HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0484.Wing.82-08-03IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EXPLOVEES COLLECTI'JE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE S5TTLEMENT BOARD
Between; MS . Marguerite Winq Grievor
- and.-
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ninistry of,Health)
Before: E.B. Jolliffe, Q.C. Vice-Chairman
I. Thomson Nember
H. Roberts Member
For the Grievor: G. MacKenzie, Counsel
Campbell, Godfrey & Lewtas
For the Employer: G. Rytayko, Regional Personnel
Administrator
Ministry of yealth
Hearing: May 10, 1982
-2-
DECISION
The grievance of Ms. Marguerite Wing, was presented in
mgns t 1979. For reasons tc be explained, it was not.referred
to this Board until September, 1981.
Certain of the facts are not in dispute. Representatives
of the parties agreed to and signed the following statement,. file?
at the hearing of this case and marked Exhibit 4:
1)
2)
3)
'_ 4 )
5)
6)
7)
Miss Marguerite Wing was first employed with the Ministry of
Health at the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital on February 2, 1970.
At that time, she was appointed to the position of Senior Social
Worker which was classified as a Social Work Supervisor 1. This
position was, at all relevent times, excluded fromthe Barqaininq
Unit.
On January 22, 1979, the Ministry of Health announced that.the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital would be closed on Septetir 1, 1979.
Miss Wing was advised by~letter datedFebruary 19, 1979 (copy
attached) that as a result of the closure, she would be released
from employment as of August 31, 1979.
Miss Wing was subsequently advised by letter dated February 26, 19i9
(copy attached) that her employment would be maintained by transfer
to the Queen Street Mental Health Centre.
By letter dated July 6~,":1979, (copy attached) Miss Wing was offered
employment at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre as a Social
Worker. The position offered was and is presently.classified as
a Sccial Worker 2. This position is within the scopes of the
Bargaining Unit.
By letter dated August 1, 1979, Miss Wing lodged a grievance
concerning "reclassification of my position with the Ministry of
Health".
By Order-in-council #2281/79 dated August 8, 1979, a parallel
Bargaining Unit classification entitled Social Work Supervisor 1
(Bargaining/Unit) wasestablished effective July 1, 1979.
Miss Wing transferred.to the S&al Work department at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre on August 15, 1979. She has been
classified as a Sccial Worker 2 since that date.
:.
5,
-3-
The substance cf the twc letters referred tc is set CUT
in paragraphs 2) and 3) above and ?hey need ncr be reprcduced.
The griever, whase position has been classified~ SW2
since her transfer to Queen Street in August, 1979, considers that
it was improperly so classified, and claims that the prcper class-
ification would be Social Work Superviscr 1, the new bargaining
unit position established as of July 1, 1979.
The griever's claim has been ~complicated and prclcnged
by the unusual circumstances. Her previcus post at the iakeshcre
Psychiatric Hospital (Sccial Work Supervisor 1) was excluded frcm
the bargaining unit. Thus her grievance was referred in 1980 tc
the Civil Service Commission,. where MS. Wing expected it to be
dealt with by the Classification Rating Ccmmittee. However, in
view of the fact that her position as SW2 at the Queen Street
Mental Health Centre is within the bargaining unit, and further
having regard to the new classification of Social Wcrk Superviscr 1
(Bargaining/Unit) created in July, 1979, the matter eventually
reached this Board, which held a hearing cn May 10, 1982.
The case fcr the grievo~r is that the duties she has been
called on to perform~'at Queen Street are substantially similar tc
those she performed at the Lakeshore facility. There are 25 ether
- 4 -
social workers at Queen Street classified SW2 (and only five
classified at the higher level) but it has been urged by Ms. Wing
and her ccunsel that due to her supericr qualificaticns and exper-
ience she has been required or authorized tc accept respcnsibilities
above the level required cf an SW2.
In considering a dispute abcut classificaticn, it is'the
requirements of the position which dictate the result, net the
achievements, qualificaticns or other merits cf the individual
holding the position. This was conceded by the griever's counsel,
IMr . MacKenzie. Nevertheless, recognition must be given tc the
griever's experience and ability, which undcubtedly made possible
her contributions tc the wcrk at both the Lakeshcre facility and
the Queen Street Mental Health Centre.
;I The griever graduated frcm Ohio State University in1955,
B.Sc., and from the University cf Toronto, B.S.W. in 1961 and M.S.W.
in 1963. Stie holds a certificate from the Ministry cf Health-for a
1970 ccurse in "Basic Management Develcpment." She served the
Y.W.C.A. in North York from 1955 to 1958; the Visiting Hcmemakers'
organization frcm 1958 to 1960; the Ncrth Ycrk and Westcn Family
Service Centre frcm 1961 to 1966 and.the Bcys' Village frcm 1966
to 1970. For scme time she had also assisted in the wcrk cf the
St. James' Cathedral King-Bay Chaplaincy, as well as the Mental
Health Asscciaticn and an Advisory Committee cn.the Mentally
-5-
Retarded. She has been a member cf the Ontaric Asscciaticn cf
Professional Social Wcrkers since 1955.
Throughout her service at the Lakeshcre Psychiatric
Hospital from 1970 tc 1979, Ms. Wing held the classificaticn cf
Senior Social Wcrker, Supervisor 1. On May 18, 1979, Mr, Arncld
Mcrrissey, the institution's Director of Social Wcrk, gave her the
fcllowing testimonial, Exhibit E.
Miss Marguerite Wing has been emplcyed in the Sccial Wcrk
Department of the Lakeshore Psychiatric *spital since February
2rd, 1970.
As Directcr cf Social Work, I have been assxiatfd w%th
Miss Wing in her work on three prcgrams within the Hospital.
-Cn the Extended Care Lhit, Ward B, Miss Wing wcrked pri-
marily with the families of long-term patients, helping them
to understand and participate in the prcgram.
-Cn the Self-Care Vnit - Miss Wing was respcnsible fcr
Prcgram Development, Cc-ordination of Staff and Direct Services
to Patients.
..I.
-Cn the Social Orientaticn Centre - iMiss Wing has been
functicning as i'member of an interdisciplinary team, being
primarily reslxnsible for liaison with Community Agencies.
Miss Wing is an intelligent, articulate and capable
sxial worker, who has made a significant ccntributicn tc the
Services cffered by the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital.
Considerable evidence came frcm the griever herself abcnt
the work she did at the Lakeshore facility, being the only witness
called by her counsel, but Mr. Morrissey was called by the Emplcyer~'s
representative and. gave further details. Such evidence has rather
limited relevance.. At issue here is the wcrk.at Queen Street and
- 6 -
not the Lakeshcre work in earlier years. What has tc be.deci%ed is
whether the position now occupied by Ms. Wing fits intc -he standard
for anSW2 or fits better intc the standard for a Sccial Wcrk Super-
visor 1 (Bargaining/Unit)~. It has been argued cf course that her
work at Queen Street is no less responsible or onercus than the
work she did at the Lakeshore facility.
Before summarizing,the essential characteristics of the
two positions (the former pcsiticn at Lakeshore and the present
position at Queen Street) it is necessary to refer to the standards
established by the Civil Service Commissicn. We dc SC with scme
misgivings because both the standards given to us are dated July 4,
1971. It is obvious there have been changes in the series since
that date, as disclosed by paragraph 6) in the agreed statement cf
facts.
The preamble to the "Social Work Supervisor Series" cpens
with the following explanation:
Ihis class series ccvers supervisory, consultative, training and
administrative positions involving responsibilities in such areas
as policy formulaticn, program planning and develcpent, the
supervision of social workers, and/cr sccial wcrk assistants and
ether related staff, and staff training and develcpment.
The following definiticns also appear in the preamble
to then series:
- 7 -
SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISOR 1
-Program supervisor in a small facility or irstituticn with
a single functicnal social wrk unit.
A social worker engaged in full-time teaching or course devel-'
opsent in formal departmental, instituticnal and/or agency
training prcgrams. .:
The class standard fcr Social Work Superviscr 1 is stated
as follows:
This class covers first-line supervisory positions cf prcfessicnal
social workers who are responsible for the implementation and admin-
istration of a social work program in a small1 provincial facility
or for a unit or specialized segment of comprehensive social work
program (a) within a prcvincial hospital or institution or (b)
within a specified district in a province-wide program of sccial
and vocational rehabilitation. Unit operations may be functional,
or self-contained, e.g. large self-ccntained organizational units
of a large hos$?al or institution. Under the general direction
of's more senior professional officer or administratcr;these
employees plan, organize and direct the unit's social work activ-
ities. They assign duties to subordinate social workers and/or
social service workers and review their decisions. mey prcvide
guidance and instruction in social work techniques and evaluate
subordinates' performance. They may carry a limited direct service
workload of a complex nature. They co-ordinate the unit activities
with those of other units an3 services within the facility, branch
and department. They participate in staff training and develcpnent
prcgrams, lecture to departmental personnel and conduct seminars.
rney maintain close liaison with cormnuni ty agencies and services
to exchange information and integrate service and rescurces.
This class also covers positions of sccial wcrkers engaged full-time
in the develcpment of fcrmal training courses and who participate in
teaching in fcrmal departmental and institutional staff develcpnent
prcgrams.
The, "Skills and Knowledge Required" were described in
the following words:
- 8 -
'Ihcrough professional knowledge of the principles, methods and
techniques of social work and proven ability in applying them;
ability~ to supervise and instruct subordinate social wcrkers; gcod
bowledge of the diagnostic and treatment prccedures utilized 'by
related professional disciplines; thcrcugh knowledge cf depart-
mental prcgrams and services; ability to co-ordinate services with
other programs and services within and outside the provincial
jurisdiction.
Actually, the.classification of the Lakeshore pcsi~ticn
occupied by Ms. Wing was "Senior Social Work Supervisor 1" --- for
which the parties gave us no standard. It is~ clear, however, that
her Lakeshore work had~ many of the characteristics set out abcve
in the standard for Social Work Supervisor 1, and probably in-
volved even more respbnsibility. The griever was in charge cf a
go-bed self-contained unit, supervising two or three other social
workers. She also trained summer students and held meetings with
the staff each day.
In 1976 there were changes, with a shift in emphasis to
"functional units." fin collaboration with nurses, much work was
done on special problems: a self-care residential prcgram, liaison
with relatives and friends of long-term patients, and the social
orientation of- mentally.-retarded patients, the last being assigned
specifically to the griever. Only 30 per cent of her time, she
testified, was in administration and planning; her work related
primarily to patient care, with some guidance frcm physicians and
psychiatrists. There were also evening meetings with recrntly-
- 9 -
discharged adults, parents of mentally-ill children, and with the
staff and friends of patients in an educational program. These.
were some of the duties referred to in Mr. Mcrrissey's testimcnial
of May 18, 1979. It is clear that she was able to function under
minimal supervision, having had many years cf experience in a wide
variety of social work.
It has not been questioned~ that the classification of the
griever's position from 1970 to 1979 was correct. Unfortunately,
however, the Lakeshore facility was closed in 1979 and with
closure the position disappeared.
Having accepted the position offered at Queen Street,
Ms. Wing began.work there on August 15, 1979, but promptly gave
notice, by way of her grievance that she did not agree with the
SW2 classification-of her position. Thus it becomes necessary
to consider the standard for that classification, Exhibit 5.
preamble of the "Social Worker Series" is as fcllcws:
'Ihis class series covers positicns in the field of social welfare
which involve the provision of professional sccial wxk services
in provincial programs of soc~ial develcpnent, adjustment, pre-
vention and rehabilitation. These direct services assist indivi-
duals, families,,grcups, and c ommunities to achieve an3 maintain
effective personal development and social functicning, satisfying
inter-relationships an3 a better social order. Fmplcyees use one
-or more social work methods to assess, treat or prevent the
- 10 -
underlying causes of sccial dysfuncticning, both personal and
environmental. 'Ihey develop and implement appropriate social
treatment plans and evaluate results. Social work services are
given in a variety of community and institutional settings.
The Standard for Social Worker 2 is defined in the
following words: -..._
This class covers the positions of qualified social workers who prc-
vide professional sccial work services to clients urder the general
supervision of a senior social worker or other prcfessicnal cr admin-
istrative official. They conduct interviews, compile social histcries
and formulate psychosocial diagnosis of the personal and environ-
mental causes cf social dysfuncticning. They implement treatment
plans to assist clients to resolve their problems and develop their
maximum potential. They prcvide service by any one or a ccmbinaticn
of the social work methods appropriate to the functions of the depart-
ment and service. They evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment.
plan and modify or revise as necessary. They consult with members
of other professional disciplines and may serve as members of
treatment teams, institutional and ccmmuni ty committees. They may
suprvrse and review the work of social work assistants, child
care workers, residential counsellors and other staff in the area.
%ey participate in conferences and group discussions, interpret
departmental policy and objectives, and maintain liaison with ether
disciplines, jurisdictions, and community agencies. They may assist
in the training of departmental personnel and students in sccial
service courses.
The "Knowledge and Skills Required" are the following:
Thorough knowledge of the principles,,technigues, and methods of
social +.cxk and ability to apply them in the work situation; ability
to formulate psychosocial diagnoses and skill in 'implementing them;
knowledge of diagnostic an3 treatment pccedures utilized by related
disciplines; gccd knowledge of departmental programs and policies:
ability to develop c&operative working relationships with other
professional staff; .parscnal suitability.
- 11 -
Also relevant is the "Pcsiticn Specificaticn and Class
Allocaticn" form for the S,J42 position at Queen Street. There are
certain difficulties about this document. It was drawn to describe
a position with 26 incumbents (Ms. Wing and 25 ethers) and the
griever contends that some cf it is not applicable to the wcrk shf
has been doing since August, 1979. In short, she claims tc have
a greater and more varied load of respcnsibility than ethers.
This would not be surprising in view of her qualificaticns and
her previous supervisory experience at Lakeshore. It appears that
the institution tack full advantage of her superior ability.,
Thus, to begin with, her supervisor, a Mr; Ballantyne
(who held the same rank as she had held at Lakeshore) went on
vacation for three weeks and she acted in his place during that
period. Thereafter., she quickly became involved in research for
"A Prcposal for a Day Rehabilitation Program, Southwestern Service."
This rather elaborate document, Exhibit B, was completed in December,
1979,' and accepted by the hospital administration.
Althcugh it was circulated in draft fcrm to certain senior
personnel, there is no reason to dcubt that Ms. Wing was, as she
says, almost entirely respcnsible for designing the-prcpcsal and
presenting it.in an intelligible and acceptable fcrm. The first
underlying assumpticn w+s.that "some severely disabled psychia:ric
- 12 -
patienrscanbe supported and maintained in a variety cf ccmmunity
living arrangements through the use cf a day rehabilitaticn program
and a social netwcrk approach to working with the support services
available in the ccmmunity." The proposal outlined many methcds cf
placing the long-term patient "in a program of continuing care that
is most suitable to his stage of rehabilitation." Many prcjects
were to be carried on during the day at the hospital itself. Alsc
described were the respective roles of the psychiatrist, the head
nurse, the rehabilitation team and the "prime therapist," usually
a social worker or nurse. The proposal obviously assumed impcrtacce
at a time when financial constraints seemed likely tc restrict in-
.patlent services, but the program (essentially ah outpatient prcgram)
was to operate six days a week, subject to special arrangements
for patients needing seven-day care.
During the same period, August tc December, 1979, the
griever became involved in patient care and meetings with other .y.,;
staff members. The Southwestern Service included a 150-bed unit
-in seven specialized programs, one of them being for the "day"
patients. In it she was associated with Registered Nurses,
Registered Nursing Aides and Occupational Therapists. Each
patient was supposed to have a "prime therapist" --- one having
"clear communication" with the patient and knowing all the patient's
needs.~ Ms. Wing said she frequently assisted a prime therapist whc ~. ._
- 13 -
might be having difficulty. She supervised all social wcrk
among the prime therapists and taught a psychclcgy student frcm the
University cf Toronto; ethers came from the Ryerson Institute of
Technology and she was recently asked to take 10 more students from
Ryerson. She organized educaticnal courses and arranged for
personnel from the Clarke Institute to lead them.
In June, 1981, there were some organizational changes
and the griever tack responsibility for a number of.inpatients
and for some "after-care" work as well as day patients. These were
in three different areas and Ms. Wing says that no one supervised
her. The work, she testified, was essentially the same as what she
had done at Lakeshore. Once again she was heavily involved in three
specific programs.
In 1980 Mr. Ballantyne left: his successor retired in
April, 1982. Ms. Wing was then asked tc serve as "Acting Senior
Social Worker" with added respcnsibility. At the arbitraticn
hearing on May 10, Ms. Wing said "I now supervise ether sccial
workers." However, cnly five per cent of her work was administrat-
ive; 70 per cent was direct clinical wcrk with'patients and the
remainder cf her time was spent in training therapists and sF,udents
and inorganizational activities. I
- 14 -
In cross-examination, the griever asserted she was the
only social worker capable of developing the day program; the ethers,
she said, were "very discouraged." At Queen Street she had alsc
carried "a significant case load," which was due in part tc being
involved in three different p&grams. No other sccial wcrker, she
said, worked in more~.than one program or more than one unit. Shcwn
the standard for an SW2 she said it was very general and did net
reflect the kind of work she had done in formulating the Day
Rehabilitation Program.
The griever also said she had no monetary less on being
transferred to Queen Street, recently received a "five dcllar raise"
and is being paid at the top of the SW2 scale.
Mr. Robert Quinsey became Chief cf Sccial Work at Queen
',. Street after 16 ye'ars of'experience at the Penetanguishene
Mental Health Centye. In testifying, he explained some cf the s:~
special characteristics of social work in a large instituticn.
Although technically responsible to their department head, scciai
workers also "have some clinical responsibility to the dcctcr in
charge of a program." Moreover, even the five supervisory sccial
workers at Queen Street spend "at least half of their time in
clinical work." Their positions, he said, are excluded frcm the
bargaining unit.
According to Mr. Quinsey, the griever "has been functisn-
ing as an SW2." There was another SW2 in her Southwest 2 unit but
Ms~. Wing "carries people from SW3 also." He said she was "almcst
a floater --- until we work out a new arrangementI:,:' Referring to
the recent retirement cf the supervisor, he said the pcsiticn was
"not yet posted" and made no reference to the griever's asserticn
that she had become the acting supervisor.
The idea of a day rehabilitaticn program had been
initiated before the Lakeshore closure and Mr. Quinsey said Ms.
Wing was "one of the staff chosen to wcrk on it." However, he
conceded "I don't disagree that she did the work .and was the authcr
of the report." He was not present at preliminary meetings but was
at the Central Committee meeting when the report was "presented/
In his opinion the work was within the specificaticns fcr a SW2.
The grievor, he said, was not involved in planning new hcusing
and forensic security programs. He referred tc studies currently
under way by-the Peat, Marwick consulting firm.
In cross-examination, Mr. Quinsey admitted that '.'it's
unusual for an SW2 to be assigned to more than one program." He
agreed Ms. Wing had acted as superviscr during Mr. Ballantyne's
absence in 1979, but felt certain she was not responsible for
administrative work. (He did net specify whc was responsible):
- 16 -
. At Queen Street there was no clcse supervisicn cf an experienced
Social Worker such as Ms. Wing. Thus neither cf the twc super-
visors were close to her work and it was not the practice at Queen
Street.to prepare performance appraisals, an cmissicn left unex-
plained by Mr. Quinsey. With reorganization he expected the
griever would be assigned to only one program, but he cculd net
say which program it would be, and she might resume research wcrk.
According to Mr. Quinsey, there were almost 600 inpatients
at Queen Street, but there were also about 5,000 outpatients. He
had only 26 workers in the SW2 classification, but a registered
nurse often functioned as "prime therapist."
Mr. Arnold..Morrissey had been Director cf Social Wcrk
at Lakeshore, where he formed a high cpinion of Ms. Wing's
leadership. There-,~'~.he testified, he could see a difference between
her role and that of other social workers, but he thought she is
now properly classified SW2. He is supervising in the ncrthern
service at Queen Street and~not near enough tc knew what she is
doing. About 25 per cent cf his time is taken in supervising
his staff. In cross-examination, he said "I have no sccial worker
whc can function on his or her cwn."
In his argument, counsel for the griever said the issue
here revolvedaround the position actually filled by her, net the
- 17 -
position filled by ether social workers. There was no evidence
that any ether SW2 had dcne wcrk cf the nature and variety cf the
work done by her --- such as the fcrmulaticn of the Day Rehabil-
itaticn Program. In her work she did not need supervisicn, as others
did. Actually she was training and supervising others. The similar-
ities between her jcbs at Lakeshcre and Queen Street were "striking."
Counsel likened the Day Rehabilitation Program tc the Wcrkshc‘ps
and Family Therapy Program initiated by the griever at Lakeshcre.
She had never needed supervision at eitherinstitutionand had acted
in a supervisory capacity at both --- e.g. at Queen Street in bcth
1979 and 1982. Counsel referred to Lynch 43/77, at page 4, and to
Beals & Cains 30/79 at pages 12 and 13 where menticn was made cf
"work actually performed."
For the Empioyer, Mr.Kytayko cited Irwin 37/79, Rcunding
18/75 and Clarke~l46/81. He said'there was some '"overlap" between
the two classifications here; the important factor was that the
grievor was not a "first-line supervisor." There was very little
in the specification she cculd identify as being net her wcrk.
Mr.Kytayko emphasized that "she does not supervise other social
workers" because she functicns almcst alone in several different
capacities and in different units. He pointed out that the
grievance had been presented to Mr. Quinsey on August 1, 1979, even
before she arrived at Queen ~Street, but she accepted a pcsition
she knew was classified SW2.
13 -
If one were to take the worst possible view cf the
evidence in this case, it would be that the griever tended to exag-
gerate the impcrtance cf her functions at Queen Street; and that Mr.
Quinsey tended to.down-play or underestimate them. That would be an
extreme view, and we do not go that far. Hcwever, the real problem
here is not with the evidence, such as it is, but lies elsewhere.
We comment only tha% Mr. Ballantyne and his successor cught to have
beencalled as witnesses, since their wcrk as superviscrs would
necessarily give them more knowledge than either Mr. Quinsey or Nr.
Morrissey of the griever's actual work at Queen Street.
In classification cases such as this, the Beard is invar-
iably referred to the Position Specification and the relevant
Class Standards. The difficulty here is in reconciling the Spec-
ification with the standard for SW2. The latter was not referred
to in Mr. Quinsey!s testimony.
The Position Specification and Class Allocaticn, Exhibit
F. a lengthy document, is briefly quoted hereafter. Dated
July 17, 1980, it was prepared by Mr. Quinsey and Mr. L.A. Xoricz,
\ Assistant Administrator-Clinical, and approved by Mr. .S.W. Rose as
authorized evaluator on September~ 12, 1980. ..:
In the Position Specification the emphasis is clearly on
- 19 -
the clinical aspect of the work; indeed paragraph 1 of 'Duties and
Responsibilities" begins with these words: "Provides direct social
work services to inpatients and outpatients and their families....."
Paragraph 1 gets a 50 per cent rating.
However, paragraph 3 goes further, with a 20 per cent
rating. It states:
Provides indirect social work services 'in clinical administration
by:
-participating in clinical conferences and prcgram developxrent/
evaluation by presenting a unique social work perspective based
on professional principle, ethics and training.
-participating on service .xd hospital committees by providing
social work input on prcgram planning, policies and procedures,
service organization and delivery.
Further, paragraph 5 (10 per cent) states:
Provides indirect social +xxk services in educaticn and research
by:
-participating in staff developnent by identifying needs, sharing
social work knowledge with other staff and students, and ccn--
tributing articles to hospital and professional journals, and
for presentation at conferences.
The paragraphs above undoubtedly provide the basis for
Mr. Quinsey's claim that the fcrmulation of the Day Rehabilitation
Prcgram was within the specification.
- 20 -
The problem here is that the specificaticn (which was
prepared after Ms. Wing's development of the Program) goes further
than the Class Standard. It is clear that in the even% cf conflict,
the Standard must prevail.
The-Standard previously quoted makes no reference what-
ever to research or'the formulation of new programs or policies.
Instead, it states: "they conduct interviews, compile social
histories and formulate pyschosocial diagnosis of the personal
and environmental causes of social dysfunctioning. They implement
treatment plans....." To diagnose the troubles of an individual
patient and to "implement" treatment plans is not the same thing.as
formulating a new plan, policy or program of general application.
Fyrther , it is said "they interpret departmentalpolicy and
objectives." Obviously, to "interpret" a policy is very different
from devising and formulating a new policy.
Further, the Standard calls for "general supervision"
by a senior social worker. Evidence is totally lacking that the
griever has had any supervision at all since August, 1979, pre-
sumably because the supervisors were aware she had no need of it.
They did not testify.
The language of the Specification departs from the
- 21 -
Standard in other respects. For example, it refers to "general
directicn" by a Social Work Superviscr, thus neatly avoiding the
term "general supervision" used in the Standard. As.stated earlier
in this decision, we find Exhibit F to be a rather unsatisfactcry
document. In our opinion, a Position Specification shculd conform
more closely to the Class Standard. The Ministry is not entitled
to modify or revise that Standard. Paragraphs 3 and 4'af. Exhibit F,
at least in part, go beyond the Standard.
We come now to the Standard for a Social Work Supervisor
1. In paragraph 6 of the agreed statement of facts (quoted on the
first page of this decision) it is said: "By;~.Order-in-Council
X2281/79 dated August 8, 1979, a parallel Bargaining Unit classifi-
cation entitled Social Work Supervisor 1 (Bargaining/Unit) was
established effective July 1, 1979." However, at the hearing cf
this arbitration, neither party tendered in evidence a copy of the
Standard applicable to that classification, which is obviously the
classification sought by the griever, although she was probably not
aware that it had just become effective.
After consideration, this Board has obtained from the
Civil Service Commission a copy of the Standard, which turns cut tc
be exactly the same as the Standard for Social Wcrk Supervisor 1,
the classification held by Ms. Wing for some years at the-Lakeshcre
- 22 -
Psychiatric Hospital. For three reasons, we think it proper to
treat this document as though it had been properly tendered in
evidence at the hearing. Our first reason is that under Sections
19(2) and 11(E) and ll(11) of The Crown Employees Collective
Bargaining Act, this Board has the power to determine its own
procedure and "to accept or exclude any oral testimony, document or
other thing." The second reason is that the new classification
was established in 1979 by Order-in-Council under the Public
Service Act and is therefore an cfficial,document having the fcrce
of law for the purposes set out therein. Lastly, we have in mind
also the admonitions tc arbitrators given by the Court cf Appeal
in Re City of Toronto and Canadian Union of Public EmDlcyees, Locai
79. (1982) 35 O.R. (2d) 545. Dealing with the refusal of an arbi- -
trator to admit intc evidence the report of a Commission of Inquiry
under Section 240 of the Municipal Act, it was said by Blair J.A.
(delivering the judgement of the Court) at page 556:
The argument made to~~this Court that the Board would have
,&en prevented from doing so by exclusionary rules applicable in
the courts is singularly without merit. It is plain that the
Board was not bound by the rules of evidence and the argument
addressed to us by the union and the arbitration board decisions
cited by it fly in the face of the statute. A decision by any
board to refuse to admit evidence because it was not admissible
in the courts or because the board was bound by decision cf other
arbitration boards would constitute an cbvious error of law. In
,. addition, the discretion cf a toard obviously would be imprcperly
exercised if it acted in the belief that these legal rules or
prier arbitration decisions were binding vpon it. It is beyond
question that any board so acting would fetter its discretion.
- 23 -
On examining the Standard for "Social Wcrk Superviscr 1
(Bargaining/Unit) U we find that the cover page gives the fcllcwing
particulars:
CATEGORY: Scientific and Prcfessional Services
GROUP: SP-11 Sccial Development
SERIES: Social Work Supervisor
CLASS CODE:-- 10105
The cover page contains nothing further except fcr the
cryptic statement:
"For Contents of Class Standard Refer tc:
10106 Social Work Supervisor 1"
In other words, the Standard for Social Work Superviscr
(Bargaining/Unit) is exactly the.same as the Standard for Sccial
Work Supervisor 1, the excluded position. The latter has been qucted ~..
fully earlier in this decision. In it, the following wcrds seem
applicable tc the work actuallly performed by the griever at the
Queen Street Mental Health Centre since August, 1979:
This class ccvers first-line superviscry positicns of
professional social workers..... responsible. for the
implementaticn and administraticn of a social work prcgramne fcr
. . . . . a unit or specialized segment . . .._ within a provincial
hospital or institution..... Unit operaticns may be functicnal
or self-ccntained..... 'Ihey prcvide guidance and instructicn
in social work techniques..... Ihey may carry a limited direct
- 24 -
service worklcad of a ccmplex nature..... They participate
in Staff training ard develcpnent prcgrammes..... and ccnduct
seminars. 'ihey maintain clcse liaison with ccmmunity agencies
and services tc exchange i;lrcrmation ani integrate services
and rescurces .
The "Skills and knowledge Required" were qucted in full
earlier in this decision, and all cf that quotation appears tc be
applicable to the requirements of the positicn occupied by Ms.
Wing, and there~ is nc doubt that she possessessuchskills and
knowledge.
The hospital administration, as we understand it, was
presented with a problem in 1979 which could be an embarrassment tc
any administration. It seemsclear that after her record of
success at the Lakeshore facility, the griever was "over-qualified"
fcr the available SW2 positicn at Queen Street. However, the
hospital took full advantage of her qualifications, first, by
accepting a prcgram almost exclusively devised and fcrmulated by
her: second, by accepting her unsupervised services in a wide
variety of work in different prcgrams and different units. There
is no evidence whatever that any other employee in the S!'JZ class-
ification had comparable duties; there is evidence, hcwever, that
all those supervised by--Mr. Morrissey in the Northern Service cculd
not function "on their cwn." We cannot accept the suggesticn
that others have the same responsibilities as the griever. _ The
suggestion (or assertion) was of key importance, but nc evi.aence
n
- 25 -
in support was forthcoming. It would have been a simple matter
to produce at least one witness to show he or she does work
comparable to that of the grievor --- if such a witness exis;s.
The authority of this Board to re-classify a position
is found in both The Crown Employees Collective Baraaininq Act
and the applicable collective agreement.
Section 17(2) of the Act in 1979 (now Secticn lB(2) in
the revised Statutes) is as follows:
(2) In addition to any other rights of grievance under a
collective agreement, an employee claiming,
(a) that his psition has been improperly classified;
. . . . .
may process such matter in accordance with the grievance
procedure provided in the collective agreement, and failing
final determination under such procedure, the matter may ke
processed in accordance with the procedure for final deter-
mination applicable under Section 18.
In the 1974 collective agreement (as in the present
agreementjthe following provisicns appear:
5.1.1. h ~employee who alleges-that his position is imprcprly
classified may discuss his claim with his immediate super-
visor at any time, provided that such discussicns shall net h ta\ren
into account in the applicaticn of the time limits set cut in .Arzicla
21. An employee, however, shall have the right to file a grievance
-..
- 26 -
in accordance with the grievance procedure specifying in his
grievance what classificaticn he claims.
5.1.2. In the case of any grievance filed tier the above
section, the authority of the Grievance Settlement Card shall
be limited to:
(a) confirming that the grievor is properly classified in an
existing classification or
(b) finding that the grievor would be properly classified in
the jcb classificaticn which he claimed in his grievance.
It is thus apparent that when the Beard finds a pcsiticn
to be improperly classified, it may ordain that the griever's
'pcsition be re-classified as claimed in the grievance. Ns. wing's
grievance, presented by letter dated August 1, 1979, implied that
she should continue to be classified as a Superviscr. That claim
wculd appear to correspond with the classification established with
Z'...
an effective'date of July 1, 1979, and known as Social Work
Supervisor 1 (Bargaining/Unit) as explained in the agreed statefitint
of facts, Exhibit 4.
The .approach taken by this Board in previous class-
ification cases was clearly set otit in Beals and Cain 30/79, .'
authored by Vice-Chairman Draper, at page 12:
It is well established that in psiticn classification cases, the
Board mqt direct its inquiry to the question, first, whether or
not the wcrk actually perfumeri by the employee is that set out in
an appropriate class standard and, seccnd, whether or net he is
performing work substantially similar to that being perfcnmzd by
an employee whose pzsition has been placed in another class-
icicaticn. In the first instance the emplcyee's work-is measured.
against that of an employee in a psiticn that has %een
differently cl,assified. 'Ibe purpose is tc establish either
that tie employer is conforming to its classificaticn standards
Also, it was said at page 13:
- 27 -
or that the employer has, in effect, mcdified those standards.
In-our view the griever's position is improperly classified
if it is not placed in the highes t classificaticn in the system
hierarchy to which his work,measured against the work cf
employees whose psitions are in related classificaticns, entitles
him.
We do not think this Board,has jurisdiction to re-classify
the grievor in an excluded positicn. However, according to
paragraph 6 in the agreed Statement of Facts, there has been since
July 1, 1979, a Bargaining Unit position known as Social Wcrk
Supervisor 1. We have found and considered the Standard fcr that
classification, which is clearly within the bargaining unit. It
dces not appear on the Organization Chart, Exhibit H, and the
position 52 shown there is "Senior Social Wcrker," which Mr. Quinsey
says is excluded, but we find no such classification in the Social
Worker Series given us. Our ccnclusion is that the positicn actually ,.
occupied by the griever since August 15, 1979, (which may be unigue)
ought to be re-classified Social Work Supervisor 1 (Bargaining/cnit)
and the organization chart ought to be amended acccrdingly. The
griever is to b'e"compensated at the applicable rates as and frcm
August 15, 1979.
- 28 -
In arriving at our conclusions in this unusual and
rather difficult case, we have to acknowledge the assistance
given by the parties' representatives at the hearing, and in
particular their wisdom in providing an agreed statement of
facts.
/ / E.B. Joiliffe, Q,'C.
Vice-Chairman
Thcmson Member
H. -/Roberts Member
EBJ:jce