been'assessed at level 3 rather than level 2, and if
this had been done, her point total would have led to her being
classified as an AG-10.
Exhibit 11 is the most up-to-date class allocation form with
respect to the Grievor's position and it contains a complete factor
analysis, which the Employer relied upon as supporting its
evaluation as set out in Exhibit 10.
We were informed by counsel for the parties that the case
before us was one of first impression.
18
It was the position of the Employer that applying Exhibit 5,
the placement of the Grievor at the 2 level for judgement
represented an "almost if not perfect fit."
EVIDENCE
Evidence of the Grievor
The Grievor testified that:
1. As a Tenant Placement Officer she has the responsibility for
allocating vacancies and new non-profit units from either a
Priority List of applicants or from a steadily growing
transfer list to meet specific deadlines and to avoid
financial and vacancy losses.
2. She deals with vacant Housing Authority, Rent Supplement, Non-
Profit and Co-operative units on the basis of receiving tenant
termination ("MOT notices") and tenant files from project
managers, either as single notices or in groups.
3. She may be involved with approximately 5300 units.
4. Exhibit 11, being the Grievor's position specification
contains a list of her duties and responsibilities, which she
did not disagree with:
3. Duties and related tasks
19
1. Allocates vacant Housing Authority, Rent
Supplement, Non-Profit and Co-operative units to
suitable applicants by:
- receiving tenant terminations (MOT notices) and
tenant files from project managers or Non-Profit
groups, selecting applications from appropriate
sections of the Priority List or from the Transfer
list, and determining the most suitable for
vacancies based on special priority (includes
battered women), points, special housing needs
(modified or one floor plan unit), area, type and
density of project, size and type of unit, and
portfolio requirements.
- offering units in writing or by telephone to
selected applicants or tenant transfers, following
up by telephone as required, and referring
prospective tenants to the appropriate Project
Manager, Rent Supplement landlord, Non-Profit or
Co-operative contact person to view offered units.
- requesting up to date income verification as
required and calculating rent for new tenants
according to a variety of complex, often vague and
sometimes conflicting guidelines and rent scales.
75%- Negotiating occupancy dates in order to fill
vacancies with no monetary or time loss
- Advising applicant of new dual rent situation
policy (if necessary); advising Project staff
whether a rent forgiveness is required, per new
HWHA policy directives;
- preparing appropriate docu~nentation in order that a
lease may be typed.
- preparing related computer input forms for new
tenant set-up on OFIS and on internal weekly and
monthly Activity reports.
- maintaining complete records and follow-up
procedures until vacancy has been filled, including
discussions with Project Managers and other staff
re. [u~nit~ on hold, not ready, overholds, etc.
- advising accounts department regarding change or
responsibility dates on MOT forms in cases of early
re-rent, preparing computer input forms to debit or
credit tenant account when necessary, or to delete
a set-up in the event of a new tenant not taking
occupancy or in the case of an overhold.
2. Provides general information to applicants,
agencies and staff by:
15%- responding to enquiries regarding eligibility
guidelines, applicant status, tenant placement and
transfer policies and procedures.
2O
- Refers applicants and tenants to appropriate
agencies regarding availability of services,
financial assistance to which they are entitled.
3. Performs other related duties such as:
- maintaining approved applications on file, updating
as required, and also maintaining a list of
approved tenant transfers.
10%- participating as a member of 'the Transfer Review
Committee at monthly meetings to review the
validity of tenant transfer requests.
- advising tenant placement supervisor as to the
accuracy or otherwise of monthly vacancy loss
printouts.
- performs other duties as assigned.
4. Skills and knQ~edge required to perform job at
full working level
Extensive knowledge of OHC and Housing Authority policies
and procedures relating to tenant placement, rent
calculations, and transfer criteria in order to effect
appropriate placements by set deadlines, set initial
tenant rents, provide information and answer queries from
applicants, tenants, agencies, project staff, CRW's, and
members of the general public. Good knowledge of social
assistance programs (FBA, GWA), government pension plans
(Old Age Security, Spouses Allowance, GAINS, DVA, CPP).
Familiarity with common medical terms (claustrophobia,
acrophobia, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy) in order
to facilitate appropriate and sometimes specialized
placement of applicants and transfer of tenants. A
working knowledge of certain sections of the Landlord and
Tenant Act in order to discuss proper notice~ with
applicants/prospective tenants.
Ex~ellent communications skills and organizational
ability are required in order to appropriately allocate
units (including over 900 difficult to rent bachelor
apartments) and to set own priorities to prevent vacancy
losses. Tact, flexibility, and good judgement are
required to deal courteously, yet assertively with
applicants from different cultures and ethnic groups who
may not be fluent in English, their interpreters, clients
who have psychological difficulties and are upset, irate,
and often under stress. Ability to use some "gently
persuasion" in order to rent units which applicants feel
are not up to their requirements/standards/desires. The
position requires the ability to operate an electric
typewriter to meet government standards, calculator, and
photocopying equipment.
21
5. Selecting the person to whom an offer of an allocation will be
be made is not a straight-forward matter. For example, she
has to be familiar with certain priorities given to a number
of different categories. For example, she noted that abused
women have priority over most other classes of persons seeking
accommodation who have more points.
6. There may be 20 persons with the same number of points and she
has to examine each of their areas of preference and eliminate
some of them.
7. In many cases she has to match an applicant to the available
accommodation, and sometimes points have to be balanced
against the suitability of the accommodation for an applicant.
8. On an ongoing bases she has to upgrade a survey of
accommodation.
9. She has to be aware of situations where tenants might be "over
housed" and attempt to transfer them to more appropriate
accommodation. By way of example she referred to a situation
where a three-bedroom unit with a one-floor plan might be made
available to a disabled applicant by arranging for the
transfer of the "over housed" tenant. By continu~Lng to be
aware aware of the special needs of applicants and existing
tenants, she is in a position to deal with two problems at the
22
same time: obtain accommodation for a handicapped person and
an abused person.
10. Expanding upon her role in determining the appropriate rent
scale for a unit, she referred to a number of areas that she
has to be aware of such as family status, age (senior citizen
etc.) or the status of an applicant receiving Family Benefits
or General Welfare Assistance.
11. Offers to tenants are usually made in letter form under the
signature of her manager (Ms. Bradford). She is responsible
for preparing the letter, which Ms. Bradford does not see.
The letter is in a standard form in which the she fills in
information: number of bedrooms, availability date, rent,
inclusions for rent.
12. In ascertaining whether an applicant wishes to accept the
accom]~odation, advice may be given on such matters as a
tenant's obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act with
respect to notifying the previous landlord.
13. ~Where problems arise because notice cannot be given to the
previous landlord so as to coincide with the anticipated
occupancy date, she discusses the possibility of rent
forgiveness so that the applicant will not have to pay double
rent after moving into the offered accommodation.
23
14. She referred to situations where an offer is g~ven to an
applicant following which information is received from the
project staff that the outgoing tenant will not be moving out
in the absence of a writ of possession. In those
circumstances, she has to deal with the problem. In some
circumstances the applicant is told that the offer has to be
withdrawn, and that the next availabl~ unit would be allocated
to him/her. In such cases she exercises her judgement by not
sending an offer to another applicant, who would otherqwise
receive it, but offers that unit to the applicant whose unit
has ceased to be available because of the actions of the
outgoing tenant.
15. In an average month, she deals with approximately 80 vacant
units and she was the only person performing the tenant
placement function.
16. If she has to be absent for up to a week, her job would not be
performed by anyone. The switchboard operator might take
messages from persons with whom she might be involved. When
she was on vacation, someone would be brought in to assist in
carrying out her functions.
17. She emphasized that she made decisions as to the more suitable
applicant not on some mechanical numerical point system, but
tarried'out the policy of the Employer based on a desire to
24
upgrade certain projects. This might diminish the weight of an
applicant's raw point score.
18. She might refer a work-related decision to her supervisor on
two or three occasions a year, because if she discussed every
work-related decision with him she would constantly be in his
office. An example of a work-related decision requiring the
interpretation and application of policy was the case where an
applicant refused a unit when it was offered. The Emloyer's
policy is to allow an applicant to receive only two offers of
accommodation. However, where a valid reason for refusal is
given, the offer is not counted, and she applies policy
considerations in deciding whether an excuse is valid.
19. In cross-examination, she referred to rules relating to tenant
placement which were available to her, along with other policy
documents, memos etc. which impact on the manual that she
resorts to. She also referred to a tenant placement binder
containing policy, rules, procedures, regulations on almost
every matter pertaining to tenant placement. Although, as she
put it: "There was a piece of paper on almost everything," it
was not always easy to know which statement was applicable to
a particular case, and considerable leaway exists for the
exercise of discretion with respect to matters referred to in
the manual.
25
20. While acknowledging that for her to deviate from guidelines
required her supervisor's approval, she indicated that she
first had to decide which guidelines were applicable. By way
of example she referred to the Ontario Housing Co~poration
guidelines, verbal guidelines given to her, and guidelines of
the Hamilton Wentworth Authority. Sometimes the guidelines
overlapped and she had to decide which guideline seemed most
suitable.
21. In cross-examination, she acknowledged that a notice of
vacancy received by her should contain all of the necessary
information required by her, such as the name of the person
reporting the vacancy, date of the report, tenant account
number, project name, street name, availability date, vacation
date, date of responsibility for unit, termination date,
description of the unit and what it contains, the name and
address of the outgoing tenant, rent charged, reason for
leaving, who the unit was offered to (together With
particulars), income source, income amount of the person to
whom the unit is offered.
22. She denied a suggestion put to 'her in cross-examination that
she visited her supervisor Mr. Fotheringham once or twice a
week to discuss problems faced by her. She kept him informed
about certain matters that arose in the course of her'carrying
out her responsibilities, but she did not regard this as a
26
discussion. As an example, she referred to her informing him
of a case where she had three refusals of an offer of a three-
bedroom detached unit located on Hamilton Mountain, which
refusal she regarded as unusual given the nature of the
accomodation. In her view, she kept her supervisor informed
of the status of some of her cases, but she was not required
to report in any more detailed fashion. Her infrequent
reporting was for the purpose of showing him that she was "on
top of things" and doing a good job.
23. It was put to her in cross-examination that her supervisor
could correct her work if he found errors in it. She
disagreed, testifying that he couldn't know if there was an
error unless he did a complete review of her work performance,
which she believed was not the case because of the volume of
such work.
24. She acknowledged that she had, on occasion, attended on her
supervisor to obtain guidance on certain matters not covered
by policies available to her. She referred to situations
where there was a need to depart from existing policies.
EVIDENCE OF THE EMPLOYER
Evidence of Mr. B. Fotheringham
27
Mr. Fotheringham testified that:
t. He had been employed by the Hamilton Wentworth Housing
Authority for approximately nine years, and supervised the
Grievor.
2. He had performed the same job as the Grievor as a Tenant
Placement Officer for approximately six years for the Metro
Toronto Authority.
3. He reviews reports on the Grievor's activities on an ongoing
basis. He specifically referred to Exhibit 13, being the
weekly activity report showing particulars asked, the category
of the premises, the project, the street address, bed size,
vacating tenant, reason for termination, date received, date
available, date rented, reference, name of new tenant, points,
income, and placement on the P-Scal. Other reports referred
to, which were used by him in supervising the Grievor, were
the monthly family vacancy ~eport issued by the Tenant
Placement Department (Exhibit 14), priority list data CHUMS
input (Exhibit 15). The latter document breaks down the
applicant category into households with dependents~ showing
the various types of accommodation, e.g. two bedroom, three
bedroom, four bedroom, five plus bedroom, senior households
and the breakdown between one and two bedroom units,
households without dependents and the breakdowns between one,
28
two and three plus bedrooms and applicants requiring support
services including developmental handicaps, physical handicaps
and psychiatric handicaps. Numbers of new applicants are
shown along with cancelled applications, turnover of those
housed in new units, status change, size of active priority
list in the current month with respect to each category broken
down into these kinds of units, unvisited applicants and the
point range of visited applicants in each category.
By reviewing the figures contained in the various documents
relating to activity, he is able to assess whether the
Grievor's performance is adequate.
4. He meets~with the Grievor on an informal basis about once or
twice a week. These meetings are not scheduled but he
maintains an "open door" policy. These discussions are not
very detailed, and he acknowledged that these meetings serve
the purpose of showing that the Grievor was "on top of the
job."
He could not think of a situation where there was no existing
policy, but added that if there was none then it would have to
be devised.
6. In his view, neither the Grievor or himself were involved in
the interpretation of policy.
29
7. Approximately once every two weeks the Grievor might speak to
him about a problem experienced with an applicant who
persisted in turning down offers. In such a case, he might
speak to the applicant.
8. He does not make policy. When a situation arises where no
policy exists, the matter is turned over to Ms. J. V. Bradford
the Tenant Placement Manager. Reference was made to Exhibit
16, comprised of a series of memoranda from Ms. Bradford
setting out a number of new policies to be followed which had
not been covered previously. In cross-examination, he said
that input could be received from any employee, but the final
establishment of policy was made by Ms. Bradford.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE UNION
t. Reference was made to the statement at p.4 of Exhibit 5 under
the heading Example Positions, and particularly to paragraph
2 which includes a statement that "There is generally a
balance between a position's input requirements (Enowledge,
Skill) and output requirements (Judgement, Accountability)."
(Emphasis in the original.) It was submitted that as the
Grievor obtained level 3 in the areas of knowledge, skill and
accountability, and was at level 2 only in the area of
judgement, in order to achieve'the "balance" referred to, he
3O
should have been placed at level 3 in the area of judgement,
as well.
2. Reference was also made to the instructions as to the use of
the standard, set out at p.3 of Exhibit 5 and particularly to
paragraphs (iii) and (iv). It was submitted that employing
the "best-fit" approach, that the Grievor's use of judgement
was at the level 3.
3. Counsel referred to Exhibit 5 which contains 15 example, two
of which were placed at'level 3 in the area of judgement:
Senior Accounts Clerk - Example 5 and Community Relations
Worker - Example 10.
ARGUMENT OF THE EMPLOYER
1. It was submitted that paragraph (iii) at p.3 of Exhibit 5,
dealing with the use of the standard, required that each
factor be reviewed on its own merits and that the total points
derived from the use of this method determines the
classification of. the particular employee.
2. It was submitted that in following the directions on p.3 of
Exhibit 5, and working from the lowest level, once the
comparison provided for in paragraph (iii) had been carried
out and 'a match obtained, the evaluator was required to employ
31
that matching level, subject to a check being carried out, as
provided for in paragraph (iv), and that the "best-fit"
approach would only be employed when the tentatively
established level: "cannot be readily related to specific
statements in the factor level definitions" or "can apparently
be related to more than one statement at more than one level,
and does not fully relate to any one level definition." In
the case before us, it was submitted that there was no need to
resort to the "best-fit" approach.
3. It was submitted that there did not have to be a perfect
balance between a position's input and output requirements and
that this could be seen by examining the examples which were
said to bear-out the conclusion that this was the case.
DISCUSSION .
1. The difference between the parties concerning whether the
Grievor should have been placed in level 2 or 3 upon a
consideration of the judgement factor did not involve a
challenge by the Union on the Employer's right to create
Exhibit 5. Rather, the difference relates to the proper
interpretation of language found in that exhibit.
2. We are satisfied that the provision found at p.4 of Exhibit 5,
that: "There is generally a balance between a position's input
32
requirements (Knowledge, Skill) and output requirements
{Judgement, Accountability)" does not require a perfect
balance. This is made clear when reference is made, following
the last quotation, to: '"The Examples exemplify some of the
variations possible," which examples do not show a perfect
balance between the position's input and output requirements.
This view is also supported by the language found at p.2 of
Exhibit 5, which states: "Different positions with similar
total point scores may have different 'profiles' of factor
levels. The total point value determines the classification
level of the position."
3. There was no dispute between the parties as to the Grievor
falling within the Administrative Group, and we find that the
Grievor falls within that portion of the Group definition
found at p.l:
The direct applicati.on of rules and regulations in
accordance with established policies and guidelines in
order to determine eligibility, compliance, investigate
situations or provide a service.
The Grievor would also fall within that portion of the
definition:
The preparation, collection, transcription, recording,
maintenance, examination, verification of records,
.reports, information and communications by manual or
electronic processes including the operation of equipment
such as typewriters, dictating machines, word processors
and computer terminals.
33
4. We heard a good deal of evidence concerning the position's
requirements, which were apparently intended to flesh out the
position's requirements as stated on the Position
Specification form. We observe that in the introduction to
Exhibit 5, at p.2, there is a statement:
It is the position's requirements, as stated on the
Position Specification form, that are evaluated, and not
the particular qualities of the'individual incumbent(s).
Consistent with this is the instruction, found at p.3 of
Exhibit 5, relating to the "use of standard". The first step
to be taken in applying class standards requires a: "study
fof] the position specification in its entirety to gain an
understanding of the position as a whole. This should include
a consideration of the organizational structure and location
in which the position exists."
5. The second step, found at p.3 of Exhibit 5, dealing with the
use of standard requires a determination: "... that the
position meets the criteria of the Administrative Group. This
requires reference to the group definition and the description
of exclusions." It is clear from the group definition that
the Grievor falls within the Administrative Group, and in any
event, the parties stipulated that this was the case.
6. The third requirement in using the standard, set out at p.3 of
Exhibit 5 is:
Working from the lowest level, compare each factor in the
subject position with the factor level definitions in
each successive level until a "match" is identified.
It is evident that the use of the term "match" in the third
step set out in the use of standard, found at p.3 of Exhibit
5, does not mean a perfect match. This is clear from an
examination of the fourth step in the use of the standard:
Review comparisons also with level definitions above and
below the ones tentatively established for each factor.
Note that, while few "match" precisely with any one level
description in a factor, the use of a "best-fit" approach
should enable an allocation at the appropriate level (see
definition of "best-fit", following).
7. The fourth step required after a "match" is identified under
the third step. In the language of the fourth step, it is
made clear that an examination of the level definitions above
and below the ones tentatively established for each factor may
disclose that the "match" originally identified while carrying
out the third step is not a perfect one, and that, in fact, it
is unlikely that a perfect match will be found.
8. The "best-fit" approach, referred to in step 4 of the use of
the standard is employed, as noted at pp.3-4 of Exhibit 5, in
two situations: The first being where the position: "cannot be
readily related to specific statements in the factor level
definitions .... " When faced with this problem: "The
evaluator must apply all available evidence related to the
position in question and after interpreting it in terms
relevant to the level descriptions eliminate those levels
35
which are clearly not appropriate, e.g. in terms of Judgement,
the position is clearly neither at level 1 (too weak) nor is
it at level 3 (too strong): the evaluator then 'best-fits' the
position in terms of Judgement at level 2." We are not faced
with the first problem because the position can be so "readily
related." If we had been faced with the first problem in
applying the best-fit approach, we would have concluded we
would not have arrived at the conclusion set out in the
example found at page 4, and would have found the position at
level 3 to be the best fit.
From the language found at pagelfour of Exhibit 5, it appears
that it is only when faced with the first problem, that an
evaluator may go beyond the position specification and "apply
all available evidence related to the position in question."
Nevertheless, both counsel adduced evidence and made argument
as if "all available evidence related to the position in
question" could be utilized in assessing the reqirements of
the position for the purpose of arriving at the best-fit,
whichever of the two problems referred to was encountered.
The second problem where the !'best-fit" approach is to be
employed is where the position: "can apparently be related to
more than one statement at more than one level, and does not
fully relate to one level definition." This is the case
36
before us. Here the evaluator is required to be guided by the
following considerations:
The position should receive the benefit of the doubt and
be assigned the higher evaluation level only if the
higher level requirement is significant and critical to
the functioning of the position, Determination of a
"significant and critical" requirement involves
evaluation as to whether a position would be
substantially changed in character if the requirement was
to be eliminated. In general terms, a requirement is
generally considered to be of less significance in job
evaluation terms if the requirement does not' occupy a
significant portion of time in the work week, i.e. at
least 25% of the normal work-week. As a general rule,
minor or occasional "higher" level requirements should
not result in an evaluation higher than that which would
otherwise have been made.
(Emphasis in original.)
9. The fifth step in the use of the standard states:
To appreciate more fully the relationship of the
faotor/level definition to a whole job, comparisons
should be made to relevant Example Positions. These have
been included in the Standards to exemplify the levels
and to illustrate relationships among factors (see
explanation of "Example Positions", following).
The use of example positions "are designed to supplement the
factor level definitions, and should be used to obtain an
improved appreciation of the meaning and intent of these
definitions" and the classification standards are clear in
providing that: "In no instance should a factorial description
in an Example be used to support an evaluation which is not
generally supported by the factor level definition." (p.5).
10. The sixth and final step requires that the point values for
each factor level selected be added up to determine the total
point value which determines the class level to which the
position is to be allocated.
11. We find that the position cannot be related to level 1 in the
sense required by the third step, and that within the meaning
of that step, level 2 can be identified as a "match."
However, in carrying out step four it becomes clear that a
"best-fit" approach must be employed as the position can
apparently be related to the statements at levels 2 .and 3 but
does not fully relate to either of these level definitions.
12. The evidence satisfies us that the Grievor was furnished with
comprehensive guidelines and precedents to assist in decision-
making and that she was usually involved in selecting the most
suitable procedures/methods 'from within the available
comprehensive guidelines and precedents.
The comparable statement at level 3 is: "Decision-making
involves selecting from a wide range of choices of action the
best approach to accomplish assigned objectives." In the case
of the Grievor, she was furnished with comprehensive
guidelines and precedents, and the evidence disclosed that
where these did not exist she was expected to bring this to
the attention of her supervisor, and Exhibit 16 is made up of
a series of memoranda from J. V. Bradford, Tenant Placement
Manager representing additions to guidelines to be followed
38
when the guidelines and precedents furnished do not deal with
particular matters. The element of decision-making noted at
level 3 go beyond working within comprehensive guidelines and
precedents and this was something the Grievor was not supposed
to do. From her evidence, it appeared that she adapted
guidelines and precedents, but we are satisfied that this was
something undertaken on her own and was not made known to her
supervisor. Exhibit 5 makes it clear that it is the position
that is being appraised and not the particular qualities of an
incumbent.
13. The second paragraph at level 2, dealing with work
assignments, indicates that: "Work assignments, accompanied by
general procedures, are carried out under general supervision
and normally are subject to only limited checking by
supervisor or others upon completion." The evidence indicated
that this statement covered this aspect of the Grievor's
functioning. However, when the second paragraph of level 3,
covering the same area is considered, part of it also appears
to be applicable to the Grievor: "The employee is frequently
required to interpret policy and administrative directives,"
however, the balance of the provision does not appear to fall
within the Grievor's duties and responsibilities: "... and to
adapt procedures/methods to resolve on-going difficulties and
work problems." While the Grievor may believe that this is
what she was doing, and was required to do, the evidence
39
indicated that policy and administrative directives were
available to her and were not subject to adaptation? and any
situations not covered had to be referred to supervision.
14, The third matter dealt with in level 2 is as follows:
The employee solves routine work problems, seeking advice
if needed and referring to the supervisor unusual matters
not covered by established procedures and guidelines.
The counterpart under level three is as follows:
The employee is expected to make all work-related
decisions, referring to the supervisor only matters that
deviate radically from established guidelines or policy.
while it is true that the Grievor was only required to refer
to her supervisor unusual matters not covered by established
procedures and guidelines, the third paragraph of level 2 does
not take into consideration that the Grievor was faced with a
host of non-routine work problems. As is pointed out at p.2
of her position specification, she must exercise her judgement
in many difficult situations resulting from the fact that she
deals with a variety of persons "from different cultures and
ethnic groups who may not be fluent in English, their
interpreters, clients who have psychological difficulties and
are upset, irate, and often under stress, where she must
demonstrate [a]bility to use some 'gentle persuasion' in order
to rent units which applicants feel are not up to their
requirements/standards/desires." Such work problems appear to
4O
us to be something more than routine, and the evidence
indicated that in that situation she had "to make all work-
related decisions, referring to the supervisor only matters
that deviate radically from established guidelines or policy"
as set out in the third paragraph of level 3.
In these circumstances we are faced w~th a situation where the
position can be related to more than one statement at more
than one level and that it does not fully relate to any one
level definition.
Relying on the guidance set out at p.4, when faced with this
problem, we are satisfied that "the higher level requirement
is significant and critical to the functioning of the
position," as it would appear to occupy a significant portion
of time in the work week and cannot be regarded as minor or
occasional "higher level requirements."
In the circumstances, while we appreciate that the use of
examples is intended to supplement the factor level
definitions, and that the examples are to be used to obtain an
improved appreciation of the meaning and intent of the
definitions and not for the purpose of supporting an
evaluation which is not generally supported by the factor
level definition, we are not satisfied that the position is
entitled to "receive the benefit of the doubt," as provided
41
for in the guidelines furnished when faced with the second
problem.
15. We have used the examples in the manner suggested at p.5: "The
Examples are designed to supplement the factor level
definitions, and should be used to obtain an improved
appreciation of the meaning and intent of these definitions."
16. In example code 1, Accounts Clerk, where the purpose of the
position is to: "Maintain accurate and up-to-date accounting,
rent supplement and personnel/payroll records for a non-
terminal location Housing Authority," under factorial
analysis, judgement is stated to be: "Used in answering
inquiries from staff regarding.computer input. The employee
must use judgement to priorize work for a variety of functions
to be completed by set deadlines." In this example, the
judgement factor is set at. level 2.
17. in example code 2, Clerk Typist, where the purpose of the
position is: "To provide typing and clerical support
services," where the judgement level is set at lew~l 1, the
specification, under judgement'states:
The employee exercises some judgement in setting daily
work priorities to meet established deadlines, Also
judgement is used in receptionist duties in referring
inquiries to staff.
42
18. In example code 5, Senior Accounts Clerk, where the purpose of
the position is: "to coordinate the clerical accounting
activities of a Housing Authority," and where the judgement
level is set at 3, the provision with respect to Judgement
states:
The employee investigates when a problem in a transaction
has occurred and decides how to resolve it. In addition,
judgement is used in the interpretation, explanation and
implementation of new or revised policies and procedures.
19. In example code 7, Clerk Secretary, where the purpose of the
position is: "To provide clerical and secretarial support in
a non-terminal Housing Authority," and where the level of
judgement is set at 2, the factorial analysis of judgement
states:
The employee uses judgement in setting own work
priorities and ensures reports and submissions are
completed in a timely fashion. The employee uses
judgement in providing information when dealing with
office operations and maintenance emergencies during
Housing Manager's absences.
20. In example code 9, Secretary Clerk, where the judgement level
is set at 2, the purpose of position states: "To perform
secretarial services for the Housing Manager and to provide
general clerical support to the Housing Authority," and
judgement is stated as fo'ltows:
The employee exercises judgement in determining format
and layout and accuracy of correspondence and agreements.
Judgement is also used to set daily work priorities and
record meeting procedures. Judgement is necessary in
monitoring the rent supplement program.
43
21. In example code 10, Housing Manager, whose judgement level is
set at level 3, the purpose of position is: "To provide
assistance and referral services in response to tenant
problems and needs." Judgement un~er factorial analysis
states:
Judgement is exercised in determining the needs of the
client group within the community. The employee uses
judgement to determine the extent of a problem and the
appropriate action. The choice of agency or group must
be appropriate to the problem or situation. Conflict
resolution requires judgement to achieve an acceptable
solution to emotional situations. Judgement is also
necessary in the assessments of a tenant' eligibility for
transfer.
22. In example code 11, Maintenance Control Clerk, whose judgement
is assessed at level 2, the purpose of position is: "To assist
with the procurement of goods and services for the maintenance
program in the Housing Authority," and the judgement factor
under factorial analysis is:
Judgement is exercised in selecting manner of repair
either by staff resources or by rotational contractors to
provide routine maintenance repairs. The employe~ uses
judgement to priorize and schedule own work activities in
a high volume environment.
23. In example code 14, Home Visitor, which is assigned level 2
under judgement, the purpose of position is: "to conduct home
visits in order to assess the suitability and etigilbility of
applicants for assisted rental housing." The factorial
analysis provides under judgement:
The employee uses judgement to determine the suitability
and priority of need of an applicant. Judgement must be
used to ask appropriate questions to obtain the required
information so that points are equitably awarded.
44
24. There is a certain consistency in the examples and their
reference to judgement in the factorial analysis. The use of
these examples has improved our appreciation of the meaning
and intent of the factor level definitions, and we are
satisfied that the Grievor more comfortably fits within level
3 for judgement. We regard the Grievor as being required to
solve more than routine work problems, and because of the
variety of situations faced by her, owing to the variety of
applicants with language, physical and emotional difficulties,
there is a requirement of judgement which goes beyond that
specified in the examples where level 2 has been assigned.
The duties and responsibilities of the Grievor go well beyond
setting her own work priorities in completing her work in a
timely fashion or in merely providing information. She is
frequently required to determine the extent of the problem
which does not fit neatly into a pre-determined format. In
doing so, her position specification requires her to function
in an area where conflict resolution is frequently called for
in emotional situations. The kind of judgement that is
required in convincing a tenant to accept accommodation which
is not that tenant's first choice, in the circumstances
described in the position specification, goes beyond what is
set out in the examples where level 2 is appropriate.
25. In arriving at our conclusion, we have endeavoured to follow
the factor point rating plan in assessing whether it was
45
properly applied by the Employer. In summary,L we have
concluded that there was a "match," for judgement (employing
step 3) at level 2, but that on reviewing the comparisons as,
required under step 4, the match was seen as being less than
perfect and a "best-fit" approach was taken. The second
problem referred to under the "best-fit" approach was
applicable, and we utilized the guidelines set out at p.4. It
became necessary to examine the example positions which
satisfied us that the apparent appropriateness of level 3 for
judgement was correct.
We conclude that our decision would have been the same whether
we had relied exclusively on the duties and responsibilities
set out in the position specification or, as well on "all
available evidence related to 'the position." Although y_~
royce evidence was used tO supplement the position
specificatioa it did not alter, in any. significant way, the
contents of that document, which the parties agreed was
accurate.
DECISION
In the result, the grievance succeeds and the Employer is
ordered to: (1) reclassify the Grievor as an ADM-G-10 retroactive
to July 1, 1989, and (2) to pay her all wages and benefits
retroactive to that date.
46
The evidence of the Union as to why the ADM-G-10
classification was not raised at an earlier date was not refuted by
the Employer. As a result of the agreement of the parties, affected
employees, including the Grievor, were entitled to their correct
classification, and payment in accordance with that classification
pursuant to Exhibit 5, retroactive to July 1, 1989. The informal
appeal procedure agreed to by the parties, and followed by them,
recognized that its purpose was to obviate the need for grievances
to be filed immediately where an affected employee believed that
he/she had been incorrectly classified pursuant to Exhibit 5.
Instead, their agreement was intended to postpone the filing of a
classification grievance until the conclusion of the informal
appeal process. On the facts of this case, and for the above
reasons, the usual 20 day rule ought not to apply.
We retain jurisdiction to deal with any difference between the
parties concerning the amount properly payable to the Grievor.
Dated at Toronto this 8th day of January, 1993.
M. GorskY - Vice Chairperson
__~rnom_~°n, ],'.ember
J~I Dissent" (disse~t to follow)
D. Clark - Member
G.S.B. #318/91
CUP~ 3096 (Cox)
and The Crown in Right of Ontario
(~inistry of Housing)
Having carefully reviewed the decision of the majority in
· this matter, I must~ with respect, dissent.
I do not agree that the grievor fits within Level 3 for
"Judgement" which allows her to be reclassified to an
ADH-G-10. Notwithstanding the fact that, in my opinion, the
grie¥or's job duties fit very well into Level 2 in the
"Judgement" factor, I will confine my rem.arks to the
analysis of the "best fit" approach that the majority relied
upon in reaching their conclusion.
To a certain extent there is some overlap of th.e. four
" " " "Judgement" and
factors - "Knowledge , Skill
"Accountability". Each factor however~ must be determined
on its own merit. If, for example, a person is awarded
Level 3 on the "Skill" factor (as was the grievor) that
.person cannot use the same functions to 'bring themselves up
to a higher level in another factor, i.e., the "Judgement"
factor. The grievor was awarded a Level 3 in "Skill" based
on the "Skills and knowledge required to perform job at full
working level", Item #4 of the Position Specification
{Exhibit 11). Interestingly enough, when referring to just
what level of judgement is required, the last paragraph of
the Position Specification under the heading of Skills
indicates that "... tact, flexibility, and good judgement
are required to deal courteously ..." (emphasis added). The
job specification does not require that a person have
"excellent" judgement.
- 9. -
I would respectfully submit that the position of "Home
Visitor" (Exhibit 5, Example Code 14) is the closest match
to the grievor's position of Tenant Placement Officer. The
Home Visitor position requires the incumbents to "conduct
home visits in order to assess the suitability and
eligibility of applicant~ for assisted rental housing".
Under the "Judgement" section of the Home Visitor position,
the employee ". . . uses judgement to determine the
suitability and priority of need of the applicant.
Judgement must be used to ask the appropriate questions to
obtain the required information so that points are~ equitably
awarded". The position of Tenant Placement Officer
involves, among other things, . . . receiving tenant
terminations (MOT notices) and tenant files from project
managers or Non-Profit groups, selecting applications from
appropriate sections of the Priority List or from the
Transfer list, and determining the most suitable for
vacancies based on special priority (i~cludes battered
women), points, special housin~ needs (modified or one floor
plan unit), area, type and density of project, size ~nd type
of unit, and portfolio requirements ..." The two positions
are very similar and ~ in fact, the Tenant Placement Officer
receives the completed applications from the Home Visitors.
The position of Home Visitor was awarded a Level Z on the
"Judgement" factor..
The majority of the Board concluded that the grievor should
be at a Level 3 for "Judgement". In the Factor Definition
for Judgement, (Exhibit 5, page 19), Level 3 states that
"the employee is frequently required to interpret polic~
"(emphasis added).. Mr. Fotheringham, the grievor's
Supervisor, testified that neither the grievor or himself
were involved in the interpretation of policy. In fact, he
could not even think of a situation wher.e there was not an
existing pblic.y in place, and if there, was not a policy
relating to a particular situation, one would have to be
developed by the Tenant Placement Manager. The grievor, in
my opinion, does not interpret policy, but rather explains.
policies, which would be covered under the "Skills" factor.
- 3 -
In Exhibit §, page 17, under the heading of "Factor
Definition/Judgement", it states:
"Factor Composition"
"The factor is composed of three increasing
levels of "Judgement" which are defined
by:
- the (increasing) variety/complexity of
conditions/situations requiring decisions;
- the (decreasin~ availability of procedures,
~uidelines and advise ..." (emphasis added).
Furthermore, under the next heading, "Factor Glossary", it
describes what "General Supervision" means. It states that
"the position has duties and responsibilities covered within
a framework of guidelines a~d requirements an~ calling for
considerable functional independence in the oomoletion of
assignments." (emphasis added). With respect, the grievor
does not, I feel, fit into a Level 3 for "Judgement" as she
is not required to "interpret policy and administrative
directives"; the "decreasing availability of procedures and
guidelines" is not applicable in her situation and the
"supervision" contemplated, i.e0, allowing "considerable
functional independence in the completion of assignment"
properly falls, I would submit, within a Level Z for
"Judgement", not a Level 3.
For the reasons stated above, i would have dismissed the
grievance.
Don M. Clark