Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-1853.Tomlinson & Fleming.91-03-28 ONTA RiO EMP[ 0 YES DE COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS TSO DUNDAS S'FREEr WEST, SUITE 2~00, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG IZ8 TELEF~HONE/?EL,ePHONE· 180, ~UE DUNDAS OUEST, 8UREAU 2t~O, T~ONTO (ONTAFHO), MS'G '{Z8 FACSIM~LE/T~:LECOP~E : i4;6) f126-t396 1853/89 IN THE M~TTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Tomlinson/Fleming) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right 'of Ontario (Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations) Employer BEFORE: M. Watters Vice~Chairperson J. Laniel Member G. Milley Member FOR THE R. Stephenson GRIEVOR Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE I. Werker EMPLOYER Counsel Fraser and Beatty Barristers & Solicitors HEARING: September 4, 1990 September 14, 1990 December 10, 1990 December 12, 1990 This proceeding arises from the grievances of Mr. Don Fleming and Ms. Jean Tomlinson dated December 5, 1989. They alleged therein tha~ they were improperly classified at the level of Information Officer 1. The grievors asserted thaC they should be classified as Information Officer 2's.: Their claim was premised om what has come to be known as the 'usage' approach. More particularly, the grievors believed that they performed substantially the same work as Ms. France:Abergel, another employee a% the workplace, who is classified at the higher level. In this instance, the Union did 6or challenge the appropriateness of the class standards, The-grievors and Ms. Abergel all work at the Consumer Informat;ion Centre located at 555 Yonge St'reet, Toronto. The position specifications for Information Officer and Bilingual Information Officer are appended to this award as Schedules 'A' and '8', respectively. These documents are identical save and except for the provision of French la~lguage service in the latter specification. The grievors agreed that these specifications "adequate]y, although not completely," described 1;heir duties as Information Officers. Tb~s 8oard is satisfied, after a review of all of the evidence, that the aforesaid Schedules provide a relatively good description of the major duties and responsibilities performed by the grievors. 0 0 There are a total of four (4) Znformation Officer l's working in the Inquiry Unit of the Consumer Information Centre. The other two (2) Officers are Ms. Andres Ann Rousseau and Mr. .Richard Prevost. The grievors and Ms. Rousseau have worked at the Centre since 198~, Mr. Prevost started as an Information Officer in June, 1989. Their job, in an overall sense, has three (3) component$~ Firstly,. they respond to telephone inquiries relating to services and programs offered by the Ministries of Financial Institutions and Consumer and Commercial Relations. These calls may necessitate a subsequent referral to other ministries, both provincial and federal, or to various pcivate sector agencies. It was estimated that each officer receives between seventy (70) and two hundred (200) telephone inquiries per day. We were advised that they devote' approximately eighty- five percent (85%) of their day to this task. Secondly, the Information Officers answer que~tions Dosed by persons who present themselves at the fromt counter. Approximately one hundred (100) of these "walk-ins" attemd at the Centre each day. Ten percemt (10%) of the Officers' day is spent answering this type of inquiry. The Information Officers develop and maintain a data base, consisting of several sources, to facilitate a prompt and effective response to the questions asked. The balance of their day is used to complete "separate duties". These include the compilation of monthly statistics, the processing of in- coming correspondence,.and the ordering and displaying of pamphlets which might be of interest to consumers. These duties 2 are rotated amongst all of the Officers working in the Consumer Information Centre. The Board was left with the distinct impression that the Information Offi.cers work effectively as a team. The extent of their co-operation likely results, in part, from the nature of the workplace. The Inquiry Unit is located in a very small, ground floor, office. Its layout is largely 'open- concept' and the Officers~ desks are in close proximity to one another. Ms. Abergel is the sole Senior Information Officer at the Centre. As noted above, she is classified as an Information Officer 2. The specification for her position is appended hereto as Schedule 'C' It is apparent from a reading of same that there is substantial overlap between it and Schedules 'A' and 'B', particularly with respect to the provision of information to consumers and others and the development and maintenance of a comprehensive and current data base. The major area of difference exists vis a vis paragraph number one (1) under the heading 'Duties And Related Tasks' Five (5) specific responsibilit'ies, which we elect to refer to as 'group- leadership' functions, are listed therein. Ms. Abergel testified that she performed these functions and that they occupied between fifteen percent (t5%) and thirty percent (30%) of her time. The Board has been required ~o determine whether Ms. Abergel, in fact, performed these group leader functions at the 3 time material to this dispute. Additionally, we have been asked to assess whether the performance of all, or part of, these responsibilities supports the difference in classification. Simpiy put, the Board must answer the question as to whether the jobs actually performed by the grievers and Ms. Aberget are substantially similar. The Board heard a substantial amount of evidence over the course o¢ four reprocfuce the bulk of same.for purposes of this award. We elect, rather, to identify the findings of fact. which we think may be fairly drawn from the evidence. These findings, which relate to the operation of the Inquiry Unit. prior to the date.of the grievance, are as (i) Vacation requests were submitted in written form to ~4s. Abe'rcjel. She then determined whether the request could be accommodated. This determination was based on whether the absence would undermine the objective of providing adequate telephone coverage, It was the 9eneral policy of the Employer that only two (2) ];nformation Officers could be away at the same time. In considering the request, ~4s. Abergel consu'lted a calendar on the wall near her desk which showed periods of vacation previously approved. The request in issue would then be brought to the attention of the Manager of the Consumer Information Centre. Mr. Robert Bourassa acted in this capacity at the time material to this proceeding. Ms. Abergel advised the 4 Nanager as to whether any problems existed with respect to the request, Zf none existed, he proceeded to approve same. The decision was subsequently communicated to the Officer by Hs. Abergel. We are satisfied that the Nanager relied on Hs. Abergel's judgment throughout this process. More particularly, she p¢ovi, ded an assurance that the grant of vacation time would not disrupt the ability of the Centre to respond to the high voTume of telephone inquiries, A similar process was employed with respect to cumulative (ii) If an Information Officer was going to be either late Ormabsent, they were expected to so advise Ms. Abergel, if she was available. It is clear that, on occasion, other staff might have initially received the telephone call and relayed the message 'to her. These absences, from time'to time, required Ms. Abergel to adjust the sequence of breaks in order to maintain suitable staff coverage. She was also required to record time lost due to lateness or appointments outside of the office amd to ensure that it was ultimately made up. Much of the above- information was communicated to the Manager so that he was aware as to who was present in the Unit' on a given day. (iii) The Board is satisfied that Ms. Abergel coordinated the %raining given to new staff such as Mr. Prevost, Ms, Abersel testified that such training too~ between eight (8) and ten (10) days to complete. It included the following items: 1. An introduction to existing ~staff; 2. the provision of an overview of the work of the Consumer Information Centre; 5 2. : ~ _ _, ~ion of a number of information kits relating to th~ Cer-,tre's mandate; 4. the ~eview of information sources such as the Rolladex, the Red Binder, and the Office Procedure Manual; 5. a meeting with the Education Co-ordinator and the L~brarian; 8 an introduction to the tel:¢;-~ne system; 7. the viewing of ~ video on tl -~er handling of inquiries; 8. the review of the governmer ;or' the qui d several of the most frequer ~ p' -.lets; 9. the monitoring of the new C ~ iat exc :he telephone. We were left with the impressio¢ .~ '~ining somewhat, intense given that Ms. Abe.-':ei ~ed much cf material"with the new staff member on a .~ page bas' While Ms. Abergel' was responsible to e~:: :hat ~is trz was provided, it is clear that, on occ~ ~, she expertise of Information Officers in ~ ~ic ar~ .ch Rolladex and the Red Binder. Neverth~ their- .~lv~ appeared to be limited to a particular ~urce. Unlike Abergel, the Officers were not accoun~ for the implement,- and coordination of the entire trainer' ~gram. (iv) Ms. Abergel did not arrange lternate 'telephone coverage if an Information Officer was at from work. In event, their telephone line was simply keyed in. She was responsible, ever, for e~-' 'rin~ that c~e "separate duties", referred to z , were co~ :ed. It s clear that such duties may have bee~ .~sionally ormed by an Information Of= r on " a voluntary basis. (v) Ms, Aberge] aTso assisted the Manager in the conduct o¢ performance appraisals. She testified that she informed Mr. 8ourassa as to the work habits of the various Information Officers. The Manager stated that it was necessary for him to rely on this assistance as he did not regularly work within the Inquiry Unit. (vi) Ms. Abergel, under the direction of the Manager, ordinated the staffing of trade shows and exhibitions. She did this by recruiting volunteers for the particular show in question and by ensuring that all necessary resources were avai.lab]e. The Board accepts that Ms. Rousseau did considerable planning in respect-of the Timmins show. This likely occurred, however, because of her experience with that specific event. We find that she worked more independently in respec~ of that function than would be the case with other similar ventures. Notwithstanding that fact, Me. Abergel was kept informed of all arrangements. Additionally, she reviewed the list of pamphlets Ms. Rousseau planned to utilize and made suggestions and revisions to same. (vii) Ms. Abergel met with the Manager on a weekly basis. During their meeting, vacation requests we¢e discussed and decisions were taken with respect %o trade shows. Ms. Aberge] also reported to the Manager on the overall operation of the Unit and suggested options available to address any existing problems. Staff performance was another matter canvassed .in these meetings. Hr. Bourassa also questioned Ns. Abergel' on any issues emerging from the monthly statistics. It was his evidence that she was expected to provide feedback to the staff subsequent to these sessions. Ms. Abergel testified that she did so, albeit not in a formal manner. In contrast, the grievors generally denied have received such feedback. This conflict is difficult to exDlain. After considerable thought, the Board concludes that feedback was provided by Ms. Aberge], but not to the extent claimed or expected. We agree that this form of communication was likely important in a setting where the. Manager was not functionally involved in the daily operation of the office. (viii) The Board finds that each Information Officer was responsible to maintain their own RoIladex and Red Binder. The for~er contained information pertaining to the most frequentiy asked questions. The latter provided data' on the programs and services offered by the three (3) levels of government. If an Officer became aware of a change in the data, they would effect the appropriate amendment in their Rolladex or Red Binder; Further, they were'in the habit of advising their colleagues of such developments either orally or by way of a short memo. On occasion, they might also make the necessary entry in the other persons materials. We have not been satisfied that this process was routed through Ms. Abergel. The Board is also unable to find that she routinely verified the accuracy of any changes made. It does seem, however, that Ms. Abergel was responsible for co- ordinating the comprehensive updating of resources such as occurred in 1987. Lastly, we note that the parties were in 8 conflict as to who actually circulated news releases and dealt with irate callers. The Board has not been persuaded that their distinct impressions on these matters are material to the resolution of this dispute given our other findings. The Board finds tha~ Ms. Abergel performed the group leader functions to the extent noted above. Conversely, we are unable to conclude that the grievors, performed similar duties on a regular basis. In our judgment, the exercise of these functions rendered the jobs substantially dissimilar. In this respect, the case before us may be distinguished from Deals and Cain, 30/79 (Draper) and Wallace and Jackson, 274/84 (Gorsky), relied on by the Union. As stated earlier in this award, Ms. Aberget expended between 'fifteen percent (15%) and thirty percent (30%) of her time on the group leader activities. We have not been persuaded that such work was ancillary or incidental to the Information Officer role she shared with the grievors. Rather, the Board finds that her efforts as a group leader were separate or distinct functions which required a higher level of responsibility. We note and accept Hr. Bourassa's evidence that he relied on Ms. Abergel to ensure the smooth and efficient operation of the Unit. This was particularly significant to him given that his other responsibilities kept him away from the office to a considerable extent. Lastly, the Board remains unconvinced that the degree of overlap between the two (2) jobs dictates a finding of substantial similarity. 9 ,;~ 0 0 Fon a~ o¢ the above reasons, the Grievances are dented. Dated at Torouco ,Onta¢io this 28ch day o¢ l~srch , 199t. M. Watters, Vice-Chairperson --- J, Laniel, Member ,G. Milley, Member 10