HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-1750.Crnkovich.92-12-17_.
ONTAR, EMPLOYESDELA COURONNE CROWNEMPLOYEES OE“ONTARl0
GRlEVANC,E CQMMlsSlON DE
SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
JELfPHoNEITLwPHoNE: ,4 r6, 3*s- ,388 FACSMLE~EELECOPIE : ,d 16) 326. ,396
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under '_
BETWEEN
BEFORE:
FOR THE
m
FOR THE
EMPLOYER
HEARING
1750/86
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
OPSEU (Cmkovich)
- and -
Grievor
The ~Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services) Employer
H. Waisglass Vice-Chairperson
E..Seymour Member
M. O'Toole Member
N. Roland
Barrister & Solicitor
J. Benedict
Manager, Staff Relations and Compensation
Ministry of Correctional Services-
January 13, 1992 >
March 2~,. 1992
April 14, 15, 1992
September 21, 1992
October 30, 1992
2
DECISION
This classification grievance is referred to this panel from another panel,
chaired by Vice-chairperson Martin Teplitsky, established especially for the
purpose of deciding OAG grievances. The grievor is classified in the Office
Administration Group [OAG].at level 8. The grievpr claims the position is
wrongly classified within OAG and insists that it belongs to a classification
within the Management Compensation Plan (MCP).
The Employer acknowledges that the position is classified incorrectly at level
8 and claims that it is properly classified within OAG, but at a higher level. -
Counsel forthe Employer submitted that the Board does not have jurisdiction
to provide the grievor with the remedy she requires, to have her position
placed in an MCP [Management Classification Plan] classification. Counsel for
both parties agreed that this jurisdictional question should be decided before
proceeding to the questions on merit.
The written decision on the jurisdiction issue was issued February 28, 1992.
We decided that the Board has jurisdiction to classify a bargaining unit
employee in an MCP classification where it is the most appropriate remedy for
an incorrectly classified position.
We proceed now on the questions of merit. The Employer.claims that the
position"is correctly classified within the OAG at the appropriate level. The
Union claims that the position is wrongly cIassified at any level within OAG,
and that it is correctly classified either within the MCP or, in the
alternative, in an equivalent classification tom be created by a Berry-type
order of the Board for the purpose of properly classifying the grievor.
The issue we must first decide is whether or not the grievor's position is
correctly classified within the Office Administration Group [OAG].. It is
agreed fact that the class standard for the OAG is contained in Exhibit 7.
The grievor's duties and responsibilities are described in the Position
Specification dated September, 1986 [Exhibit &Tab C], and are modified and
amended by the direct evidence given.at the hearings by the grievor and by her
imnediate supervisor, Mr. D.R. Bevilacqua, the Area Manager for the Operations
Division in Thunder Bay, in the Minist.ry's Northern Region, Probation and
Parole Services. It is our duty to determine whether or not the core duties
and responsibilities of the grievor fall within the Class Standard.
ON THE OAG CLASS STANDARDS
The Office Administration Cateaorv.contains four arouus: the Office
Administration Grouu; the Data Processing Group; the Court Reporting Group;
and the Microfilm and Whiteprint Operation.Group.
The Cateaor$ Definition [Exhibit 7--Class Standards] “covers positions in I
which the primary duties and responsibilities involve" five "functional
areas". The first of the five functional areas is described as: “positions
which provide office services in support of office administration functions as
defined in the group~definition for the Office Administration Group series".
The Catkgory Definition cautions: UA position should snot be allocated to this
category if the primary duties and responsibilities are more appropriately
covered by the definition of another category."
The Grouo.Definition states that the OAG 'covers positions in which the
primary duties and responsibilities involve one or more of the following:
U- the preparation, collection, transcription, recording, filing,
cataloguing, maintenance, examination and verification of 'records,
reports, applications, and other documents. These functions are
performed either manually or by electronic processes involving the
operation of equipment such as typewriters, dictating machines, word
processors, micro-computers, and computer terminaIs;
U- the investigation, analysis and evaluation of situations
involving t,he interpretation and/or application of rules,
4
regul.ations, policies and/or practices in order to establish
eligibility and/or compliance, and/or to support.specialised or semi-
professional programs;
&- the provision of office administration services including
secretarial services;
T ((- the transfer and/or processing of information and internal'
communications including the provision of interna 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 mailing
equipment, calculating and bookkeeping machines and the like;
*- 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
."ahother group."
The OAG Class Standard [Exhibit 71 includes the definitions cited above as
well as a factor point rating plan; levels [classes and point ranges]; factor
definitions [knowledge, skill, judgment, accountability, group leadership7; -.
and example positions [A to V, inclusive].
' SUBMISSIONS
Counsel for the Union submits that the grievor serves essentially as the
office manager for the Probation and Parole Services based in Thunder Bay and
that she has duties as an office manager which are similar to the duties of
the. Office Manager in the Thunder Bay Jail [Exhibit B-Tab I]. While he
acknowledges that there are some obvious differences in the duties of the two
positions [unlike the grievor, the Office Manager of the Jail is responsible
for hiring and evaluating staff; .for directly supervising an Inmate Record
5
Supervisor, an Invoice Processing and Purchasing Clerk, a General Clerk
and a Storekeeper; indirectly supervising 2 full-time Clerk Typists and.a
part-time Library Technician; serves on a& chairs management committees;
etc.], Mr. Roland submits that these.difference are not significant, and are
not sufficient to prevent her reclassification 'tinto a higher classification
to reflect her current duties and responsibilities which are comparable in
most respects",to the job of Office Managers, Thunder Bay Jail, which is in a
managerial classification.
I do not agree with Mr. Roland's submission that these differences are not
significant, but I do, agree that they are not sufficient, by themselves and
standing alone, to prevent her reclassification into a higher managerial
classification, on the very important qualification, however, that she must
possess other responsibilities at the managerial level to compensate for those
in which she is deficient. This is what distinguishes the McSevnev case, cited
below, where the grievor had complete cont~rol of the production system,
comprehensive managerial decision-making authority and accountability
regarding the quantity and quality of work performed, including complete
control'of the technology, equipment and supplies used inthe production
process; these managerial duties compensated~ for the lack of a clear
responsibility for the supervision of personnel, particuIarly for 'taking
disciplinary action'. The facts in the instant case are substantially
different and do not support a similar conclusion.
Mr. Roland relies on Re McSevnev. 960189 (Ratushnev), where the Board found:
"The only area in which the management position differs from that of the
Grievor is in relation to the supervision of personnel. The benchmark
position is related to a laboratory which is larger than that supervised
by the Grievor. It requires the supervision of nine technicians as-~~
opposed to four by the Grievor. The management position also has the
responsibility of “taking disciplinary action"whereas the Grievor's
most recent position specification speaks of ‘referring unusual matters
and disciplinary~matters to a Supervisor'. . . We are of the view that
these differences do not affect the essential merit of the grievance.
As will be shown below, the differences in core duties between the grievor's
'. job and the comparator position are much more profound than what was found in
McSevnev. At this point, it should suffice to point out that McSevney had
“de facto over-all responsibility for the entire operation" of a colour film
processing laboratory, including the responsibility for directinq highly
technical and complex production work, "for meeting time and volume demands as
well as for the quality of the work performed by other technicians/She
monitors the production of the entire laboratory and assures that equipment is
used efficiently. * “In other words, she is concerned with the comprehensive
and cybernetic operation of the entire laboratory."
The Board's findings that such core duties were not recognised by the class
standard resulted in McSevney's removal from the class standard. Similarly, in
order to remove Crnkovich, the grievor, from the OAG classification, we must
first find that she has significant core duties which are not recognised by
the OAG class standard.
Mr. Roland submits further that the grievor's duties and responsibilities, as
the manager or administrator for the office, involve much higher levels of
initiative and discretion than what is contemplated in the definitions for
both the Category and the Group. He denies that she provides “office services
in support of office administration functions" because she is the office
administrator. As such, she is the recipient of the support services, in
particulqr,.the secretarial support functions which are at the low level
contemplated by the class standard. As the administrator or manager, he
claims, the grievor is above the suouort services function described in the
Group definition and therefore her job is out of OAG~.
~~ Counsel for the Employer submitted extrinsic evidence on some class standards
of typical jobs that were replaced by OAG, in order to show that the word
uservices" in the OAG Class Standard has a wider meaning, covering a wider
range of levels of supervision, initiative and discretion than what is
suggested by the Union's counsel. Mr. Benedict suggested that there may be
some patent ambiguity in the words “services", "office" and “administration",
~. .
7
because, standing alone they could be either meaningless or in the alternative
they might be given a very wide range of meanings.
We decided not to admit the extrinsic evidence because we find no ambiguity.
The words %ervices", “office" and YadministratiAon' do not stand alone. They-
find their exact and intended meanings within the context of the ,entire Class
Standard [including the factor definitions and example positions],.and not
just within the definition alone, as the Union's counsel suggests. Rather, one
need look only a little beyond that definition to the "factor point rating
plan" within the OAG Class Standard, in order to see fairly clearly and
precisely that a range of levels is,qntemplated,.somewhat above and beyond
the limited low levels indicated in the Union's submissions:
“These standards use~a point rating plan to evaluate a heterogeneous
range of positions.in the Office Administration Group. . . . The plan
defines several levels for each factor and establishes a point value for
each level. ._. While these factors may n&describe every aspect of the
position being evaluated, they deal with those major characteristics.
which can be defined, distinguished and measured in determining relative
values of positions. The five factors used in the Plan are: Knowledge
[ 5 levels], Skill [ 4 levels], Judgment [ 4 levels], Accountability
I: 4 levels], and Group Leadership [ 2 levels]."
(See page 3 of the OAG Class Standard)
Employer's counsel relies upon the following GSB~cases:
Elrick et al. 10/85 et al [Dissanayake]; Ennis et al. 17/85 et al [Kirkwood];
Lunn. 595A/90 [Dissanayake]; Evans. 1531190 [Samuels];
Ackert. 559/90 [Keller]; Jalea/Green. 1052/89 et aIrLow];
Braund et al. 39/89 [Slone]; Edwards/Maloney. 11/78 [Swinton]
We accept the Employer's submission, which is supported by the case law, that
we must first find that the grievor's position does not reasonably fit the OAG
Class Standard before we examine the higher classification claimed by the
grievor.
a
These views are well expressed by arbitrator Dissanayake in m(p. 16):
"The Board has no inherent equitable jurisdiction. (Re Haladay, 94/78
(Swan). It derives its jurisdiction in relation to classification
grievances from section 18 (2) of the Crown Employees Collective
Bargaining Act and Article 27(more particularly 27.11.1) of the
collective agreement. An employee's right to file a classification
grievance also flows from these provisions. Section X3(2) of the Act
gives the employee a right to grieve, and the Board a right to consider
a grievance,. ‘that his position has been improperly classified'.
Under article 27.11.1 of the collective agreement the right to file a
grievance is accorded to fan employee who alleges that his position is
improperly classified'."
In other words, we must first find a wrong before we look for a remedy.
We accept also the Employer's submission that the grievor's core duties, and
the “primary duties and responsibilities* of~the class standard, overlap with
some of the duties of the Office Manager, Thunder Bay Jail, and that such
overlap is not unusual, as explained by arbitrator Swinton. We. agree with
Vice-chair Swinton's statement in Edwards/Maloney:
“Job classifications often contain overlapping duties, for it is
difficult to design watertight job ccmpartments. This makes the task of
classification more difficult, although it does not necessarily mean
that the grievors, because they.perform many of the same tasks of the
-senior classification, are entitled to that senior classification. . . .
The tasks performed by individuals in different classifications may
.appear very similar, yet it must be kept in mind that the
classifications have been designed for a purpose - whether to reflect
different emphases with regard to similar tasks, or to reflect greater
discretion or responsibility by those in one of the classifications, or
to reflect the higher qualifications demanded of'those in the senior
classification . . . . An arbitration board must therefore be
_
9
particularly careful in assessing classification grievances where there
is an extensive overlap in job duties, so that a decision does not
_ ..< interfere with the overall aims of the classification system. The onus
is on the grievor to show that he falls within the higher
classification, and where there is an extensive overlap in job duties,
he should show.that his job, in practice, is the same.as that performed
by a person properly within the higher classification."
We accept also the following criteria for distinguishing a core duty, as
expressed by Vice-chair Keller in Ackert:
“It is natural that persons perform duties beyond those specified in the
class standard: a qualitative and quantitative analysis; however, is
required to show whether they are sufficient to take the duties as a
whole out of the Class Standard. Our conclusion is that~while the grievor
may, at times, perform some of the additional duties as proposed, the
incidence, frequency and importance in relation to his other duties do not
result in their being other core duties."
Finally, the Employer's counsel submits that while there may be the appearance
of considerable overlap in duties between the grievor's job and that of the
Office Manager,.,Thunder Bay Jail, the evidence does not support the claim
that the grievor has any distinguishable core duty that would take her out of
the OAG Class Standard. It is clear that the grievor does not have one core or
primary duty that does not properly belong within the OAG. -. ,/
ON THE GRIEVOR’S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
.;,
Ms. Crnkovich commenced employment with -the Ministry in 1978 as a Clerk 3
General at the Thunder Bay Jail. As the result of a competition she was
promoted in 1981 to the position of Administrative Services Clerk, Probation
and Parole Services, Thunder bay. At that time the position was classified as
Clerk 4 General. It was subsequently recla,ssified to OAG 8. Ms. Crnkovich's
grievance is dated December 24, 1986.
10
The grievor testified on her own behalf with the assistance of Exhibit 8, a
compendium of documents relating to her statements of claim, including her .,
~.personal notes [describing the importance o.f her duties and responsibilities],
the position specifications for her own job and for comparator positions, and
certain budgetary and other documents related to work she had performed.
,We found that some of her documentary and direct evidence pertained to periods
ii., subsequent to the date of her grievance. Much of this we did not accept i.n
evidence as relevant to the issue we are to decide: I'das the grievor wrongly
classified according to her duties and responsibilities at the time of her
_ .arIevance? Examples of her more recent work were accepted in evidence only
where they were clearly affirmed to be representative of her duties and
responsibilities at the time of the grievance. .I
2..
The evidence given by the Area Manager supported the direct evidence of the
grievor that certain amendments to the Position Specification are required.
However, where there are differences in their evidence,,\*{2 have accepted th2
evidence of the Area Manager.
Her claim that her “primary duties and responsibilities are to provide
financial and administrative management", that she, and not the Area Manager,
is “the sole person in the office that controls financial and administrative
factors neces&ry for the functioning of the office" is not supported by the
facts. She testified that he takes credit for her responsibilities, while
11
his “only involvement is to sign" the financial and other documents which she,;
prepares, signs, and submits for his approval and signature.
To support her claims for managerial responsibility the grievor brought
attention to Exhibit 8-G [Accounts Signing Authorities] which lists the
payroll and accounts payable transaction documents which she isrequired to
prepare and sign '[except one--Travel Claims], all of which she submits for the,
approval and signature of the Area Manager: *hours--Part Time Casuals; Payroll
Deletions; Overtime-Shift Premium; Temporary Help; Vacation Advances; Error
Adjustments; Invoices; Requisition Remittances; Travel Claims; Petty Cash;
Receiving Reports; Journal Entries; Error Adjustments; Revenue Transmittals;
Exp. Refund Transmittals; and Revenue Refunds."
Regarding her.work with these documents, there is nothing to suggest that they
involve managerial functions, authorities, and controls which reside with the
grievor. Rather, the grievor's work on these documents are essentially
clerical, bookkeeping or accounting:tasks which involve the following
activities, asdescribed in the Group Definition of the Class Standard [see
.above]:' “the preparation; collection, transcription,~ recording, filing
cataloguing, maintenance, examination and verification of records, reports,
appbicqtions, and other documents. Etc."; and also, "the investigation,
analysis and evaluation-of situations involving interpretation and/or
application of rules, regulations, policies and/or practices in order to
establish eligibility and/or compliance, and/or to support specialised or
semi-professional programs."
We have amended the grievor's Position Specification, in accordance with her
direct evidence and that of the Area Manager, to. show that the grievor is
responsible for "preparing all of the~required budget documents such as budget
status reports, Y.O.A. cost sharing reports and budget calenderization and
estimates by tracking, retrieving and summarising expenditures"; and to
indicate also that she is responsible for “providing group leadership to the
secretarial employees to ensure that the standards of quality and quantity of
secretarial services are met."
,-
12
In addition to the changes noted'above, we ,accept the remainder of the
Position Specification on the grievor's resoonsibilities for administrative/
clerical services: “Opening, stamping and distributing incoming mail.
Maintaining concentrator account including writing and signing cheques, coding
expenses, preparing expense accounts, balancing,~ preparing remittance
sunmraries, preparing bank reconciliation statements, maintaining and balancing
petty cash and administering transfer payment system. Maintaining adequate
level of supplies through local purchasing ormain office requisitions. '.
Ensuring that service contracts to area equipment such as Dictaphone mach~ines
and typewriters are renewed~according to ministry purchasing schedules.
Maintaining contact with suppliers in order to reconcile invoices with
requisitions/purchase orders and resolve discrepancies. Arranging and ensuring
complet.j~on of repairs and maintenance on all area equipment and recording
appropriately. Maintaining inventory records for area. .Mainfaining area work
load sumnaries~and Y.O.A. statistical information. Verifying computer data
printouts and telephone logs. Providing direction to staff and agencies
regarding completion of worksheets, forms, statistical reports, etc.
Maintaining local retention schedule and ensures the destruction of client
files in~accordance with Ministry policy and Y.O.A. legislation.
Liaising with main office and Ministry of Government Services (landlord, re
problems concerning cleaning, park?ng, accommodation maintenance) etc.
Maintaining various manuals such as policy and procedures, probation and
parole, etc. assigned to the area."
We accept the grievor’s claim that she spends only about 9% of her time,
rather than the lS%+hown in the Position Specification, in performing the
"Personnel/Payroll functions by: Explaining.ministry policies, procedures re:
employment benefits,~workirig conditions,etc. to staff. Ensuring ~accurate
completion of employee documentation for appointment and separation.
Maintaining personnel files. Maintaining CARS [attendance records] system
and resolving any discrepancies. Ensuring merit increments, appraisals,
underfill removals are submitted on schedule. Liaising with support services
such as Personnel and Payroll concerning errors and discrepancies.
Participating in selection and orientation of support staff. As assigned.
She confirmst that these personnel/payroll functions are.accurately described.
13
The grievor claims she spends much less than the 5% of her time shown on the
Position Specification in performing secretarial duties for the Area Manager.
It appears she assigns some of these tasks to the secretaries. Apart from the
claim she spends only about 15 minutes per week on them; she acknowledges that
her secretarial duties are accurately described in the Position Specification
.as follows: “Typing letters, memoranda; reports and various documents, some of
a confidential nature such as P.P.R.'s and disciplinary reports. Composing
routine correspondence on own initiative or from verbal or written
instructions. Maintaining are filing system of confidential and routine
correspondence, forms and reports. As assigned."
We examined and considered carefully the evidence on the arievor's major core
duties and resoonsibilities which pertain to the oreoaration and maintenance
of financial and bud etar v records and documents. Our judgment isthat they a
are not managerial, but rather they are essentiallv bookkeeoina and/or
accounting functions which are very clearly within the definitionof the OAG
Class Standard, as set forth above. No doubt the grievor has full
responsibility for the preparation of all budget documents, but she does not
make the budget decisions. She is responsible for the documentary supports for
the budgetary decision-making process, Stie is not responsible or accountable
for the budgetary decisions, for determining the financial resources that are
.made available for the probation and paroIe services which are under the Area
Manager's authority, nor does she have discretionary power to authorise the
use of available funds or, to transfer budgetary allocations from one
objective to another.
The Grievor does not have authority to-make or approve.expenditures, except
for very limited amounts, set within narrow limits, atid for very limited and
specific purposes [certain supplies and petty cash payments] which are
authorised by the Manager. In any event, these are marginal or incidental
duties and not core duties. If she did have core duties for decision-making on
financial resources at a significant level, high enough to be beyond the
limits of the compensable factors contemplated by the OAG Class Standard, such
higher levels of financial responsibility wouId be sufficient to persuade the
14
Board that the grievor's duties are beyond those assigned to the OAG. If the
grievor's duties could satisfy such requirements, her grievance would succeed.
The evidence, however, fails to satisfy this test.
The grievor's work regarding the budgetary documentations are essential and
important support services which enable the Area Manager to carry out his
budgetary decision-making duties on the appropriate and timely use. of the
financial resources for which he is accountable. The grievor is held
accountable for different but nevertheless very important functions: for the
efficient and effective preparation of the budget documents in a timely
manner. Her core duties reaardina budaet documents are very important,' but
.they are not managerial. They fall very clearly within the OAG Class Standard.
The grievor's position title is Administrative Services Clerk - Thunder Bay.
The purpose of the position, according to the Position Specification, is *to
provide and co-ordinate administrative/clerical support services for the Area
Manager." The evidence affirms ,this as the clear purpose.
The Area Manager, not the grievor, has the over-all responsibility and
authority for the direction of the staff, funds and other resources assigned
to him by the Ministry for the operations of the probation and parole services
in the Thunder Bay Area. The grievor, three to five full-time secretaries, and
several probation'and parole officers, ~a11 report directly to the Area
Manager, who is responsible also for negotiating contracts with a variety of
community agencies funded by the Ministry, monitoring them, and assuring,
compliance.
A central issue in this classification grievance involves the functional
distinctions between manaaerial and administrative oositions. It appears to be
more than a semantic problem. The grievor believes her duties are more
managerial than administrative, that her manager gets credit for the duties
which she actually performs with considerable diligence and care. There is no
~question that she does her~job'proficiently. That is not the issue. ,The issue
is where to draw the classification line. Where are the boundaries between
15
managerial classifications and the administrative positions which fall within
the OAG? What.is the nature or character of the duties and responsibilities
which distinguish them?
A manaaer is assigned the power and authority for directing and controlling
the appropriate use of human {manpower], financial {capital], technical
{scientific} and other resources which are assigned to him/her by a'higher
authority within a hierarchical organisation for the clear purpose of
performing assigned functions and achieving the organisation% objectives. The
manager is held accountable to senior levels within that hierarchy for the -
effective and efficient use of the staff; financial and other resources made
available to him/her for those functions and objectives, within the defined
area for which he is responsible.
In this context, we draw attention again to the McSevney case where.a
classification grievance succeeded mainly because the grievor proved she had a
high level of power and authority for directing and controlling technical
resources, quite apart fromher duties regarding human and financial
resources.
The Area Manaaer is responsible and accountable for making the.decisions,
within the span or scope of authority assigned to him by higher levels of the
Ministry, on the best use of the personnel [staff], financial, physical [space
and equipment], technical and other resources made available for the purpose.
of carrying out the mission and achieving the objectives of the Probation and
Parole Service, within the geographical area for which he is appointed. The
OAG Class Standard obviously does not contemplate such powers and authority,
at such levels, with such a wide span or scope for decision-making, in
directing staff,,and in directing the use of the available financial and other
resources.
Very clearly, the Office Manaaer, Thunder Bav Jail, has definite managerial
responsibilities for the direction of staff, ~including hiring, evaluating and
disciplining, which definitely do not reside in eitherthe grievor's position
16
or in the OAG Class Standard. The grievor serves as group leader for several
secretaries. The Office Manager supervises several employees who report to
him/her directly [an Inmate Record Supervisor, an Invoice Processing
and Purchasing Clerk, a General Clerk, and a Storekeeper], and others
indirectly [2 full-time Clerk Typists and a part-time Library Technician]. Then
grievor's duties and her level of responsibility.as a group leader for
secretaries is clearly within the OAG Class Standard and within the'limits of
its compensable factors. The Office Manager's.core duties for staff
supervision are very different duties and they'are at a significantly and
substantially higher level, at a distincly managerial level, which is very -
clearly above and beyond the OAG Class Standard and its compensable factors.-
Similar distinctions ,in levels of authority, responsibility and accountability
may be made between the two positions regarding~their budgetary and financial
duties. It suffices to say, as already indicated, that the grievor's core
duties, insofar as they relate to the budgetary/financial areas, are
essentially clerical and administrative functions which are within the OAG
Class Standard and within the limits of OAG's compensable factors.
The Office Manager, Thunder Bay Jail, was not brought forth as a witness to
present us with direct evidence on that position. Nevertheless, based on its
current Position Specification, we took a holistic view of that job as against
a holistic view of the documentary and direct evidence we have on the
grievor's job. We came to the conclusion that the total nature and character
of the two jobs are entirely different, in spite of some apparent overlap of
clerical and administrative functions.
One of the grievor's core duties, as noted above, is to Drovide secretarial
services for the Area Manaaer. as well as aroup leadershio for the secretaries
that assures the provision of such secretarial support services for the
probation and parole officers. What does the group leadership involve? She ',.I
delegates to the support staff routinework like correspondence, photocopying,
and overload from tier own work duties. She assures,that they are familiarwith
the procedures, practices and policies of the office. The grievor collects
17
information from the support staff for the preparation of periodic reports '+'-
such as on case-loads, and she also disseminates information, to assure that
the secretaries are familiar with directives from the Head office and Regional
Office and that all information systems are functional, including the security
of confidential information contained in the computer system. She is
responsible for the allocation of passwords for accessing the system. She also
deals with the complaints of the probation and parole staff regarding support
.services, as well as the personnel problems and peer conflicts within
the support staff, before they become serious problems or grievances that
would require the attention of the Manager. The group leadership duties and
responsibilities, together with her own secretarial duties for the Area
Manager, take about 5 to 10% of her time. All of these duties pertain to Yhe
provision of office administration support services including secretarial
services" and to a significant extent they involve "the transfer and/or
processing oft information and internal communications"~[See Group Definition
at page 2 of the Class Standard]. These duties clearly and definitely fall
within the-OAG Class Standard.
The grievor's,core duties oertainina to the personnel and oavroll functions :~
[as described above], are all administrative/clerical functions
which fall clearly within the Class Standard definition: “the preparation,
collection, transcription, recording, filing, cataloguing, maintenance,
examination and verification of records, reports, applications, and other
documents", as well as Yhe transfer and/or processing.of information and
internal communications including the provision of internal mail services*
[See Group Definition, as cited above]. These duties and responsibilities also
very clearly and definitely fall within the definition of the OAG Class
Standard.
a
a
CONCLUSION
We have examined thoroughly and we have considered carefully all of the
evidence. It is our judgment that all of the grievor's core duties are clearly
and definitely within the OAG Class Standard. The grievor has not satisfied
the burden of persuading the Eoard'that any of her core duties are such that
they do not belong within the OAG. We now refer back to the parties the issue
on the determination of the appropriate level for thisposition within the
OAG.
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH HEREIN THE GRIEVANCE IS DENIED.
DONE AT ~-GiGito, ont&k'l^o ; THIS 1i'fi DAY OF necemberl992
“I Dissent” (dissent to follow)
___-___-___--__--__-------------
E. SEYMOUR, MEMBER
2% 7 &z& ________-___-_---__-------------
M. O'TOOLE, MEMBER