Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0420.Yoshikawa.82-07-19Before: 423/‘81 IN THE .%TTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIT?E BARGAINIXG ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (T. Yoshikawa) Grievor - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario~ (Ministry of Health) Employer A. M. Kruger - Vice Chairman B. Switzman - Member W. J. Evans - Member For the Grievor: A. Ryder, Q-C. Counsel Cameron, Brewin & Scott Barristers & Solicitors For the E;nployer: D. W. Hansen Reqional Personnel Administrator H&an Resources aranch Ministry of Health Xearing: June 9, 1982 - 2 - This natter comes SeEore this Soari as a result of a grie,iance b:J :?rs. f. Yoshikawa arising Erom her job classification as a Clerk 3. The parries are agreed that this matter is properly before this Board. Yrs. Yoshikawa has been employed by the Fliniscry of Health since 157i. In 1974, she joined the Chest Disease Service unit where she has been employed ever since except for a period of about six months in 1180-81 when she worked at the Tcronto Chest-Clinic while being considered fcr a position there. When she began working at the Chest Disease Service, :hat oEEice was organized as follows: - a supervisor (Clerk 4) - a senior statisticalclerk (Clerk 3) - Mrs. Yoshikawa - two statistical clerks (Clerk 2). In 1977 this unit was reorganized. The supervisor’s position was reclassified to Clerk 5. The position of senior statistical clerk (Clerk 3), held by Mrs. Yoshikawa, was abolished. The tasks of the former Clerk 2’s were redefined and reclassiEied to Clerk 3. An additional position was added to the new Clerk 3 group. It was oEfered to Mrs. Yos,hikawa who accepted it. The griever contends that in spite oE the reorganization, her job has continued to require more skill and responsibility than that of :he other Clerk 3’s. She asks that this be acknowledged by raising her classification to Clerk 4, General, thereby restoring ;he differential in classifica:ion which existed prior to 1577. - 3 - As evidence of :he ccntention :hac her jcb differs ,Lroz c.iac of rhe < ocher clerks, Xrs. Yoshikaiia told the acard of certain pracrices in ~3e oEEice. She had a phone on her desk whereas the other clerks sbareti ahc-.es. This reflectel the fact that she was far more invclved in answering inc,~lries and in calling for information than her colleagues. She also pointed cut that she was asked to train the one new employee hired since 1977 as a filing clerk. She was the only clerk assigned to work on a special projec: involving a study OE imigrants with chest diseases. The Employer denies that her work diEEered significantly from chat sf the.other clerk 3’s in this ofEice. As a senior employee, she was offered her choice ot the desks in the oEEice and she chose the one with a telephone. She enjoys calling Ear information and is good ac it. She, therefore, voluntarily spends more time on this than do her colleagues. AS for the help she gave in training the file clerk and her work on the immigration project, the Employer contends that these are tasks covered by the Clerk 3 job description. Indeed, the Employer argued that nothing in Firs. Yoshikawa’s testimony indicated that she was assigned tasks beyond those OE a Clerk 3. It was the Employer’s position that Mrs. Yoshikawa did not do all OE the tasks expected of a Clerk 3 and certainly was not called on to perform many of the tasks in the Clerk 4 job description. The griever contends that her actual assignnients more closely reflected the.description in the Clerk 4 than’the Clerk 3 job description. BeEore turning to our decision in this matter, the Board wishes ~3 comment on a procedural matter raised at the hearing. The Enplover soa+,r fo submit as evidence revised job descriptions <e~:eloped in response :? ihis grievance and. therefore, after the grievance. Ihe Expluyer sai: r’zd-. such descriptions would be useful because they were more current and. - 4 - thcrclore, more accurace!y ref!ecreti rt.e taszks perf2rmed by eac.h gr5-p ;x the Service. The Unicn objected on :he ~Tml-l5 t.ia: juc;1 zescripciscs, ‘;>I- laterally developed by the Enplayer after the grievance iiere seif-sz.“iirz and. therefore, inadmissible. The Board tipheld :Le Gnion’s objectfor.. 51e have carefully considered the evidence before us. 1: is r,lii conclusion that the griever has failed to establish that her assigned zas%s difEer signiEicantly from those of her colleagues or that they are no: ccn- sistenc with the tasks expected of a Clerk 3. The griever has failed to establish that her tasks would inare proper!y be assigned to the Clerk 4 category. Accordingly, this grievance is dismissed. Dated at Toronto this 19th day of july 1982. “I dissent” (to follow) 9. Switman, Member 1 W. ,i. 'Evans, Member