Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0137.Roe.86-03-12IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: For the Grievor: OPSEU (Mary Roe) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General) P. M. Draper I. J. Thomson W. A. Lobraico Vice-Chairman Member Member B. Hanson Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon Barristers & Solicitors For the Employer: A. W. McChesney Staff Relations Officer Staff Relations Branch Management Boards of Cabinet Hearings: Grievor Employer January 20, 1986 February 6, 1986 -2- The Grievor, Mary Roe, grieves that her position is improperly classified Clerk 4 General and requests that it be redassified Clerk 5 Genera1 retroactively to June 1, 1984. The Grievor is Administrative Assistant to the. Advisor, Intelligence Services, Intelligence Services Branch, Ontario Police Commission. All of her service, which dates from August 1, 1971, has been in the Branch. On June 1, 1973, she was appointed to the newly-created position oft Intelligence File Reviewer, classified Clerk 4 General. From 1981 to 1984 she acted in the capacity of assistant to the then Advisor, who retired on May 31, 1984. Under a new head of the Branch, a major reorganisation took place during which the Grievor’s duties and responsibilities were expanded. The functions of the Branch, briefly stated, are to provide a province- wide intelligence radio network; to give financial assistance to joint police force operations; to provide training for police force ,personnel; and to support the Provincial Bureau of Criminal Intelligence Services Ontario, which is the central repository for intelligence information. There are fifteen employees in the Branch including the Advisor and the Grievor. The remaining thirteen, including a Director who reports to the Advisor, are in the Bureau. -3- The Grievor testified that requests from the field for the provision or replacement oft vehicles, radios and other equipment are routed through her. She obtains cost and availability information and makes arrangements for the leasing of vehicles, subject to the approval of the Advisor. When a joint force budget proposal is submitted to the Branch she gathers comparative cost data for the use of the Advisor. She administers funds established for certain joint force operations and co-signs cheques fa expenses properly payable from them. She assists the Advisor in the preparation of the Branch and Bureau budgets by researching the previous year’s actlal expenditures compared to budget limits. She maintains personnel, vehicle and expense claim files. In the absence of the Advisor, her reporting responsibility is to the Chairman of the Ontario Police Commission. Ian MacDiarmid acted as head of the Branch beginning on June 1, 1984, and was appointed Advisor in April, 1985. He testified that he offered the Grievor the opportunity to become his assistant, reorganized her duties and gave her additional responsibilities. There is minimal supervision,of her work. The Grievor must have detailed knowledge of the functions of the Branch. She has scope for the exercise of initiative, particularly in his absence. Prior to February, 1985, he had approved all joint force expenditures and decided on transfers of vehides and radice. The Grievor had no authority with regard to budgets up to that time. He participated in the preparation of a position specification for the Grievor’s position and supported her request for its reclassification to Clerk 5General. Carolyn Truman has been successively Classification Officer, Senior Classification Officer, and Chief Classification Officer, Personnel Services Branch of the Ministry. She testified that in her present position, which she has held since -Y- September, 1984,she is responsible for the classification of all civilian positions in the Ministry. She defines the classification system as a “grade description system” in which the duties and responsibilities of a position are measured against class standards. The appropriate category, occupational group and class series’ are chosen for the position and the particular class in the series that best matches it determines its classification level. Positions are evaluated under four headings: knowledge, decision making, supervision received, and matters referred to others. Supervision of other employees is not an essential task for either the Clerk 4 General or the Clerk 5 General classification. It is not in dispute that the Position Specification and Class Allocation Form dated June. 1, 1973, filed in evidence, accurately describes the duties and responsibilities of the position of Intelligence File Reviewer as of that date, and that the Position Specification and Class Allocation Form dated October 1, 1984, filed in evidence, accurately describes the duties and responsibilities of the position of Administrative Assistant as of that date. The purpose of the position of Intelligence File Reviewer was to “provide for the capability of maintaining” criminal intelligence files. Duties included the preparation of dossiers extracted from available intelligence information for the use of the Branch and the collection of information from intelligence files for distribution to law enforcement agencies. The position, as i?s title indicates, was designed around the development and maintenance of the intelligence files of the Branch. It is not suggested by either party that the position was improperly classified Clerk 4 General. -5- The purpose of the position of Administrative Assistant is “To provide general administrative and clerical support to the Advisor, Intelligence Services and the intelligene services and operations of the Ontario Police Commission”. The summary of duties and responsibilities of the position is extensive and includes: establishing and maintaining a srjtem of files and records for ensuring the organizatjon and control of administrative information related to Branch activities and Joint Force Operations, . . . processing a variety of invoices, receipts, expense accounts, etc.,, re,viewing elevant administrative procedures and/or regulations; opening and reading mail, directing to appropriate personnel, setting aside routine items for own action and attaching relevant files for supervisor’s reference, taking special care of confidential dossiers, correspondence, etc.; assisting supervisor in the preparation of monthly, quarterly and annual reports and preparation of budget; assisting supervisor’s review and costing of Joint Force Operations propcsak by compiling relevant cost information, gathering and/or preparing estimates, searching available files and/or making necessary calls to gather additional information as required; determining nature of and responding to a wide variety of administrative and operational queries from Branch and Joint Force Operations personnel, Unit ~Commanders, senior police officials, etc., providing information and resolving a variety of administrative matters.on own initiative,... exercising considerable judgement and discretion when assisting nature of calls and releasing information which may impact on the confidentiality of operations; handling a variety of administrative processes related to the Joint Force Operations, . . . providing infcrmation and advice on ~administrative procedures, practices and regulations to Branch personnel; maintaining office routines in absence of supervisor, handling matters on own initiative or, on the basis of nature and urgency of matters, contacting more senior personnel, or supervisor as -6- practicable and appropriate; The skills and knowledge required to perform the work are stated to be: “Good knowledge of office and fifing procedures and administrative practices. Familiarity with police/law enforcement environment. Good organizational skills and the ability to work independently. Good communication skills, tact and discretion. Typing. Personal suitability.” It is our conclusion, on the evidence, that to a considerable degree the Grievor’s position is a functional link between the Branch and joint force operations. She receives or has access to highly confidential information about joint force operations which, if mishandled, would compromise the security of those operations. She works with a minimum of direct supervision and with few written procedures, presumably due to the unllsual mix.of tasks she performs. The exercise of initiative, judgment and discretion seem to us to be inherent in the duties and responsibilities of the position. It is clear that the Grievor occupies a one-of-a-kind position, a duplicate of which could surely not be found elsewhere in the public service. In view of the uniqueness of the position, it is not surprising that the Grievor’s case for reclassification is based on a comparison of its duties and responsibilities with those set out in the appropriate class standards. It is to be noted that the placing of the Grievor’s position in the General Clerical Series is not at issue here. The Clerk 4 General and Clerk 5 General class standards are appended hereto. With reference to the four criteria used in classifying positions, it is -7- obvious that from a lower level of a class series to a higher, the knowledge required and the decision-making authority increase, and the supervision received and the matters referred to others decrease. There is a significant element of independent work in the Grievor’s position and that fact is consequently of critical importance in determining at which of the two levels in question that position belongs. Evaluating the duties and respsnsibilities of the Grievor’s pxition against the Clerk 4 General and Clerk 5 General class standards, we find that the Grievor is performing work requiring not only a good background knowledge of specific local practices but a detailed knowledge of a body of local practices; that her decision-making authority involves judgment not only in cases of variations from established guidelines or standards but in the interpretation of policy or administrative directives; that her work is not performed under direct supervision but is carried out with a large degree of independence, notwithstanding that in some instances it is subject to approval or confirmation; and that she not only checks Branch accounting functions for conformity with applicable regulation? but is responsiblefor their interpretation,explanation and application. In the result, we find that the Grievor’s position is improperly classified Clerk 4 General and should properly be classified Clerk.5 General. There is some uncertainty arising from the evidence as to responsibilities assigned to the Grievor around the time the grievance was filed. For that reason, aIthough.we are satisfied that those responsibilities were assumed by the Grievor on or about the date of the grievance (February 15, 1985), we believe that it is not appropriate to make the reclassification of her position retroactive to an earlier date. It is hereby ordered that the positim of Administrative Assistant to the Advisor, Intelligence Services, Intelligence Services Branch, Ontario Police Commission be reclassified Clerk 5 General effective as of February 15, 1985. We retain jurisdiction in order to determine, if requested, the compensation to which the Grievor is entitled pursuant to this decision. DATED in Toronto, Ontario this 12th day of March, 1986. (/ntwl,)Il---- /&brz%& ---- . .