Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0261.Sullivan.85-07-15IN'THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Urider THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before .-, THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Kathleen Sullivan) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario ministry of Correctional Services) Employer 'Before: R. L. Verity,, Q.C. Vice Cliairman ., 1.~. Thomson Member Go. Walker Member For the Grievor: R. Anand, Counsel Jack, Harris, Anand Barristers & Solicitors For the Eiployer: J. F. Benedict ..~, : Manager;. Staff Relatidns Ministry of Correctional Services Hearing: ~ ‘._, September 18, 1984 ;! .- 1: : :; i, .;. ‘a .,. :; ..~, .::. .! 5 ,v ..I I : ** . \ . ” * .-2- L' ." " DECISION This is a classification grievance dated January 20, 1984 in which Mrs..Kathleen Sullivan alleges that, she is improperly cla,ssified as a Clerical Stenographer 3. By way of settlement, the Grievor seeks the higher dassification of Clerical Stenographer 4. Few facts are in dispute. Until some four years ago', the Ontario Board of Parole was located in Toronto. Subsequently, as a result of decentralization, regional areas were established .-.. including the western region with its regional office located at Guelph. Geographically, the region encompasses some 12 jails, detention centres and correction centres servicing Southwestern. Ontario from Windsor to Guelph. The Grievor is employed as a Regional Parole Stenographer with the Western Region Parole Board at Guelph. She was hired by the Ministry in September of 1979 and served in.itially in several unclassified positions. In August, 1982 she was appointed to the classified staff in her present position. L/ A Position Specification and Class Allocation Form wasp .submitted into evidence (Exhibit 4) dated December 9, 1981 which accurately .refiected the Grievor's duties and responsibilities when she commenced her employment as a Regional Parole Stenographer in August 1982. Her duties at that time involved 75% in the : performance of stenographic services and 25 % involvement with clerical services. There is no dispute that the Grievor's jo,b has evolved to such an extent.that she noti devotes 75% of her time allocation to~administrative duties and 25% to clerical duties. The Grievor was the sole witness called by the Union. According to her testimony, many of her present duties have been delegated by the Regional Parole Administrative Assistant, who in turn is classified as ~a Clerk 5 General.' Other employees in L' the Regional Office have taken over some of the Grievor's'clerical functions. At the present time, the Grievor is responsible for the scheduling of Parole Board hearings. She records all inmate parole eligibility dates, and schedules approximately 200 inmate hearings per month. The Grievor performs the scheduling function on a daily basis and that function consumes approximately two to three.days per week of her time. Post-hearing procedures.performed by Mrs. \-. Sullivan include a r,eview of Parole Board Decisions for accuracy; the initiations of corrections, where applicable, and the institution of possible follow-up procedures~ (i.e. ordering pre-parole report). In addition, she is responsible for recording all Parole Board statistical data. It is also her job function to share in the preparation of parole certificates and notice of release on parole forms. In addition, she orders all Board forms and verifies expense claims. The Ministry called two witnesses,in support of its~ case. Former Parole Board Vice-Chairman John Walter reviewed the job responsibilities the Grievor assumed during his tenure as Vice-Chairman from October.1982 to and including August 31, 1984. He confirmed that the Grievox was a "ve~ry g.ood employee" and that he seldom read over her work (in particular, expense ,account Claims) "because of the accuracy of her work". In cross-examination, he~illustrated numerous examples of. situations where the Grievor was called upon to exercise a degree of independent judgment: Mr. Walter verified that the parole eligibi1ity.criteri.a set forth in the~statute and regulations was in effect repeated in the Parole Board's. Policy,and Procedures Manual. ,_ Walter Gibson, a Ministry Personnel Administrator, testified that the instant,classification grievance presented some difficulties because the Grievor was no longer required to provide stenographic services which was the core duty of the Class Series. For .this reason, .no new Position Specification had been prepared subsequent to the 1981 Position Specification Form. On behalf of the Grievor, Mr. Anand argued that she was entitled to the'classification sought on the basis of a measurement 'of"her responsibilities and the~duties against the higher Class Standard. He argued that it would be manifestly unfair at this late date to.allow the Employer to succeed on the +heory that the Grievor was'presently improperly classified in the Clerical Steno- grapher series. j .:._ In argument, Mr. Benedict contended that as the Grievor.is no longer called upon to perform stenographic work, her position is currently improperly classified in the series. Alternatively, he acknowledged that there was some overlap in the Grievor's clerical responsibilities, but not to the degree required to justify the higher classification. The relevant Class Standards in contention are as follows: This class covers positions of employees xho take dictation in shorthandor speed-writing'&/ordictaphcne and transcribe letters -randa, reports andother material and,performvaried semi-routineclerical taaksaccord$ngtoapprwedproceduresor special instructions. They are respnsible for independent cca@etion of scnewhatcoaplex clerical~rk parfo& according ko established precedents involvingcontactwithother depertnonts or the public throughcorrespxdence camposedby,themselves. They ' are, hover, required to refer'dwbfful matters not covered by precedents to their superiors. In son-e psitions, they train-and superviseasaraU.SUb5Tdinate staffinroutineclerical,steno- sraphic and typing &ties. Mu& of the irk of employees in these'pxitions is reviexed onlypericdicallyi principally for adherence topolicyandpro- cedwes. Errors in their hark could result in loss of time, duplication of effort and some inconvenience to the @lit. They are rewnsible formaintaininggccdhorkingrelationahips in all contactswithotherenployees and theplblic. Iheyprepare reports, simple statmnents andmeamrandarequiring judgement in the selection and presentation of data. They, being responsible for following up errors or omissions,,review and verify a variety of ~tstoensureconfonnitywithestabUshed regulations and practices. In other positions, they periodically sumrarize and balance entries to original records, investigating discrepancies and making needed cQrrections. Initiative in organizing and,cxmpleting work assignmants; good knowledge of statutes, and regulations pertaining to wxk.assignrrents; ability to direct the work of others." i Y ., ‘G: : .,i .> : ,, “.- ., L . . ,’ ’ V -6- This class covers positions of fqloyees who take dictation in shorthandor speed-writing, and/or dictaphone,butare nainly involved in the Ierformance of various clerical or administrative tasks of a responsible n&ure requiring considerable knowledge of the operations and prccedures of the organizational unit. They make decisions which entail the exercise of scare independent judgenwtbased on a good understanding of specific statutes and regulations. These eqloyees initiate correspondence concdg their mk andmay interpret the general instructions of their superiors into detailed prccedures to be follu&ed. Although they refer questions involving interpretation of policy to their superiors, these erqloyees normally receive spAcificinstructiononlyinunusualorspecialprabl~. bst of the work .is perforred under conditions which permit little oppxbnity for direct sqervisionbyothers. Innmtcases, these are'supervisory positions withreqon- sibility fororganizingthewxk flowofanuaherofclerical, clerical typing or clerical stencgraphic msitions. Insuch positions, these employees have some responsibility for selection of staff, assignment of duties, and discipline. In&hercases, employees in these~sitionsprepsre or evaluate, assess and correct avariety of statements,.applications, records and statutes, rules, regulations, adininistrativeorders andpractices. l&y may authorize adjustments, determine eligi- bility andralce r3xma&ationsregardingthefinancialpaysent or other appropriate action. Di&very of errors in their work couldleadtotheeabarrassrentof superiorsandcouldresult in mnetaxy loss. SiUIS-SANDm-: ~Gxdknowledgeof statutes andregulations relatedto the .mrk; ability to supervise the mrk of subordinates: gosd knowledge of office methods and procedures." In determining the merits of a classification grievance, the Board~must consider two basic tests: ‘- .J ,’ ’ * - I - 1 ,I. Does the Grievor's job, measured against the relevant Class Standards, come within the higher classifitiationwhich he, seeks; and 2) Even if he fails to fit within the Class Standard, are their.employees performing the same duties as the Grievor'who .are included in the more senior classification? (Re Lynch, 43/77 at p. 4; and Re Wheeler, In the'instant grievance, only the first test is .a relevant consideration. 'Having.reviewed the job in question against the relevant Class Standards, the Board is satisfied that the evidence justifies the Grievor's entitlement to the higher Class Standard. In our opinion, the Grievor performs administrative tasks of a responsible nature as contemplated by the Clerical Stenographer 4 Standard. On the evidence, we find.that the Grievor makes decisions which call for “some independent judgment" based on a good under- standing of the statutes and the regulations. 'The independent judgment component is called for in, scheduling, in verification of expense claims and in the review of Board files. In our opinion, the Griever's understanding comes from a thorough knowledge of the Parole Board's procedural manual which in large measure is taken from the appropriate statute. .! ,:..; .” :* : ‘.I I .j !< I ,,.. 3 :: i,’ . . -2 C._ , ,’ I -a- While there -is no present requirement to initiate correspondence, the Grievor does interpret instructions and functions largely without supervision.. The Grievor's present position entails no supervisory responsibilities. However, as set forth in the Clerical Stenographer 4 Class Standard, she is required to evaluate, assess and correct a variety of statements, checking for a;ccuracy and conformitywith regulations, rules and administrative orders. Clearly, the Grievor is required to authorize minor adjustments and to determine eligibili in conformity with Parole Board standards and. procedures. The Board is of the opinion ,thatthe Employer's suggestion that the Grievor was classified in the wrong series is an inappro- priate argument to present at the conclusion of' the Bearing. Any such argument should be addressed at',the outset and in addition, during the various steps of the grievance procedure. For these reasons, the Employer's suggestion of improper classification in the present Class Series doesnot influence our decision. In the result, we award the Grievor the classification sought of Clerical Stenographer 4, with compensation retroactive ;., .I ,, - i’ .r, . ) . L4 -9- ,i; ‘j. . : :, -’ .:: , : $ I .’ to the filing of the grievance on January 20, 1984. DATED at Brantford, Ontario, thisl5th day of July, A.D., 1985. ~, / ,;--& I- Jc. /d 1- ‘7 g. L. Verity; Q.C. - Vice-Chairmaq I. Thomson - Member ,"I dissent" G. Walker - Member