The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-0279.Lye.84-03-22 DecisionCRIEVANCE SITC.:7M;;;•..t. LICARD ADVANCE C O rric, PAFiTi ZS. as!::: IR TY PC.:;RAP'rl: COPY TO 1.7., ITO LTER. Ftr:CV.z.;TW\ R s ONTARIO CROWN EMPLOYEES ' GRIEVANCE SETTLEMEN BOARD 780 DUNDAS STREET WEST. TORONTO. ONTARIO TELEPHONE! 4/6/598-0688 279/83 • IN THE MATTER QF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OLBEU (Nanci E. Lye) Grievor - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Licence Board of Ontario) Employer Before: For the Grievor: For the Employer: Hearings: . ....._.,. R.J. Delisle Vice Chairman 1! E.J. Bounsall Member I, P. Coupey Member Z } / i . .„). , 4 P.S. Jarvis, Counsel Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Stone September 15, 1983 December 1, 1983 G. Beaulieu, Counsel Union ConsuiLing Services 2 • The grievance of Nanci E. Lye is that she is improperly classified as Typist Grade 2 and should be reclassified Clerk Grade 3. The grievor began Work with the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario in October of 1979. She works in the Transfer Department which processes applications to the Board for transfer of existing liquor licences. Such transfers are necessitated by changes in the ownership of the licensed premises brought about by changes in the name of the owner, by sale of the premises, wither outright or by share transfer, or by the mortgagee of the premises going into possession. Some applications are processed simply by paper while others require attendance at a board hearing. The department is supervised by a Licensing Officer, Peter James, and two Assistant Licencing Officers. There are four support staff in the department including the grievor. The grievor described the duties of all four as roughly the same with a rotation of tasks amoung them every three or four months. The grievor and the Licensing Officer were fairly consistent in describing the operation of the department. Applications are normally initiated by letter from the applicant's lawyer. A set of required documents are then sent out together with instructions for perfecting the application pursuant to a checklist (Exibit 10). The licensing officer would gather together the required documents and would himself make up the checklist. A member of support staff would type a covering letter for the officer's signature. The ensuing application would be ohecked by -the licensing officer against the Board file and any deficiencies noted (Exhibit 11). Support staff then types a letter for an officer's signature pursuant to his instructions. When information is required from other agencies form letters are typed by support staff as requested by an officer (Exhibit 11). Files are prepared for the Board by the officer with resumes being typed by support staff pursuant to an officer's instructions. After the Board hearings minutes of their deliberations are typed pursuant to notes taken by the officer attending. Most letters which go out to applicants are form letters requiring no composition and are always reviewed and signed by one of the officers. The Licencing Officer, James, estimated that the grievor spent 60-70% of her time typing and approximately one hour a day acting as a receptionist. Regarding phone calls he testified that he would be surprised if the grievor handled anything by phone except for the most routine matter. The grievor estimated her typing to take 25% of her time, though.she did allow that meant actual typing and that getting the material together, to type would naturally take additional time. She noted that if the officers were busy she would advise on phone calls regarding what documents or information might be necessary "if it's not complicated". The grievor described her activities in the following language; "James sees all documents first- he sets up what is necessary"; "we sometimes respond to mail but never without - 4 - telling James first"; "when applicants come in we direct them to James or an assistant unless it's just a general thing with simple directions"; "we type form letters, James will. direct us"; "James reviews letters, decides on type of transfer and fee, necessary forms are determined and packaged by James or his assistant, I type the necessary form letter for their signature"; "standard form letter is sent out by me listing the things which are outstanding"; "James checks everything before the board hearing"; "renewal letters - we type up per James instructions"; "change of name applications are referred to James - James advises re approval fee and letter to be sent." The grievor was taken on cross-examination through the Classification Guide for Typist Grade 2, (Exibit 2). She at first denied that the Summary of Responsibility Level described her function. That summary depicts a position involved with "typing a variety of material of more than average complexity for a majority of the time. Also, usually performs related clerical duties." The grievor did allow that she performed no clerical duties unrelated to typing. The grievor agreed that under Typical Duties the only difference resided in the fact that she typed from documents and files. The grievor agreed that Decision Making Complexity described her job. With regard to Contacts she agreed the description fit but noted that she would also give out information when licensing officers were busy; she did agree however that this fit the guideline's reference to "providing requested information." The grievor agreed that Supervision 5 Given was a fit. With minor reservations the grievor agreed that Supervision Received was a fit; those reservations are very nuch minimized when we have regard to her description of her duties noted in the previous . paragraph. Despite the continuing agreement regarding details the grievor denied that the guideline accurately described her duties in general. When asked however how the guideline did not fit her only response was "the other lady did the same work and was classed as Clerk Grade 3 and other Clerk 3's do the same work as I do." This appears then to be the real nub of the grievance. The grievor was taken through the Classification Guide for Clerk Grade 3 (Exibit 1). She agreed that her task did not fit Typical Duties, "May also do a small amount of typing." She agreed that the amount of typing done by her was not small. In Decision Making Complexity she agreed she did not "make corrections" which were not approved by someone else, did not "select and interpret data", and did not "propose options". Under Supervision Received the guideline states "Work is reviewed only periodically" while the grievor's own language describing her job clearly shows that virtually all of her work is reviewed. The grievor has failed to persuade that her duties fall within The Classification Guide for Clerk Grade 3. Indeed the Classification Guide for Typist Grade 2 fits as squarely with the grievor's duties as one can imagine any guideline fitting a job. The grievor's alternative argument is that the employer's actual practice is inconsistent with their own classification -6- guides aOld that other employees performing work similar to the grievor are classified as Clerk Grade 3. Three employees with the Liquor Licence Board who are classified as Clerk Grade 3 were called by the grievor as witnesses to describe their duties. Liz Hughston from the planning Department summarized her duties (Exhibit 13). By her testimony she composes letters and internal memos, signs the same, works with very little supervision, at her own pace and discretion, does some typing but does mainly clerical work. Hughston's work is not similar to the grievor's. Brenda Connell from the Renewal Department summarized her duties (Exhibit 14). By her testimony there are typists within the department to whom she assigns letters on a regular basis and the only letters which she herself would type would be on a very occasional basis when a typist is not available. The only real typist task performed is in the preparation of the Weekly Activity List which she compiles every Thursday. Connell's work is not similar to the grievor's. Beth Martin from the Industry and Special Licence Department described, her duties. She testified that approximately 50 per cent of her time was spent typing. Given the nature of her department however her duties are extremely varied with differing procedures to be followed depending on the application. Her contacts are also quite varied and by her evidence it is she who decides on the appropriateness of action to be taken and she does so with very little supervision. In addition she also on occasion supervised projects, e.g. issuance of age of majority cards at universities. 7 Martin's work is not similar to the grievors. The grievor has failed to persuade that her position is improperly classified and this grievance is accordingly dismissed. Dated at Kingston this 22nd day of March 1984 c-cr- _ R.J.belisle, Vice-Chairman "I dissent"- E.J. Bounsall, Member P. Coupey, Member