The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986-1750.Crnkovich.92-02-28z- ONT*RtO CMPLcJ”CS 06 LA CO”ROPmC CROWNEMPLOYEES DE L’ONTAPIO GRIEVANCE C$JMMISSION DE SEl7LEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES .GAlEFS IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under TBB CROWN EMPLOYEEB COLLBCTIVB BARGAINING ACT Before TNE GRIBVANCB SETTLBMBNT BOARD OPSEU (Crnkovich) -. - and - Grievor The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) Bmployer BBPORE: Ii. Waisglass Vice-Chairperson E. Sepour Member M. O'Toole Member N. Roland Counsel Cornish Roland Barristers & Solicitors FOR BMPLOYBR J. Benedict Manager, Staff Relations and Compensation Ministry of Correctional Serivces January 13, 1992 IN THE MPTTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE CR&N EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BEFORE THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN: OPSEU (A. CRNKOVICH) GRIEVOR -AND- BEFORE: THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (Ministry of Correctional Services) H.J. WAISGLASS .Vice-chairperson E. SEYFWUR Member M. O'TOOLE Member FOR THE GRIEYOR: FOR THE EMPLOYER ,: NELSON ROLAND Counsel Cornish, Roland JIM BENEDICT Ministry of Correctional Services EMPLOYER HEARING: January 13, 1992 DECISION This is a classification grievance which is. referred to this panel fro-n another panel established especially for the purpose of deciding OAG grievances: The grievor is classified to the Office Administration Group ot level 8. The grievor claims the position is wrongly clossified.and insists that it belongs to a classification within the Management Ccmpensation Plan (MCP). The Employer agrees that the position is classified incorrectly and .m ;“! clo~ms that It is properly c!sss~f:ed :irthln DA;. but at !eve! 1'5. 'GLnse-: for the Emoloyer sutmlt.t.ed that the Sccrd dces not have ;urlsd\ct!cn :o provtde the grievor with the remedy she requires. to have her poslt:on aiqcea in a MCP classification. Counsel for both partIes agreed :hot this jurIsdictiona question should be dectded before proceeding to the auestions on merit. After hearing the ev,tdence from one witness for the Employer, Mr. So! LentIn\. Senlor.Personnel Administrator, Compensation and Classification Section, Human Resources Branch, Ministry of Correctional Services, and the arguments of counsel, the Board issued its unanimous decision orally, to be confirmed In writing. The Board decides that it has jurlsdic8ion, consistent with an earlier decision of this Board by another panel, which decision was confirmed by a judgment of the.Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario. ,Thir panel finds that there is no significant difference in the evidence and . argument from that which was heard by the panel in the Canning grievance [GSB 558/84-G. BRENT] which decided the Board has the power to classify a. bargaining unit employee in an MCP classification. This was confirmed by a decision of the Divisional Court [Saunder J., Heard March 19,1986, tJiv.Ct. 1148/85] The Chair received no answer to his question on what has changed significantly since the Canning decision was affirmed by judicial review. The Chair asked specifically, is there now a statutory basis under the Public Service Act for the creation and maintenance of a sepcrate and exclusive classificat:on system for managerial (non-bargaining-unit) positions from which bargaInIng unit positions may now be legally excluded. Apparently, nothing has happened since the court affirmed Canning to glve~ cause for the cons'tderation of a change . or modification of that decision. It should be noted that Berry-type orders are now available as a remedy which apparently were not available at the time of hearing (February. 1984) on the jurlsdlctlon issue in Canning. 3 The Board confirms the decision glvev orally that :t has ;ur~sdlc:~on t,:. clc:ss~fy 3 bargaining t;n:t employee 19 an ICP c!css;F!cat~cn-~l~erc I! is t% mxt aoprooriate remedy'for an \ncorrectly clcsslfied posit!on. DONE AT HAMILTON, ONTARIO THIS 28th DAY OF Februar,vlgg2 E. SEYMOUR, MEMBER M. O'TOOLE, MEMBER ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (Crnkovich - G.S.B. Pile 1750/86) YS THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (Ministry of Correctional Services) ‘DISSENT Edward E.,Seymour I have read the majority award and,1 must dissent. I find that I am largely in agreement with Union Counsel's argument that the OAG classification is a muiti-stepped classification and that both the Category and Group Definitions represent the "doorway into O.A.G.," in that they set out the conditions of the standards which must be met for employees to be placed in ~0.A.G. Union Counsel argued, and I concur, that a close reading of the Category and Group Definitions is required to determine if someone actually falls within the classification standard. The introductory and first paragraphs of the category definition read as follows: This category covers positions in which the primary duties and responsibilities involve the. following function-al areas: positions which provide office services in poort of office administrative~ functions as zzfined in the Group Definition for the office administration group services. [MY ~ha&l . “‘ I i As Union Counsel noted, it is this paragraph which must contain the griever’s responsibilities if she is to be considered part of the OAG classification. To clarify the terms, “provide office services” and “in support of administrative functions, ” .~~,. : ,__ , it is necessary to examine the Group Definition of the Office Administration Group. The Grout Definition states that the OAG “covers positions in which the primary duties and responsibilities invoIve one or more of the following: .a* - the preparation, collection, transcription, record- ing, filing, cataloguing, maintenance, examination and verification of records, reports, applications, and other documents. These functions are,performed either manually or by el.ectronic processes involving the operation of equipment such as typewriters, dictating machines, word processors, micro-computers and computer terminals; II - the investigation, analysis and evaluation of situa- tions involving the interpretation and/or application of rules, regulations, policies and/or practices in order to establish eligibility and/or compliance, and/or to sup- ..- port specialised o,r semi.-professional programs; II - the provIsion of office administration services, including secretarial services; - the transfer and/or processing of information and internal communications, including the provision of internal ~mail services and the operation of office equipment for these purposes. This equipment includes: electronic data entry/keypunch equipment, telephone switchboards, teletype machines, photocopying, duplicating, and mai 1 ing equipment, calculating and bookkeeping machines and the like; II - where required, the provision of any of the above services to .clients/public. in a language other than English. “A position should not be allocated to this group if the primary duties and responsibilities are more appropriately covered by the definition of another group.“_ .’ .zagc j In breaking down the above responsibilities, it is clear that the first dart describes duties which are clerical functions and are an elaboration of the phrase “in support of administrative functions.,” as found in the category definition. These duties involve little or no discreti~on or initiative: they are essentially mechanical functions, which are a support functionfor the office. The second dart deals with inventory analysis to establish eligr- bility, i.e. for O.H.I.P. or c,qpliance, i.e. for an application from a retail vendor, and are not relevant when describing the griever’s duties. The. third dart is important because it offers a sense of the level of the group definition in that it covers secretarial-type services. It provides a clear definition of what is meant in the category definition by the term, “in support of office administra- tive functions. I’ It says secretarial. These are the people who supply support services in the office and are properly under the Group Definition. They describe duties performed for the griever, not by her. ,.- The dut,ies described under the fourth dart are not performed by the griever because t.hey relate to hands-on responsibility, and the griever does not perform them. The griever supports the program. She is at the tops l’evel of office management. True she report’s to someone else, but that does not place her in nor out of OAG. The Group Definition speaks to the provlsion of office administrative and secretarial services. If you are above the level of hands-on use of equipment, then you should not be in OAG. If you perform duties similar to those performed by the griever, such as directing personnel, then you are above that level and are therefore out of OAG. Exhibit 8, TAB I, the position specification for the. <Office Manager, Thunder Bay Jail, describes duties which are markedly similar to those performed by the griever. .The major diff~erences are that the Manager of the Thunder Bay Jail deais with larger absolute budgets and mar attend Managerial Committee meetings, and’ she does not hire or fire. Other than the above-noted exceptions, however, the responsibilities of the Manager at the Thunder Bay Jail are virtually identical to those performed by the griever. The griever was examined on the duties outlined in the position specification for the Manager at the Thunder Bay Jail. In most instances she performed exactly the same type of duties, except that she performs these duties for an Area Manager and not a Superintendent. The griever providesadvice and guidance to the~Area Manager, while the Manager at the Thunder Ray Jail provides the same for the Superintendent. The Manager ‘at the Thunder Bay Jail supervises in the same manner as the griever. The griever prepares budget documents and keeps track of expenditures when the.budget is in place. It is she who monitors expenditures to ensure the budget is respected. She handles any deviations from the budget. In short, the bulk of the griever’s responsibilities are virtually parallel to those performed by the Manager at the Thunder Bay Jail. Admittedly some of the duties which are performed by the griever are described in OAG. She does perform secretarial duties for the Area Manager, but they are insignificant and take fifteen minutes a week. Her’s is a managerial-type position. The griever was candid and straight-forward in the presentation of her evidence and under cross-examination. Her description OS the duties she performs was not seriously challenged by the main managerial witness, her direct supervisor, Mr. D. R., Bevilacq-da. There was so little difference in their respective descriptions of the duties that Union Counsel, Mr. Roland, found it unnecessary to cross-examine him. The Majority minimised the grieverl~s -level of responsibility and placed a low value on ‘the level of her contribution. It is my opinion that the griever’s duties are such that they take her out of the OAG classification, I would have so found, and would have ruled that a Berry-type Order was an appropriate remedy. Dated at Hamilton this 28th day of January, 1993 / ., .;<A : -~ ,.. i. *f---- /Edward E. Seymour, Union Nominee