Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0290.Khan.83-08-29290/82 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: For the Grievor: For the Employer: Hearing: July 21, 1983 OPSEU (Brenda Khan) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) Employer A. Kruger Vice Chairman L. Robinson Member K. Preston Member M. Mercer-DeSantis Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union J. F. Benedict Manager, Staff Relations Personnel Branch Ministry of Correctional Services -2- This matter comes before this Board as a group grievance of sevens emvloyees in the Ministry of Correctional Serviceswho claim' they have been improperly classified. All seven have been classified as Data Entry Operator 2 and seek to be re-classified as Clerk 3 General employees. At the outset it was agreed that the Board was properly constituted _and had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. At the hearing we heard considerable evidence concerning the work performed by Data Entry Operators 2, and by Records Clerks in detention centres who are classified as Clerks 3 General. There is no need to rehearse that evidence at length here. Later we shall highlight those aspects of the evidence that are most important for our purposes. When an employee (or group of employees) seeks to re-classification, he/she must establish either (a) that his/her classification does not accurately reflect the duties he/she performs and some other classification more adequately describes those duties, Or (b) that, while his/her current classification does accurately describe the work he/she performs, the classification he/she claims describes them equally well or better, -3- or (c) that there are employees in the higher classification sought by the grievor whose duties are so similar to those of the grievor that he/she should be similarly classified. In this case, .the class standards and definition of the hiqher classification do not adequately describe 'the work actually oerformed by some or all of the employees so classified. Many arbitrators including this one, hold that in such cases, the grievor cannot rest his claim on an isolated or atvoical instance of someone with a higher classification whose duties are similar to those of the grievor. The parties are agreed that the position specification and class standards for the Data Entry Operator 2 do adequately describe the work performed by the grievors. One witness, Mrs. A. Roblin, indicated some minor disagreement with the job soecification, but even she accepted it as an accurate descriotion of her work. The Union does not claim the higher classification because of any inadequacy in the grievors' current iob descriptions. Nor does the Union contend that the written job specifica- tion and class standard for the Clerk 3 General describes the - 4 - work done by the grievors. They obviously bear little relationship to their duties. The Union relies on the last of the three possible bases For its claim, namely that some employees classified as Clerk I General are doing work which is similar to that of the grievors. In addition the Union contends that there are a significant number of such Clerk 3 General employees and that we are not dealing with an isolated or atypical case. The Board finds that the class standard for the Clerical, Tvoinq, Stenographic and Secretarial Class Series no longer adequately describes the work performed by some Record Clerks in detention centres. Nor does their current job specification orooerly describes their duties. Both of these documents fail to take account of the introduction of computer terminals in some detention centres. The Board heard that about 75% of the time of a Record Clerk in a computerized office was spent on the terminal. yet in the preamble to the class standard, it refers to "incidental typing, stenographic or machine operating duties" as a characteristic of this series. The fact that the class standard was last revised in 1963, long before computers were introduced, exolains why this is so. The Board is satisfied that the two Record Clerks who aoueared as witnesses were not atypical. They represented a sufficient number of Record Clerks who now worked most of the time on computer terminals to justify our examination of the crucial question, namely, were the duties of these Record Clerks -5- so similar to those performed by the grievors as to justify reclassification of the qrievors? If we compare the duties of the Data Entry Operators and the Record Clerks as outlined in uncontroverted testimony before us, we find the following similarities and differences. The major similarities are that all of these employees suend about 75% of their time on the computer terminal. All work with alohabetic and numerical data on prison inmates and, of course, all are employed by the same Ministry. Both groups take comulications and unusual problems to their supervisors. The major differences in duties between the two groups of employees are as follows: 1. The Record Clerks must have considerable knowledge of certain statutes, regulations and court procedures. The Data Entry Operators can find most of what they need in a Manual and do not require any knowledge of statutes, regulations or court procedures. 2. If the computers break down, the Data Entry Operators would have little or no duties to perform. The Record Clerks would have to oerform some of their tasks manually and would be occupied in doins so. 3. The Operators only enter data whereas the Record Clerks both enter and retrieve data. -6- 4. Ooerators must have both speed and accuracy. They must be very oroficient typists to meet the expected work quota. The Clerks have no comparable speed requirement. They must be accurate and they also must ensure that the inmate records conform to statutes and regulations. 5. The Operators employ a much wider array of systems and oroqrammes on the computer than the Record Clerks. 6. Some of the Clerks have contact with the public and with other government offices as a normal part of their duties whereas this is not true of the Operators 7. The Clerks do some normal calculations relating to length of sentences and amount of fines owing. The Operators do not do any numerical calculations, although they do check the accuracy of their numerical entries. A. The Clerks do some filing which is not part of the duty of the Operators. The major clerical duty of the Operators involves maintaininq a log of their completed work. 9. There are some differences in the equipment used. For examole, the Operators use diskettes extensively whereas these are not employed by the Clerks on their machines. The Clerks use a machine called a Dasher D-ZOO whereas the Operators use the IBM 3742 as well as a punch card machine. 10. Whereas the Clerks process only inmate data, the Operators deal with other information as well. -7- 11. The Clerks are involved much more extensively in correcting errors in the data supplied to them than are the Operators. Ooerators do make some editorial corrections but mostly refer errors back to the oriqinating offices. The Clerks often search for the correct information and enter the correction themselves. 12. The Clerks' duties vary greatly from one week to the next. Some are on a four week cycle, with a different mix of duties each week. Others are on a five week cycle. The Operators duties do not vary qreatly from day to day or week to week. 13. The Record Clerks handle cash whereas the Operators do not; What makes this case somewhat unusual is that the grievers' case rests not on changes. in their own duties since they were originally classified, but on changes in the duties of other emolovees whose work is now closer to that of the grievors than formerlv. Nonetheless, this in no way reduces the grievers' claim if they can establish sufficient similarity in duties to justify the reclassification they seek. The Board has carefully considered the evidence and arqument. We conclude that the Union has failed to meet the onus of establishinq that the duties of the grievors are similar enouqh to those of the Record Clerks to justify the re- classification of these Data Entry Ooerators. We find that while -8- all of these emoloyees spend about 75% of their time on a comouter terminal, there are very significant differences in skills and assignments between the Clerks and the Operators. Their non-comouter duties are very different. Even while on the comouter, their assignments differ in the many important areas indicated above. For all of these reasons this grievance is dismissed. DATED at Toronto, Ontario this L. Robinson - Member K. Preston - Member 5: 2400 5: 2410