Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0837.Beal.91-11-12~" ONTARIO EMPLOYEE DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTA RiO GRIEVANCE CQMMISSlON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 OUNOA$ STREET Wff$'r', SUITE 2~00, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG ~8,~, ~L)E DLJNOA$ OLtEST, BUREAU 2100, TOR,OIVTO ~ONTAR~OL IN THEM~TTER OF~NAEBITI~TZON Under THE CRO~gl~ EHPLOYEES COLLECTIVE B~N~N~ ~CT Before THE CUPE (Beal) ~rievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Workers Compensation Board) ~mployer BEFORe: J. Samuels Vice-Chairperson I. Thomson Member F. Collict Member FOR THE R. Toop ~RIEVOR Representative Canadian Union of Public Employees FOR THE P. Young ~MPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HE~RING : October 7, 1991 On March 5, 1991, the grievor's employment with the Workers' Compensation Board was terminated. In this award, we will deal with a preliminary issue: Was the grievor still a probationary employee at the time of the termination? The grievor was first employed by the Board on January i7, 1990, as a temporary employee in a position of Arbitrary Assessment Clerk. On March 15 of that year, she moved to another temporary employment, as a Collection Specialist 3. On November 30, I990, she took up a full-time position as a Field Auditor. And it was from this latter position that she was released in March 1991. A temporary employee does not have seniority under the collective agreement. However, Article 22(g) provides that service in this capacity can be credited against the probationary period in a full-time position if the work as a temporary employee was "the same or similar work" to the employee's new full-time position. Thus, the issue for us at the outset is whether the grievor's work in her positions of Arbitrary Assessment Clerk and Collection Specialist 3 was "the same or similar work" to the job of Field Auditor. If there was the requisite sameness or similarity, then, by March 5, 1991, the grievor would have already completed her probationary period as a Field Auditor. We heard the grievor's testimony conceming the work she did in the three positions, and we had the opportunity to consider the three job descriptions. As an Arbitrary Assessment Clerk, the grievor was responsible for putting in order the Board's records concerning employers who had ceased filing with the Board and in respect of whom the Board had made an "arbitrary" assessment. Was the employer still in business? Did the employer continue to hire help? What was the payroll for the years 3 arbitrarily assessed? if the employer went out of business, when did this occur? And so on. Essentially, this was an information-gathering job. As a Collection Specialist 3, the grievor was responsible for resolving payment problems with emi~loyers who had not paid their assessments when due. Arrangements might be made with employers who needed time to pay. Over the telephone and by correspondence, the grievor tried to collect money owing on WCB employer assessments. Essentially, this was a collections job. As a Field Auditor, the grievor was to conduct routine audits of company payroll reco'rds and other supporting documents to .verify the legitimacy and accuracy of the information provided by. the assessed employer. Was the employer stating its payroll correctly? Was the employer correctly characterizing its service or end-product? Was the employer correctly stating its number of employees? This job involved visits ~o places of business to see the operations directly and to review and analyze business records -ledgers, payroll journals, financial statements, corporate minute books, and so on.. This was an accounting function, requiring significant accounting experience. In our view, the work of a Field Auditor is substantially different from that' of an Arbitrary Assessment Clerk or a Collection Specialist 3. The essential element of the Field Auditor's work is the accounting function--the audit (verification of the legitimacy and accuracy of employer statements and' documents)--and there was none of this work in the tasks involved in the positions of Arbitrary Assessment Clerk or Collection Specialist 3. The purpose of the probationary period is to give the WCB an opportunity to determine whether or not the new employee is' suitable for the position. The idea behind Article 22(g) of the collective agreement is that the probationary period can be shorter if the employer has already had 4 a chance to check out the suitability of the employee, by observing the employee's performance in work which is essentialIy the same as the work of the new job. In our case, the WCB had not had an opportunity to assess the grievor's ability to do audit work until she was put in the Field Auditor position. Though the grievor had been exposed to payroll statements, and other documents, which are involved in the Field Auditor's work, she had not done any of the accounting function with respect to these documents in her capacity as an Arbitrary Assessment Clerk or a Collection Specialist 3. In her earlier positions, the grievor accepted the accuracy of the information given to her. She did not audit the information. Thus, we find that the grievor was still a probationary employee when she was released on March 5, 1991, and we will reconvene to hear evidence and argument conceming the release. Done at London, Ontario, this l~2th day of November , 1991. ember F. Collict,"~ember