Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-0590.Holder&Streitenfeld.94-08-05 ;- I I I' ,;-: . .:~ I. I '.:l ~ 1111 (.. ",}n ONTARIO CROWN EMPLOYEES EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE DEL'ONTARIO Ct.'.", ~<t;;~:;' GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD COMMISSION DE REGLEMENT DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5G lZ8 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G lZ8 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under . TELEPHONEITELEPHONE~ (416) .326-1388 FACSIMILEITELf!COPIE: (416) 326-1396 590/92, 591/92 -' THE CROWN. EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BETWEEN . BEFORE: FOR THE GRIEVOR FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD OPSEU (Holder/Streitenfeld) and - The Crown in Right of Ontario . (Ministry of cC!)rrectional services), Grievor /' Employer r A. Barrett J. Carruthers R~ Scott Vice-Chairperson Member Memmer R. Davis. Counsel Koskie & Minsky Barristers & solciitors G. Lee senior Staff Relations Officer Ministry of Correctional Services February 9, 19'93 september 17, 1993 March 2, 1994 April 18, 1994' ". '.0: - ".r (- ~~:~~- l D E CIS ION These two grievors hold the class title of !Rehabilitation ' Officer 2 at the Niagara Detention Centre, and grieve that they should be paid the custodial responsibility allowance pursuant to \, Appendix 8 of the ,collective agreement, which is set out below: , liRe: Appendix 8 (See also ArticleS - Pay Administration, Section S.9 - Custodial Responsibility Allowance) This will confirm that effective January 1, 1984 a Custodial Responsibility Allowance of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per year is payable to employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services and employees working in training schools operated by the, Ministry of Community and Social Services,' in addition to the rate, of pay specified for the class of the positions to which they are assigned, provided they fulfill 'all of the following requirements: (a) they are not professional staff such as teachers, nurses, social woikerg or psychologist~; (b) the positions to which the employees are assigned are not cpvered by classes which already t~ke into account responsibility for the. control of inmates or wards, such as Correctional Officers, Industrial Officers, stipervisorsof Juveniles, Observation and Detention Home Workers, Recreation Officers (Correctional Services), Trade Instructors and Provincial, Ba-iliffs; ( c) ( i) they are required, for the, maj or portion of their working time, to direct inmates or wards engaged in beneficial labour; or (ii) as group leaders/lead hands, they are directly responsible, for the majot portion of their working time, for operations involving the control of a number of inmates or wards engaged in beneficial labour; (d) they are responsible for the custody of inmates or w~rds in their charge and are required'to report on 2 r:Lf %?(" ,- their conduct and lay charges' where breaches of institutional regulations occur. " The Custodial Responsibility Allowance shall be paid according to the base rate of pay for the class involved. ~ weekly rated classes - $38.40/week hourly rated classes - 40 hour week - 96 cents/hour 36 1/4 hour week $1.06/hour" Mr~ Streitenfeld's position title is Temporary Absence Program Co-ordinator, and the purpose of his position is to serve as co~ ordinator of all institutional and community activities related to ( I the Community Resource Centre and the John Howard$ociety Temporary Absence Programs. It is his job to research pertinent informatioI} regarding inmate suitability to participate in the programs arid to organize~and monitor inmate participation. Mr. Streitenfeld deals with about 1,300 applications for temporary absence permits per year ~ The Ministry has a contract ,with Wayside Community Resource Centre' to l;1ouse up to 30 inmates who are permitted to leave the. premises to work, attend school, get medical treatment or who are therefor compa~sionate reasons. Resident staff at Wayside supervise the inmates and ensure that they obey posted house rules. Inmates fill out an application form for TAP, then are interviewed by Mr. Streitenfeld so that he can assess their suitability for the program. These interviews take place in booths, and the inmates are brought there and taken away by Correctional Officers. Mr. Streitenfeld performs a security ---/ " r r c:: 3 clearance check on the inmate, reviews clinical assessments, talks to ' Probation 'and Parole Officers, and does whatever else is neces~ary~to satisfy himself that the inmate is suitable for the program. He then makes a recommendation to the Superintendent who decides the issue. If the inmate is accepted, Mr. Streitenfeld then explains to him his rights and obligations and the rules at the halfway house, including the consequences of bad behaviour. Both the inmate and Mr. Streitenfeld, on behalf of the Superintendent, then sign the temporary absence permit. If the application is denied, Mr. Streitenfeld has to tell the inmate why and advise him of the appeal procedure. Once inmates are on the program, Mr. Strei tenfeld monitors their behaviour through daily telephone conversations with the Director and receiving and reviewing written .behaviour reports.' He discusses health, security and behaviour concerns with the Director and Program Co-ordinator at Wayside, and occasionally attends at the Centre to investigate incidents. Twice a year he does a compliance review of the Centre to note any deficiencies in the physical plant and to ensure that the Centre is complying with its contractual obligations. He also goes out to inspect proposed new job sites and assess~s community work projects for suitability, primarily from a health and safety point of view. Mr. Str~itenfeld has authoiity to lay misconducts, and does ~o on occaS"ion where the Centre house penal ties have not corrected a behavioural problem. The John Howard Society provides work for inmates who are serving their time on weekends. Mr. Streitenfeld gathers ,; o;~"f'.--:- < (.:., \x<;~ 4 information, including a security clearance, about an inmate, then delivers ~t to the Society, ~ho interviews the inmate and decides whether or not he is acceptable. Mr. Streitenfeld works a regular Monday to Friday week, and the inmates, working through the Johti Howard Society, serve time from Friday night to Monday morning, so it is quite possible that Mr. Streitenfeld may, never have any , personal inmate contact. If the John Howard Society has a probiem with an inmate on the weekend, they contact the Shift Supervisor at the jail and he will investigate and decide what to do. Mr. Streitenfeld is not involved with the transport of inmates to and from either facility. Mr. Holder I s position title is Classification Officer, and the purpose of his position is to provide inmate services r,elated to the classification process,and to assess the rehabilitative needs of inmates and make appropriate referrals to available-programs. He interviews inmates and gathers information from several sources in order to make recommendations for treatment or other needed ,I I programs and the placement of inmates into appropriate institution work programs. It is Mr. Holder's responsibility to assign inmates to the institution work programs. Inmates work in the' storerooms, , the kitchen, the laundry, and doing general work, such as cleaning the institution and gardening and snow removal. ,There1.s a 26-bed worker dormitory, and Mr. Holder selects the people who will occupy it, and decides where they will work. He usually makes the work ,_. j". '0 ." _~q". s E" ;.~" , ~. ~.(- .::;-.:.." ) assignment decision at his initial classification interview with the inmate. Inmates are escorted to him for interviews and are escorted to their work sites either by 'Correctional Officers or the people who will be in charge of them in their work area~ Everyone who supervises these inmates while at work receives the custodial responsibility allowance .Mr. Holder advises the inmates about what is expected of them at the work site, and he usually does. an inspection of each work site every day to see how things are going. He can write up a misconduct if he spots 'some bad behaviour, but usually it is the direct supervisors of the inmates who write the misconducts. Sometimes a supervisor will complain to Mr. Holder that he is not satisfied with an inmate's wor~, and Mr. Holder will have him removed from the wor~ site. A Correctional Officer will then move the inmate out of the worker dormitory. Aside from the institution work program, there are about 40 other programs within , the institu~ion, such as Alcoholics An~nymous or drug counselling and discharge planning to which Mr. Holder refers inmates. J Traditionally people occupying both of these positions have not received the custodial responsibility allowance. However, in 1991, a Grievance Settlement Board decision: Cannon, GSB #1714/90 (Samuels), held that the co-ordinator of a temporary absence , program and institutional\work program at the Metro East: Detention Centre who was classified as a Rehabilitation Officer 2 was entitled to receive the custodial responsibility allowance. These grievors wish to follow in Ms. Cannon's footsteps. .. '<':.;,.; , . \if'f'" 6 r:....,-_ . ~,~w' It is important therefore to carefully review the findings made in, the Cannon case.' At page 3 of the decision, the Board described Ms. Cannon's job duties as follows: II In her current position, she is the person at the instituti6n who handles the paperwork necessary when an inmate will leave the facility on the Temporary Absence Program (a program designed to help the inmate reintegrate back into the outside community - involving temporary leave for work, slchool, compassionate reasons, orin the period ' immedia,tely preceding the inmate's release date ), and she does some of the escorting of inmates on their way out of the institution,. As well, she runs the Institutional Work Program. Her claim for Custodial Responsibility Allowance is based primarily on her work invblved with the latter Program, together with the escort functions she performs under the TAP. There are many jobs in the institution which are filled by inmates - in the laundry, the kitchen, on the grounds. This is the Institutional Work Program. Generally there are 36 inmates who are working, and each day some will leave the Program and will be replaced by ,new candidates. Much of the grievor' s' day is taken up with selecting the inmates who are new to the IWP (this requires :i review of the documentary record concerning the potential candidates, and interviewing them); escorting the selected inmates to the medical office and wa~ching over 'them while they are examined~ escorting them to Unit2B, which will be their living quarters while they are on the IWP; escorting inmates to their work stations; checking the work stations frequently to ensure that the inmates are doing their assigned jobs;' counselling inmates about the rules governing their conduct while on the IWP, and the consequences of a fai~ure to comply with these rules; escorting the inmates who are not working out to other work stations or back to a Unit. These duties take up the vast majority of her working time during a shift. She does have the authority to issue a misconduct to an inmate on the IWP, but this occurs very rarely. . The grievor testified that her TAP duties take 20% of her time, and the balance of her time is spent on the IWP, and that 7S% of her time is spent dealing directly with the inmates under both programs. These figures were not seriously contradicted and they seem reasonable to us, in light of the description of the grievor's daily duties." ".- '.',', -~~;~;;~_. ( \', , 7 ( '.' "'.,~"'.4 There the Board found that it had no hesitati,on in concluding that for the majority of her working time, the grievor was required to direct inmates engaged in beneficial labour. The Board described this direction as'follows: J II She' directs' the inmates 'by taking primary responsibility for them while she is escorting them about the institution, and by taking primary responsibility for counselling them' concerning their behavior while at the work stations. Wh~n she is escorting inmate~,often she will be in hallways or in the medical office where there ( are correct~onal officers, but she is the one who, is taking primary responsibility for the control of the inmates under escort. With respect to counselllng the inmates, it is important to distinguish between' the instructions the inmates receive about, the particular jobs to which they .are assigned, ~ndthe instructions theY, receive concerning their general behavior. For example, in' the kitchen, a non-inmate member of the kitchen staff will tell the inmates what to~eel,wash, etc. But it is the grievor who will counsel the inmates how to behave generally - what is expected in the way of cooperation with the other members of the kitchen staff, and so on. And it is the grievor who has to deal with any behavioral problems. And the inmates she' directs are 'engaged in beneficial labour'. Though she herself does not operate the kitchen, t~e laundry, or the gardening service, h~r contact with the inmates 0n the IWP is part and parcel of the labour itself. The 'engagement' in beneficial labour involves the whole IWP process -, selection, escort, monitoring, counselling, and performing the work itself. The grievor's contact with the inmates is not ~imply part of the general care and custody undertaken by correctional officers. Her contact with the inmates is for the purpose of having them perform beneficial labour. II In the Cannon case, Mr. Collict dissented on the basis that ". ..there is a very great diffe~ence between directinq inmates, as opposed to directinginmatesenqaqed in beneficial labour. II He '\ @)"", . L... ,~~ ";;~:;, 8 t;" . ~;.-'.'r reasoned that escorting, interviewing, etc., do not meet the clear ) requirements to direct. inmates when they are working (engaged in' beneficial labour). I Counsel for the employer directed us to se\,eral Grievance Settlement Board classification cases which considered the effect of the custodial responsibility allowance on classification (Semenciw et al, GSB #1448/91 (Barrett); Braund et al, GSB #39/89 (Slone); and Elrick et al, GSB #10/85 (Dissanayake)). In Semenciw, at page 11, the Board said: ( "Appendix 8 makes it clear that the custodial duties for which the allowance is paid are in addition to the duties of the positions to which they are assigned. Those duties are additional duties not 'set out in class standards. To that extent they expand the class standards." , , It was emphasized in Braund, at page 27, with respect to grievors in the cook classification, that: "the fundamental responsibility of the grievors is to get the meals on the table, on time, on budget and in a palatable form. Inmate help has always been a recognized component of the Cook 2a'nd3 jobs.. The additional 1 responsibili ty for inmates is precisely, the, added component that the CRA was designed to cover. II The Board in that case also described the CRA,at page 26, as: "a consensual quid pro qUO for employees whose jobs, have beeR given an added component which 'probably is not reflected in their classification, but where the \ · bottom line' responsibility of the job, as described in the standards, has not changed." '. ~~,,:r \i!.,;.: 9 (, . t,}~,. . -"'i.1-.",;> Employer counsel referred us to the preamble to the class standard for Rehabilitation Officers, and notes that the thrust of 'I the position is to work with inmates in their vocational, educational and social rehabilitation. As set out in the preamble, typical duties include: "counselling according to individual need (analysis of case history, reports of psychologists, social workers, correctional staff~ interviews; assessment; devising and implementing a rehabilitation plan; motivation and follow-up proced~res); determination of the suitability of the home environment; development and utilization of employment opportunities; placement in schools; regular visits to check on progress; emergency calls; discussions with law enforcement officials; recommendations to the appropriate Parole or Advisory Board; recommendations or instructions to return to custody; conducting, a f'ollow-up programme for those released (from the , Department I s clinics; securing foster homes/group homes for juveniles not returning to their own homes. These officers may also be required to act as t~e Departmental representative at meetings with other agencies such as the Regional Diagnostic and Assessment Units under the Department of Health." Employer counsel asserts that the entire thrust of' the Rehabilitation Officer series is inmate focused and directed, unlike the aforementioned classification cases involving cooks, store clerks and maintenance trades, all of whom had a job to do unrelated to inmates but with the assistance of inmate labour. Thus the exception in paragraph '(b) of Appendix 8 applies to these rehabilitation officers in that ~~~" 10 C". ~;/ .. their positions are "covered by classes which already take into account responsibility for the control of inmates". Furthermore, they do not dir~ct inmates while they are working, nor are they ,-\ group leaders as required by paragraph (c) of Appendix 8. / Union,counsel, in examining paragraph (b) of Appendix 8, notes that all of the examples given of classes which already take into account responsibility for the control of inmates fall in the Correctional Services classification category, but Rehabilltation Officers, are classified in the Administrative Services category. Counsel argues that the category 'of people meant to be exclu~ed ( must have something in common with the examples given in the list. People in the Correctional Services category earn more than people in the Administrative Services, cat~gory ,and therefore it should . be assumed that' the Administrative Services wage rate does not take the custodial responsibility into account. This argument is substantially weakened, howeve,r, when one notes that Probation Officers are also included in the Administrative Services category, and that the full class title of R.O. 2's is Rehabilitation Officer - Correctional Services. Counsel also argued that M~. Streitenfeld's duty of providing '; advice, guidance and assistance to the Community Resource Centre / and by recommending changes to existing methods and procedures at the Centre falls within the definition of-a Group Leader, as set out in paragraph (c) (ii) of Appendix 8. To obtain credit as a Group Leader ,in the civil service, one must be leading groups of fellow ..-. t '. /;~' ,<<.Ii; j 11 @~',',;.,;', . I'.""'! _~.t; . employees and not giving technical advice to outsiders. That branch of the argument must fail. with respect to "directing inmates' engaged in beneficial labour It; counsel argues that the interviews with inmates, the counselling of inmates regarding behaviour, the visits to the work sites and the laying of misconducts all amount to directing inmates engaged in beneficial labour, as in Cannon. We do not agree that either of these grievors can fit himself within the parameters of Cannon. These grievorsdo not take primary responsibility for escorting inmates about the institution. 'They do not take primary respons~bility for counselling inmates concerning their behaviour at the work stations. They do not have primary responsibility for dealing with behavioural problems at the , , work site. They do not spend 70% of their time directly involved with inmate workers while they are working or going to and from , work. In the c~se of Mr. Streitenfeld, hawould seldom even see an inmate working because all work is done away from the institution and the inmates -are supervised while working by a variety of people, but never by Mr. Streitenfeld. Mr. Holder spends about 30 minutes a day visiting all of the work sites, but this, in our ( , view, does not constitute directing inmates engaged-in beneficial labour. Neither grievor has custody of the inmates or performs -, escort services, although it could be said they are "in charge" of the inmates during interviews. We find that in order to be eligible for the custodial responsibility allowance, a person must, for the 1 "'" (,', \;:;.:::;'. 12 c:~: ' 1. \t~:~.~- i: majority of his working time, direct inmates while they are engaged ( in beneficial labour. In Ms. Cannon's case, she spent 70% of her working time having primary responsibility for inmates while they were working or engaged in work-related activities, such as being medically examined to determine fitness for work and going to and from work, as well as behaviour management. ~, Furthermore, we think that these grievors' positions are covered by classes which already take into account responsibility for the control of inmates. Their whol~ job descriptions are inmate-focused ... they would have nothing to do if there were no inmates to work with. They are unlike the cooks, storekeepers and laundry workers who have a job to do entirely unrelated to inmates, but get the custodial responsibility allowance because they direct -, inmates i~ assisting them. Accordingly, the grievances must be dismissed. Dated at Toronto this 5th day of August, 1994. ~/~/;, A. Barrett, Vice-Chairperson I Dissent "Dissent Attached" J. Carruthers, Member ~~ R. Scott, Member - ''1 '" ~ -,{ r--- ,- \:,' '.~' Dissent of Board Member J. earnithers , RE GSB F="ILE II 590/92 ,- 591/92 \ HOLDER + STREITENFElD ~ .' _ .' . . . l ~- -' I must dis~ent from the decision, of the ,majority in this grievallce. I would allow the ~' , ,,' , ' ,-.' "i grievances and. order' the Custodial Responsibility Allowance ,be pai4 to the grievors from . , . .,' . , L 20 days prior to the date they filed their grievances. , J With respect to ,Mr. Holder, his' duties arei~distinguishable from' tlioseof the grievor in' ' . . - , . j' . . _ . . t . Cannon. He.is responsible for sel~cting new inmates for 'the InstitiItion' Work, Program . - _ . ' , 4 .. - 1 -.: ,... . . . I' (includillg a review of the ~ocumentary record and 2 interviews with th~ iIimate), counselling . . t -. . .... - -. , " " " ' , " , th~m' concerning the rules governing their. conduct while' in the program, and the - ',' ,),! , ~' consequences of failure to comply with the rul~s, and checking the ~qrk stations rlailyto , ~ '. I " , . '. ',' i,' ensure the'inmates are doing the,ir assigned jOQs. :IDs uncontradicte? evl,dence was that these, ' I I , , duties took 3;, majority of his working time., , ~, The majority someho~ concludes that Mr. Holder does not take "prim~ responsibility" for ' .. .' ,. " " ' . , ' ' .' '. .: '.t~ese irIDiates while he is engaged i~ these duties; In the Cannon case, the maj<?rity held that . , ' , , . .. "\,' . " . the grievor ,directed the inmates because she took primary responsibility for 'control of ~he iIlI~la~eS while they were' in ,her, presence and (or counselling. the~ concerning their , " ' f ' ,behaviour"~hile at their work stations, despite the facttha,tcorrectioAal officers might.be , , I . . . . in the vicinity while the inmates were in her presence. Mr. Holder's unc9ntradic~ed eVidence I ' ' . was that the 'inmates met with him out of earshot and line of sight of ~orrectionalofficers, ' j' and that, on, occasion, he,had tophysically control an inmate; aswe~l as laymisconduct charges against inmate.s. As well~ he was able to cOntrol inmate behavi6:ur while at the work ".,,- , , ,~\ ..~ \ " '<, 3 ~\ - ~ I ' , I the control he exerts over the ,inmates in the Temporary Absencf Program an~ the , , Community Work Program on behalf of the. Ministry of Correctional Services does not j " I . ' --- '1 . require his physi~ pre:sence in the same piace' as' the inmate~ In a~ditiontothe duties , , redted in the majority decision, it is the uncontradicted evidence th~t,in addition to his I '. " . I . " conversations with the Director, Mr. Streitenfeld has many telephon~ conversations with I inmates'in the program concerning their b~haviour and. its consequeJces. I, I \ No other employee' of the Ministry ,has primary, responsibility for the inmates in these " . I programs while Mr. Streitenfeld is at work. It is he' who mus't d~cide, if an, inmate's , "I " ' misbehaviour warra~ts the laying of a misconduct and removal from! theT AP /CWP and return to the institution. "Directing,inmates" has been defined in the qtnnon case as taking primary responsibility for control of the inmates while in th~ employ~e's presence (which Mr~ Streitenfeld does during his interviews with the inmates) and fori counselling inmates'. , ,I ,about theirbehaviour,which can lead to removal of an inmate from t~e program. Nothing' .' . \. . - t about the function or" couriselling and removal necessarily requi~,es that the person , < performing the function be in". the iIunate's presence. Rather, it i$ sufficient. that the . ~ ". .. t employee's duties require him'to perform this functi~n for inmates p'erforming beneficial labour. Accordingly, with respect to Mr.' Streitenfeld's grievance, I would also ailow it. Finally, the majority finds that the grievors' positions are covered by tlasses which already take into account responsibility for the contral of inmates. Nowhere:in the class standard for tbese Rebabilitation Officers does it say that one of their duties is t)1e control or custody '" ': .....'-..J:: ..;.. i.....y-r:r: ,....;' I ~:!;. ~ , (: ,,'~ .: ' ), 2 . f station by cOunselling inmates, and by USing his power to pennancmtly temove inmates from . _'.. . _ I , I the work program, something which correctional officers and the i.iUnate work supervisors , I \: .. could not do on their own. In my view there is nothing in the eviden~e' to distinguish Mr. , ' i , Holder's duties With respect ~o inmates from those of the grievor inC~on and therefore, I find he has primaryiesponsibility for the inmates' while the}:' are in tllspresence and for , coiInselling,the inmates about their behaviour. whileon,the work pr6~am. The majority lists working and work related activities, such as being m~dicallyexamined for .' } , fitness to work and' travelling to and from the work stations, as' well as' behaviour . c-. ;. management, as examples,ofininatesengaged in beneficial labour. H6~ever, in the Cannon . . '.. I t ., I case, the majority at page 3 defined the words "engaged in beneficial Uabour" as follows: , I , ' I I . ' "I ' "Though she herself does not operate the kitchen, the la;undry, 'or the gardening service, her contact with the inmates bn 'tpe ,IWPis part and parcel of the labour itself. The "engag~ment" in beneficial labour involves the whole IWP process - sel~ction. escort.'m~nitoring. counselling. and performing the'worl( itself., the grievor's contact with t!Ie inmates is not simply part: of the general care and custody undertaken by cotrectional officers. Her contact with the inmates is for' the purpose of having them, p~rform beneficial labour." ' Similarly, 'Mr. Hol~er's contact with the inmates is for the purpose of ~aving them perform ' , beneficial labour and accordingly, .J would allow his grievance. With respect to Mr. Streitenfeld, the ~ajority appears to base its findin'gs upon the fact that ":. . .. i' - .... 'f' . .' '\ 4 - I " of inniates. The majority alludes to the fact that' Probation Officers: are also in the same - j Administrative Services category as,the Rehabilitation/Officers. How~ver, no evidence was- . presented concerning the class,standard for Probation Officers and, in[fact, it was nqt raised' i before,the Board until Employer counsel's final submissions, at whic? time Union counsel, objected that Employer couns~l was intfoducing,new evidence~ and his :~bjection was upheld. , Accordingly, in my ,view the Board cannot rely upon any evidence ~oncerningProbation . !.' ~ Officers"as it was not properly before it. , ( . ' The fact that' all, of 'the examples uSed in Appendix 8 ,of classifications which take" into ! account custodial responsibility are in the 'Correctional ,Services dategory is important , I, , ! because it is probable' that classifications with similar duties wer~ grouped into these' , categorie~.The fact t~3;t the words -' Correctional Services appea~ after Rehabilitation OffIcer'is not significant.: It is worth noting that below'the grievor's classification in the list '!\: ", of classifications" in ,the Administrative Services Category the 'classifi~ation . Rehabilitation Officer ~,Healthappears.Obviously, thewordsaftet the dash are m~rely there to indicate ' the Ministry in which the respective. Rehabilitation Officers are employed. As there is no .. . '. . . . . ' <.',. ..,..~ eXpliCitrequiremchit in the class 'standard that the grievors ar~ respobible for the control , " ' " ,t of inmates,.I find that the grievor's classification did not take into acceunt responsibility for I ' the control of inmates, and for this. reason and the reaSons set out above, I woudldallow ' I ' these grievances. ,( 'r , . ,,,...-"~.:.'~. ".. ~:~~~.:<