HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-1580.Alton et al.90-07-04EMPLOY&DELI\ CO”RONNE OEL’ON%wO COMM,SS,ON DE
SETTLEMENT RkGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
1580/86,1594/86
BETWEEN:
BEFORE:
POR TEE GRIEVOR:
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
OPSEU (Altonet al)
FOR THE EMPLOYER:
HEARING:
The C rown in Right of On tario
( Ninistry of Revenue )
Grievor
- and -
Employer
- and -
N. Dissanayake I. Thomson W. Lobraico
Vice-Chairperson Member member
L. Rothstein
Counsel _. Gowllng, stratny Barristers & Soli & Henderson citors
D. Daniels Counsel Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark Barristers & Solicitors
April 4, 7, 1989 September 6, 12. 13, 22, 1989
2
DECISION
There are two groups of grievances before the Board, all
filed around November, 1986. The first group, which we will
refer to as the "Alton Groupll, was filed- by emp,loyees whose
positions at the time were classified as Financial Officer 4
("FO-4"). In these grievances, the grievors claim that they
are improperly classified as FO-4 and seek reclassification
as FO-5. The second group, which we will refer to as the
"Bellamy Group" was filed by employees whose positions at the
time were classified as FO-3. However, between the filing of
these grievances in November 1986 and the commencement of this
hearing in April 1989, all but a few of the Bellamy Group of
grievors had been reclassified as FO-4. The Bellamy Group of
grievors also claim that at the time of filing of the
grievances, they were improperly classified as FO-3 and seek
reclassification as FO-5.
At the commencement of the hearing there was a difference
of opinion between counsel as to how the hearing should
proceed in two important areas. Firstly, the Union proposed
to call two or three only of the Alton group of grievors, who
it felt were representative. Counsel for the Employer was not
willing to agree that those witnesses were representative and
took the position that the only way the Board can find out if
they were representative was by hearing from each of the
twelve grievors. The Board encouraged and gave full
opportunity to the parties. to agree upon a representative
number of grievors, but the parties were unable to do so. The
Employer's position remained that none of the grievors were
representative and that the Board must hear testimony from
each grievor.
The second difficulty that arose related to the
appropriate‘procedure in hearing the two groups of grievances.
Specifically, the parties could not agree whether the two
groups should be consolidated or heard consecutively, and if
heard consecutively, whether the evidence heard in one ought
to apply to the other.
The Board heard full submissions from counsel on each of
these matters and ruled orally. On the first issue, the Board
felt that it had to balance its own interest; and indeed the
obligation, to conduct these classification grievance
arbitrations in a reasonably efficient and expeditious manner,
with the parties' concern that the Board ought to have all of
the evidence it needs to make a rational decision. In the
case at hand, the grievors were all working as investigators
in the same branch of the Ministry of Revenue. They worked
under an identical position specification and were identically
classified. In the circumstances, the Board felt that it was
not reasonable for the Employer to simply take the bold
position that none of the grievors were representative and to
‘i
4
insist that we hear from each of twelve grievors and find out
if they have similar duties and responsibilities. The Board
therefore ruled that the Union is entitled to lead evidence
from witnesses whop it felt were representative and that the
Employer is entitled, if that is its position, to establish
that those witnesses are not in fact representative.
On the second issue the Board ruled that the two groups
of grievances will be consolidated for a limited purpose. The
Union would be entitled to lead evidence as to the Bellamy
Group grievers' duties and responsibilities subsequent to
their reclassification as FO-4. Unless the evidence indicates
that the duties of the Bellamy Group as FO-4 were materially
different from the work done by the Alton Group as FO-4, the
Board's determination as to the appropriate classification for
the Alton Group will also apply to the Bellamy Group of
grievors for the period subseauent to their reclassification
as FO-4.
Notwithstanding the extraordinary length of testimony and
the number of exhibits filed, we do not find substantial
disagreement between the parties as to the material facts.
The difference between the parties really arises from the
different characterizations and interpretations of those facts
when applied to the language in the class standards. The
5
relevant documentation is attached to this decision marked as
follows:
Financial Officer 4 class standard - Appendix "A" Financial Officer 5 class standard - Appendix "B" Position Specification in effect at time of filing grievances - Appendix @'C"
Position Specification current - Appendix I'D"
The grievors are employed at the Ministry of Revenue's
Special Investigations Branch at Oshawa, Ontario. Their
position title is "Investigator". They are responsible for
the investigation and auditing of suspected tax evasion and
fraud under various provincial taxing statutes and the
improper use of grants made available by the government of
Ontario under the Small Business Develonment Corvorations Act.
The grievors possess knowledge and experience in accounting
and auditing which they use in carrying out their
investigations. In addition, they have received tra'ining at
the Ministry on the investigative skills required to carry out
their job. While a professional accounting designation is not
a prerequisite for appointment as an investigator, a number
of the grievors possess either the C.G.A. or C.M.A.
designations. It is generally agreed that the grievors are
among the most qualified of the bargaining unit employees and
that their classification is one of the higher paid
classifications under the collective agreement.
6
There are no FO-5s employed at the Special Investigations
Branch. There are a number of senior investigator positions,
which are classified as AM-19, a management classification.
The Board heard considerable evidence about the work performed
by the AM-19s in comparison with the work of the grievors.
This evidence was' not adduced for' the purpose of a typical
Vsage~' argument. Rather, the intention was to compare the,
grievors' work with the work of the admittedly higher ranked
AM-19 employees to establish that the grievors performed their
duties at an equally high level.
Having'regard to the evidence as to the duties performed
by the grievor~s, the class standards, and the .position
specifications, it is clear'that there is considerable overlaps
between the FO-4 and FO-5.classifications, and both counsel
readily recognised this. The task. of this Board in the
circumstances is to establish the.best fit between the duties
and responsibilities of the grievors and the resp,ective FO-4
and FO-5 class standards. In carrying out this task the Board
need concentrate only on those key areas which became the
focus of counsel's attention during the hearing, as the areas
of material difference between the two class standards. The,
"best fit" in those critical areas will determine ,the
appropriate classification for the grievors. In this regard
we note that while much evidence was adduced relating to the
relative complexity of the work of the grievors, at the end
7
'this became a non-issue in that both counsel agreed that both
.class standards envisage the incumbents to perform complex
work.
We now turn to the areas in issue, which we feel are of
some substances. There were other areas where counsel tried
to distinguish between the two class standards. In our
opinion those are distinctions in the form and language used,
but not in substance.
Senioritv .of vosition
The FO-4 class is said to cover "senior working level
positions", while the FO-5 class .covers "senior positions".
Counsel for the Employer submits that this is a key
distinction. The "working level" positions are responsible
for the main work or product of the Branch, i.e. the
investigation of suspected fraud. While the working level
focuses on investigation, the senior level (FO-5) envisages
group leadership and supervision. It is submitted that since
the grievors do not have any group leadership or supervisory
role, they properly fit the FO-4 class standard.
We do not attach the same significance to the distinction
between "senior working level positions" and "senior
positions" as Empl.oyer counsel does. There is nothing in the
class .&andards to indicate that the difference between the
a
two is the group leadership and supervisory role of FO-5s.
Indeed, if the class standards are closely examined, both make
reference to group leadership. The FO-5 standard talks about
providing "technical or project leadership to other officers",
while the FO-4 class standard makes explicit reference to
providing "project leadersh~ip and training to other
employees". Moreover, if the conduct of investigations is the
main responsibility .of the 8tworking levell', that is not
apparent from the class standards. As we will review below,
the FO-5 class standard places much more emphasis on the
investigative functions than the FO-4 class standard.,
Therefore, it is not possible to conclude from the
evidence that the grievers' lack of a leadership role, or
their extensive involvement in investigations make them a
better-fit to the FO-4 class standard.
Level of Suvervision
The FO-4 class standard states that the incumbents "work
under minimal supervision being guided largely by statutory
requirements and broad procedural rules". Incumbents of FO-
5 positions are said to "work under general direction usually
receiving guidance on matters of policy only". One of the
management witnesses Mr. R. Stangarone, testified that he
supervised the work of the employees in his group on an on-
going basis and that sometimes he even checked the accuracy
9
of the grievers' work by going to the source documents without
the knowledge of the investigator. However, all of the other
witnesses, including management witnesses, testif.iedthatthey
were unaware of such supervision and that it would be unusual
for a supervisor to go to the source documents. The
preponderance of evidence indicates the extent of the
grievers' supervision to be extremely limited. We prefer the.
testimony of management witnesses Pothier and Deschamp,
corroborated by the union's witnesses, that the level of
supervision was minimal. That is not inconsistent with the
description in the FO-5 class standard, namely, "general
direction".
Counsel for the Employer makes much of the words in the
FO-5 class "usually receiving general guidance on matters of
policy only". We see no significant difference between that
language and the phrase used in the FO-4 standard - "being
guided largely by statutory requirements and broad procedural
rules". On the whole, we are of the view that the two class
standards do not envisage sufficiently different levels of
supervision to' be a factor in assessing the appropriate
classification.
Initiative and iudaement
Counsel for the Employer concedes that both class
standards require employees to use initiative and judgement.
10
However, according to him, the key difference is the use of
the words "reaching decisions" in the PO-5 standard. He
points out that the grievors did not make any final decisions
because their 18decisions88 were really Vecommendations"
subject to approval by management, the legal services branch
or the crown prosecutor. To accept counsel's argument we
would have to agree that a decision which is subject to
approval by someone else is not a decision at all. This
simply does not make sense. If that was so, even management
would not be making any decision relating to laying of charges
under the taxing statutes because it.is the crown prosecutor
assigned to conduct the trial who ultimately makes the final
decision whether to proceed with the charges. Similarly, any
.management decision on administrative matters will not be a
decision if it is subject to approval by a higher authority
such as the Assistant Deputy Minister or the Deputy Minister.
We do not subscribe to that view. We find that the grievors
do make decisions, notwithstanding that those decisions are
subject to approval.
Accountability
The Employer's submission is similar to the one relating
to initiative and judgement, which we have rejected. The
argument is that since the grievers' decisions
(recommendations according to counsel) are subject to approval
they are not directly accountable for any loss of revenue or
11
wasteful litigation that may result from their own errors.
As counsel put it "those people who approve will be
responsible also for the consequences". We do not see
anything in the FO-5 class standard which states that the
incumbents are directly accountable for the consequences of
their decisions. In any~event, we find it difficult to accept
that because the grievors ' work is subject to approval, they
are not directly accountable for the consequences of their I
errors. The grievors work very independently. The approval
process does not involve a detailed checking of the grievers'
work. For example, it is highly unlikely that any error in
caiculation will ever be detected through any approval or
review process. While management will be ultimately
accountable for practically any action taken by the Branch,
that does not detract from the fact that the individual
investigator will also be directly accountable for his own
actions.
Exvertise in svecific industries
The FO-5 class standard makes reference to the securities
industry, mining industry, land development, large
multinational corporations and complex multi-national
corporations. The evidence is that ~the grievors have no
involvement in these'fields. However, a review of the class
standard indicates that the references in question are made
only by way of illustrating the degree of complexity of the
. . IL
work involved. In one place the reference to the specific
industries is preceded by the words "for example". The other
two references to specific industries are qualified by the
word "typically" and Vypical" respectively.. In the
circumstances, we do not find that knowledge and expertise in
these specific fields are essential 'for an incumbent in the
FO-5 classification.
We have also attempted to fit the grievers' duties to the
FO-4 class standard. In most aspects, the grievors fit that
class standard equally well. However, there is one
significant exception. The thrust of the FO-4 class standard
-is the application of the knowledge and expertise in the
accounting and auditing field. There is only one passing
reference in the FO-4 class standard to "investigative
techniques" being one of numerous areas of skill and knowledge
required. In contrast, the FO-5 class standard makes explicit
reference to "full scale investigation of suspected fraud".
There are also explicit statements in the FO-5 standard that
the incumbents are required to have specialized knowledge and
backgr~ound in an area other than the financial field.
When the evidence is reviewed, it is clear that "full
scale investigation of suspected fraud" is exactly what the
grievors do, in a large number of their assignments. These
investigations require two skills: (1) Financial and
13
accounting (2) Investigation. Mr. Cyril Pothier;Manager of
Operations at the relevant time, testified that the grievers'
positions are unique because they do accounting functions as
well as "police work". He testified that the grievers' work
breaks down "fifty/fifty" between accounting work and
investigation work. This testimony is consistent with the
grievers' position specification, which describes the purpose
of position as, follows:
To conduct detailed investigations and in-depth audits in cases involving possible fraud concerning the evasion of taxes or obtainment.of grants under all statutes administered by the Revenue Division. To participate in the prosecution of cases against violators identified by these investigations and audits.
The evidence indicates that. prior to the Special
Investigations Branch taking over these investigations,
various police forces conducted them. While the police
officers performed the investigative aspects or the police
work, a firm of forensic accountants was retained to carry out
the financial and accounting aspects of the investigation.
The grievors perform both aspects. This evidence highlights
the importance of the grievors, "police work" such as
.interrogating witnesses,, preparing and executing search
warrants and summonses, instructing the crown prosecutor and
testifying as crown witness. As already noted, Mr. Pothier's
own opinion was that the grievers' investigative skill and
expertise are as important as their skill and expert,ise in
the accounting and financial fields. In our considered view,
the FO-4 class standard does not recognize the significance
of the grievers' investigative functions, but focuses
predominantly on the finance and accounting aspects. On the
other hand, the FO-5 class standard captures the dual role of
the grievors.
This was not an easy case to decide. 'Both class
standards require a high level of knowledge and skill from the
incumbents. Bo'th involve sensitive work carrying significant
responsibility and independence. There is considerable
overlap between the two class standards. Yet, when we carried
out the task of fitting the griavors' duties and
responsibilities to the two class standards in question, the
clear best fit was into the FO-5 classification.
A further matter needs to be addressed before finally
disposing of these grievances. Counsel for the Employer
suggested that if the Board found that certain of. the
assignments performed by the grievors was work within the
higher classification, the appropriate response would be to
direct payment of acting pay for those particular assignments
under article 6 -Temporary assignments, and not to reclassify
the grievers' positions. It was also contended that since
some of the evidence related to assignments performed in 1985
or earlier, the Board should not give,weight to that evidence
,15
in upholding the grievance, in the absences of evidence that
that type of assignments continued to the 20 day period
immediately preceding the filing of the grievances in
November, 1986;
This Board has recognized that in circumstances where a
grievor performs duties in a higher classification on a
temporary or irregular basis, the remedy available to the
grievor would be a claim for extra pay under article 6 and not
reclassification. (Re Larmond, 088?/86, Fisher). However,
the evidence before us does not disclose that any -of the
assignments ,performed by the present grievors about which
testimony. was adduced was seen-by anyone as anything other
than their own regular work. If the Employer's position was
that these were irregular or.temporary assignments undertaken
to meet some contingency, it was incumbent upon the ~Employer
to lead some evidence to that effect. In the absence of such
evidence, there is no basis for us to conclude that any of the
work performed by the grievors was not part of their regular
duties.
The same holds true for the Employer's second submission
on the '8timeliness1' of the evidence.. The Union is not obliged
to lead evidence relating to every task performed by every
grievor over a period of a number of years. Indeed, the Board
would be adverse to receiving that kind of evidence. The
1
16
Union is entitled to lead evidence as to assignments
undertaken by the grievors during a period reasonably
proximate to the date of the grievance. The Union need not
establish that these assignments occurred during the 20 day
period immediately preceding the grievance. If it is the
Employer's position that a certain assignment was an unusual
or irregular one or that the nature of the assignments
undertaken by the grievors had changed prior to the filing of
the grievances, it is incumbent upon the Employer to establish
that. We had no such evidence from the Employer.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board has concluded that
the grievances succeed'and that the grievors are entitled to
be reclassified as FO-5.
So as to avoid any doubts, we wish to make the following
clarifications:
(1) Further to'our ruling noted in this decision, the
Employer has.not convinced us that the grievors who testified
are not representative of those who did not. The Employer led
no evidence to establish that. All we are left with is the
evidence of the grievors that from their observations, all of
their colleagues did similar work and under similar working
conditions. In the circumstances this decision shall apply
to each of the grievors in the Alton Group.
(2) The Union led evidence from one of the grievors in
the Bellamy Group, Mr. Phillip Roberts, to the effect that
since he was reclassif,ied as FO-4 (from FO-3) his duties were
the same as that d.escribed in the testimony of the grievors
in the Alton Group. This witness was not cross-examined by
the Employer. Nor was any independent evidence adduced to
contradict Mr. Roberts' testimony or to establish that Mr.
Roberts. was'not representative of the other grievors in the
Bellamy Group; In the circumstances, the grievors in the
Bellamy Group who were reclassified was FO-4, are entitled to
be further reclassified as FO-5, effective the date when they
became reclassified as FO-4.
The Employer is directed to comply.with the foregoing
directions~ as expeditiously as reasonably possible. This
leaves unresolved (a) 'the status of those grievors in the
Bellamy Group who were not reclassified as FO-4 and (b) the
status of the Bellamy Group of grievors for the period before
their reclassification as FO-4 by the Employer. The parties
are encouraged to meet and discuss these matters with a view
to an amicable resolution.
18 .
The Board remains seized with both groups of grievances
in the event the parties encounter difficulty in implementing
the terms of this decision.
Dated this 4thday,ofJu ,lY 1990 at Hamilton, Ontario
Nimal V. Dissanayake Vice-Chairperson
-1. Thomson, Member
CLASS STANDARD: 20207 I.
~xmw.2~~ OFFICER 4 (B.~RGAINING UNIT)
This class covers senior working level positions of employees who
work unde: minimal supervision being guided largely by statutory
requirements and broad procedural rules. They either provide project
leadership and training to other employees or provide management with
technical advice and guidance having a significant impact on the
cperation of a unit.
These employees exercise a high degree of initiative and judgement
in matters such as researching, analysing and resolving complex finan-
cial problems, in,providing advice to management on the use of
financial resources. assisting in the preparation of court cases,
appearing in court as exper- + witness and acting as project leader as
required.
These employees are accountable for the technical guidance given
to junior staff and for the provision of sound advice and recommenda-
tions in areas ha:pfnc a direct impact on policy and program operations;
for esam?le, in deve&ing financial policy evaluation criteria, in
develcping and i.molerr.an3ng remedial action to resolve problems and
in making decisions laa2ing to the laying of charges. Errors could
result in significant financial loss 0: cperational difficulty.
Conta& are rir?z proq.r& managers and senior executives to report
:on sjerial situations;~to obtain co-operation, give advfce on-the- I :. . . .
resshtfon of a;coi;nting problems and assist in developing~plans and
estimates. External contacts are with senior officials in other
levels of government or industry, and members of the public, ta request
or supply information, to seek evidence or to reach agreement on details
of cost-sharing arrangements.
Employees require excellent knowledge and skill in general
accounting methods as related to the work of the particular organizational
unit including, where applicable, auditing, planning, analytical and
investigative techniques, plus knowledge of related legislation. ~Exten-
sive practical knowledge in a+~s of work, such as audit, financial
planning and cash forecasting. Organizational skills, creativity,
initiative to carry out in-depth research, preparation of cases for
prosecution and presenting expert testfmonj, are some of the typical
requirements. Also respired are the abilities to communicate effectively,
develop or interpret policy and deal with or secure co-oparatlon from
senior officials.
FIYAXCIAL OFFICER 4 (B/U)
Typical assignments at this level are as follo?<s:
- provide guidance and training to other auditing staff
involved in the external audit of very large and complex
financial institutions and insurance companies requiring
a team approach; the audits require discussions with senior
company officials regarding operating policies and proce-
dures and the evaluation of company management and new
lines of business. Prepare detailed reports outlining
unsatisZactory practices, statutory infractions, etc.,
,and assist in the preparation of court cases, for example,
in cases relating to tax avoidance:
- examine documents pertaining to grants, lncludfng
capital projects to determine if funds are properly
expended and allocated, resolving questionable items
and calculating amount of grant which can be justified.
Provide advice to program managers on developing and
r,evising graaz budgets and to ministry clients on
preparing anf xncging financial and statistical data
required for grant applications.
- analyze acco~z;r.:xg systems, financial.policies and admin-
istrative practices within the ministry and in outside
egencies ir. or?er to improve operations by developing , .~ -... _-.. .,+ ~.:. .more..Pff.ec~i~;e end.economic.methods and procedures,. .Act- .~. .: .._. 2s~ j-;ij; o= &;&,y : .' ‘-f&j& "ii; .~<y~.gkL&ting changej'.'a&d .:: . . ...' '.
liaise with systems personnel on developments in the
compute: program. Assist in drafting proposals and the
preparation oL L financial studies and submissions.
.
!
FIN&VCI)\L OFFICE2 5 (3MGAININC UNIT)
This class covers senior positions oE employees who, in
addition to expertise in the financial Eield, have responsibilities
requiring specialized knowledge of other areas. mployees work
under general direction usually receiving guidance on matters of
policy only. They may work independently or as the financial
member of an inter-disciplinary team.
Employees at this level carry out duties requiring flexibllfty
of approach and the use of highly developed judgement and initiative,
for example, when reaching decisions on.a recommended course of
action afterweighing evidence and considering possible implications,
in matters such as the development potential of lands or the full
scale icvesiigation of suspected fraud.
These employees are accountable for determining the depth and
scope oi assignments, for example, the :csources necessary and me:hod;
to be employed in investigating unusual or suspicious trading activi-
ties in the securities mrrket, or for co-ordhating assessment pro-
jects~ and da:ermining the f:tal tax liabilities of large multi-
nztional cor~~cra~ions. T--T-- could result in unfavourable decisions ---v-3
in cot?:'; cafes, suhtant~al loss 0E tax revenues 0: costly litigation.
Contacts are wish sen~oz management in own or other ministries to
;:rsvice at.vLce. an< recczraonl ations and to discuss needs .and the resolu-
:ion of ;rcbLems. S;<+-=rp.al _ ,__ r - .~ ., -,.. - - c.zgtac,t.s,..a.re vith..swlor munlcipa:. federal ~.~.., . . . . . .a% cor;crate orficia,s or t:heir representatives, to~erchange intorma-
tlcn, nezctiate contrscts and financial arrangements and interpret
*poolicy. -They may alsc orovliCe technical or project leadership to
ot!!er oEi;ce:s.
im?loyees require excellent practical skills and know?e:',ge in
the ac:cunting field and also an extensive background in an area of
v0r.k related to the garticu+ assignments for which,they ara
resonsijle. Pipfcally, positions at this level rsqui:e com?rehensLve
kncwlrdge of accounting practices used in the mining industry, land
development or the securities industry. Also required are highly
develo_oed analytical and communicative skills, plus above average
planning and administrative capabilities. .
?Gical assiqhmenks at this level are as follows:
-:31an, co-ordinaze and carry out investigations into highly
sopnrstic.ated financiamnsactions, sometimes designed to . OOSCUre ,s'saudulent~p~,ratidns of individuals and companies
enwged in s3eciallzed t.fpes-of business activity, such as
trading in the securities market; or&-ordinate and d1sec.t
zJdits.of complex multi-national m!.ning corporaticns to ensure
collection of the full amount of tax revenues. ?:ovLde expert
technical advice in the preparation of court cases and aWear
.s.s the Crown witness at court hearings.
*, *FtNANCIAL 0FFICk.R 5 (S/Ub
- carry out financial analyses in order to identify development . potential for different parcels of land and formulate appropriate
financial strategies and plans, identifying possible contentious
issues by evaluating aqre'ements, mortgages, etc., and reccknendinq
solutions to the problems; analyre and cost land service require-
ments and prepare reports with respect to the impact on budgets
and long-t&a-financial planning.
d i,
.
3
1. Conducts detailed investigations and audits of cases where fraud is suspected
involving the cvaslon of taxes or in obtaining grants under the statutes
administered by the Revenue Division by performing such duties as:
- analyring and evaluating the details of inltlal cases referred for attention LO
detenn‘ne If sufficient evidence IS present to show reason for further
1""esriyari"e action;
- derennining the appropriate action ~to be undertaken lncludlng the ldentificarion
0%
of are.35 requiring thorough investigation, records and materials to be audited,
related statutes and precedents to be researched, and nature of resources
required;
- carrying out thorough interviers and interrogations of suspected violators, as
well as their legal and accounting representatives to identify and Isolate leads
and discrcpancles;
- conducting a thoro"gh investigative examination and audit of all records relating
to the case to determine if they reflect a" accurate description of the com,,any's
or Individual's activities; determining if materials are being withheld,
misrepresented or altered; exploring leads discovered during the investigation and
audit; following up on suspicious records and behaviour;
- determining if clrcmstances warrant the seizure of records and books: obtaining
~lcgal authority and coordinating any search and seizure activities, ensuring
proper custody, control and identification of seized records; I
- presenting conclusions and results of alldirs and investigations in concise I
reports; developing recomnendations for further action;
- maintaining an .%e.reness of current practices used to cloak attempts to mislead or.
defraud by reviewing recent cases from re,,ort~, judgments, etc.;
cont'd.....IZ
SKILLS AND WOWLEDGE REOUIRED TO PERFORM WL WORKIlr.rl IWCIIIOL m.l*lrG~si.tmll*Cf r7c.i
'roven ability and experience In professional level auditing wIthIn a wide variety of
iccountlng and business systems. Previous investigative experience; knowledge of court
rocedures and evidentlary requirements; strong c~rmunicatlon skills, tact and good
g ud ement.
CIC~IAT,I.CC
,
-2-
3. !XRWWY DF DUTIES AND fCJVNSIBILITIES (cont’d)
- suggesting or developing E.D.P. applications for use in investigations and
analysis.
- providing on-the-job training and technical guidance to. auditors from operating
branches who may be assisting with the audit of records;
- using the facilities and the capabilities of micro-computers to expedite’ and
enhance the investigations;
2. Participates in the prosecution of cases of violators who have been identied through
these.investigations and audits by performing such tasks as:.
- ensuring sufficient evidence has been accumulated to meet requirements for a
successful prosecution;
- recommending to legal staff the laying of appropriate charges based on evidence
gathered during investigation;
20% - participating in the prosecution of violators, assisting counsel with preparation
and presentation of evidence, including the drafting of charges and appearing as
an expert witness.
4. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO PERFORK THE iORK (cont’d)
- knowledge of E.D.P. Systems, micro-computers and thei.r operating systems;
- knowledge of micro-computer applications/software packages.
9.x R”I%lUC L Cr.nf.
,, KInq *t. Y., ash.rs
PI~!;ltIoll BpecLfIcatJ
Payc 2
DUTIXS XKD XELATXD TASXS (Continued)
- providing on-the-job training, end technical guidance to auditors from operating branc’
rho my be assisting with the audit of records;
- using the facllttfas and the capabflftles of micro-computers to expedite and enhance
investigation*8
2. Participates in the prosecution of cases of violators who have ken identified through
these inveetigationr and audits by performing q uch tasks es:
- ensuring 8ufficisnt evidence has been accumulated to meet requirements for a successf
prosecution,
- recormncnding to legal staff and laying of eppropriate charges based on evidence gathe
during investigation;
20% - participating in the prosecution of violators, assisting counsel with preparation and
presentation of evidence, including the drafting of charges and appearing as an exper
ritncsa.
- knowledge of X.D.P. Systems, micro-computers and their operating systems;
- knowledge of micro-ccmputar applications/software packages.
/OA16