Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-0714.St. Laurent.90-11-23IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 'ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (St. Laurent) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General) BEFORE: FOR THE GRIEVOR FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING: J. D. McCamus Vice-Chairperson F. Taylor Member I. Cdwan Member Employer C. Hofley Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors M. Uhlmann Manager, Staff Relations Human Resources Management Ministry of the Attorney General April 14, 1989 May 31, 1989 R 2 The Grievor is employed as a Jr. Deputy Local Registrar (Bilingual) in the court offices for the Judicial District of Niagara South which are located in Welland, Ontario. The subject matter of this grievance concerns her classification in this position. The position is classified at the Deputy 1, Administration of Justice level. The Grievor contests 'that classification and requests a reclassification to the Deputy 2 level in the Administration of Juetice series. The Position Specification, dated March 20th, 1987, which was in effect at the material time, was filed in this proceeding as Exhibit 9. The partiee to this proceeding have not seriously questioned the accuracy of that document and it will therefore be useful to set out items two, three and four from that document in full below. For convenience of reference, the subparagraphs of the first entry in item three have been numbered. POSITION SPECIFICATION AND CLASS ALLOCATION FORM POSITION TITLE JR. DEPUTY T&CAL REGISTRAR (BILINGUAL) 2. PURPOSE OF POSITION To act as Junior Deputy Local Registrar by virtue of OXC appointment and to perform duties relative to the initiation and progress of actions and other mattero in Supreme and County Courts; provide counter service in English and French in the office of the Local Registrar, S.C.O.: performs related dutiee 3. SUMMARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Performs duties in the initiation and progress of actions and 852 other matters in Supreme, County and Surrogate Courts and participates in the general litigation work of the office and counter service by: (i) attending public counter, reviewing documents presented i,n 3 English and French for filing e.g. issuing and signing Writs of Summons, Appearances, Statements of Claim, Letters of Administration or Probate, Guardianship, Custody applications, examining for completeness, accuracy of form and detail, advising on changes and additional material required e.g. Affidavits, consents, and ensuring subsequent filings comply with order of filing, time-limits honoured, statutory requirements met, discussing or referring only most complex; maintaining awareness and application of Rules of Practice; (ii) checking documentation relative to Provincial Court Appeals for appropriate endorsements and completeness, maintaining current listing of and processing and scheduling of appeals; (iii)recording transaction on Procedure Card: charging and collecting feeat filing material in, appropriate dockets; making available records for public access, supplying and signing certified copies: (iv) Accepting payments into Supreme and County courts, issuing receipts and signing Direction for Payment into Andy out of Court: w accepting and examining divorce applications, checking for completeness and ensuring time-frames are honoured: completing applications for Decree Absolute: signing Certificate of Registrar, forwarding to Local Judge and when returned signing Decree and forwarding to Solicitor and other parties: collecting fees as appropriate; (vi) checking for certificate of readiness notice of trial hearing and setting Divorce, County, Supreme and Surrogate Court cases on trial list; (vii)reviewing and passing records: completing and signing certificates, setting actions down, filing in correct court dockets: (viii)oheoking Judgements and entering Orders of Supreme, County 64 Surrogate courts ensuring compliance of form to statutory requirements and intent of Judge's decision: advising solicitors on changes required for acceptance; (verifying intent with Judge concerned, as required): exercising statutory signing authority for the signing of documents, e.g. Judgements, Orders, Praecipe orders, Writs, which have a legally binding effect. (ix) processing documents in County, Supreme, Surrogate Court Applications e.g. Notice of Motions, Landlord and Tenant actions, Change of name, Mechanics Liens, filing, issuing and signing certificates as required, exercising statutory signing authority as Deputy for related documents such as Certificates /' 4 of Actions in mechanics lien proceedings: (x) taxing Party and Party Bill of Costs on default judgments and uncontested matters (involving exercise of discretionary powers taken by appointed official but where no formal hearing is usually required) through reference to appropriate Tariff set out in Judicature Act and performing quasi-judicial functions such as swearing oaths, etc., (xi) exercising signing authority for and issuing legal documents such as Write of Summons, as well as certain documents which are legally binding such as Default Judgments, Mortgage Foreclosures, Writs of FiFa, Writs of Possession, Subpoenas, etc. (xii)assisting legal profession, general public in enquiries at counter or by telephone, providing information on Statutory requirements and procedurse in the Courts office; swearing in witness for Special Examiner's office: composes and signs own correspondence on matters such as fee payable or court documentation procedures; (xiii)keeping an accurate list on a strip-index of all Supreme Court matters set down for trial! (xiv)preparing the Supreme & County Court lists and forwarding to the appropriate parties as required; (xv) making pre-trial appointments for the Supreme Court Justice; (xvi)assieting the Local Registrar in calling cases for the Supreme Court Sittings; (xvii)typing for the Local Registrar, S.C.O., County Court Clerk and Surrogate Court Registrar e.g. correspondence, memoranda, statistical returns as required; answers enquiries from Judges re. documentation, e.g. divorce; (xviii)providing in the absence of the Deputy and Local Registrar technical guidance, as requested to one casual employee engaged in processing applications at the counter and performing general office duties; signing applications, Orderm, Judgements pas[s]ed by casual clerk, occasionally reviewing same for completeness, correctness, etc; (Xix)co-signing with Local Registrar and/or Deputy cheques for payment out of the Local Registrar's account money in Court Account. (XX) interviewing and assessing French fee for service applicants for bilingual capability only as required; ‘: ’ i , 5 >. (xxi)keeping an accurate list of the moveable assets in the Local Registrar's Office and Judge's Office; 2. Other related duties as: 15%- assuming responsibility for the operation of the office in the absence of the Deputy and Local Registrar; - assisting in making verbal appointments or preparing formal notice of appointment for requests for Examinations in person or by mail maintaining diary of appointments, amending for re- scheduling as required; - assisting with preparation of Probate Orders in absence of the Counter Clerk or in peak workload periods; - assisting Deputy in other. aspects of the Courts office and providing for Court lists, Preparing Monthly Statistical Returns and Typing Attendance Reports in her absence: - providing for all aspects of Surrogate Court matters in counter clerks' absence; signing certificates etc. requiring statutory signing authority: - keeping an accurate listing of outstanding (over 6 months) custody and access cases as required under the Children's Law Reform Amendment Act. 4. SXILLS AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE WORK Responsible related clerical experience: thorough knowledge of Rules of Practice and office procedures governing Supreme and County Courts and general knowledge of Surrogate Court Procedures. Good knowledge of relevant statues of Ontario & Acts e.g. Judicature Act, Mortgage Act, Construction Lien Act, etc. and ability to interpret and apply same: Ability to deal effectively with the legal profession and the public. Effective interpersonal and written and oral communication skill8 in both French and English thoroughness, :initiative, co-operativeness, judgement and typing ability. In addition to the filing of the Job Specification itself, the evidence in this proceeding includes considerable discussion of the extent and manner in which the Grievor carried out, at the material time, the responsibilities set out in the Specification. Before turning to the points of contention, it may be noted that the Grievor's testimony indicated that she discharged virtually all of r 6 the responeibilities set out in the Specification. The only exception pertained to items xiii to xvi where, as a result of procedural changes that are irrelevant to the present dispute, the Grievor's involvement in such matters is not precisely that stated in those paragraphs of the Specification. The issues which divide the parties are best considered in the light of the Class Standard itself (filed as Exhibit 4 in this proceeding) which sets forth the criteria for distinguishing between the levels of Deputy 1 and Deputy 2. For ease of reference, numbers have been added to the statement of Principal Activities relating to Courts Administration, this being the area of activity in which the Grievor is engaged. The Class Standard provides as follows: Y. -ION OF JUSTICE SE- This series covers positions of Deputies in the offices of Sheriffs! and officials of the supreme, County and Surrogate Courts, where the responsibilities of the positions do not include line supervioion of support staff. These employees are appointed as Deputies by Order-in-Council and report directly to the official in charge of the appropriate function. They exercise authority as official reprasentatives of the appropriate senior official to varying degrees. Allocation to the appropriate level in the series is governed by the nature and scope of authority delegated. The series is concerned with two main functions: (a) The t County or District. within an assigned The senior official responsible for this function is the Sheriff. 7 (b) Court Ac&&.@tration within an assigned County or District. The senior official responsible for this function may be the Local Registrar (Supreme Court), Surrogate Registrar or Clerk of the County Court (or one official may carry all three titles). Princioal Activitieq: The principal activities within each function are: General Administration of Justice - Service of Writs, subpoenas, and related documents; execution of Court Orders, Writs of Fi~Fa and Possession etc.; attendance on Judges: staffing of Courts: selection of Jurors; administration of office accounts and other related duties. courts Administration: 1. 2: Processing and signing of Writs, Orders, Judgements etc.: compilation and maintenance of Court lists for three Courts (Supreme, Surrogate, County). 3. Acting as Taxing Officer (party and party): 4. assigning (or assuming) duties of Clerk of the Court: 5. acting as commissioner of Oaths: 6. administration of office accounts and other related duties; 7. acting as Special Examiner when necessary. ----------------------------- Definition of Terms: Limited Auth rity means that authority is exercised within a limited field of activity (i.e. responsibilities cover only some of the principal activities listed abdve), OR authority is exercised under relatively close supervision on other than routine assignments. All junior (or second) Deputies are considered to exercise limited authority. Full m means that responsibilities cover u of the principal activities listed above. Where more than one Deputy is appointed in an office, only the senior (or first) Deputy is considered to exercise full authority. ------------------------------- CLASS STANDARD: DEPUTY 1. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE This class covers employees who exercise limited authority as 8 defined in the Preamble. These employees may provide functional guidanca to junior clerical staff but have no full line supervisory responsibilitiee. Detailed knowledge and understanding of all statutory provisions relating to the appropriate function; ability to deal with public and legal profession with tact and confidence: personal integrity. -------------------------------- CLASS STANDARD: This class covers employees who exercise pull au- as defined in the Preamble. These employees may provide functional guidance to junior clerical staff but have no full line supervisory responsibilities. As for Deputy 1, Administration of Justice, plus some administrative ability. ------------------------------- As is seen, the Administration of Justice series and the two standards in question pertain to both the "general administration of justices or, one might say, the operation of sheriffe' offices around the province, and to ~~courts administration**. The head official in a local office of court administration such as that in the Judicial District of Niagara South is the Local Registrar. In the Welland office, there are two Deputy Local Registrars in addition to the Registrar. The first is a Senior Deputy Local Registrar who is classified at the level of Deputy 2. The other is the Grievor who is, as the Jr. Deputy Local Registrar (Bilingual), classified at the Deputy 1 level. As well, the 9 Welland office employs a small number of full-time and part-time staff including judges' secretaries, court reporters, counter clerks and individuals who serve as court clerks. The central point in dispute'between the parties relates to the application of the concepts of "Limited AuthorityI and "Full Authority" set out in the llPreambles segment of Exhibit 4. It will be noted that the essential difference between th.8 Class Standards for the Deputy 1 and Deputy 2 level is that the Deputy 1 is said to exercise B1limited authority" whereas the.Deputy 2 is said to exercise V*full authoritys. Thus it has been urged on behalf of the Grievor in the present case that she does exercise full authority with respect to all of the principal activities set out in the section of the Preamble devoted to this topic. It is argued by the Employer, on the other hand, that the Grievor has failed to demonstrate that she meets the test of "full authority" but rather exercises only "limited authority". As may be noted above, the concept of the term slimited authority" is defined in the alternative. One may be shown to exercise only slimited authoritylV if authority is exercised only within a "limited field of activityI' in the men388 that not all of the "principal activities** are engaged in by incumbent. Alternatively, authority may be limited because it is sexercised under relatively close supervision on other than routine assignmentss. The principal argument made by the Employer in the present case relates to the first of these tests. Thus, the Employer argues that the Grievor does not engage in a substantial 10 number of the *'principal activitiesI' set out in the Preamble. Before turning to consider the precise points of disagreement between the Employer and the Grievor with respect to the extent to which the Grievor engages in the full list of ~~principal activities~~, it will be useful to consider in a more general way the distinction between the two alternate tests set out in the definition in the Preamble of the concept of Wlimited authority". simply relying on the plain meaning of the language used in the Preamble, the concept of slimited authoritys appears to apply to two different sorts of people. First, the concept applies to individuals who have narrowly circumscribed activities and who may not therefore require close supervision in the discharge of those responsibilities. Second, the definition envisages a group of people who have a broader range of activitiee but who require ~~relatively close supervision on other than routine assignments~~. In other words, the concept of slimited authoritys may apply either to a ~~specialist~~ who may work relatively independently or to a *~generalists who requires supervision only in complex matters. The concept of "full authoritys, on the other hand, denotes a sgeneraliet (someone whose responsibilities cover u of the principal activities listed above)", who is able to work without the Wlose supervision on other than routine assignments~~ that is required for an individual who has 181imited authority". ;. 11 As is so often the case, it is of course difficult to generalise successfully about the division of responsibilities that may occur in variety of different locations across the province. The nature of the staffing arrangements and the volume and character of the workload in a particular location may msan that the concepts and distinctions set out in a generalised standard will not fit the local circumstances. Thus, a breakdown between the *'relatively independent specialists and the generalists who require some supervision~~, on the one hand, and "the generalists who do not require such supervisions, on the other, may make a good deal of sense in a large and complex Court office, but may not easily apply to the breakdown of responsibilities at the working level in a much smaller office. As will be seen, it is our view that this is indeed a problem in the present case. As we have indicated, the principal point of differenca between the parties relates to the question of whether the Grievor is truly a sgeneralists. It is thie point which creates division between the parties and not the question of whether the Grievor is properly classified as having slimited 'authorityI' because she allegedly requires %lose supervision on other than routine assignmentss, because there is no persuasive evidence before us in support of the proposition that the Grievor does require Velatively close supervision~~ on any of the areas of her responsibility.~ Indeed, although the Employer included an allegation that such supervision was required in its initial 12 "Statement of Facts” (filed as Exhibit 3), that allegation was effecti\*ely abandoned in the early stages of this proceeding and, in our view, rightly so. Accordingly, we turn to the task of determining the extent to which the Grievor has engaged in some or all of the sPrincipal Activities~~ set forth in the Courts Administration section of the Preamble portion of Exhibit 4. Those principal activities, again, are as follows: -: 1. Processing and signing of Writs, Orders, Judgements etc.: 2. compilation and maintenance of Court lists for three Courts (Supreme, Surrogate, County). 3. Acting as Taxing Officer (party and party): 4. assigning (or assuming) duties of Clerk of the Court: 5. acting as Commissioner of Oaths: 6. administration of office accounts and other related duties: 7. acting as Special Examiner when neceseary. It is the Grievor~s evidence that she participates in all of these activities. In her evidence, she offered examples of what she understood to be the performance of tasks in each of the seven areas. Further, more general evidence of her role as a ~~generalist~~ was supplied by the fact that a significant portion of her time, at least 1.3 hours per day is spent assuming responsibility of the entire office in the absence of the Deputy 13 and Local Registrars. Further, as the only bilingual staff person, the Grievor must be prepared to provide virtually all of the services provided by the office in the French language. Though, as we shall see, the Grievor does not in fact provide every service made available by the office, there is nonetheless evidence in the record in these proceedings to support that the Grievor is, broadly speaking, a sgeneralist~~ as we have used this term in this discussion. The Employer contests, however, the evidence relating to Principal Activities numbered 3, 4, 5 and 6. Indeed, it is evident simply from the face of the Job Specification that the Grievor's involvement in activities numbered 1 and 2 is uncontentious. Although the Employer initially contested the Grievor's allegation that she acts as a Special Examiner in the manner intended by Item 7, the Employer ,ultimately conceded that the Grievor did perform this responsibility from time to time as _ required. There can be no doubt of the Grievor’s legal’ capacity to serve as a Special Examiner. Section 104 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1904, S.O. ,1904, c. 11, as amended, confers such a power on every slocal registrar and deputy 'local registrar". Accordingly, the area of dispute in the present case is narrowly focused on the four remaining items in the list of *'Principal Activitiess. Item 3-pertains to the assessment of what might be referred to as statements of account or bills arising from ~legal proceedings. The Court Official charged with the responsibility 14 or vetting and approving such statements, formerly referred to as a Taxing Officer, is now referred to as an Assessment Officer. Again, there can be no doubt but that the Grievor as a Deputy Local Registrar enjoys an appointment as an Assessment Officer. Such authority is sxplicitly conferred upon local registrars and deputy registrars by Section 103 of ths Courts of Justice Act,, 1984. The area of contention relates to the question of whether the Grievor truly engagss in the work of an Assessment Officer as indicated in item 3. It may be noted that item 3 refers to the work of a Taxing Orricsr on "party and party" matters. Although a full discussion of the assessment or taxing of what are, in efrect, lawyers' bills would unattractivsly complicate the present discussion, it may be said, in gsnoral terms, that there are two different types of assessments that might occur. The first, and simpler, type can be done over ths counter, as it were, in a relatively routine manner. The itsms claimed may be compared against a tariff or schedule of fees and, if the amounts claimed are those approved in the tariff, ths claim will bs allowed. The sscond catsgory of assessment involves a rathsr more complex process. With certain types of assessments, it will ‘bs necessary to convene a hearing and, essentially, adjudicate a disputed claim with respect to the amount bsing claimed in the bill or statement of account. Such hsarings are 1awYsrlY in nature in the senss that they involve the application of ths rules of evidence, may require the writing of written rsasons, and may result in a decision which is then appealed to a higher level of adjudication within the court system. 15 The individual making such determinations must be familiar with a body of jurisprudence relating to the question of costs and will perform, in this limited setting, what is essentially a judicial function. We refer to these two different types of assessments, for present purposes, as 11simple18 as opposed to 8Vcomplex'8 assessments. We are satisfied that the Grievor is involved principally, if not exclusively, in the making of simple as opposed to complex ~assessments. What is unclear, however, is the extent to which complex assessments are envisaged by item 3 in the list of Principal Activities. The complicating factor is this. Two of the witnesses presenting evidence on behalf of the :Employer identified three different types of taxations, party and party, party and party on a solicitor - client basis, and solicitor - client assessments. The first type is typically routine, normally arising from a default judgement and handled on an over-the-counter basis. The second two categories are normally complex and may result in the conduct of a hearing. It is unclear, however, whether the reference in item 3 to "party and party” embraces types 1 and 2 or merely type 1. Unsurprisingly, the Employer argues that types 1 and 2 are included and that the Grievor does not engag? fin type ,2. It is argued on behalf of the Grievor, on the other hand, that item 3 refers only to type 1 and that, in any event, the Grievor has on occasion handled a type 2 matter though, to be sure, not of a kind leading to a full-blown adjudication. According to the evidence 16 led in this proceeding, most complex assessments are handled by the Local Registrar himself. However, the Senior Deputy Local Registrar is also engaged, though to a much more limited extent, in the conduct of complex assessments. What appears to be quite clear in the present case, is that the Grievor is not asked to handle complex assessments on a regular basis. Thus, it cannot be said that she is required to do complex assessments and does them "under relatively close supsrvision.88 Complex assessments are apparently a principal rssponsibility of the Local Registrar though, to be sure, the Senior Deputy undertakes them to some extent. Against this background, we must determine whether the Junior Deputy exercisss authority with~respect to "party and party" assessments. It is our view that ths Grievor participates sufficiently in the work of a "Taxing Officer (party in party)" that she cannot be said to be excluded from this particular "Principal Activity". On the other hand, we are satisfied that she is not fully sngagsd in the type of party and party assessment work that is expectsd of ths Senior Deputy Local Registrar. We shall return to this point. 1tsm 4, relating to the assignment or assumption of responsibilities of a court clerk is also contested by the Employer. We are satisfied, on the evidence before us, that the Grievor is involved to some extent in this activity. The work of the court clerks is normally assumed by part-time employees. On the other hand, the task is performed by the Local Registrar I 17 himself on what might be referred to as special occasions. Occasionally, the Grievor has been asked to sit in for the Local Registrar on such occasions. Further, the evidence before us indicates that the Grievor has in the past occasionally and, more recently, routinely made assignments of tasks to the part-time employees engaged as court clerks. There is no reason to believe, we add, that either the assignment of such task’s or the assumption of such responsibilities are themselves duties. of considerable complexity. We are satisfied that if the Grievor, at the time of the grievance, engaged sporadically in these activities, she did so without any need for relatively close supervision. Item 5 relating to the performance of the responsibilities of a Vommissioner of OathsV1 is also contested by the Employer. The principle basis for the Employer's attack on this point relates to the fact that the Grievor has no formal appointment to the office of the ~~Commissioner of Oaths" as such. Although this is true, it is argued, on the Grievor's behalf, that she possesses all of the powers of a Commissioner of.Oaths with respect to the types of documents which she is required to handle. Thus, section 105 or the Courts of Justice Act, 1994 provides as follows: tion of Oaths 105. Every officer of a court has, for the purposes of any matter before him or her, power to administer oaths and affirmations and to examine parties and witnesses Again,, there is no question, on the evidence before us, but that 10 the Grievor does in fact exercise this power to administer oaths in the course of discharging her responsibilities. Accordingly, our conclusion on this point is similar to our conclusion with respect to item 3. That is to say, though we believe that the Grievor is Sufficiently involved in the work of a Commissioner of Oaths within the context of the court proceedings subject to her attention that it cannot be said that her range of responsibilities does not extend to this particular Principal Activity. It is nonetheless true that she does not have all of the powers of a Commissioner of Oaths and thus does not appear to discharge all of the responsibilities that might be required of a fully qualified ~~Commissionsr of Oathse. Thus, while on the one hand the Grievor cannot be said to be excluded from this principal activity, neither can shs be said to shoulder all of the responsibilities that may be discharged by a Commissioner of Oaths. The final item contested by the Employer is item 6 which pertains to the administration of office accounts and other related duties. The Grievor's l vidsncs on this point rests on her involvement in the handling of moneys in what might be described as her over-the-counter work and, moreover, on her role as a signing oiiiosr with respmct to certain accounts maintained by the Office OS the Local Registrar. Thu., Exhibit 0 is a letter dated November 4th, 1906, identifying the Grievor as one of the signing officers on a series of accounts held in the name of the Local Registrar at a local branch of the Canadian Imperial Bank of 19 Commerce. There is no doubt that the Grievor was in fact involved in the administration of accounts in the sense that she was involved in authorising deposits and withdrawals into various accounts in accordance with applicable rules and policies within the office. In his evidence, however, the Local Registrar attempted to draw a distinction between activity of this kind and a "genuine administration II of office accounts which was, in his view, the responsibility of another member of the staff~who worked in the area of office administration. That other member of the staff, it should be added, was not the Senior Local' Deputy Registrar. Our view is that the evidence before us does not establish that full responsibility for the administrative work involved in maintaining such accounts is the nature of the activity ~being referred to in item 6. Thu., we are persuaded that the Grievor's involvement in the handling of and approval of various entries pertaining to the administration of office accounts must be considered to.be the exercise of an authority with respect to the administration oft office accounts and other related duties. In summary then, it is our conclusion that the Grievor does in fact exercise authority with respect to each of the Principal Activities identified in the Courts Administration section of the Preamble portion of Exhibit 4. This finding, when coupled with our finding indicated earlier in these reasons to the effect that the Grievor does not function under Velatively close supervision@V lead us to the conclusion that the specific responsibilities 20 assigned to the Grievor and the manner in which she is supervised do not meet the definitions set out in the Preamble for the concept or "Limited Authority". This conclusion, especially when considered in the light of the fact that the Grievor, on a regular and routine basis, assumes responsibility for the operation of the office in the absence of both the Local Registrar and the Senior Deputy leads us to the conclusion that the Grievor is not properly classified at the level of Deputy 1. On the other hand, we are not satisfied that the Grievor's authority extends to all of the activities in each of the seven Principal Activities to the extent that appears to be expected of a Senior Deputy Local Registrar. Keeping in mind our findings with respect to items 3 and 5, it is our view that the Grievor is sufficiently involved in those Principal Activities, that she must be considered to be a 8'generalistB1 in a sense that lifts her out of the Deputy 1 level. And yet, we are not persuaded that she enjoys full authority with respect to all of the possible activities within each of these two categories in the manner expected of the Senior Deputy. we should note that there appears to be no difference between the Senior and Junior Deputies with respect to their reporting rslationships. They both report to the Local Registrar. Purthsr, according to the Standard - and we have heard no evidence to the contrary - there does not appear to be any difrerencs in terms or supervisory responsibilities. Nonetheless, we are satisfied that there is some difference between 21 the nature of the responsibilities assumed in some categories of Principal Activities by the two positions. 'In particular, the Senior's involvement in complex assessments introduces a range of difficulties and a requirement for training and expertise not precisely paralleled in the Junior's position. We are frank to concede that if forced to choose between Deputy 1 and Deputy 2, we should choose the latter. It is our view, however, that neither accurately captures the Grievor's set of responsibilities. Accordingly, this is, in our view, an attractive case for the application of the doctrine developed in the important decision in the Ontario Divisional Court in OPSEU and Carol Barrv et al. v. Tha Crown in Riaht of Ontario (Winistrv of Communitv and Social Services) 607/05, unreported, to the effect that the proper remedy to be awarded by the Board in circumstance8 such as these is to require that the position of Jr. Deputy Local Registrar (Bilingual) be properly classified by the Employsr. The Employer does.not contest the positions taken by the Union nor by the Grievor that the remedy should be awarded effective twenty days prior to the riling of the Grievance. The Board remains seized of jurisdiction to provide whatever assistance may be necessary to the parties in implementing this decision. Dated at Toronto this 22rd day of November 1990. -. I. Cowan Member