HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0812.Ainslie et al.87-03-19I
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
- Under -
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Between:
Before:
For the Griever:
For the Employer:
Hearing Dates:
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
OPSEIJ (P.A. Ainslie, et al)
and
THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
(Ministry of Health)
Prof. R. J. Delisle
R. Russell
F. T. Collict
M. Farson,
Counsel,
Cornish & Associates
Barristers and Solicitors
J. P. Zarudny,
Counsel
Ministry of the Attorney General
December 4, 1985
January 9, 1986
April 9, 1986
July 2, 1986
September 17, 1986
September 18, 1986
October 1, 1986
Grievers
Employer
Vice-Chairman
Member
Member
i ‘7.
m
In a grievance dated August 10, 1984, Mary Ellen
Bettridge claims that her position is improperly classified as
Clerk 3 General, and requests reclassification as Clerk 4
General. The grievor is one of 72 Group Processing Clerks
working at the OHIP Head Office in Kingston. The parties agreed
that Ms. Bettridge is representative of 65 of those clerks
(listed in Exhibit 1) and that this Board's determination of the
Bettridge grievance shall determine the disposition of all 65.
We were asked to put aside consideration of the other 7
grievances until we had disposed of the Bettridge matter. The
Bettridge grievance proceeded on the sole basis that her job
measured against the wording of the applicable class standards
deserved the higher classification.
Before proceeding to the actual measurement of the
griever's job we need to say something with respect to the
approach that needs to be taken to the same. The grievor and the
employer each called experts on the subject of Job Evaluation. A
consideration of their testimony is here appropriate before we
begin the actual task of measurement.
Dr. Hugh Armstrong was tendered as an expert by the
grievor. Dr. Armstrong is a Professor of Sociology at Vanier
College in the Province of Quebec who has researched and written
extensively on the subject of women's employment and its
evaluation. His books and articles deal heavily with clerical
work because so many women perform that type of work. Dr.
Armstrong has no personal knowledge of the job'being performed by
the grievor nor was he present during the griever's testimony.
As a basis for his testimony he was provided a summary of the
griever's testimony prepared by counsel for the grievor (Exhibit
15). The test for the reception of expert testimony is, simply,
helpfulness; see R. v Fisher (1961) 34 C.R. 320, 340 (Ont. C.A.).
Will the trier of an issue be helped by the expert's knowledge?
The Board decided that Dr. Armstrong had developed, from his
study and experience, a perspective regarding the facts here
under review that was not shared by us and which might then be
helpful to us in evaluating and determining the proper
characterization of those facts.
For Dr. Armstrong, in evaluating job content one should
consider first, Skill, Education and Training, second,
Responsibility, Discretion and Judgment, third, Control,
Authority and Autonomy and fourth, Work Conditions, Comfort,
Safety and Health. Under the head of Skill, Dr. Armstrong used
examples in his testimony to demonstrate how "skill is socially
constructed." Dr. Armstrong testified that it is common in the
workplace to use the term l'common senseI' instead of "judgmentO@ to
describe the execution of a variety of tasks "performed at the
low end - and women are usually at the low end." Skills at the
bottom end of the ladder are under valued and most women are at
the bottom. Women in the labour force seek to bring to the
workplace their nurturing skills, their "smoothing out" skills
but these skills of tension management are not normally regarded
as assets. He noted that from his research ,jobs performed by
3
women are consistently under valued. Certain skills and tasks
performed by women are indeed invisible. Women are able to
juggle or balance a variety of activities at once: rather than
being viewed as a skill and an asset in itself this tends to make
them be seen as lacking in specialization since their
concentration is seldom devoted to one task at a time. Women in
the workplace traditionally are the workers who provide
encouragement and support to their fellow workers by arranging
birthday parties, showers and other celebrations: this skill,
which promotes better morale and a more efficient operation is
seldom recognized as an asset and is never found in a job
description. Many women are able to type but because so many
have that skill it is under valued in them. A similar point can
be made with respect to filing skills, telephone answering and
communication skills. These are taken for granted or go
unrecognized. Women are expected to be tactful in their
communications, it is natural when we perceive it, and that skill
therefore goes unrewarded. Under the head of Responsibility Dr.
Armstrong testified that a job should be evaluated in terms of
the gravity of the consequences flowing from the employee's
decision, the extent to which the employee was instructed by
procedures as opposed to acting on her own, and the need for
confidentiality in the position. His studies indicate that
frequently women will perceive themselves as having the actual
responsibility while men are given the official responsibility:
e.g. the woman teller who takes a document to a male senior
+ (’
4
officer for pro forma authorization and the female nurse who
shares with a doctor responsibility for a patient's well-being
although the doctor has signing authority. Under the head
Autonomy his studies indicate that in hierarchical settings women
tend to act at the bottom: organizational charts show workers at
the bottom working under apparently close supervision though
frequently the work is done relatively autonomously and contrary
to the chart. The autonomy of women goes unrecognized and
unrewarded.
Bryan Neale was tendered as an expert by the employer.
He is presently Regional Personnel Administrator with the
Ministry of Health. He worked with the Ontario Civil Service
Commission between 1976 and 1982 in the capacities of
Classification Officer, Category Officer, Standards Officer and
Category/Module Officer. Prom 1972 to 1976 he was a Senior
Classification Officer with the Ministry of Colleges and
Universities. He numbered in the thousands the occasions when he
had been called on to evaluate jobs for the purpose of
classification. Mr. Neale was present throughout the hearing of
the evidence and reviewed all the exhibits. He was accepted as
an expert witness to assist us in the proper interpretation to be
placed upon the Class Standards. We recognize that he is
employed by the Ontario Government and has testified on its
behalf before; see Goobie et al., 240/84 (Verity). This leaves
him open to the charge of bias. We also recognize however that
5
expertise in the government's Classification System is not
otherwise available except on a most general level.
Mr. Neale described four Job Evaluation Systems used to
determine relative worth within an organization. The first
system, Job Ranking, suitable to small organizations, is
subjectively based and involves simply ranking the totality of
one job against another. The other systems seek to inject as
much objectivity as possible into the process. In the Point
Rating System various factors relative to job worth are described
and assigned a point value. Points are assigned to various
levels of such factors as knowledge, skill, judgment,
accountability and leadership and the points totalled. The third
system described is the Factor Comparison System wherein factors
are not weighted nor points assigned to levels but jobs are
compared against the factors and levels described. Finally we
have the system which is here under review and is described as
the Grade Description System. Instead of listing particular
factors the whole job is characterized. Elements that contribute
to the whole job complexity are described. Representative, or
typical tasks are set out to illustrate the way in which the
elements are displayed. In a Grade Description System the
compensable factors, Knowledge, Decision-Making and Supervision,
are not weighted. Mr. Neale emphasized that in this system of
classification the whole job must constantly be kept in mind and
that strength in one element does not necessarily yield a higher
classification.
6
Mr. Neale testified that in any classification system
there may be certain elements of a job which are not taken into
account. At the time of the system's establishment the author of
the same seeks to identify which elements of the job are
significant. Mr. Neale admitted that a social perception
prevailing at the time may cloud the author's vision regarding
what is important. He notes, for example, that working
conditions are not addressed in the Class Standards here under
review. Perhaps the assumption was made, mistakenly, that all
persons would be working under normal and similar working
conditions. Because of working conditions one group of employees
may find the task more difficult than others similarly
classified. Nevertheless, according to Mr. Neale, if an element
of a person's job is not addressed in the Class Standards, then,
notwithstanding that the individual applying the classification
system feels the element is important and valuable, he ought not
to incorporate it into his analysis. Incorporating the same
would be an unreasonable inference. For a system to be
defensible it must be applied as objectively as possible lest it
be seen as unfair. Classification Officers, to ensure
consistency, must confine themselves to the class standards as
written. Mr. Neale noted that s.7 of the Crown Employees
Collective Bargaining Act allows for bargaining over the
classification system and inequities in the system can there be
addressed. He also noted for us that as the result of bargaining
between the parties, a new system called Offtce Administration
!
7
Group System will become effective December 31, 1986 replacing
the system here under review as well as other systems.
The Grade Description System here being reviewed was
created in 1963. Mr. Neale described the General Clerical Series
as a task oriented series as opposed to a skill oriented series.
It does not focus on crisis or tension management skills or on
the how of communication skills. The focus of this system is not
on skills but rather on tasks: the knowledge necessary to the
task, the nature of the decision-making required in carrying out
the task and the supervision involved in the accomplishment of
the task. This emphasis is also seen in Montaoue, 110/78
(Swinton):
"Classification of position does not necessarily turn, however, on the fact that employee l%ticularly performs a given duty, when the classification standards under consideration are very general and applicable to a wide range of positions. This is especially true of the Clerk series of Class Standards. Many similar tasks will be performed by employees with different classifications within the Clerk series. Their classifications will
vary because of factors such as the degree of complexity of the task or the degree of
independent judgment required in performing the task."
Mr. Neale characterized Dr. Armstong's evidence as essentially
stating that there are certain occupational groups populated
largely by women where certain skills are employed which society
traditionally has under valued or rendered invisible. Mr. Neale
testified that the standards drafted in 1963, may be guilty of
8
exactly what Dr. Armstrong suggests. Mr. Neale notes that the
Class Standards here under review do not address the skills Dr.
Armstrong mentioned but that a classification officer is confined
to the description he finds in the Class Standards. Mr. Neale
testified that the new Office Administration Group System which
comes into effect at the end of this year will recognize and
value the skills described by Dr. Armstrong. If a skill can be
seen as incorporated within the knowledge or other requirement in
the Class Standard here under review it will be taken into
account: if it cannot be embraced within the language of the
Class Standard it will not be taken into account. Mr. Neale was
asked in cross-examination whether a person would be improperly
classified if communication skills were a.significant portion of
the person's job but the same were not recognized in the class
standard. For Mr. Neale the answer was clearly, no. For him the
person was properly classified by the system though the system
may be inadequate to the task of properly evaluating a job's
relative worth.
This Board's task is to inquire whether the Ministry
has properly classified the griever's job according to the actual
classification system then in use. We measure the griever's job
against the wording of the applicable Class Standards. At times
this Board will reclassify a job, notwithstanding the wording of
the Class Standards, if satisfied that other employees performing
equivalent duties are classified in a higher classification.
This so-called usage approach is adopted when the evidence
9
demonstrates that the actual classification system being used by
the employer is at odds with the written word. But still, the
~objective remains the same: to determine whether this particular
grievor has been properly classified in accordance with the
actual classification system in use by the employer. The
Grievance Settlement Board can do nothing else as it has no
jurisdiction to amend the Class Standards.
We conclude then, that Dr. Armstong's evidence, though
compelling in its description of how women's work has been
traditionally under valued, is not helpful to our determination
of whether this griever's job is properly classified according to
the employer's existing classification system.
Counsel for the grievor, in argument, maintained that
the class standards needed to be interpreted within the context
of changes in social norms. Counsel argued that as we at times
force fit atypical jobs into Class Standards, so too we must take
account of communication and tension management skills even
though they are not accounted for in the existing Class Standards
and lqforce fit work into a classification." Counsel argued that
"if morale boosting is performed then it ought to be taken into
account in evaluating the job." We cannot. accept such a
position: to do so would be to re-write the Class Standards. In
closing her argument, counsel for the grievor stated:
It's not that Neale is insensitive. The
problem is systemic. The Grievance
Settlement Board by it's decision should
educate.
10
If there is indeed a systemic problem there is nothing the
Grievance Settlement Board can do. If the classification svstem
is at fault the Board cannot cure it. The Board's jurisdiction
is limited to determining whether the griever's job is classified
properly according to the system then in use.
We necessarily conclude that Mr. Neale's approach to
the interpretation of the Class Standards and the compensable
factors is the proper approach. We therefore intend to analyze
the griever's job with its required tasks and measure the same
according to the Clerk 3 and Clerk 4 standards under three main
heads: Knowledge, Decision-Making and Supervision.
We begin by setting out the relevant Class Standards.
We agree however with the observation of Vice-Chairman Brunner in
Switzer and McKenna, 804/84, 805/84 at p.11:
An examination of the class definitions of Clerk 3 and Clerk 4 General makes it clear that the dividing line between the two classifications is not black and white. These definitions do not contain water tight compartments which are easily distinguishable from one another but constitute only a general outline of the duties and
responsibilities of the employees, with the main difference or distinction being the degree of responsibility, independence and
judgment that is exercised.
The preamble to the Clerical, Typing, Stenographic,
Secretarial Class Series states that, "these five series cover
all office positions and office supervisory positions that are
not covered by a specialized clerical, technical, equipment
11
operating, or professions1 class series". With respect to the
General Clerical Series, the preamble states:
"This series covers positions where the purpose is to perform clerical work entirely or in combination with incidental typing, stenographic or machine operating duties.
Where exclusion of the latter would significantly change the character of a position, or where they occupy a large proportion of the working time, the position should be assigned to one of the specialized classes, e.g. Clerical Typist. Positions for which specialized clerical series exist, e.g. Clerk, Mail and Messenger, Clerk, Filing, etc. should not be assigned to this series. Group leader responsibility normally begins at the third level, while the fourth -and above usually cover positions involving line supervision: however, non-supervisory positions can also be included."
The Class Definition for Clerk 3 General is as follows:
"CLERK 3, GENERAL
CLASS DEFINITION:
Employees in positions allocated to this class, as 'journeyman clerks', perform routine clerical work of some complexity according to established procedures requiring a background knowledge of specific
regulations, statutes or local practices.
Decision-making involves some judgement in the selection of alternatives within a comprehensive framework of guidelines.
Initiative is in the form of following up errors or omissions and in making corrections as necessary. Doubtful matters not covered by precedent are referred to supervisors. Much of the work is reviewed only
periodically, principally for adherence to policy and procedures.
Typical tasks at this level include the preparation of factual reports, statements or memoranda requiring some
12
judgment in the selection and presentation of data; assessment of the accuracy of statements or eligibility of applicants, investigating discrepancies and securing further proof or documentation as necessary; overseeing, as a Group Leader, the work of a small subordinate staff by explaining procedures, assigning and checking work.
This is a terminal class for many positions involving the competent performance of routine clerical work common to the office concerned.
QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Grade 12 or an equivalent combination of education, training and experience.
2. About three years satisfactory clerical experience.
3. Ability to understand and explain clerical procedures and requirements; ability to organize and complete work
assignments within prescribed time
limits: ability to maintain good working relationships with other employees and the public served.
Revised, December, 1963"
The Class Definition for Clerk 4, General is as
follows:
"CLERK 4, GENERAL CLASS DEFINITION: Employees in positions allocated to this class perform a variety of responsible clerical tasks requiring a good background knowledge of specific regulations, statutes or local practices. Decision-making involves judgement in dealing with variations from established guidelines or standards. Normally employees receive specific instructions only on unusual or special problems as the work is performed under conditions that permit little opportunity for
13
direct supervision by others. Matters involving decisions that depart radically from established practices are referred to supervisors.
Tasks typical at this level include the evaluation or assessment of a variety of statements, applications, records or similar material to check for conformity with specific regulations, statutes or administrative orders, resolving points not clearly covered by these instructions, usually by authorizing adjustments or recommending payment or acceptance; supervising a small group of 'journeyman clerks' or a larger group of clerical assistants by explaining procedures, assigning and checking work and maintaining discipline.
QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 12 education or an equivalent combination of education, training
and experience. 2. About four years of progressively responsible clerical experience or an equivalent combination of experience and higher educational qualifications. 3. Ability to communicate clearly both orally and in writing; ability to instruct and supervise the work of subordinates.
Revised, December, 1963"
The Board also received into evidence, (Exhibit 5) the
Position Specification and Class Allocation Form describing the
job. While the grievor disagreed with some aspects of this form
it is nevertheless helpful to an appreciation of our task. We
here reproduce material parts:
Puroose of Position
To maintain benefits for Health Insurance.accounts for
14
a block of Employer and Collector Groups and to answer inquiries related to Group Processing.
Summary of Duties and Reswonsibilities
1.
90% l-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9 -
2.
10% l-
2-
Reconciles monthly group premium remittances and updates computer membership records by performing such tasks as:
reconciling incoming monthly wow remittances, verifying premiums received and adjusting incorrect remittances as required, advising group administrator by telephone or
in writing, of action taken: completing appropriate computer input documents to update membership records; researching and determining authenticity of
group refund requests, calculating and preparing refund vouchers on own initiative as required and obtaining necessary signatures of authorization;
preparing and mailing new billings with related documents to group administrators, recording date of mailing: filing completed forms in appropriate group files; adjusting Group Checking Lists, updating computer membership records, calculating and preparing refunds forms due to alteration; researching identity of irregular or unexplained payments, on undocumented chegues received from Cashiers Department, then
treating according to established format; maintaining active liaison with Group Field Services Representatives (e.g. filling requests for Group Checking Lists):
clarifying computer reject list by consulting group file, analyzing descrepancies, advising
group administrators and computer of
adjustments.
Answers inquiries and resolves problems
relating to group members accounts, and
performs other related tasks such as:
searching group files and computer records to answer telephone and written inquiries from
groups, interdepartmental personnel and
general public; preparing internal documents, refunds, etc. and composing clarifying memoranda as required;
15
3- providing records for all delinquent group at request of Supervisor, Collections and Control; 4- training new employees when required; 5 - referring computer problems to Group Leader; 6- other duties as assigned.
Skills and Knowledse Reauired to Perform Work
Ability to organize and complete work within prescribed time limits, and to understand clerical procedures. Ability to communicate tactfully with group administrators, and to make calculations (e.g. refunds) correctly.
Knowledge of appropriate regulations & procedures as they relate to group billing.
Incumbents perform routine clerical work of some complexity according to established procedures, requiring a background knowledge of group premium remittance procedures & practices.
Decision making entails some judgement in investigating discrepancies and securing further documentation to determine authenticity of group refund requests, before calculating & preparing refund vouchers.
Incumbent work is reviewed only periodically, with doubtful matters not covered by procedure referred to the.supervisor.
THE GRIEVOR'S JOB
The grievor was transferred to OHIP Head Office in
Kingston in August 1982. Subscribers for insurance pay their
premiums either directly to the Treasurer of Ontario or by a
Group Billing Process wherein employers remit the premiums for
all their employees. The grievor testified that at the time of
the grievance, she was responsible for dealing with 509 Groups.
The grievor needed to bill each Group monthly and was responsible
for reconciiing the remittances when they retu.rned. The grievor
‘<
lb
would investigate and respond to all pertinent inquiries directed
to her by telephone and mail. The grievor testified that there
was a fair amount of telephone communication with the Group
Administrators, representing each of her Groups, regarding their
respective accounts and any problems with the same. While her
chief contact would be with the Group Administrator she would
sometimes receive telephone calls from individual subscribers,
i.e. members of the Group. The grievor testified that she also
dealt with OHIP District and Satelite Offices by phone and mail.
She dealt with Customer Service Representatives, Inquiry Clerks
and Group Inspectors. The grievor reported to her Group Leader
Joan Slade who is classified Clerk 5, General and to her
Supervisor, Betty Spittle. The grievor was assisted in carrying
out her job by an apparently comprehensive document entitled
Enrolment Services Branch, Administrative Policy Manual (Exhibit
2) and by a series of lengthy guides (Exhibit 3). The grievor
testified that the Group Guide to Arrears Collections (Exhibit 3,
Tab 1) was used by her to assist in the recovery of arrears from
delinquent acounts. She noted that 'Ia lot is in my head now and
therefore it's unnecessary to consult now." The grievor
described her role in assisting the recovery of arrears. Fifteen
days after the premium was due she would send "Letter A" (Exhibit
7, Tab 2, P.4). She would also sometimes phone the Group
Administrator. Due to the close rapport that builds between
Group Processing Clerks and Group Administrators, Clerks were
advised by supervision that they could use their discretion and
17
phone instead of using "Letter A." After an additional thirty
days she would send "Letter B" (Exhibit 7, Tab 2, P. 5) This
step was mandatory. These steps are taken in accordance with the
Guide (Exhibit 3, Tab 1, pp. 3 & 4). After "Letter B" the next
step, according to the manual, was to send a Group status Inquiry
Form (Exhibit 7, Tab 2, p.6) to the Customer Service
Representative at the District Office. The Customer Service
Representative would investigate and respond that payment will be
forthcoming or recommend cancellation. The grievor then would
prepare Collection Transmittal Form (Exhibit 7, Tab 2, p.7) for
her Supervisor's signature. The grievor would also send a form
letter (Exhibit 7, Tab 2, p.9) to groups who were regularly late.
She testified the Enrolment Services Bulletin, Inter-Provincial
Agreement (Exhibit 3, Tab 2) was used by her to communicate with
employees who have come to Ontario from other provinces to advise
them of their interim coverage. She testified, "1 retain little
of this in memory." The grievor testified that she received five
weeks training in August, 1982 after Group Processing was
computerized. This was in addition to training earlier received
in Group Enrolment (see Exhibit 3, Tab 3, Package of Training
Materials for Group Enrolment). Exhibit 4, Tab 4 is a large
document entitled Everything You Wanted To Know About Group
Register Maintenance but Were Afraid To Ask. The grievor
testified "1 don't need to refer to it too much - I retain .it."
The grievor testified that the Policy Manual (Exhibit 2) was
18
derived from the Health Insurance Act and its Regulations and
acted as a guide for her.
The grievor testified that her Group Leader, Slade, was
always close by and her Supervisor, Spittle was available. With
respect to systems problems she would go directly to a person
involved with the computers. With respect to other problems
where the guidelines were not helpful she would go to her
Supervisor or to her Group Leader but those instances were rare.
She estimated that a need for advice from her Supervisor or Group
Leader would be three times a month. The grievor testified that
she would receive memos or bulletins about her job about three
times a week. She would read and copy the same and implement
when she could. The grievor testified that she was assessed by
her supervisor once a year. Her work was reviewed and she noted
that work was returned to her by her supervisor for corrections
about three times a year.
Miss Bettridge, in examination-in-chief and in cross-
examination, took many hours to detail' every task performed by
her. It is impractical and unnecessary to set out all of this
evidence in detail. She is certainly one of the most articulate
spokespersons to appear before this Board. From the evidence
Miss Bettridge presents as a very competent, industrious employee
who does her job with little need for supervision and with such a
knowledge of her job that there is little need for her to consult
the various materials that operate as guidelines. We are
satisfied that she was accurate when she testified "I do more
19
than is required of me, I go beyond the call of duty, I know my
basic responsibilities, but none of what I do is at variance with
the guidelines."
Betty Spittle, Assistant Manager of Group Processing at
the time of the grievance testified. She supervised seven Group
Leaders who each had eight to twelve Clerks. She described the
functions of the Customer Service Representative and the Group
Processing Clerk and how they complement each other in their
respective tasks. She noted that in collecting arrears the Group
Processing Clerk has discretion not to send Letter A if satisfied
by a phone call as to why the Group is late but no discretion
regarding Letter B. She allowed that Letter B might not be sent
if a reply to Letter A came in at the moment that Letter B was to
be sent out. With respect to supervision she noted that while
she was Supervisor there were only two policy changes.
Procedures changed frequently but memos were sent advising the
Clerks. She, as supervisor was available fifty per cent of the
time and always was in the building.
Anulication of the Class Standards to Griever's Job
The Preamble to the General Clerical Series notes that: Group leader responsibility normally begins at the third level, while the fourth and above usually cover positions involving line supervision; however, non-supervisory positions can also be included.
The grievor performed no supervisory function. While that does
not eliminate her job from the fourth level, the preamble
20
suggests that placing such a job at the Fourth level would be
exceptional.
On the page entitled Clerk 4, General, there appears
separated from the Class Definition, an item entitled
Qualifications. The evidence of Mr. Neale, uncontradicted,
satisfies us that Qualifications were always used solely as a
staffing mechanism of the minimal requirements and were never
used by a classification officer in evaluating a job. Since we
are concerned with the actual classification system in use at the
time we ought not to have any regard for this material headed,
Qualifications.
HOW do the Class standards vary with respect to the
compensable factors of Knowledge, Decision making and
Supervision? Which standard, Clerk 3 or Clerk 4, best fits the
griever's job?
Under the head knowledge the only difference appearing
in the actual language used in the Class Standards is that a
Clerk 3 requires "background knowledge oft specific regulations,
statutes or local practices" while a Clerk 4 requires "gOOd
background knowledge" of the same. The tasks performed by the
grievor according to her evidence are not simple nor mundane
tasks but it is noteworthy that the Clerk 3 definition does
describe said Clerk as performing "routine clerical work of ~~me
complexity." The difference between the two levels as far as
knowledge is concerned must reside in the type of knowledge
necessary to each clerk to do the required Decision Making under
the Supervision provided. It is those two factors therefore
which wil .l decide the matter.
The Clerk 4 Definition states that:
Decision-making involves judgment in dealing with variations from established guidelines or standards.
The evidence before us did not support the grievorls claim that
she must bring her own judgment to bear outside of established
guidelines. Rather, her evidence, of practically each task
performed by her shows that her decision making actually fits the
language of the Clerk 3 Definition:
Decision-making involves some judgment in the selection of alternatives within a comprehensive framework of guidelines.
The Clerk 3 Definition speaks of:
Initiative in the form of following up errors or omissions and in making corrections as necessary.
The grievorls evidence certainly disclosed initiative of that
sort. The griever's evidence does not however indicate that she
was required to exercise the initiative of "resolving points not
clearly covered by these instructions", as set out in the typical
tasks of the Clerk 4 Definition. Some judgement or decision
making was involved in the griever's job but this is adequately
covered in the Clerk 3 Definition by language such as:
22
assessment of the accuracy of statements or eligibility of, applicants, investigating discrepancies and securing further proof or documentation as necessary.
Under the head of Supervision the job is clearly not a
fit in the Clerk 4 Definition. That definition says that:
employees receive specific instructions only on unusual or special problems as the work is performed under conditions that permit little opportunity for direct supervision by others.
The grievor not only had an abundance of manuals and guidelines
to cover most of her tasks but also regularly received memos and
bulletins "three times a week." She did not "receive special
instructions only on unusual or special problems.l@ There was
indeed ample opportunity for the grievor to consult with her
immediate supervisor, three feet away, or the Assistant Manager
who was available fifty per cent of the time and was always in
the building. On the evidence we cannot say that the grievor
"performed under conditions that permit little opportunity for
direct supervision by others.** The Clerk 3 Definition on the
other hand appears to be a perfect fit:
Doubtful matters not covered by precedent are referred to supervisors. Much of the work is reviewed only periodically, principally for adherence to policy and procedures.
When an individual is in a job for a long time then perhaps it is
not necessary to go frequently to the supervisor for advice but
23
it's the demands of the job that count and not the ability of the
individual.
We are satisfied that the griever's job is properly
classified as Clerk 3, General and acordingly, we dismiss the
grievance.
Dated at Kingston, Ontario, this 19th day of March 1987.
“I dissent” (see attached)
R. Russell, Member
g 5fp2.
F. T. Collict, Member.
. DISSENT
812/84 AINSLIE et al
This has been a very long (having had the first hearing Dec.4/85)
and complex matter. However, our Board has not been required to resolve this matter
completely without precedent. The Betty Goobie et al 240/84 decision preceded our
Board’s decision. While the two cases are not identlcal,in many ways they are related.
In fact I submit the case8 are sufficiently comparable that we could have and should
have followed the over-all reasoning used in the majority decision in the Goobie case.
Unfortunately the Chairman has seen fit to take an opposite view
In his conclusion in this case. For reasons set out below, I find I must dissent from
what undoubtedly will be the majority position.
BACKGRCIUND
While we as a Board are empowered to examine a job and determine
its relationship to the Class Standard and to re-classify It or not, primarily based
on the Class Standard,if one is to do a thorough job in this regard,one must examine
all aspects of the question In some depth.
In the case in point the Class Standards came into being and were
effective since 1963. They are more than 20 years out of date with both the doing :
and assessing how work is done. Some of the methods used to do the job today Were
practically unheard of twenty odd years ago. In addition,the relationship of eval-
uating a job in 1963 in reg-rd to pay equity is somewhat comparable to todayb view
to the importance of having sprinklers in high rise buildings versus it UnimpOrtanCe
in 1963. There are probably many other and better analogies one could vlsualise.
Our Board had the opportunity to hear from two expert WitneSSes,
both of whom are referred to in the majority award.
While both men are undoubtedly experts in clerical work,it is lm-
portant that note be taken of the relationshlp of each of the Witnesses to the matter
at hand.
Witness Dr. Hugh Armstrong, e co-author of two books,“11 Working
Majority-Fhat ‘!!omen Must do for Pay” and “The Double Ghetto” had nothing to gain
by testifying on behalf of the griever.
Witness Bryan Neale on the other band is an employee Of the Minletry
of Health. The majority report says In part; I’This leaves him (Mr. Neale) open to
the charge of bias”. I would go further, I consider Mr. Neale& testimony EIR deficient
in at least two major ways.
1 It was self serving.
1 What else could a Regional Personnel Administrator
with the Ministryof Health do or say when the grievance
had been rejected at the highest level.
2 Witness Neale testified that he had evaluated jobs
thousands of times under the Ministry classification
system. Unquestionebly,Mr. Neale has been using the
"OLD WAY" to do this.
By using the term the "OLD WAY I' I have in mind various matters
Some came out clearly in evidence and some only inferentially.
For example Mr. Neale testified he used the "Grade Description
System" to evaluate the job before the Board. While possibly no system of job
evalution is perfect,the grade description system compared to the point rating
system is somewhat like comparing the horse and buggy to the automobile. Even the
government is abandoning the grade description system. The degree of subjectivity
in the grade description system exceeds that of a point rating system.
The other aspect of the "old way" relates to the fact that female
jobsiare and have been for many years rated lower only by virtue of the fact that
females do them. All the grievances representing 72 grievers before the Board are
females.
In the book the Double Ghetto,co-authored by Dr. Armstrong and
filed with the Board, an illustration of the old way is illustrated on pages 43&44.
TABLE 8
1980 Average Incomes for Men and Women from Leading Female Occupations of 1961
occuwtion averag~o;9~~nincome -fOrvlOrnen
l.Secr.?taries and stenographers 821,441 813,677
Z.Bookkeepers and accounting clerks 816,868 812,620
8.General office clerks 816,597 812,336
Q.Typfsts and clerk typists 816,061 811,788
18.Electronlc data processing equipment operator 817,532 812,720
Also If we view exhibit 16 the government's "Green Paper on Pay
Equitywe find:
On page (1):
"In spite of the fact that womenIs attachment to the labour force
is increasing in duration, Ontario has a segregated labour force,
2
"with approximately 6G% of female workers clustered in 20 out of 500
occupations. Many of these jobs have become known as "women's work",
a label which is discriminatory and is accomwnied by low vase setting?
(my emphasis)
On page (II) of the same report it reads:
"The government's pay equity 'initiative rests on the premise that
existing discrimination must be ellminated,and recogaises the need
to compare dissimilar but comparably valued jobs."
Again on page 22 under the heading: REDUCTION OF GENDER-BIAS
"The objective of bias-free job evaluation is to guarantee the elim-
ination of those practices which ~produce an under-valuation of women's
jobs. Y!here a comparison exists,already established job evaluation
systems would not be'affected by pay equity legislation provided
they were free of gender bias, were consistently and reliably applied
and were valid and fair in results produced.
And on page 23 v) EVALUATOR XAS
"Evaluators themselves,unless specifically sensitized to the potent-
ial for gender-bias,may reflect social attitudes which contain In-
herent gender bias: e.g. "women are accustomed to doing that kind
of work,caring for children is second nature to then? Such bias
can lead to insufficient emphasis on the skills and experience
needed to perform certain jobs?
More quotes would be redundant and are unnecessary. It is my view
that the .bona fide6 of Mr. Neale as an expert witness should be given very little
weight for the reasons given. On the other hand,greater consideration of the views
expressed by Dr. Armstrong than the majority appearto give would likely produce a diff-
went result. As the majority report states on page 8 - "For Mr. Neale the answer Was
clearly,no. For him the person was properly classified by the system thouah the
system may be inadeauete to the task of properly evalutitina a job*~relatlve worth."
(my emphasis)
It is clear that.a decision In this case can not be made on pay
equity alonb,neither can it be completely ignored. A border line decision based on
all the factors can and should be influenced by pay equity In that It Was lacking
in past practice. Today the government has recognised thls.important fact and is
changing the system of job evaluation.
ii
FOREGROUND
It is repetltlous but probably necessary to say that I recognise
the primary job of this arbitration Board Is to weigh and judge the grievor& job
against the Class Standards In effect at the time the grievance wae filed. However,
as Iwillshow,the language used in the Class Standards'doesnot necessarily delineate
clearly between one grade and another. And b!:yond the language,the way in which
work is done by the employee does not necessarily coincide with the grade she is
classified as and the work done.
Before comparing Clerk3 General and Clerk 4 General standards, I
note that the lpajority report says on page 10 that he measured these two job stand-
ards under 3 main heads, "knowledge,Decision Making and Supervision:' I have no
objection to this provided the interpretation of each heading Is broad enough to
take into consideration all the factors that actually take place in real life in
the course of carrying out the duties of the job. An example of this is the tact,
the diplonacy,the persuasive methads,etc. which are used daily but are not speclf-
ically referred to in the Class Standards. klso,under which of the 3 headings should
these attributes be slotted? Or are they atypical? Regardless they are an important
part of each employee's day'swork.
Much was said by the Kin&try representative that these and other
similar duties of the grievors,not referred to in the Class Standards,was simply
"common sense". This type of reasoning is a poor substitute for the fact that t'hese
grievers mustexercise initiative,skill,knowledge etc. which are not called for nor
referred to in their classification. A more specific concrete example of this was
given in evidence by the grievor,which was not contradicted. It was that she,the
griever authorized SSO,OOO;OO in refunds over a 3 month period. And of equal or
greater importance, was her uncontradicted testimony that previously Clerk 3's
did not authorize refunds at all.
I have examined the Class Standards of Clerk 3 and Clerk 4 and
propose tie dealhere both with the language contained in them and the evidence as
supplied to the BoaYd. Frankly,one would need the wisdom of a King Soloman to be
catagorlcal as to which classification completely fits the griever.
First let us refer to some of the examples which ITere also set
out in the majority report.
class definition CLERK 3 GENERAL class defiaitlon CLERK 4 GENERAL
"..requiring a background knowledge of :':good background knowledge of spec-
specific regulations statutes or local ific regulations,stetutes or local
practices.'U practices.
In essence the word Y3GOD" is the difference in paragraph one of
clerk 3 and 4 general.
There are also minor differences in paragraph 2 of clerk 3 and
clerk 4 general.
Actually the evidence of the griever in considerable detail
claimed that she did everything set out In paragraph 2 of Clerk 4 except where it
refers to "maintaining discipline".
The majority report acknowledges that the griever's evidence
showed she did the work as outlined in paragraph 2 of the clerk 4 general class
standard. However,the majority report goes on to say:
"The griever's evidence does not however indicate that she was
required to exercisethe initiative of BOresolving.points not
covered by these instructions " as set out in the typical tasks
of the grade 4 definition."
The griever was asked the direct question, "How often in a week
do you consult your supervisor"? Her answer - %any weeks never".
The fact the grlevor was not technically required to do the work
that was outside her classification,butshe did it because it was natural to the job
and the fact she rarely found it necessary to consult her supervisor are dealt with
In the majority decision as showing why she should be classed as a Clerk,3. Certainly
the management didn't complain about her assuming these duties. In my opinion she
should be commended for execising initiative and the fact she "transgressed'~ by
taking on responsibilities that technically come under the clerk 4 general heading
is not a reason against,but rather for granting her the grade 4 rate.
Continuing the examination of exhibit 4 of the Class Standards
V!e view theequalifications '1 required for the clerk3 general and clerk 4 general jobs.
QUALIFICATIONS
Clerk 3 general Clerk 4 general
1. Grade 12 or an equivalent combination 1. Grade 12 education or an equiv-
of education,training and experience. alent combination of education,
training end experience.
2.About 3 years satisfactory clerical 2.About 4 years of progressively
experience. responsible clerical experience or en equivslent combination of experience
-end higher educational qUalifiCatiOnS.
3.Ability to understand and explain clerical 4.Abillty to communicate clearly both
procedures and requirements,ability to organize orally and in writing,ability to in-
and complete work assignments within prescribed struct and supervise the work of
time limits,ability to maintain good working subordinates.
relationships with other employees and the
public.
The evidence of the griever which was not contradlcted was she was
not instructed how to do the various tasks by a supervisor,nor were the other clerk 3
generals. Her evidence was that when a grade 3 clerk general wanted advice she went
to another more experienced clerk 3.
The majority report concludes with the statement;
"..it's the demands of the job that count and not the ability
of the individual.e
Is this an accurate statement? Is it true to life?
It is well known that when various groups of people Work to rule"
confusion or worse results. Teachers for example who have refused to do extra curr-
icular work while working to rule have caused havoc as a result. Others,notably
railroad workers,policemen and many others,who when they "work to rule" or to put it
another way - do that only which their job specifically requires, create untold problems.
FAIBEESS and JUSTICE
In measuring the work done by the grievers against the class stand-
ards of clerk 3 and 4 general,clearly as has been pointed out there is not a black-
white distinction. Admittedly on its face the decision as to whether the grievers
should be classifiedClerk 3 general or clerk 4 general could go either Way.
But in this case equity demands that more than the words set out
in the class definitions be taken into consideration. It is not only the consistently
high level at which the griever performs her job with practically no recourse to
supervision. To do this she has memorized that which fills a large manual. The very
broad range of functions which she carries out were actually evaluated by those res-
ponsible for it,many years ago under quite different circumstances.
The differences Were manifold :rlhen the job was evsluated.
The tools to do the job were different- the job itself was different-
the location for doing the job w.s different - society viewed differently the role of
females in jobs and how those jobs should be compensated for their skills,knowledge
and ability. Today we view these matters differently.
I submit all the factors that relate directly and indirectly should
be taken into consideration in arriving at a just and fair decision in this case.
I would allow the grievance which states:
"I grieve that1 am classified improperly as clerk 3 general."
I would do so because I also believe they are improperlyclassified.
R.Russell