The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-0279.Lye.84-03-22IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD -Between: OLBEU (Nanci E. Lye) Griever - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor'Licence Board of Ontario) Employer R.J. Delisle Vice Chairman E.J. Bounsall Member P. Coupey Member Before: For the Griever: G. Beaulieu, Couwel Union Consulting Services For the Employer: P.S. Jarvis, Counsel Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie Hearings: September 15, 1983 December 1, 1983 i. . <. -2 - The grievance of Nanci E. Lye is that she is improperly classified as Typist. Qrade 2 and should be roclaeeified Clerk Grade 3. The griever began work with the ,Liquor Licence Board of Ontario in October of 1979. She works in the Transfer Department which processes applications to the Board for transfer of existing 1 iquor 1 icences. Such transfers are necessitated by changes in the ownership of the licensed premises brought about by changes in the name of the owner, by sale of the premises, either outright or by share transfer, or by the mortgagee of the premises going into possession. Some applications are proceceeed simply by Paw- while others require attendance at a board hearing. The department is supervised by a Licensing Officer, Peter Jamee, and two pssistant Licencing Officers. There are four support staff in the department including the griever. The griever described the duties of all four as roughly the eame with a rotation of tasks amoung them every three or four months. The griever and the Licensing Officer were fairly consistent in describing the operation of the department. ppplications are normally initiated by letter from the applicant’s lawyer. cl set of required documents are then sent out together with instruct ions for perfecting the application pursuant to a checklist (Exibit 10). The 1 icensing officer would gather together the required documents and would himself make up the checklist. p member of support staff would type a covering letter for the officer’s signature. The eneuing application 3 :\ -3 - would be checked by the licensing officer against the Board file and any deficiencies noted (Exhibit 11). Support staff then types a letter for an officer’5 signature pursuant to his instruct ions. When information is required from other agencies form letters are typed by support staff as requested by an officer (Exhibit 11). Files are prepared for the Board by the officer with resumes being typed by support staff pursuant to an officer’s instructions. after the Board hearings minutes of their deliberations are typed pursuant to notes taken by the officer attending. Most letters which go out to applicants are form letters requiring no composition and are always reviewed and signed by one of the officers. The Licencing Officer, James, estimated that the griever spent 60-70X of her time typing and approximately one hour a day acting as a receptionist. Regarding phone calls he testified that he would be surprised if the griever handled anything by phone except for the most routine matter. The grievor estimated her typing to take 25% of her time, though she did allow that meant actual typing and that getting the material together to type would naturally take additional time. She noted that if the officers were busy she would advise on phone calls regarding what documents or information might be necessary “if it’s not complicated”. The griever described her activities in the following language! “James sees all documents first- he sets up what is necessary” 1 “We sometimes respond to mail but *eVet- without -4- telling James first”! “when applicants come in we direct them to James or an asesietant unless it’s Just a general. thing with simple direct ions”; “we type form letters, James will direct us”I “Samea reviews letters, decides on type of transfer and fee, necessary forms are determined and packaged by James or- his assistant, I type the necessary form letter for their signature”; “standard form letter is sent out by me listing the things which are outstanding”, “James checks everything before the board hearing”I “renewal letters - we type up per James instruct ions”; “change of name applications are referred to James - James advises re approval fee and letter to be sent.” The grievor was taken on cross-examination through the Classif icat ion Guide for’ Typist Grade 2, (Exibit 2). She at first denied that the Summary of Responsibility Level described her f unct ion. That summary depicts a position involved with “typing a variety of material of more than average complexity for a mqority of the time. RlSO, usually performs related clerical duties. M The griever did allow that she performed no clerical duties unrelated t0 typing. The griever agreed that under Typical Duties the only difference resided in the fact that she typed from documents and files. The grievor agreed that Decision Making Complexity described her Job. With regard to Contacts she agreed the description fit but noted that she would also give out informat ion when licensing officers were busy; she did agree however that this fit the guideline’s reference to “providing requested infurmat ion. I’ The grievor agretsd that Supervision / c L -5- Qiven was a fit. With minor reservations the griever aQreed that Supervision Received was a fiti those res@rvations are very nuch minimized when we have reQard to her description of her duties noted in the previous paragraph. Despite the cant inuing agreement regarding d&ails the grievor denied that the guideline accurately described her duties in general. When asked however how the guideline did not fit her only response was “the other lady did the same work and was classed as Clerk Grade 3 and other Clerk 39s do the same work as I do. ” This appears then to be the real nub of the grievance. The Qrievor was taken through the Classification Guide for Clerk Grade 3 (Exibit I). She aQreed that her task did not fit Typical Duties, "May also do a small amount of typing. ‘I S,h e agreed that the amount of typing done by her was not small. In Decision Making Complexity she agreed she did not “make corrections* which were not approved by someone else, did not "select and interpret data”, and did not "propose options". Under Supervision Received the guideline states "Work is reviewed only periodically" while the griefor's own 1anQuaQe describing her J'Jb clearly shows that virtually all of her work is reviewsd. The griever has failed to persuade that her duties fall within The Classification Guide for Clerk Grade 3. Indeed the Classification Guide for Typist Grade 2 fits as squarely with the Qrievorq s dut ies as one can imagine any Quideline fitting a Job. The Qrievor's alternative argument is that the employsr's actual practice is inconsistent with their *Wn classification - 6- guides and that other employees performinp work similar to ths griwor are classified as Clerk Grade 3. Three employees with the Liquor Licence Board who are classified as Clerk Grade 3 were called by the griever as witnesses to describe their duties. Liz biUQhStOt7 from the planning Department summarized her duties (Exhibit 13). By her testimony she composes letters and internal memos, signs the same, works with very little supervision, at her own pW2e and discretion, does some typing but does mainly clerical work. Hughejton’s work is not similar to the grievor’s. Brenda Connell from the Renewal Department summarized her duties (Exhibit 14). By her testimony there are typists within the department to whom she assigns letters on a regular basis and the only letters which she herself would type would be on a very occasional basis when a typist is not available. The only real typist task performed is in the preparation of the Weekly Flctivity List which she compiles every Thursday. Connel l’s work is not similar to the grievor’s. Seth Martin from the Industry and Special L i cence Department described her duties. She testified that approximately 50 per cent of her time was spent typing. Given the nature of her department however her duties are extremely varied with differing procedures to be followed depending on the application. Her contacts are also quite varied and by her evidence it is she who decides on the appropriateness of action to be taken and she does so with very little supervision. In addit ion she also on occasion supervised proJects, e. g. issuance of age of maJority cards at universities. -7 - Martin's work is not similar to the grievors. The griever has failed to persuade that her posit ion is improperly classified and this grievance is accordingly dismissed. Dated at Kingstnn this 22nd day of March~, 1984 Vice-Chairman "I dissent" ---__________----_-_--------- E.J. Bounsall, Member ----------------__---------- P. Coupey, Member