HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0343.Ashley et al.89-08-28 ONTARIO EMPLO YES DELA COUHONNE
CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL'ONTARIO
a
GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
780 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSG 1Z8-SUITE 2100 rELEPNONEIrELtPNONE
180,RUE DUNDAS QUEST, TORONTO, {ONTARIO)61501Z8-BUREAU2f00 (416)598-0688-
343/85 , 354/85 , 355/85 , 356/85 , 357/85 , 358/85, 359/85
360/85 , 361/85 , 362/85, 363/85 , 364/85 , 364/85 , 365/85
366/85 , 367/85 , 368/85, 369/85 , 370/85 , 371/85 , . 372/85
373/85 , 374/85 , 375/85 , 376/85 , 377/85 , 378/85, 379/85
380/85, 381/85 , 382/85, 383/85 , 384/85 , 385/85 , 386/85
367/85 , 388/85 , 389/85 , 390/85 , 391/85 , 392/85 , 393/85
394/85 , 395/85, 396/85 , 397/85, 398/85, 399/85 , 400/85
401/85 , 402/84 , 403/85 , 404/85, 405/85 , 406/85 , 407/85
408/85 , 409/85 , 410/85 , 411/85, 412/85 , 413/85 , 414/65
415/85 , 416/85, 417/85, 418/85 , 419/85 , 420/84 , 421/85
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: -
OPSEU (Rabin Ashley et a1)
Grievor
and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Health)
Employer
Before:
J .E. Emrich Vice-Chairperson
F. C0110m Member
G. Milley Member
r
I
I i
I `
r I
I
I
For the Grievor : N. Roland '
Counsel
Cornish & Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
I
For the Employer: J . Zarudny
Counsel
Crown Law Office , Civil
Ministry of the Attorney General
Hearings : July 14 , 23 , 1987
October 22 , 23 , 1987
November 17 , 24 , 1987
April 29 , 1988 j
May 12 , 1988
June 2 , 1988
I
i
I
I
DECISION
In a grievance dated November b, 1984, Ms . Robin Ashley claims that she
is improperly classified at the Clerk 3 General level and seeks
reclassification to Clerk 4 General. Ms. Ashley holds the position of
Direct Subscriber Processing (DSP) Clerk at the Ministry of Health, Health
Insurance Division (OUIP) head offices in Kingston. She is' but one of some
sixty-eight DSP clerks in Kingston who have filed individual grievances
concerning the same issue. The parties have agreed that Ms. Ashley is to be
treated as a representative grievor such that the outome of the other
grievances before this Board shall be in accordance with the disposition of
Ms. Ashley's grievance. Ms. Ashley was hired as a full-time DSP clerk with
the Ministry of Health, OHIP Head office on February 15, 1982. She haslbeen
classified at the level of Clerk 3 General since July 1982, following her
initial training period.
This set of grievances by DSP clerks is one of a series of
reclassification cases brought before different panels of the Grievance
Settlement Board by OHIP Clerks 3 General: Goobie 240/84 (Vice-Chair
Verity) re: Information and Assistance Clerks; Peters 241/84 (Vice-Chair
Jolliffe) re: Cut-of-Province Claims Clerks,"Ainsiie 812/84'(Vice-Chair
Delisle) re: Group Processing Clerks; and Lark 0241/84 (Vice-Chair
Fisher) re: In-Province Processing Clerks.
As in the previous cases, the issue before us is whether the duties,
responsibilities and requirements of the grievorIs job best fit within the
Clerk 3 General Class Standard or within the Clerk 4 General Class Standard.
Sme observations have been made in these .prior cases as to the nature of
these standards and the function of this Hoard in'applying these standards.
Fbr instance, at 0.28-30 in the Goobie case, the majority observed that it
2
i
is the task of the Grievance Settlement Board to interpret the class
standards, although it has no authority to amend or alter those standards.
Furthermore, the standards are drafted in global and composite terms so as
to encompass and be referable to a broad spectrum of work and working
environments. Finally, it has been noted that there is an apparent overlap
between the levels of work of the classes comprised by the General Clerical
Services. however, the classes within the General Clerical Series are
differentiated within this continuum by increasing degrees of '
responsibility, complexity, knowledge, authority, autonomy, judgement and
discretion.
Before proceeding with a review of the evidence, the Board pauses to
note that counsel for the Union requested an order excluding witnesses,
which was resisted by counsel for the IInployer. There was no mention or
substantiation of any concern that the presence of members of management who
would be witnesses or that the presence of observers who would not testify
would impede the ability of the Union's witnesses to testify frankly and
fully. Furthermore, this is not a case where there are issues of
credibility at stake. This was a case where there was substantial agreement
as to the nature of the work performed. Differences arose between the
parties as to the significance of those facts and as to the appropriate
characterization of those facts in light of the wording of the class
standards. It was clear from the large number of observers that employees '
at the Ministry had a keen interest in the issue. Furthermore, an open
hearing, where witnesses are able to follow the course of the evidence as it
is tendered, can serve to reduce redundancy and to sharpen the focus of the
hearing as the points of controversy Emerge. in a classification case such
3
For
as this, the hearing serves an informative and educational function.
these reasons, the Board refused the Union's request to exclude-witnesses..
A couple of other procedural wrangles arose early on in the course of
the hearing. The Board would not ordinarily recount these in its award, but
the parties requested that the ruling and reasons therefore be incl,ded in
the award. Counsel for the Enployer objected- to the document, "Position
Specification and Class Allocation Form" being presented to the grievor as
she gave evidence concerning her jots functions. FMis document is created by
the Enployer and is relied upon by it as an ,acburate description of the
duties, responsibilities, and requirements of the Direct Subscriber
Processing Clerk position. It is the doc=ent used by the. Employer toy
classify the position as Clerk 3 General. Section 6 entitled Class
Allocation sets forth the reasons given by Mr. Rey, dated April'28, 1982 for
allocating the position to Clerk 3 General. Mus, it was relevant to the
issues before this Board to ascertain to what extent the grievor thought
this document accurately described her duties, responsibilities, and job
requirements. It is the proper classification of the job which is the focus
of the hearing. Thus the Board is not as concerned to`test the reliability
of the grievor's recall of all aspects of -the job unassisted by the
document. Accordingly, the Board directed-that the grievor be allowed to
give her testimony with the benefit of the Position Specification before
her,
Finally, counsel- for the Unioi sought to adduce through the grievor
evidence of what the duties, responsibilities and requirements were of
Information and Assistawe 'Clerks. $pis evidence was tendered with a view
to establishing how these duties connected with and ompared to the duties
4
r
. I
and responsibilities of a DSP Clerk. Judging from the length of the hearing,
before other panels hearing the CHIP clerk cases, it was clear that many
days were devoted to hearing evidence concerning the requirements of the
I
position at issue. Mac . Roland's argument was built around the standards '
i
test, and not around the usage test. It is the usage test which entails
comparison of job duties of the grievor's classification to those of a
I
higher classification for equivalence. The C,00bie decision contains an
i
exhaustive review of the evidence found to be relevant and decisive
pertinent to the proper classification of Information and Assistance Clerks:
11be grievor has always worked as a Direct Subscriber Processing Clerk since!
f
her hire by the Employer. Thus, she can give the best evidence about the
requirements of that position, rather than those of another position. After
full argument by counsel and an opportunity to consult as a panel, the Board
ruled that testimony concerning the job functions of information and
Assistance Clerks should be excluded. In accordance with the parties'
request, the Board includes the terms of the ruling delivered at the
hearing:
Having had an opportunity to consider the submissions of
counsel and the case law cited, the Board is of the view that
testimony concerning the job functions of Information and
Assistance Clerks should be excluded. The parties are agreed that
the test to be applied in this case is the "standards test" which
requires measurement of the grievor's job against the wording of
the applicable Class Standards. Thus, the kind of evidence which
this Board must receive should ire directed to the nature of the
job performed by the representative grievor and evidence as to how
the Class Standards of Clerk 3 General and Clerk Q General are to
be interpreted and applied to these functions. Any probative
value to be gleaned by comparison or contrast to the other
position of Information and Assistance Clerks would be outweighed
by the attenuation of proceedings which would result from ;
receiving this evidence and thereby evidence of other classified
positions that in all likelihood would be put before this Board as
apparently helpful comparisons and contrasts. Given that there is
an extensive summary of the evidence and a thorough exposition of
5
T; r
the reasons in the Goobie decision which can be addcessed in
argument, the Board has concluded that it would not be
substantially helptul to resolve the central. issue before it. to
receive evidence as to the jots functions of Information and
Assistance clerks.
In reviewing the evidence, the Hoard adapts the format of the Peters
decision as a helpful means,to organize the analysis. Accordingly, the
Board turns to consider the wording of the first paragraphs of the Class 3
and Class 4 definitions. It is in these paragraphs that the key words or
indices of distinctions in degree or quality are contained for the purpose
of comparison and contrast. As was pointed out in the Peters award at p.47,
the paragraph concerning typical tasks are illustrative' of the way in which
the distinctive elements are displayed; but, 'being only examples, are
neither exclusive nor comprehensive":
The first paragraphs are in the following terms:
Clerk 3, General Clerk 4, General
Hnployees in positions Employees in-positions
allocated to this class, as allocated to this class perform
"journeyman clerks" perform a variety of responsible
routine clerical work of.some clerical tasks requiring a good
complexity according to background knowledge of
established procedures specific regulations,
requiring a background statutes, or local practices.
knowledge of specific Decision-making involves
regulations, statutes or local judgement in dealing with
practices. Decision-making variations from established
involves some judgement in the guidelines or standards.
selection of alternatives . Normally, employees receive
within a comprehensive specific instructions only on
framework of guidelines. • unusual or special problems as
Initiative is in the form of the work is performed under
following up errors or conditions that permit little
omissions and in making opportunity for direct
corrections as necessary. supervision by others. Matter's
Doubtful matters not covered by involving decisions that depart
precedent are referred to radically from established
supervisors. Much of the work practices are referred. to
is reviewed only periodically, supervisors.
principally for adherence to
policy and procedures.
6
I
r �
i
f
ME INDICES r
I
Class 3 Class 4
I
"routine clerical work of some "a variety of responsible
complexity according to clerical tasks"
established procedures"
I
As was noted in the Goobie, Peters and iaycock OHIF cases, these
r
indices represent a continuLa of copelexity within which there are
progressive degrees of complexity as one advances through the classes from ;
Clerk 1 to Clerk 7. j
Ms. Ashley indicated in her testimony that she is required to peruse, a +
wide variety of forms and supporting documentation, correspondenoe, and
inter-office communiques when assessing initial and ongoing eligibility for
i
health insurance coverage of direct subscribers. Director subscribers pay i
premiums directly because they are not entitled to coverage under a group
health insurance policy. of these direct subscribers, some may be eligible ;
f
for premium relief, such as those who qualify for such benefits as premium
assistance, temporary assistance, no"roup municipal welfare, and premium
i
exemption. Ms. Ashley explained that there are several manuals to assist
I
her in this function, including a training manual, a prooedures manual to
assist with the computerized Subscriber Administration System (SAS) , a
policy manual and a security manual. Each of these manuals contains a
wealth of information. By the time of her grievance in 1984, the grievor
had co mitted much of the information, instructions, and policy to memory.
In addition, the grievor is circulated a constant stream of bulletins and
7
memoranda to update these manuals as changes are required to steep Current
with developments affecting coverage.
In 1982 when the grievor commenced working for OxiiP, the DSP unit was
divided into eight sections. Most of these sections dealt with subscribers
divided alphabetically. For instance, the grievor handles the files of
direct subscribers in Ontario whose names begin with, the letters CHIN
through COLE. in addition, one section.of DSP clerks handles the claims of
direct subscribers on municipal welfare, and another section of fifteen or
sixteen clerks was designated as the "one-window unit" . The "one-window
unit" receives and assists dire;;t subscribers who arrive in person at an
OHIP office to make enquiries. Prior to April 1983, the DSP clerks wete
located at two different sites in Kingston, but they are now consolidated
together in the head office building completed in 1983. At that tine, the
number of DSP sections was reduced to seven, each containing approximately
10 DSP clerks. As of April 1983, the DSP clerks worked under 9 Group
Leaders. Since that time the Group Leaders were excluded from the
bargaining unit, and reduced in number. At the time of the hearing, there
were five supervisors responsible for. 12-13 -clerks each.
The, grievor explained that there are a large number .of foreign language
subscribers in her "alpha". The grievor added that there is great
diversity amongst applicants' ability to comprehend and complete forms or
to compose 'and comprehend correspondence. Furthermore, in determining
initial and ongoing eligibility for coverage, the grievor must ensure that
all necessary information has been provided and substantiated so as to meet
requirements of residency, immigration, .income, age, and so on. raving a
large foreign population of subscribers, the grievor stated that she must be
8
i
i
familiar enough with a variety of foreign documentation to assess its i
validity for OHIP coverage. Fbr subscribers seeking relief from premiums,
she must be familiar with relevant sections of the Income Tax Act so as to
be able to appraise calculations of income and allowable deductions for the
purpose of meeting income criteria for premium assistance. In this
connection, the grievor testified that she was expected to be on the alert
i
for fraudulent claims for premium assistance. j
In addition, at Head Office, the grievor indicated that DSP clerks area
responsible for processing status changes in Coverage such as a change from '
direct subscriber coverage to group coverage and vice versa, changes from
single to family coverage and vice versa, a change from dependent coverage
and cancellation of coverage upon death.
The grievor testified that slightly less than half of her daily work
was comprised of dealing with form letters, standard form applications and
documents. Slightly more than half of her work was comprised of
I
correspondence or memos from subscribers, other sections of OHIP, District
i
CHIP offices and those acting on behalf of subscribers, such as lawyers and
physicians. Tim Mason, the grievor's supervisor, did not contradict this
characterization. Rather, he indicated that 908 of the grievor's work was '
coaprised of paperwork, whereas 108 involved dealing with subscribers
directly, either by phone or in person. x'hece was no differentiation on hii
part between paperwork involving standard forms rather than a variety of
correspondence. Neither Mr. Mason, nor Ms. Ashley, found any major
inaccuracies in part 3 of the Position Specification which sets forth the
duties and responsibilities of a DSP clerk and allocates percentages
indicating the proportion those duties represent of the whole:
9
1. Determines initial and ongoing eligibility of applications of
(Non-Group, Municipal Welfare, Premium Exemption, Dependent
Coverage, Temporary Special and Premium Assistance, Certificate of
Payment Forms) from established procedures and processes theca by
performing such duties as:
30%
- examining information on applications (Non--Group, Municipal
Welfare, Premium Exaupti.on, Dependent Coverage, Temporary
Special and Premium Assistance) to ensure all necessary
information has been provided by residency requirements,
immigrations. documeats, income information, date of birch,
alternate surnames, etc. ;
- determining from enrolment policy the effective date of
coverage for a new or reactivated registration;
- assessing eligibility for Premium Assistance through a working
knowledge of the Income Tax Act; calculating and recording said
information to establish eligibility for full or partial
assistance;
assessing applications for assistance for subscribers presently
covered in employer's group and notifying subscriber of
exemption by appropriate form letter;
- preparing necessary refund form for required group.adjustment
when assistance overlap group periods;
- referring, by letter, 'through Group Leader to Special
Committee, those cases with extenuating circLnstances, eq.
exceed established income criteria;
- establishing the correct code .for type of assessed coverage,
coding on SAS change form, and batching for delivery to Data
Processing.
Z. Maintains Direct Subscribes and Municipal Welfare Accounts by:
60%
- receiving and analyzing contents of correspondence from
subscribers, other sections of OHIP, District OHIP Offices,
Municipal Welfare Offices, Lawyers, Physicians, etc.
- resolving problems as far as possible on own initiative by
utilizing reference resources at hand, eg. SAS transcripts,
previous correspondence, source documents, cross-reference book,
micro film, telephone/information cards, other sections of OHIP;
- batching Prem ium Notices received from Welfare Offices for
delivery to Data Processing;
analyzing accounts that give subscribers multiple coverage to
determine valid and vital information required to carbine
multiple coverage accounts;
- preparing memorandum to cashiers for debit and credit
transactions;
- returning all incomplete or irregular applications to
appropriate source for required information clarification or
supporting documents using fora cards/letters; forwarding to
correspondence clerk if composed letter is necessary;
10
' I
- inputing appropriate transactions on SAS change form to correct
or adjust subscriber accounts, eg. address change, name change,
status change, etc. ; i
- checking computer, results received from Municipal Offices to
determine whether transaction was accepted, rejected or requires
further investigation/action;
- assessing computer rejects, eg. edit level, reject, update
reject, warning message, or programme;
- sending processed applications for microfilming, forwarding
actioned correspondence for filing or to correspondence clerks
for composed reply;
- examining SAS transcripts for large refunds automatically
generated as a result of retroactive Premium Assistance or
Exemption and retaining appropriate applications for
verification of refunds;
- consulting with Group leader to resolve any irregular refunds;
- analyzing "Y" Daily Computer results and taking appropriate
action, eg . checking that group termination date is legitimate
when a large refund of Direct Subscriber Processing premiums are
produced and ensuring that the refund is stopped until verified;
- checking unapplied Cash lists on a daily basis and determining
whether payment is to be applied or refunded, eq. refund `
overpayment.
I
3. Performs other duties such as:
1�� I
- maintaining a daily record of work completed and producing a
weekly count of production and backlog for Group Leader;
- providing, when possible, answers to subscriber queries by
obtaining data from terminal and relaying correct information to
subscriber by phone;
- maintaining current knowledge of changing policies and
procedures;
- determining work priorities;
- ensuring confidentiality of subscribers when dealing with any
inquiry from someone other than the subscriber hhuself/herself;
- performing, on a rotating basis, Walk-In Inquiry Clerk's duties
dealing with the public;
- assisted with new staff training;
- as assigned. i
1
i
Turning to the first section of Part 3 of the Position Specification,
it is apparent that 30$ of the grievor's job entails the assessment and
processing of standard forms and supporting documentation to determine
eligibility for health insurance coverage either with directly-paid premiums
11 �
or through premium assistance. However. , 60% of the grievor's duties and
responsibilities requires her to deal with a variety of correspondence frorn
subscribers directly, from professionals acting on behalf of subscribers,
from other OHIP departments and District Offices, resolving problem accounts
through research, being on the alert for refunds or for duplication of
coverage and verifying the propriety of refunds. Both Mr . :Mason and ms.
Ashley testified that the grievor had responsibility to verify and authorize
a refund of group premium up to $500.00. Any refund -in excess of that
amount would be authorized by the grievor's supervisor. Direct subscriber
refunds are approved by her supervisor based on her review of the supporting
documentation and information. In'addition to the foregoing, 10% of the
grievor's job entails performing miscellaneous"duties as set forth above.
Among these duties include responsibility for handling subscribers'
enquiries, ensuring the confidentiality of subscriber medical-information
when handling other enquiries, keeping current on policy and practice, and
dealing with the public on a rotating basis at the Walk-In Inquiry Desk
Occasionally, the DSP clerk would be assigned to assist in the training of
new staff.
Having reviewed the testimony of the grievor and her supervisor with
reference to the Position- Specification, the Board concludes that the
grievor must deal with "a variety of responsible clerical. tasks" . 'Me
paperwork which the grievor must process ranges from routine standard forms,
more characteristic of the Clerk 3 level, . to correspondence of considerable
variety in its clarity and conplexity. Through her Job requirements to
process premium assistance applications of various sorts and premium
exemption claims, as well as to verify eligibility for temporary
12
i
i r
I
assistance, and to verity refunds, the grievor bears considerable
I
responsibility.
However, central to the parties' dispute was the degree to which the
I
grievor carried out her duties and responsibilities "according to
established procedures' . The Board will address this issue in the context
of the index dealing with the quality of decision-inaking described in the
Clerk 3 and Clerk 4 standards.
Ms. Ashley indicated that she completes approximately fifty pieces of
work per day. The exhaustive description provided the Board of her job
duties indicates considerable variety and complexity in the nature of the
work performed. In the Laycock award at p.5, the majority concluded that
I
given the volume of work performed by the grievor (800 claims a day) , the
i
work must be of a routine nature. From the whole of the evidence, including )
the volume of work produced by the grievor per day, the Board concludes that
the bulk of the work performed by the grievor is best described by the Clerk +
4 standard rather than by the Clerk 3 standard.
f
Class 3 Glass 4
"requiring a background "requiring a good background
knowledge of specific knowledge of specific
regulations, statutes regulations, statutes, or
or local practices" local practices"
It was clear from the extensive evidence provided about the grievor's
duties that she has committed to memory large portions of the manuals
dealing with procedures, policy and security. Mr. Mason pointed out that
the DSF clerks work in a competitive atmosphere such that backlogs are kept
to a minimum, In order to handle the volume and variety of work in a prompt
and courteous fashion, the Hoard finds that a good background knowledge is
13
J '
required. indeed the grievor's supervisor agreed in°cross examination that
the grievor had to be very conversant with OHIP policies and procedures.
Ibus, on this index, the Hoard concludes that the position is best described
by the Class 4 Standard, rather than by the Class 3 Standard.
Class 3 Class 4
"Decision-making involves "Decision-making involves
same judgement in the selection judgement in dealing with
of alternatives within a variations from established
comprehensive framework of . guidelines or standards"
guidelines"
The evidence of the parties was most divergent on this index. The
grievor's supervisor, Mr . Mason, testified that 90% of the grievor's
workload would be cut and dried, requiring a selection of the appropriate
solution from a comprehensive framework of OHIP policies and procedures, as
set forth in the manuals, and up-dating bulletins. of the remaining 10% of
the grievor's work, Mr . Mason estimated that 8% could be resolved if a
thorough search was made of the relevant policy or procedures manuals and
updating bulletins. He suggested in his evidence that a failure by a,DSP
clerk to find the solution to a doubtful matter could be attributed to a
certain lack of diligence in researching the resources available. He
indicated that the remaining 2% of doubtful matters would be so difficult,
such a radical departure, that not evert he, formerly a level 5 clerk and now
supervisor, could resolve. He stated that he would refer such a matter to
his manager for resolution.
The problem with Mr. Mason's evidence is that it draws no distinction
between work typical of a Clerk 3 and work performed at his level, as a
former Clerk 5 until his promotion out of the bargaining unit in February,
1984. 'Through this promotion, he was given additional responsibilities for
14
I
r �
conducting appraisals and assessing discipline. however, Mr . Mason agreed
I
in cross-examination that his promotion out of the bargaining unit did not
i
affect the duties of the clerks he was supervising. Mr. Mason's evidence �
was designed to suggest that of the 108 doubtful matters, 88 could be solved
by a more intensive research of alternatives within the comprehensive
i
framework of guidelines - that is, judgement at the level of the Clerk 3
standard. His testimony was to the effect that the remaining 2% were
matters that he had no authority to resolve. It follows that such problems
therefore must require judgement at the level of the Clerk 5 standard, or
i
better . 'Thus, Mr. Mason's evidence provides no ambit or definition of
judgement at the level of Clerk 4 standard.
The logical conclusion is that judgement at the Clerk 4 standard
requires decision-making that involves some interpretation of the CHIP �
I
policies and procedures in order to make them applicable to unusual or
I
difficult circumstances. This process of interpretation and application was
I
described by the grievor as "bending the rules" . Counsel for the employer
took issue with that term and took pains to elicit from the grievor's
i
supervisor categorical statements to the effect that neither Robin Ashley
nor he had authority to bend or disregard the rules governing CHIP practices,
procedure, or policy. However, it was clear from Mr. Mason's evidence that'
I
the D&P clerks would be expected to resolve difficult problems on their own
without referring to him. If he was consulted, then he would expect that '
the DSP clerk would recall that solution and not refer a similar problem to
him again. He agreed that when Ms. Ashley would consult him about a
difficult problem, she would propose a resolution, with which he would agree
or disagree. Ms. Ashley testified that effecting status changes was an area
1
15
1
J•
f
which was apt to cause difficulties of application. She gave the example o£
a common-law spouse with medical expenses attendant upon a pregnamy seeking
coverage under her common-law husband's family plan, which also covered his
estranged legal wife. Since OHIP policy requires that only one of these
wives be covered by a single plan, .a question arises as to when to cover as
the wife of the policy-owner. Such a problem involves an analysis of the
. intent of OHIP regulations and interpretation of the relevant provision to
resolve a difficult application. Such an exercise in judgement is required
of the Clerk 5 level as well, but. with a greater`degree of frequency and
complexity. The comparable index for the Clerk 5 level reads:
Decision-making involves judgement in the interpretation
and application of policy or administrative directives
to problems where the intent of existing instructions is `
obscure in specific cases. This frequently necessitates
modifying work processes or the development of new
one thoss.
Difficult problems are referred as well by Information and Assistance
Clerks working at District Offices throughout Ontario to DSP clerks at the
head office in Kingston for resolution. Resolution of such problems may
entail research-into various resources to trace what action has transpired
to date, then contact with the pay-direct subscriber to ascertain the nature
of the problem or to communicate the resolution. Mr. Mason agreed that DSP
clerks are frequently required to have direct contact with subscribers by .
telephone or mail., or occasionally person-to--person. In the course of
carrying out their functions, the DSP clerks are expected to provide prompt,
efficient and courteous service to the public. The DSP clerk must be able
to 'analyse the nature of the problem presented, despite varying abilities -orn
the part of those making enquiries to articulate their problem. DSP clerks
are expected to deal with apprehensive, emotional and irate subscribers in a
16
i
I
I
' I
manner which allays their anxiety and mollifies their anger. In the Goobie
I
award, the Board found that OHIP Information and Assistance Clerks are
r
required to exercise a range of interpersonal comunication skills and these I
are enumerated at p.23 and 24. The evidence of Ms. Ashley and of Xr. Mason
danonstrates that these interpersonal communication skills are required of
DSP clerks as well. Indeed, "demonstrated oral and written cannunication
skills" are required as minimal entry qualifications in Part 4 of the
I
Position Specification. There is no manual which the DSP clerks can consult)
concerning this aspect of their work. Rather judgement is honed as these
skills are utilized and refined with on-the-job experience. Indeed, tact
and diplomacy are required in order for the DSP clerks to carry out their
responsibilities in a manner which safeguards the confidentiality of
subscribers' medical information, and which protects OHIP's interest in
1
preventing fraudulent claims for coverage or payment for services.
No doubt virtually all the employees of CHIP are aware that the
confidentiality of subscriber information is to be respected and that there ;
is an obligation to protect OHIP from fraudulent claims. However, the
extensive evidence provided as to the nature of the DSP clerk's i
responsibilities makes it clear that the DSP clerk must be circumspect in
dealing with a wide variety of contacts, both with the public and other
governmental departments. From all the evidence, the Board concludes that
the DSP clerk functions at the level of the Clerk 4 standard in respect to
the index of decision-making and judgement. In this regard, the Board finds
the nature and complexity of the DSP clerk' s position to be more analogous
to the job of interpreting and applying statements from non-ontario doctors'
to Ontario standards as set forth in the Peters decision than the task of
17
coding In-Province claims described in the Laycock award. Furthermore, the
evidence indicates that the complexity of the grievor`s work; the variety
and extent of the DSP clerk's contacts, would serve to distinguish this case
from the Ainslie decision which dealt with Group Processing Clerks at ttie
OHIP head office in Kingston.
Clerk 3 Clerk 4
Initiative is in the form of Normally, employees receive specific
following up errors or instructions only on unusual oc.
omissions and in making special problems as the work is
corrections as necessary. performed under conditions which
Doubtful matters not permit little opportunity for
covered by precedent are direct supervision by others.
referred to supervisors.
The evidence of Mx . Mason was that when Ms. Ashley was transferred to
work in his section in May, 1984, the branch was undergoing a reorganitation
consequent upon a merger of two offices into a ne•,a facility. Mr. Mason was
short-staffed and it was at this time that Ms. Ashley was enlisted to assist
in the training of many new hires. The evidence of Mr. Mason suggests that
he was asked frequently to resolve doubtful matters at that point in time.
However his own evidence suggests, as does the evidence of the grievor, that
as the DSP clerks were exposed to and became fully proficient with the full
scope of their responsibilities, more reliance was placed on consultations
with one another, or upon their own research to resolve doubtful matters,
rather than referring the problem to Mr. Mason for resolution.
Consequentlyr the Hoard finds that with experience in the position, the DSP
clerk would normally seek Mr. Mason's advice upon unusual or special
problems. Radical departures from established practices would be referred
to Mr. Mason for resolution.
18
t
i
However, the evidence does not support an unequivocal finding that
I
there was 'little opportunity for direct supervision". Mr . Mason testified
that between 70-758 of the time, he was available to the clerks for
consultation at his desk, which is situated behind a baffle board about five;
to ten feet away from the clerks' work stations. Ms. Ashley testified he
r
was available 59% of the time at his desk. At other tunes, he was usually
I
attending meetings which were generally held in the building. It cannot be
said that in these circumstances that Mr. Mason was so inaccessible that
r
there would be little opportunity for direct supervision. However, the j
Hoard would conclude that following the period of initial adjustment in
i
1984, and by the time the grievances were filed and thereafter the DAP
clerks became proficient in the full spectrum of the duties and
responsibilities of their position specification. 'Their practice was to i
confer with Mr. Mason on a more infrequent basis over time, except with
respect to unusual problems or matters which required his authorization by
policy or practice. It would appear that on this index there is same
overlap between the Clerk 3 and Clerk 4 standard. With experience, the
i
evidence suggests that the job is performed closer to the level of a Clerk 4
than that of a Clerk 3. ;
Class 3 Class 4
Much of the work is reviewed Matters involving decisions that
only periodically, depart radically from established i
principally for adherence practices are referred to i
to policy and procedures. supervisors.
Much of the comparison of the position against the two standards as to
the nature and extent of the supervision has been reviewed above. Mr .
Mason is required by policy to authorize personally such matters as large
group refunds in excess of six hundred dollars and applications For
19
I
temporary assistance which have exceeded the income eligibility requirements
by mAre than $50 and Less than $100. Thus, for these situations, Mr . Mason
would be in a position to check periodically for adherence -to policy.
Similarly; in his position as supervisor, he mast conduct"Per formance
evaluations periodically. With clerks newly hired into the position, Mr.
Mason is undoubtedly required to provide a greater degree of supervision
than to those who have been exposed to the .full range of the position
regaitements over a period o£ time. Thus, the evidence concerning this job
suggests there is an overlap between the Class 3 'and Class 4 'standards. .
Taken as a whole however, a review of the position on all the key
indices supports a finding that the position is better described 'by- the
Class 4 standard than by the Class 3 standard.
DEpical Tasks
Clerk 3 Class 4
Typical tasks at this level Tasks typical of this level
include the preparation of include the evaluation or
factual reports, statements' or assessment-'of a variety of
memoranda requiring some statements, applications,
judgement in the selection and records, or similar material to
presentation of data; check for conformity with
assessment of accuracy of 6p6ccific regulations, statutes .
statements or eligibility of or administrative orders,
applicants, investigating resolving points not clearly '
discrepancies and securing covered by these instructions,
further proof or documentation usually by authorizing
as-necessary; overseeing, as a adjustments or recomending
Group Bader, the work- of a payment or acceptance;
small subordinate staff by supervising a small group of
explaining procedures, °journeyman.clerksp or a larger
assigning and checking work. group of clerical assistants by
explaining procedures,
assigning and checking work and
maintaining:discipline.
20
a
After a thorough review of the witnesses' accounts of the grievor' s ,
1
job, the Board concludes that part of the grievor's work entails preparing
factual reports, assessing the eligibility of applicants, investigating
discrepancies and securing further proof or documentation as necessary.
klarthermore, much of the grievor' s work in training new hires seems well
i
described as acting in a Group Fader capacity to explain procedures and i
check work. however , the Hoard further finds that a large part of the
i r
grievor's work falls within the Class 4 description, as well.
The evidence establishes that it is a core function of the grievor to
evaluate or assess a variety of statements, applications, records or
similar materials for compliance with OHIP statutory requirements, policy
and practice. As indicated above, the DSP clerks strive to resolve points
r
not clearly covered by the statutory and policy framework. They are
regularly required as a core function to authorize adjustments (ie. '
i
movements between pay-direct to group; from pay-direct to a form of pre.Tnium
assistance or premium exemption) ; recommend payments (such as large group
refunds, where applicable) or acceptance (as a pay direct subscriber or as '
eligible for premium assistance or exemption) .
Ms. Ashley has been assigned from time 'to time to train new DSP clerks.
As such, she would explain policies and procedures and would check the
trainees' work. However, the evidence establishes that the grievor is not?
required or assigned to supervise "journeyman clerks" or a larger grcup of
clerical assistants for the purpose of "checking work and maintaining
discipline". The expectation is set forth in the preamble to the series '
that Class 4 clerks would "usually cover positions involving line
supervision" . The grievor and other DSP clerks cover for their supervisor
zl
I "
Mr . Mason when he is ill or on vacation by attending to such matters as
taking messages, maintaining attendance records and gathering cases, for the
special committee to consider concerning premium assistance. Vlvaevet, the
Board finds that it is not a core function of the grievor's position to
provide lane supervision to subordinate clerks, entailing such matters as
performance evaluation and discipline.
However, the preamble goes on to provide that "non-supervisory
positions can also be included" within the Class 4 standard and above. If
the Board were to find that on the key indices pertaining to level of
complexity, responsibility, knowledge, judgement, authority, autonomy, and
discretion the grievor is performiing a job which is best described by the
Class 4 standard, it is clear from the wording of .the preamble that lack of
supervisory responsibility is not an impediment to classification within the
Class 4 standard. For instance, in the La cock decision, the Board found
that absence of any supervisory responsibility was not relevant.
gualifi cations:
Clerk 3 Clerk 4
1. Grade 12 or an equivalent 1. Grade 12 education or an
combination of education, equivalent combination of
training .and experience. education, training and
experience.
2. About three years
satisfactory clerical 2. About four years of progressively
experience. responsible clerical experience
or .an equivalent combination of
3. Ability to understand and experience and higher educational
explain clerical procedures qualifications.
and requirements; ability to
organize and complete.work 3. Ability to.communicate clearly .
assignments within both orally and in writing;
prescribed time limits; ability to instruct and supervise
ability to maintain good the work of subordinates..
working relationships with
other employees and the
public served.
22
I .
I
I
'fie Board received evidence of Mr. Neale, who has held the position of
Regional Personnel Administrator in London since 1982. Prior to this !
position, he had ten years' experience in classification matters with the !
Human Resources Secretariat. He testified in the Goobie, Peters, Ainslie
I
and La cock hearings as to how the Ehployer applies its classification
system. In this hearing, Mr. Neale confined his testimony to the issue of
how the qualifications sections of the standards are used by the Employer in
classification matters. The Hoard finds this evidence relevant to the issue
before it and admissible. Certainly such evidence is not dispositive of how
I
the classification standards ought to be applied to the grievor's job, since
that is the ultimate issue before the Board. In the laycock decision, it
was noted that the qualifications section of the standards were used as a I
hiring criteria for staffing positions but not as an analytical tool for
f
classification. In Peters, it was noted that the qualifications sections of
the standards had been superceded by staffing standards issued by the for.er
Civil Service C =ission.
I
Mr. Neale explained that the qualifications sections of the Class
Standards were used to set entry level requirements as hiring criteria for
staffing, rather than as analytical tools for discriminating between class;
levels. In cross-examination he added that the qualifications are naturally
I
relevant and complementary to the duties of the position, but pointed to
section 4 of the Position Specification as setting out the qualifications
needed to perform the work of a DSP clerk. As was noted above, Section 4 of
the RSP clerk position specification places particular emphasis upon J
knowledge of a variety of legislation in addition to the Health Insurance
23
i
I
Act and upon demonstrated oral and written communication skills, so w., to be
able "to deal tactfully and efficiently With the general public, other
employees and other government agencies" . , The Board .finds that these
qualifications seem comparable to the sort of qualifications set forth for
the Class 4 Clerk General standard.
Conclusions
In reviewing the evidence on the key indices of the class standards,
the Board indicated the inferences it drew. To recapitulate, the Board
finds that in respect to complexity, knowledge, judgement and initiative,
the D5P clerk's work was best described by the Clerk 4 standard. In respect
to the quality of supervision received, the Board found some overlap but
held that the Clerk 4 standard best describes the position as it would be
performed by an experienced and proficient clerk who had been exposed to all
aspects of the position specification. in respect to the typical tasks
performed, the Board found some overlap, but that the Clerk 4 description
was applicable except with respect to the supervisory authority exercised.
However, the pream'ale to the class series makes it clear that lacking
supervisory authority is not an impediment to classification at the higher
level. Taken as a whole, and given' that overlap between the classes is to
be expected, the Hoard concludes that the Union has established that the
grievor's job is best described by the Clerk 4 standard.
The Board accordingly finds that the grievors are entitled to be paid
at the Clerk 4 General level as and from the dates of their grievances, but
declines to award interest on the compensation ding from the date of the
grievance to the date of the award on the same grounds set forth at p.62 of
I
24
i
I
the Peters award. We retain jurisdiction to hear and determine at the
i
request of either party any problem encountered in implementing this
decision. i
f �
I
I
Dated at Kingston this 28th day of August_ 1989. i
I
J.E. Emrich, Vice-Chairperson
` I
I
I
I
1 r
. I
F., 11om, Member
1 '
I
I
G. rii 11 ey
I
I
I
25
GD
co
rt-
�nn