HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0521.Garrard.82-10-01Between:
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
IN THE tW.T-iER OF AN AR3ITXATI3N
Lhder
TliE CROWN EMP:OYEES C3LLECTIVE 3ARGAINING ACT
Before
THE~GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
O?SEU iarricia ,A. Czrrard)
and
The Crow? in Righx of 3ntarb
(Ministry of the Soiiciror Gerkai)
E.B. Jolltife, Q.C.
E.J. Sounsall
F.T. Coilict
Vice Chairman
Member
Ilember
N. Luczay, Crievance/Classifi:ation afficer
Ontario Public Service Emoloyees bniot!
i-u. Laing, Cwnsel
Crown Law 3ffice Civi!
&linistr;: oi tp.e :Artorney Genera!
Preliminary Hearing: February 16, !%1
Interim Decision: ?ebrlxry 19, !9SZ
HearinKs on ,Merits: .\pril 22. :9SZ 3nd’.S!ay 25, 19s:
.d
.- 2 -
DECISION
On July 8, 1981, Ms. Patricia Garrard, employed in
a civilian capacity with the Whitby Detachment of the Ontario
Provincial Police, grieved that she was "improperly classified
as a Clerical Typist 2." She sought "reclassification to
Clerical Typist 3 effective March 3, 1981,.with reimbursement
/ s of.all los~t wages and berie~fits."
The jurisdictional basis for arbitrating. such a
grievance is to be found in Sections 18 and 19 of the Crown
Employees Collective Bargaining Act, and further provisions
appear in Article 5 of the collective agreement between the
Management Board of Cabinet and the Ontario Public Service
Employees Union.
This grievance was the subject of a previous decisicn
by a panel of this Board, dated February 19, 1982,' which relared
exclusively to a second application for adjournment and ;leed not
be.discussed here. The matter was eventually heard on April 22.
and ?lay 25 and may now be decided on its merits. \
The problem --- not an unusual one --- resulted frsrr,
curtailment of staff at the Whitby Detachment. Sane of its 53r~e:
?1
- 3-
work has been assumed by the Durham Reqional Police following :.i.e
establishment of a Regional Municipality. Thus there~ are xow
only 27 uniformed officers (not including auxiliary polf,~~i)
although there were formerly about 50. Similarly, there were
one Clerical Stenographer and either three or two employees at a
lower level in 1974 and for a time thereafter; but in July, 1951,
there remained only two-Clerical Typists, including the griever.
(. _.
To place the evi@ence in context, it would be well to
examine first the standards specified by the Civil Service
Commission for the two classifications involved: that for Clerical
Typist 2, the level now allocated to the griever's position, and
the standard for Clerical Typist 3, the leveLclaimed by her to
be proper.
Both standards (Exhibit 31 have a preamble, in which
the following explanation is given for "Clerical Typist Series-4 L
Classes:"
This series covers positions which involve touchy typiq in additicn
to clerical wxk, bhere the typing aspect is important to the extent that
its removal would significantly change the character of th? joo. ?xc~
typing quaiifications to Civil, Service Ccmmission standards are *ssential
for incumbents of these ysitions. $11 levels within this series are
based on gradaticns in complexity of the clerxal hark with the first three
also depending on the degree of typing skill required. tiowever, the
clerical content of these pxiticns is genertily less onerou thant these
L
-4-
at corresponding levels in the Clerk, General Series. T5e fourth
level represents first-line supervision Caere typing skill is taken
for granted.
In the circumstances of this case, there is no need to
consider the standard for Clerical Typist 1, the lowest level in
the series. Of importance is the definition which begins the
standard for Clerical Typist 2. It is as follows:
Tnis class covers positions containing repetitive, well-defined
and closely supervised clqrical and ,typitig duties any of which can be
learned within a few weeks. Employees at this level have a non-
interpretative working knowl~ge of simple regulations wd a basic
understanding of the pupxe and proce&ures of their wxk unit; they
are responsible for indepndently searching out simple data from stand-
ard sources and records and for prcducting a high volwe of complete
and accurate work. Standard practices and close review of all out-
going wrk limit errors to minor delays and &plicatio& within the.
wrk unit or to inconveniences to the public due to incorrect direct-
ions or delay in providing information or servxes. Decisions and
opportunities for initiative are limited and Frtain to factors such
as the compxition of elementary written.matter and the scheduling
of work priorities.
There follows a description of "Characteristic Duties."
It-should be kept in mind, however, that the authoritative defin-
ition is the one quoted above. It is worthy of note that the
definition makes no mention'of supervising others, but specifies
that such positions are themselves "closely supervised." The
"Char~acteristic Duties" below obviously represent examples. net
all of which are essential compdnents of the work done by a
Clerical Typist 2:
T&e financial statements, expense accounts, payrolls, summaries,
tables, memoranda, letters, reprts involving figure typmg, involved
formats and spacing arrangements and a responsibility for grammatical
accuracy; compose elementary covering letters, acknowiecigemants and
requests for information.
Perform routine, repetitive clerical duties such as: calculate
pay deductions, rates of interest; extensions, etc; check for mech-
anical accuracy and completeness a limited number of simpie invoices,
applications, expnse accounts, permits; receive, issue receipts for
and record limited quantities of cash: forward data and/or dorm letters
to sta&rd locations at~given times; distribute mail of low comoiexity
on basis of content.
Under direction maintain and use a mcderately-sited filing, card
or ledger system on the basis of an understanding of its subject
matter. Perform cumulative and control posting of data such as weather
mileage, equipment use, address, com~nsation, weather ard attendance
data.
Provide elementary information and regulations to the public and
obtain data necessary to complete simple docxxnts.
Compose modified form letters or standard acknowledgements.
Contact @lit to obtain or clarify specific information such as
delivery date or price changes.
.. Assist in training new staff.
,~We turn now to the Standard for Clerical Typist 3, the
classification sought by the griever. The following definition
therein may easily be compared with the definition prev:ously
quoted:
'Ihis class covers positions containing skilled :yFi?g &tles
ti combination with semi-routine cletlcal work ~rfor;nei ;?der
c
-6 -
general supervision but clearly defined guidelines. Employees
at this level require a" understanding of the intent and, ccntent '. '1'
of their duties and have a good working knowledge of sqents of
acts, regulations, precedents'and policies pertaining to their
work. 'Ihey have occasional written and verbal contacts with
members of the public and other sections and branches in Which
*hey give and seek routine information. They expiai" segments~
of acts and regulations and are responsible for maintaining cc-
operation and good public relations. Errors at this level may
consequently entail embarrassment and a temporary loss cf public
relations, as well as delay and pssible financial loss to the
work unit. However, all outgoing work and any problems that are
not soluble by standard practice are reviewed by the supervisor
but the employee is held responsible for tracing and correcttig
any routine errors. Decisions and initiative are~exercised in
weighing the urgency, impxtance and intent of enquiries and
work assignments and in selecting material necessary for the
completion of such assignments. Some positions at thislevel are
responsible for wxk supervision and training of small groups of
subordinates.
In the arguments made by representatives of the, parties,
much importance.was attached to the last sentence of the above
definition: "Some positions at this level are responsible for
work supervision and training of small groups of subordinates.-
The Empioyer in effect contends that to supervise and train one -
other employee is not to supervise a "group" of subordinates."
The Union's case is that the sentence opens with the qualifying
words "some positions" and that therefore the supervision of
others cannot be regarded as an essential component of the
positio". It may be that the interpretation and application cf
a rather enigmatic statement is the real issue in this case.
.
-7 -
"Characteristic Duties" of a Clerical Typist ? ---
which again seems to be a list of examples rather than essentials
--- gives the following descrlptlon:
Complete guickly and accurately, specialized andjcr highly
skilled typing assignments involving considerable iength, com-
plexity and variety. of subject matter; assume complete response-
bility for acceptable formats, layouts and grammar, subject only
to spot checking by supervisor and drawing his/her attentlcn to
possible modifications in grammar.
Ccmpcse semi-routine, non-specialized correspondence 1.n
answer to enquiries related to the work of the unit.
Perform semi-routine clerical duties under general super-
vision including checking a variety of material for compliance
with clearly defined regulations';. maintaining a variety of simple
records pertaining to the activities of the unit and preparing
reports and statements from these involving some discretion as
to the selection of data and methods of presentation: balance
records to control ledgers; distr&Xe branch or section mail
on basis of content and knowledge'of~~unit's work area.
C&rate and maintain complete responsibility fir a complex
medium-sized filing system on the basis of an understanding of its
content.
Perform personal and telephone receptionist duties involving
a sense of dxcretion.
Give wrk guidance to a small group of typists, including
training on procedures, allocating and checking work.
The last sentence makes further reference to a form zf
supervision and training: "Give work guidance to a small group
of typists....." but of course it is only an example. All the
other examples given are characteristic of the actual duties de*
cribed in testimony by the grielror and her supervisor.
,,..
(:’
.;’
.:;:
-8 -
The qualifications required for a Clerical Typist 3 are
also set cut in the Standard. However, there seems to be no dis- _.
pute that she is fully qualified and indeed has been performing
satisfactorily since March 9, 1981, all the duties performed be-
fore-that date by an employee ciassified at a higher levei
The Employer now contends that the position 'had been overdue for
re-classification downward but the incumbent's level was unchanged
because the policy is to avoid making such a change until the in-
cumbent leaves, thereby creating a vacancy and enabling the
Employer to abclish the position.
A comment --- and it is only a comment --- may be made
on the two Standards quoted above. Both are dated "September,
1963," and the Board has not been given any revision or.up-dating.
In 'view of the significant evolution and development of office
technology in recent years, it is difficlllt to believe that the
standards now have the same validity that they had almost two
decades ago. (For example, there 1s no reference whatever to
microprocessing or other modern equipment). However, this is a
matter for the Civil Service Commission, not the Grievance
Settlement Board, and it is duly noted that the “Preamble” is Khe
"Clerical, Typing, Stenographic and Secretarial Class Series- was
"Xevised June 1, 1978" and also re-issued in March. 1373, the
i
- 9 -
re-issue being due only to "minor correction. of Secretarles Class
Series Preambles."
To understand the nature of the grievance, it is neces-
sary to summarize the history of the griever and other civiilan
employees at the Whitby Detachment.
In November, 1967, Ms. Garrard began work with the Whitby
Detachment as a Clerical Typist 2, the classification still
allocated to her pbsitiofi. In November, 1969, her classification
was confirmed asC.T.2, one other employee was also classified
C:T.Z and a third as Typist 2, Exhibit 6. In September, 1974,
according to Exhibit 7, a Ms. Gibson became "Senior Clerk Steno
(a title which does not appear in the Class Standards) classified
"Clerical Stenographer 3" --- for which we have been given no
Standard. The griever and another employee (as well as casual
employees from time to time) were ma-de responsible to Ms. Gibson,
Exhibit 9.
Ms. Gibson left the Detachment on March 9, 1381, and iY
i-s conceded that Ms. Garrard assumed her responsibilities, except
that the griever was alone for several weeks with no one t3 s'z>er-
vise until the arrival of another C.T.2 in June. Officially,
P
. I
-10 -
however, the position formerly held by Ms. Gibson was not filled
and seems to have been abolished.
Exhibit 10 is a "Revised" Position Specification and
Class Allocation Form, signed by the Detachment Commander dn April
15, by his Superintendent the next day and then approved by Nr.
A.J. McMullin, to be effective April 1. This was obviously an
attempt to cope with the situation created by the departure of
IV.5 . Gibson. For Ms. Garrard, the 'allocation again was "Clerical
Typist 2." The position specification.is unusually brief, being
an attenu~%ted summary of "typing duties" and "clerical duties."
It does not reflect the new responsibilities Ms. Garrard had
assumed on the departure of Ms. Gibson, but it does specify that
the Whitby Detachmen~t Commander was now her immediate supervisor.
'Ms. Garrard felt that Exhibit 10 failed to describe her work
correctly, and she grieved on.July 8. In her testimony she has
said that Exhibit 10 does not really relate to her work, but does
describe the work of her assistant since June, 1951. a Ms. O'Dell,
who is also classified C.T.2, with typing duties taking 7S per cent
of her time. A later and much fuller position specifi:ation;
Exhibit 13, allocated only 20 per cent.of Ms. Garrard's time to
"typing duties." Obviously Exhibits 10 and 13 cannot possibly
apply to the same job or the same employee. On the r*COrd, however,
. . ,.?
boEh purport to be accurate descriptions of position ?:o. 41-0513
-12, which 1s MS. Carrard's positibn.
Shortly after July 8 the griever's posltlon was recon-
sidered in what is called a ujob audit." Xs. Carolyn Truman, who
had just become Acting Senior Classification Officer in the ?linis:ry
of the Solicitor-General, in~terviewed Ns. Garrard for.the purpbse
of preparing a new and more detailed position specification. The
griever was not impressed. She has testified that KS. Truman
seemed to be "uninformed," adding that "she thought Staff Sergeant
Mackey was a Superintendent."
As usual Ms. Truman's draft position specification was'
forwarded to Staff Sergeant Mackey for comments. His memorandum
of August 13, addressed to the Superintendent, Xo.5'D.H.Q.. Euxns-
view, Exhibit 15, was as.follows:
RE: CLERICAL TYPIST WSITION: 41-0513-12.
This will acknowledge the memorandum dated 10 August, 1981, and
attached thereto an updated pxition description for the &we
psition at Wni+&y Detachment. (Incumixnt: P.GAILS.ARD).
'Ihe attached pxition specification appears to Se a satisfactory
description of the duties and responsibilities of t?e abxe
psition and I have signed the form to indicate this approvai.
After careful assessment of the duties and respr?sibiliries as
compiled by Ms. C. TRUMAN, Acting Senior Classification Cfficer.
It is my opinion the classification should &z a Clerk %pist 3
- 12 -
or Clerk General 3, as opxed to Clerk Typist 2. T!-le swrnlzy of
duties as'indicated place an irrsnense responsibility on those selected
and to fulfill the position honestly and i;lth i?t,qrlty is the justi-
fication for my suggested classification seiection.
The Staff Sergeant's opinion was not accepted. On Sept-
ember 8 Ms. Truman wrote the griever the following reply, Exhibit
5A, to her grievance:
This is to notify ybu that as the Deputy Minister's designee I have
analyied your current duties ard responsibilities ss a Clerk Typist,
psition N. 41-0513-12, aqainst'the Civil Service tirrmission Class
Standards and found your psition to be properly allocated at the
Clerical Typist 2,level.
It would be improperly classified at the.Clerical Typist 3 level,
and therefore your grievance is denied.
As already indicated, ,the new position specification
was very different from the one officially approved a few weeks
earlier. .Exhibit 13 is four timei the length bf Exhibit 10.
Exhibit 13 gives a weight of 75 per cent to clerical duties and
only 20 per cent to "typing duties." (The latter had received
75 per cent in Exhibit 10). Although Exhibit 10 was silent a* to
"training" or "guidance" (there being no one to train in April)
Exhibit 13 gives five per cent to "related duties such as:
tralnlnq new support *taLL F+ or overload staff and providing
guidance a* required: auxiliary du?ies as assigned." The
conparlson seems to support the grlevor's clain that Exhibit 10 r,
-.13 -
(agaifist which she grie,ved.j.describes her assistant's work iad
not.her own.' In effect, however, her grievance is now agai.?st
the "Class Allocatron" insxhibit 13 rather than the "Position
Specification." Indeed, her testimony about clerical duties
and responsibilities corresponds very closely with what 1s Zes-
cribed in Part 1 of the Specif,ication (weighted St 7i ser cent)
which may now be quoted:
1. Performs a variety of clerical and filing duties according to estzb-
lished procedures by:
- opening, date stamping and sorting incoming mail, and preparing ~-
75% outgoing mail for dispatch:.
- postilq Wlletins and notices on appropriate bxrds, distributing
rv:tine mail to appropriate officers, entering amendments to Police
Orders in binders, diary dating materials requiring respxse, ad
attaching files for Detachment Commander's attention:
- diary dating all activity sheets, following through with officers, - as necessary, reconciling with officers' notebooks, sick book, etc.
and compiling monthly ~tachmnt report for stiperviGor'* signatxe:
- completing Absence ReFjorts for officer's sigxarure from tirFral'.s
entries in the sick book:
- entering shift premium, from activity sheets to lcq and naintainiIq
monthly runnirq totals;
- maintaining overtime records by psting daily updates, preparing
weekly s&missions an&quarterly explanations of overtime use by
category, e.g. major WA, special detail, etc. for supenlsor's
sqnature, monitoring benked overtime of each officer and alerring
supervisor to any excessive accumulation or use;
- compiling annual leave schedule and monthly duty rosters, makir.g
amendments and preparing necessary memoranda for supervxor's
signature, checkir.g that amendments do not violate established
Force requuements:
- maintaining a register and file for ail liquor seizures ar.d. ‘q-
dating as to disposition;
- indexing and filing information fram incoming crime reFrts. disi?:
dating as necessary, distributing copies as reqdirzd by Palice
Orders, and updati?q records:
- initiating files on ww officers assigned to Gxactme~t. secxi:~
all relevant records from previous location: fxliarding all
- 14 -
relevant records for officers irraxferre", outand checking-in
equipment issued;
- checking incoming paycheques, notifytig supervisor of any missing
cheques and contacting District iieadqarters one supervisor's
instructions:
- mainttining records and filing materials relatd to occurrence
reprts, investigation reports, accidents to plice vehicles. reqc;uests
for equipment, inventory record personnel change in status remrts
restitution claims; measurement forms and clothing cards including
annual issue and any additional needs, etc.;
- sorting files ad preparing them for dest,uction accxdtig to
established schedule;
- cotipiling expense claims, plain clothes allowance claims, qarterly
motorcycle allowance claims, and reconciling expense log kept by
Corporal on a monthly basis, checking that receipts are in and
coding expenses against budgeted amounts:
- indenting for office supplies and equipment, cleaning materiais.
first aid supplies, etc. monitoring usage and checking with$sers.
as necessary:
- recording repxted statistics and maintaining monthly totals on
activities of Radar vehicles, SLEP (Selective Znforcement Vehicles),
and occurrences:
- assisting the Auxiliary Liaison Gfficerbycompiling and che&ing
cruiser patrol figures, monthly attendance, expense claims, diary
dating,correspondence and identing for uniforms and equipnent 3s
necessary ;
- assisting the Detachment Commander by pulling relevant files xd
drafting projected overtime estimate from past usage:
- responding to queries from DHQ, providing factual informaticn
from records to Crowx, Insurance people, etc.;
- receiving calls and making necessary arrangements for District
training sessi?ns to be held at Detachment.
The Specifiiation prepared by Ms. Truman then set out
certain "typing duties" (somewhat similar t'o Those described in
Exhibit 10) to which a weight of only 7.0 per cent was gl'jen.
Lastly, it specified five 'per cent for t5e following:
3. Performs related duties such as:
- training new sup-pxt staff or overload stlaff znd providing
guidance as requred;
- auxiliary duties as assigned. ti
‘C
i
-&.J -
it will be retailed that the "Definition" 1" <he C.T.2
standard makes no reference to tralnlng or supervision, bu: r!?e
last sentence of the C.T.2 "Characteristic Duties" 1s: "sssisi
in training new staff."
On the other hand the C.T.3 "Definition" concludes by
stating: "Some positions at this ievel are responsibie for work
supervision and training of small groups of subordinates." And
the last sentence in C.T,3 f8Characteristic Duties" is: "Gi?e work
guidance to a small group o.f typists, including‘training on ?ro-
cedures, allocating and checking work."
i:::
Ns. Garrard testified there had been no "casuals"
.
i ‘.
employed in the Detachment since June, 1981. However, she had
trained Ms. O'Dell, who took over most of the typi"g duties but
was still not familiar with the clerical aspect of the work,
adding that "she's never done the monthly consolidation." The
griever expected-(in April) that "this year I'll probably have to
spend a week training a new casual" --- presumably as a vacacio".
relief worker. AS for KS. O'Dell, who had served some years ago,
conditions were so changed that "I had to train her the same as
training a new person." These duties are of course refiecred
iz the concluding words of the Specification prepared by Ys. Truman
.
- 16 -
Truman. She gave her reasons for the statement in her ierter of
September 8, 1981, Exhibit 5A, that she had analysed the griever's
current dutie& and responsibilities . "against the C;vli Service
Commission Class Standards" and found the position "to be properly
allocated at the Clerical Typist 2 level."
!4s. Truman said she started classification work in 1979
and attained her present position with the Mlnistry of the Soiic-
itor General in July, 1981, just before her study ~of the griever's
position. She emphas'ized that the Civil Service Commission is
"responsible" for classification standards, but the authority to
"apply" them is mostly "delegated" to Deputy Ministers --- and 1"
her Ministry to the Senior Classification Officer; herself. A
comment may be made here that what the witness said is perfectly
true, but that the delegated authority to "apply" does not carry
with it any authority to modify, add to or depart from a standard
established by the Civil Service Commission.
The witness then gave the customary explanation of the
procedure whereby a classification is determined: the drafting,
revision and completion of an accurate "position specification."
which is-~really a job description, including the assignment of
$rcentages to various groupings of duties and responsibilities:
the identification of the position in an approprrate category and
.,. - 17 - .
occupational group; comparison of the posltlon specification wi:h
the lowest level in the applicable Series: thence, 1; necessar'i . I
proceeding upward to a higher level --- or levels --- until whai: .'
appears to be a "fit" is found; finally a comparison with the nex.-
hiqhest level to confirm --- if possible --- that the "best fit"
has indeed been found.
Ms. Truman said the Ministry has 1,700 civi 1
These are of course in many different classifications
stantial number are classified in the Clerical Typist
lan positions.
but a sub-
and Clerical
Stenograph~er Series. It is perhaps needless to add that the
Ontario Provincial Police, while under the overall direction of
the Solicitor-General, are subject to a different body of statutes
and regulations, and are not necessarily familiar with those
governing employment in the Public Service.
The witness went on to describe the policy and practice
of her Ministry in relation to civilian staff employed in supporil
of the O.P.P. There are, she said, 183 detachments iv‘ith 240
civilians in support,not including a number of. radio operators.
Of the 240 there are two categories classified at the 3 level:
first, 45 clerk stenographers who are also responsible for radio
operations; second, 26 who are "group leaders" in that they siicer-
vise two or more o:her employees. Ali others, Lotailir.2 179, ar-
I,
at the 2 level, l~ike Ms. Garrard. It is pr3bably of no 1nsorrance
that MS. Truman's figures add tip to 241, not 240.
The witness said that the work done by civilians is
essentially the same in all detachments, with some variations dce
to local conditions. All procedures and activities are governed
by the orders existing in six volumes covering the full range of
police responsibility as determined by the Vlinister and the,
Commissioner. (The applicable legi.SlatiOn, fedei'.al and provincial,
also has a bearing on such matters.)
MS. Truman described the history of the civilian positions
at Whitby, which has been summarized earlier in this decision.
The complement, she said, had been reduced fromthreeto two until
January, 1980, when one resigned, leaving the senior employee
(MS. Gibson) in charge of one other, Ms. Garrard. The O.P.P.
decided that another position was neededmoreon the complement
at Coboconk, so that the vacancy was not filled.
Although Ms. Gibson had only one subordinate from Jan~~ary,
1980, to Yarch, 1981, nothlng was done to change her classificetls?,
b&cause --- according to Ms. Truman --- "when this happens the
policy is to maintain the senior position ilntil it becomes vacafit,"
wh:ch of course did no? occur un:il 3s. Gibson's retiremcn:.sn
n
L.
~:’
I:: .:
!
- 19.-
March 9, 1981. In the Ministry of the Solicitor-General, t?.~
policy may be as stated. Flowever, it is not the policy in ail
departments, as may be seen by reference to the decision of
this Board in Clarke 136/81.
Ms. Truman further said that "apart from the end of
group leadership, we found that dictation was not required."
(This is so,. and according to the griever it has always been so
because the Detachment Commander prefers to make his notes and
draft letters bye hand). Ms. Truman then referred to Exhibit 14,
"Notes on Supervision and Technicai Guidance," which she said
is used as part of a training program for classification officers.
It includes a statement of the duties "usually" performed by a
“Group Leader". It dbes not say that a Group Leader must have
two or more subordinates, but it is couched in the plural, with
such sentences as: "Passes supervisor's intructions to members of
work group; explains new projects and assignments."
Standard
save for
Using Exhibit 3A (a marked copy of Exhibit 3, the C.T.3
Ms. Truman offered her analysis of the Definition, but,
the last sentence, failed to distinguish it from her
specification of the duties and responsibilities of the FOSltlOn
occupied by the griever. The last sentence, previously quoted
hereln, 1s of course: "Some-positions at this level ars rospcn~i'z~?
- 20 - . .
.
for work supervision and training of small groups of subor3inaces.*~
She conceded the word "some" implies that "some" positions at tne
C.T.3 level do not have such duties, and said further that 4s.
Garrard is performing the same functions now as were performed by
'!li..~Gibson in 1974 , except that now there iS no "SUperviSion" of
two or more others, which the witness insisted is significant.
In cross-examination Ms. Truman said the C.T. series
has a combination of clerical and typing duties and the appropriate
level depends on the complexity of such work. She agreed the
standard for C.T.3 does not say a C.T.3 must be a "group leader"
nor does it .say that radio operation justifies that level. The
radio duty had been discussed with the Civil Service Commission
and the work hail been specifically designated "atypical" '--- 1.e.
a special case. She denied that undue importance had been attached
to group leadership and pdinted out that the C.T.3 classification
does not call for all the duties mentioned in the standard. The
witness emphasized that as far as her Ministry is concerned, "ye
have been consistent."
Re-examined, Ms. 'Truman declared that "group leaders~ic
is not the over-riding fadtor." Responding to a question from
the Board, she did not know of any other case simiiar to This 2r.e.
- 21 -
The only other witness was the Detachment Commander,
Staff Sergeant Mackey, called .in reply. -. . He conilrmecl ;jrltlng
Exhibit 15 and said he was speaking from experience over the
past seven years. Fjhen Ms. Truman visited him, he heard an
explanation of the classification sy-stem for the first time. He
said Ms. Garrard was "doing no different from what ?ls. Gibson xas
doing." As for Ms. Cdell, she was doing what had formerly been
done by Ms. Garrard, and their.clerical duties were not the same.'
In argument, the griever's representative said her
evidence matched the specification in Exhibit 13 and also the re-
quirements of the C.T.3 standard. She was in effect responsible
for nearly all the paper work in the Detachment offi~ce, quite re-
mote from the work of the Detachment Commander but naturally subject
to his "general direction." She was not "closely supervised," as
required by the C.T.2 standard. As for "Characteristic Duties"
they could not supersede the general definition'of a standard.
I Further', he submitted, standards must' prevail over the directives
and usage of any Ministry. He said he was relying on the language
of the standard and on Staff Sergeant Mackey's evidence. \
the i;nlon had
the FCSition 3:
For the Employer, counsel argued that
failed to prove clear reasons for re-evaluating
the C.T.3 level. It was a good fit at the C.T.
D
2 level ind the
.
/
(, : .‘,
i.
- 22 -
Employer had been consistent in the application of the C;T.Z
standard. Counsel pointed out that when the subordinate staff
was reduced fr'om three to one, the failure (in 1960) to re-classify
Ms. Gibson's position had led to "false expectations" on the part
of the grlevor. Change had necessarily resulted from a fall in
the,volume of work. The key point here, counsel submitted, was
"the lack of group leadership." Finaliy, it was xged that it
would be wrong for the Board to "overturn" the detertiination of
clerical duties by the O.P.P.
In' argument, the Board was also referred tc a number of
cases with varying results, which is not surprising since there
were many differences in the facts. Nevertheless, they contain
significant statements reflecting the Board's view of appropriate
tests to be made in a classification case.
In Vukoje 13/75 (where most of the facts bore no resem-
blance tc the facts here) the panel chaired by Professor Beatty
unanimously upheld the grievdr's claim that she should be class-
ified C.T.3, instead of C.T.2. In a supplementary decision, the
same panel endorsed the view expressed in O.P.S.E.U. and X.G. 7l~i76.
that where there has been a continuing breach of an agreemen:, cs,m-
pensation should be limited to the period of time within which a
grievance could have been filed.
.
- 23 -
In Hooper '47/77, the majority held that a Purchasin;
Officer Z.,(Atypical) should be re-classified Purchasi?.g Officer 3
(Atypical), although finding also that the griever's duties did
not fit "comfortably" into either the Class Definitions or
Characteristic Duties of either of the Purchasing Officer levels
at Issue. The substance of the Board's decision was confirmed
(after written argument on a jurisdictional issue) in a "Supple-
mentary Award."
In Leworthy 26/80, the majority concluded that the griever
had not proved he should be classified Clerk 3, Supply, rather than
Clerk 2, Supply. Significance was attached (at page 5) to the fact
that "he is not solely responsible for the area in which the sign
stock is located" and "does not possess a ~key to the area and is
l
not responsible for the Security of it" --- unlike another employee
who was at the 3 level.
There was also a majority decision in Charbonneau and
Skomorwski 435/80. It is apparent from the lengthy opinions
rendered that the facts were different from those in this and
other cases. The grievers were Environmental Technicians 3 tiho
clalmed successfully to be reclassified at the 4 level. Aft?=
discussing lontagne liO/78 (in which earlier classification cases
were cited) Vice-Chairman Gcrsky used .xords ,xhl;h are a?,plicatil?
r, 1" this case:
- 24 -
:~.:
_.
ir
.‘A. :
I treat the class standards as being the absolute stand;-!.
'Ihe reliance on evidence relating to jobs performed i;?l other
employees covered by the class standards provides an illustration
of "the application to particular cases of &at are necessarily
generally worded statements". To this extent they serve as ai&
to interpretation. They cannot, however, serve to u-&ermine the
class standards as the governing basis for determiniir; classifi-
cation disputes. It was only after applyirq those standards to
the jobs ~;erformed by the grievers that a decision was made.
Such evidence as was examined as to the work prformed by other
E.T.3's and E.T.4's only served as an aid to L?terpretir,g the
generally worded class standards.
In the case to be decided .here, the principal thrust of
the classification officer's 'testimony --- and of the argument
advanced on behalf of the Employer --- is that in usage and prac-
tice the Ministry considers it essential to a C.T.3 classification
that a "group" of two or more subordinates be supervised, unless
the employee is also responsible for radio operations. It may ,be
that this is the "usage and practice" of the Ministry, but that
usage and practice cannot prevails over the language of the Class
Standard. The Class Standard, as already stated by the 3oard ir.
a previous case, is "the abso'lute Standard."
We find no word in the Standard making "group supervision"
an essential feature of the C.T.3 classificaricn. Instead there is
merely a statement that "some positions" at this level are res?on-
sible for such supervision and training.
Quite apart from the consideration a'bove, the iip.cc?.r~a-
dxted evidence is that Ys. Garrard is responsible fsr :raln:n,-
;. . t
- 25 -
hsr assistant, a C.T.2, and also responsible f;r training a
casual employee when one is needed.
Jrther, we are satisfied on the testimony of Staff
Sergeant ~Mackey as weii as the griever that Xs. Garrard is not
"closely supervised" (as required by the C.T.2 standard) but
works under "general supervision," the words used in the C.T.3
standard. !qhether an employee performs most of her duties under
i.' general or close supervision is, in our view, more important than
whether she trains or supervises two or only one subordinate as
a small part of her duties. Staff Sergeant Hackey has to direct
.-.--the activiities of 27 uniformed o fficers and maintain contacts
with auxiliary policemen, the Durham Regional Police and others.
It is apparent that the griever is entirely responsib;e,for mosr
of the "paper work" in the Detachment Office and that. the Staff
Sergeant must rely heavily on her to meet the requirements of
1 :
Police Orders and directives from superiors, as well as protecting
the security of iiquor seizures and highly confidential files for
which she has a key. There is much more to this than mereiy
keeping personnel records, and the Detachment Commander described
it in Exhibit 15 as an "immense responsibiiity."
Scrutinizing thee C.T.3 -definition sentence by sentence.
we conclude that the work described in the Position Speclfics:isn
is a close fit. Further, on reading the definition for rhe C.I.2
1 .
.I
! - 26 -
level, we do not think it matches the duties required of the
grrevor.
In our view the duties and responsibilities described ..,,,, _~ .:.
i:
in the Specification, Exhibit 13, made in July, 1981, were not
analyzed "against the Civil Service Commission Class Standards"
but-were analyzed and assessed against' what the ClIassification
Officer understood to be the policy, usage and practice of the
Ministry. We think the Standards must prevail, not the usage or
habits of any Ministry.
:
In reaching this conclusion, we are not taking into
account the griever's long experience or high qualifi~cations
for the position she now nolds. It is well understood that what
must be classified is the position itself, the duties and respon-
sibilities required, and 'not the merits of the incumbent.
\ The position ought to have been rated C.T.3 on sarch 9,
1981, after which the griever assumed the duties df her predecessor.
For some time thereafter she had every reason to suooose that her
position would be classified at the 3 level held by her prede-
cessor. The very inadequate and inaccurate position specification
and class allocation completed on April 15 did not become knoiin
to her immediately, and it is no: clear when she did become aware
_ - 27 -
i
of it. Cvhat is clear is that she grieved on July 8. and the vjob
audit" followed in that month. We think it would be inequitable
and unfair to penalize her for the delay, rjhich was really due to
the fact that the earlier allocation had not been done with due
care or diligence. hit could have bee~n done and done better, and
she could have been notified accordingly not later than Aprii 1.
The griever on, July 8 requested that she be re-classified
as of March 9. In the circumstances, we direct that her position
be re-classified Clerical Typist 3 as and from April 1, 1981.
Dated at Toronto.
this lst day of
October, 1982
--- ,-.
,,,~.. _. ,.-- -,
E.B. Jolliffe,:Q:C., Vice-Chairman
/> /g&&#&y
E.J. Bounsall, z.n?loyee Yember
EBJ:]ce
"I dissent" (see attached)
F.T. Collict, Zig3loyer >!eneer
D
!
,
DISSENT
Tfie employer representative is in. acrefment wit. h the award with'
reference to th2 importance of Class Standard. That is " , . . . . The
Class Standard, as already stated by the 90ard in a previous case,
is "the absolute standard" ,I . . . . . ; and fiirther, )l..... that useage
and practice cannot prevail over the langua,ge of the-Class Stan-
dard." (p. 23 of award).
Zcwever, inasmuch as job duties will var:, by office, both within
and between Ministries, characteristic duties and useage and
practice are important in determining into which Class Standard
a specific position should fall.
More importantly, the Class Standard into which a specific position
falls shouid be viewed ageinst the perspective of all Class Stan-
dards within a specific Series, - in this case, the Clerical Typist
Series in which there are four levels of Class Definitions.
The..Class Definition of Clerical-Typist 1 clearly is the "ent-ry"
position to the Series. The Class Definition of Clerical-Typist
4 is the first-line supervisory level which involves the assign-
ment and checking of work and the disciplining of staff. The levels
of Clerk-Typist 2 and 3 fall between these two Class Standards;
Into which one .of these levels does the grievor's position fall?
It is the responsibility of the Union to demons,trate that the
griever's duties fall scuar21 'y within the Clerk-Typist 3 Class
Standard. It is inevitable that there will be some overlaa in
job duties as betwe2n the Cler!<-Typist 2 and Cler!<-Ty?ist 3 ClZSS
- Standards. But to succeed in this cas2 the Union must demonstrate
that there is a significant overlap in duties cr that t!!2re has
been a clear case of improper application of the standards.
In the Class Standards, the ie-'21 of ressonsibility increases
from Clerk Typist 1 to Clerk Ty?isz 4. The Emplcyer ?.e?resectative
- concedes that an empioyee can he ?lsssiFied es a Clerk-?yFlSt J
without being a group leader. Hcw2ver, the mere fact of providing
i
2.
traizing to a fellow or new employee does zot of itself place
the position at the Clerk-Typist 3 le;-21. Ir: fzct, this Fs an
activity that miqht be performed by an experienced Cier.',-Tjnist
1 who provides an assist ir. the traininq of a r,ew Cler!<-T:/pist
Certainly, this activity is non; grow:? issdershis.
1.
Xoreover, 'he Clerk-Typist 3 C12ss Star,5ar$ makes specific
reference to the fact that ".... Decisions and initiatives
are exercised in weighing the urgency, impcrtance and intent of
enquiries and work assignments and ,in selecting nate:ial zecessarj
for the completion of such assignments . ..." It is siirely-in this.
sense that it is ,Yinistry policy to assign redio dispatch and groilp
-. leadership tisponsibilities to this Clerk-Typist 3 level of~respoz-
sibility. In addition, these are illustrative types of characteris-
tic duties which can cnly be .nanaqed under "general supervision" as
opposed to the "close supervision" standard~which is eplicable to
the Clerk-Typist 2 standard.
The grievor's testi>mony intiicated that her position ch2nqed with
the terminatioc of Mrs. Gibson. That is, she Performed less typing
and she performed a greater preponderance of clerical work assoc-
iated with personnel and payroll records. :-:owever , thii r<ork is
routine clerical work which is well defined in rr.a.?*2sls, and
police orders. It is not a ty?e of~,dork which, as eeiiced in
Class Standard Eor Clerical-Typist 3 states that ".... S;roL.~1V22s
at this level recjuire an understanding of the intent an6 co~te?.t
of -Ani r duties, and have a good worl;inq knowledge cf seqzents 05
-acts, regulations, precedents and policies pertaininq tc their
work . . ..'I ?.ather, this ty?e of work associated with payroll an-I
personnel matters is more associated with the Clerical-Typist 2
class definition whici-. states that em?,loyees 'I.... a=2 res?czsi-
ble for independently searching o~t~,si~.?le d2ta frcz star.tizr?
sources and records and for aroducins a ;high voi-me of coz;lete
and accurax worik . "
3.
The griever 's testimony ~2s that her ijor% larqely in'iol-ied
clerical activity with some qen2ral corr2530ndence. Enquestion-
&:y the grievor is knowledgeable of th2 re.CSrdS, manuals and
procedures in then office; and certainly with such e:;?erience and
with such high regard as she ?.s 2s t2emed*by her su-,eriors, she
would function under less close supervision than a~newer emplcy2~2:
Nevertheless, this fact in itself does not change the nature of
the duties that she performed.
based upon an analysis of the Class Standards as they escalate in
level of responsibility from.Clerk-Typist 1 to 4, the re<uced re-
sponsibilities applicable to the Whitby Division as a result of a
reduction of the work force from 50 to 27 police officers, and
most importantly, a detailed analysis of the Class Standards for
Clerk-Typists 2 and 3 as related to the testimony of the wit-
nesses concerning the grievor's j,ob duties, Employer Representative
would have assiqned the position to the Clerk-Typist 2 classifi-
cation.
F.T. Collict, Zmployer hIember