Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-0088.Connelly et al.92-11-09 .",r ,- " 'I:" {.~ ONTARIO EMPLOYÈS DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL'ONTARIO 1111 GRIEVANCE CPMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD . DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2 roO, TORONTO, ONTARiO. M5G IZ8 TËLEPHONEITELEPHONE' (4Iõ) J25-IJ88 180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, 8UREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO). M5G IZ8 FACSlrAlLf iTELÈCOPIE r415) J25- I J95 88/90, 89/90, 90/90, 262/90 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Connelly et all Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) Employer BEFORE M. Gorsky Vice-Chairperson J. C. Laniel Member A. stapleton Member FOR TBE W. Whitaker GRIEVOR Counsel Ryder, Whitaker, Wright & Chapman Barristers & Solicitors POR THE M. Failes BMPLOYBR Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors BEARING August 3, 1990 September 28, 1990 December 14, 1990 , May 22, 24, 1991 February 13, 1992 May 29, 1992 I . If 1 DEe I s ION There are five grIevances before us, all dated December 1, 1982 with all of the Grievors, at the material times, being employed by the Ministry of Health in the O.H.I.P. Oshawa District Office, located at 44 Bond Street West. Two of the grIevances, being those of Andrea E. Christie and Charlotte A. McGahey, were heard together by agreement of the parties. Accordingly, there were four separate hearings involving the adducing of evidence and the presentation of argument, which, if the grievances were to be decided on their merits, would result in four separate decisions. The grievance of Ms. Connelly originally came on for hearing before a panel of the Board chaired by Vice-Chairperson N. v. Dissanayake on October 25, 1989. At the outset of that hearing, counsel for the Employer raised two preliminary objections to arbitrability which we understood were intended to apply to all of the cases before us. The first was an objection to the Board's jurisdiction to hear the grievance on the basis that it had not been processed through the grievance procedure provided for in the collective agreement. The second was a submission that the Board should decline jurisdiction to hear the grievance on its merits because of undue delay or laches. Counsel before the Dissanayake panel agreed that these issues should be determined before dealing with the merits of the grievance. In the result, the Board disallowed the first objection to arbitrability and concluded, at '- -- 2 p.14, tha.t: "Given this outcome, the Board does not feel a need to determine the 'laches' Issue. This dismissal does not preclude the grIevor from making a subsequent reference to this boa'rd if this dispute is not resolved throughout the grlevance procedure. If it does come before the Board, that panel will have to deal with the 'laches! Issue. " The Grievors have now made references to the Board. The laches issue has again been raised by counsel for the Employer, and . it was agreed that it was being raised with respect to all of the grIevances. It was further agreed that we would first hear the evidence with respect to all of the grievances followed by argument on the merits and on the laches Issue. We will proceed to render our decisions with respect to the grievances referred to. Grievance of AQne Connelly Ms. Connelly, who has a seniority date of 1969, was initially a Clerk 2, Filing in the Central Records Office of OHIP, on .Overlea Boulevard in Toronto. In 1975 she was transferred to the office l.n oshawa, where she was the successful candidate in a competition for a group leader position as a. result of which her classification was changed to Clerk 3, Filing, and her position title became Senior Records Clerk. As a Senior Records Clerk, Ms. Connelly supervised four file clerks. At the time of her grievance she reported to Mr. .. " 3 Jang Hong, the Supervisor, Support Services, who reported to Mr. Noel Armstrong, Manager, Administrative Services, who, In turn, reported the Director, Oshawa District, who at the time was Mr. Arman Arkellian. Mr. Hong remained in the position of Supervisor, Support Services for approximately four months after Ms. Connelly filed her grIevance, and his position remained unfilled for approximately eight to ten months thereafter. Ms. connelly gave evidence that: . (1) The file unit dealt with the correspondence from units In the office, preparation of files, addition of material to existing files, the preparation of files ~n accordance with a pre- determined colour coding system, cull ing files after two and a half years and sending the culled files for recyc ling. Employees In the filing unit attended to requests for files based on pull card orders received from different areas and arranged for the removal and replacement of files. Log cards were prepared, recording the name of the person requesting a file, the name of the unit where they worked. the date the file left the unit, along with particulars of the file. ( 2 ) Some of the different types of files found in the unit were: (a) Doctors' files, which were given a six-digit number, which files contained correspondence received by the claims clerks from doctors. (b) Subscriber files, which included such I .~ " 4 matters as correspondence from persons who had previously had group coverage but were now unemployed and were required to , pay premiums directly. These files could also contain requests for information as to when the subscriber was last covered, information concerning movement between jobs, address changes, additions to subscriber's fami! y, and changes In marital status. (c) Clinic files, which included documents related to payment to physicians. (d) Alpha files, which included letters sent without an identifying address. These letters were' kept In an alpha file until some identifying information, such as an address, was obtained, when the alpha filés would be pulled and the file. placed in the numerical system. (e) Out-of-province files, which involved claims relating to persons out of Ontario. (3) There was a tracer system'employed in the file unit to keep track of files that had been taken out of the filing area. The status of files removed was reviewed every Monday and the system tracked the location of all files. If files taken from the unit were not returned within three weeks, Ms. Connelly arranged for someone to communicate with the person to whom the file had been given and an appropriate notation was made In a log book and the log card kept in the filing cabinet. ( 4) . Files were culled after two and a half years, based on the date of the last correspondence. After culling, files ·were . . 5 boxed and sent for recycling with a record being kept of the number of files sent from the unit. (5 ) The four clerks who reported to Ms. Connelly divided the work of the unit between them. The clerks proceed to the unit to obtain a file folder and check the appropriate cabinet to see if it IS In. Correspondence is then attached to a card. Files were opened In accordance with the numerical system In operation. -- (6 ) Twenty-five to fifty per cent of a clerk's time would be spent in carrying out the above-described duties, depending on the volume of work. The balance of a clerks' time would involve obtaining files for the claims unit upon receipt of the appropriate requisition slip. Some of a clerks' time would be involved in obtaining microfiches from the microfilm cabinet for the microfilming unit. The microfiche would be pulled and, copies made and, forwarded to the claims area. ( 7 ) Ms. Connelly did not normally perform the work above described, which was the responsibility of the four clerks who . reported to her and whom she supervised. Among her responsibilities were the preparation of production reports (daily, weekly, and monthly) relating to her unit. Production measured included a physical count of every piece of paper that passed through the unit and the time spent l.n other . ~" . 6 areas. The production report recorded such information as the - number of pIeces filed away, new files opened and requests for files and microfiches. On an average day her unit processed: 250 pIeces of correspondence along with requests for 25 files and 20 microfiches. The functioning of the file unit in Oshawa was said to be "more or less the same" as the one with which she was familiar when she worked at the Over lea office In Toronto. Ms. Connelly was familiar with the functioning of the leader position at the Overlea . group office, as she had served as an acting group leader l.n the absence of the incumbent. The complexity of the work in the filing unit at Oshawa and at the Overlea office was said to be much the same. Production reports kept at the Over lea office measured similar matters . as did those maintained by Ms. Connelly at the Oshawa office, although she acknowledged that she was not personally responsible for the preparation of production reports at the Overlea office. She did, however, note that she had periodically examined the production reports at the latter office, and was also familiar with them because of her experience as an acting group leader. When she left the Overlea office in 1974 or 1975, there were two group leaders and ten clerks assigned to each of them. ( 8 ) Proportionately, each clerk In the file unit at the Oshawa office was said to have performed more work than a clerk In the same unit at.the Overlea office. Ms. Connelly estimated . . 7 that, at the relevant time, there was almost the same volume of work for the filing clerks at the Oshawa office as there was for the filing clerks at the Overlea office. (9 ) .<\fter Mr. Hong left his position, Ms. Conne 11 y dea 1 t directly with Mr. Armstrong concerning matters that would formerly have been referred to Mr. Hong. She only consulted with Mr. Armstrong in connection with what she described as "big problems. " ( 10) Ms. Connelly trained new filing clerks by physically performing the work of a clerk, explaining each step as she performed it and, later, when a clerk was given actual work to perform, monitoring the work on a day-to-day basis until she felt confident that the employee was capable of performing it up to an acceptable standard. She was also involved with the scheduling of the the clerks who reported to her, including the scheduling of vacations. In the latter case, she provided input to her supervisor. ( 111 As the senior clerk, Ms. Conne II y was responsible for day-to- day work assignments to the clerks under her; dealing with work related problems as they arose, as when files were reported lost, and checking, on a periodic basis, to see that the clerks were properly carrying out their responsibilities. I ¡ 0;. 8 (12 ) She also had a role In the periodic appraisal of the clerks under her. She f i 11 ed out, in draft form, deta il s relating to work appraisal on the forms used for that purpose, which she then submitted to her supervisor who might add comments and make changes before the appraisal was typed In final form. She' was also involved in the formal appraisal review meeting, along with her superVIsor. <13 ) As part of her supervisory responsibilities, Ms. Connelly was involved In counselling the clerks under .her. When a clerk appeåred to be having a problem, she would intervene to try to discover what it was, and she would offer her assistance, depending on the nature of the problem. An example was given of .the case of a clerk who had a mental illness, where Ms. Connelly attempted to acc:onunodate some of the problems experienced by the clerk. Ms. Connelly never had occasion to remonstrate any of the clerks under her because of apparent deficiencies in their work performance. (14 ) She felt that she had a responsibility to intervene when one of her subordinates was late for work. She endeavoured to assist them in dealing with problems that might interfere with their regular and on-time attendance at work. when her efforts to assist an employee did not result in improvement, she informed them that if the situation did not improve she might have to discuss the problem with higher supervision. ,~ . . 9 ( 15) When a review of the statistics kept by her disclosed that one of the subordinate clerks was not performing at an acceptable level, she would bring this matter to the attention of her supervisor for inclusion in the periodic appraisals. ( 16) She regarded the contents of her positio(l specification and class allocation form (Exhibit 2 ) as being "generally accurate. " Exhibit 2 IS annexed as Appendix 1. The purpose of her evidence In reviewing her duties and responsibilities was to demonstrate that she performed at a higher level than her present classification, 'and to add deta íl s of duties and responsibilities said not to be covered in Exhibit 2. Mr. ~ang Hong was the Supervisor of Support Services from 1979 to 1982, and Ms. Connelly reported to him, from the time she moved to the Oshawa office in 1975 until he left in 1982 for a position with the Ministry of Revenue. He testified that: (1) The production of reports concerning the work being performed in the records area was the responsibility of Ms. Connelly. ( 2 ) Because of the passage of time since he left his position as Supervisor, Support Services, he could not recall the number of files that were kept ~n the records section, however he estimated that there would be approximately 10,000. · ". 10 ( 3, ~ He would, as part of his responsibilities, attend at each unit In Support Services between two to three times a day. (4 ) At the relevant time, he had working under him, three typists, one senior records clerk 01s, Connelly~ , a senIor microfilm operator (Mr. Teeple, one of the Grievors), four record clerks who reported to Ms. Connelly, 'a senIor mail clerk, a stock clerk, a receptionist and a switchboard operator, and two microfilm operators, the Grievors McGahey and Christie. He was also responsible for additional staff made up of unclassified employees and summer students. Of the summe r students, one worked In the mail room and the other In the microfilm room. There were also forty-two data entry operators not shown on the organization chart (Exhibit 4) , who directly reported to him through two or three group leaders. This arrangement was changed approximately three months before he left the Ministry of Health on December 31, 1982, when the data entry operators were transferred to the Claims Section. On average, he spent about an hour a day with the data entry group leaders. ( 5 ) Because of, the passage of time since the grievance was filed in 1982, he had difficulty in remembering the format of the reporting records kept by Ms. Connelly, and could not reca 11 the amount of work processed under her supervIsl0n. He was, however, able to remember the kinds of job duties that Ms. ~ . 11 Connelly performed, and he did not disagree with her description of what she did. Noel Armstrong, who was at the material times the Manager of Administrative Services also testified. However, his evidence dealt with the grievances of certain of the other Grievors and none of his evidence conflicted with that of Ms. Connelly. As noted above, although Mr. Hong indicated that the passage . of time had affected his ability to reca II some details relating to the duuties and responsibilities of Ms. Connelly, he did recollect what function she carried out, and there was no dispute concerning her carrying out of the following duties and responsibilities: (1) She was immediately responsible for the operation of the file unit on a day-to-day basis, and in that capacity supervised four clerks classified as Clerk 2, Filing. ( 2 ) The filing unit that she supervised was responsible for a variety of different kinds of files, and for processing each file through a range of functions: creation, filing of documents, storage of files, responding to field . .. 1nqu1r1es concern1ng files, manag1ng the circulation of files, destruction/culling of files, and preparation of statistical reports concerning files on a regular basis. , ~ 12 ( 3 ) The actual work in carrying out the above described functions was performed by the four filing clerks under Ms. Connelly's superVlSlon, and she was responsible for the preparation of the daily, weekly and monthly statistical reports. (4 ) Ms. Connelly functioned in a supervisory capacity and did not perform the same work performe~ by the four,Clerk 2' s, Fil ing, I except in a training capacity~ I . (5 ) Ms. Connelly had a responsibility for the. training of filing I clerks, assigning work to the~, monitoring their performance, preparing I· , I and appraisals for Mr. Hong, pre lmlnary assessment I I for signature and approval. The final appraisal was that of I I her superVIsor, who could alter the draft appraisal when he I felt it was necessary to do I She also prepared preliminary so. I ! schedules for vacation leave., I I ( 6 ) Ms. Connelly did not discipli~e employees. When her attempts I to deal with difficulties arising out of the behaviour of an I employee could not· be settled between herself and the I employee, the matter was submitted to her supervisor for I further action. I I I I I 7. Although Ms~ Connelly's repdrting relationship was to Mr. I Hong, he was not involved, td any considerable extent, with I the day-to-day operations of ¡the filing unit. Ms. Connelly I I I I I I , I . 13 would only infrequently attend upon him for advice and direction. His periodic visits to the filing unit were brief and usually involved Ms. Connelly's indicating to him that the unit was functioning properly. It was the position of counsel for the Union that Ms. Connelly's duties and responsibilities best fit within the Clerk 4, Filing, classification. . The Clerk 3, Filing and Clerk 4, Filing class standards are as follows: CLERK 3. FILING CLASS DEFINITION: Employees in positions allocated to this class are responsible for the day-to-day functioning of medium- sized filing operations requiring from two to nine subordinate employees. These units are either self- contained filing units or sections of larger operations. These employees are responsible to senior filing superVlsors or other administrative officials to whom they refer the more difficult or unusual problems and make recommendations for major changes in procedure. Employees train new staff, assign and supervise the work of their unit, solving most of the filing problems that arise. They participate in the regular work of the unit and search for files which cannot be readily located by their subordinates. They scan or read new correspondence, classify it and code it for attachment to the appropriate file. They deal with superVlsors of units requlrlng files or documents, investigate complaints, or conduct searches for missing files. They interview members of the public if the unit contains records available to the public, answer telephone calls and written enquiries, supply information from the files where appropriate. They establish or reVIse index systems, relabel or re-arrange the filing cabinets. They open new files as required, inspect and repair used files and arrange for destruction of dead files. They may I :¡ ~ 14 prepare summar~es or reports concerning work performed, files ~n movement, files destroyed, total number of files, etc. Incidental duties may include the operation of office equipment, the maintenance of a small stationery supply, sorting, screening and distributing mail, and supervising a messenger service. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 10 education, preferably Grade 12. 2. At least two years' filing experience or equivalent combination of education and experience. 3. Initiative, tact, supervisory ability; abil i ty to communicate orally and ~n writing, personal suitability. ~ - CLERK 4. FILING CLASS DEFINITION: Employees in positions allocated to this class are supervisors of large filing operations requiring ten to fourteen subordinates, or are assistant supervIsors of very large records units involving in excess of fifteen employees. These employees assign and supervise the work of the filing staff, resolve routine disciplinary problems and refer to their own supervisor such problems as staff performance and staffing requirements. Although these employees participate ~n the regular work of the unit, they spend most of their time supervising the day- to-day operations, and exerc ise initiative in determining allocation of work load, solving problems of morale and discipline, dealing with other supervisors of the branch or department. They maintain proper control records, and supervise the preparation' of new files, the repa~r of worn files and the destruction of dead files, revising the filing system or rearrangIng the filing cabinets, maintaining the equipment used by the unit, and directing the clerical procedures ancillary to the work of the unit. They supervise special searches for files which cannot be readily located and search the filing system for specialized information which cannot 'be readily related to a category within the system, or l.S to be found under a variety of categories. They may on occasion prepare statistical summaries or reports based 15 on information ln the system, or concernIng the filing system itself. Incidental duties may include the supervISIon of duplicating operations, the maintenance of a sma 11 stationery supply, superVISlon of a messenger serVIce, answerIng the telephone and interviewing members of the public. QUALIFJ;CATIONS: 1. Grade 10 education, preferably Grade 1')' a '" , knowledge of office practices, filing and clerical procedures. 2 . At least three years' filing experlence and' preferably-some general office experience. 3 . Proven supervisory ability; ability to communicate both orally and in writing; initiative; alertness; dependability; personal suitability. Examinining Ms. Connelly's duties and responsibilities in the light of the Clerk 3, Fil ing class standard we find: (1) She was an employee in a position "responsible for the day-to- day functioning of medium-sized filing operations requiring from two to nine subordinate employees." ( 2 ) The filing unit was a section "·of a larger operation. II ( 3 ) she was "responsible to . . . other administrative officials to whom [she referred] the more difficult or unusual problems and [made] recommendations for major changes in procedure". The nature of the problems are not spelled out In the class definition, a,nd glven the nature of class standards, which ~ . 16 tend to be general In scope, they could include matters requiring policy considerations whi¿h went beyond the merely technical operation of the filing unit. Ms. Connelly acknowledged that, on a small number of occas~ons she had to take up unusual problems with Mr. Hong. (4 ) Shé was responsible for the training of new staff, the aSSlgn~ng and supervision of the work of her unit where she solved most of the filing problems that arose. . - ( 5 ) She did not, on a regular basis, perform the filing responsibilities which were carried out by her four subordinates. We are satisfied, however, that she was involved In the actual filing functions described by her In unusual cases. (6 ) Although she did not usually "scan or read new correspondence, classified and coded for attachment to the appropriate file," which function was carried out by her subordinates, she did deal with supervisors of units requ1.rIng files or documents 1.n cases requiring her intervention and she was responsible for investigating complaints and, 1.n special cases where her subordinates were unable to locate missing files, did become involved. ( 7 ) She did not interview members of the public. · 17 (8 ) Any change ln the indexing system would requIre her involvement, although the work of relabelling or rearranging filing cabinets would be left to her subordinates. (9 ) She "prepared summaries or reports concerning work performed, files and movement, files destroyed, total number of files, et cetera. " Examining Ms. Connelly's duties and responsibilities In the light of the class standard for the Clerk 4, Filing, we find: (1) She was not the supervisor of a large filing operation requIrIng ten to fourteen subordinates, nor was she an assistant supervisor of a very large records unit involving in excess of fifteen employees. ( 2 ) she assigned and supervised the work of the filing staff, howeve r , this function 18 equally applicable to the class definition for the Clerk 3, Filing position. (3) While she endeavoured to resolve difficulties experienced by her subordinates, she could not be said to have had the responsibility for resolving routine disciplinary problems. This function IS not referred to in her position specification and class allocation form which provides that she is to refer "problem cases" to her supervisor for counselling, which she ; 18 apparently did. If she endeavoured ,to resolve routine disciplinary problems, there was no evidence that this function had ever been assigned to her. She' referred problems relating to staff performance to her superivsor. There was no evidence that she had referred staffing requirements to him. (4 ) Ms. Connelly only rarely participated in the regular work of the unit, but spent most of her time supervising the day-to- day operations. The language of the Clerk 3, Filing class definition IS sufficiently broad to incorporate a similar statëment. ( 5 ) There IS room in both the Clerk 3 and Clerk 4, Filing class standards to find that employees In both classifications exercise initiative in determining allocation of workload, however, the Clerk 4, Filing position is more specific in its reference to the exercising of initiative In "solving problems of morale and discipline." Ms. Connelly did exercise iniative in these areas. (6 ) There was no evidence to indicate that Ms. Connelly had a responsibility to deal with other supervisors of the branch or department, except ln cases where supervisors of units required files or documents or had complaints, which responsibility lS also found in the Clerk 3, Filing class definition. · 19 (7) .'\1 though Ms. Connelly maintained "proper control records and [supervised] the preparation of new files, repaIr of worn files and the destruction of dead files [and] revised the filing system or [rearranged] the filing cabinets," these duties and responsibilities also appea r , In somewhat different language, in the Clerk 3, Filing class definition. (8 ) Under the Clerk 4, Filing class definition, there IS reference to the preparation of statistical summaries and reports, which responsibility can also be found in the Clerk 3, Filing class definition. While Ms. Connelly's duties and responsibilities are not a perfect fit with either of the Clerk 3, Filing or Clerk 4, Filing class standards, fundamental to the Clerk 4, Filing standard is the requirement that an employee allocated to this class be a supervisor "of large filing operations requiring ten to fourteen subordinates. " An indication as to what is meant by large can be gathered from the number of subordinates supervised. It would too much of a stretch to regard the filing operation for which Ms. Connelly was responsible as falling within the large filing operation envisaged in the Clerk 4, Filing class definition. She does, however, fit comfortably within that part of the class definition for Clerk 3, Filing, which indicates that employees allocated to this class "are responsible for the day-to-day functioning of medium-sized filing operations requiring from two to " 20 ,nine subordinate employees." There may be some aspects of Ms. Connelly's duties and responsibilities that fit better into the Clerk 4, Filing class standard, however " on balance. we regard her duties and responsibilities as fitting reasonably comfortably In the Clerk 3, Filing classification, and the major difference noted by us 18 sufficiently substantial so as to cause us to conclude that she was properly classified as'~ Clerk 3, Filing. This IS not a case where the duties and responsibilities of Ms. Connelly are so different from those described in the Clerk 3, E i ling class standard so as to warrant the Issuance of a Berry order. Àccordingly, Ms. Connelly's grievance is denied. Grievances of Charlotte A. McGahey and Andr~a E. Chr il:;¡t ie Both Ms. McGahey' and Ms. Christie were, at all material times, classified as Operators 2, Microfilm, and each of their grievances claim reclassification as Operator 3, Microfilm, with retroactivity to January 1981. It was agreed that Ms. McGahey would be the only Grievor to testify and that her evidence would bind Ms. Christie. Ms. McGahey and Ms. Christie, as Microfilm Operators, reported to Mr. Teeple, the Senior Microfilm Operator who, in turn, reported to Mr. Hong, the Supervisor of Support Services. Both Ms. McGahey and I 21 Ms. christie operated a number of pIeces of equipment which were located In a self-contained room. These were: (1 ) Two Kodak rotary cameras, models #700 and 600, being automatic feed rotary type cameras. The cameras were described as being large and were placed on a stand, designed for that purpose. The cameras were described as 'being of the automatic kind, capable of accomodating more than one document at a time and used make microfilm of variety of . were to exposures a documents. (2) A Kodak - planetary (or flatbed) automatic focus camera with a pre-set aperture, which was located in a darkroom within a self-contained room. This camera was used to take single, manually-fed exposures of documents of different s~zes, shapes and types, where it was not possible to use a Kodak rotary camera. The Grievors also operated: (1) A document shredder which shredded microfilm and paper documents. ( 2 ) A Bell and Howell reader/printer, which was used to scan rolls of microfilm to select a particular document for printing and enlarging. , I '. 22 The Grievors revolved between two types of jobs. One of them worked for a week on the rotary camera while the other performed the remalnlng tasks, after which they exchanged responsibilities for a week. Ms. McGahey described the duties and responsibilities of herself and Ms. Christie: (1) Four types of batched documents were received from the control . area in the mornIng: a) claim cards (boxed and stacked in cupboards) , b) re-submissions, c) source documents, and d) print-outs, which were contained In a basket which was sorted and processed during the course of a day. (2 ) She and Ms. Christie did not receive instructions as to what to do on a day-to-day basis from either Messrs. Teeple or Hong, and they orgariized the work and completed it without direction. ( 3 ) Ms. McGahey described the work that she and Ms. Christie and performed uS1ng a. rotary camera. Claim cards, submitted by doctors, being 3 inches by 8 inches, representing a single visit, were received in the morning in batch form the control unit. The camera was prepared for use by disassembling and cleaning each part: feeder, printer etc. First the feeder and printer were removed. The back of the camera was then opened 23 and the glass guides for the cards were removed. The camera unit was then removed and cleaning was accomplished through the use of a vacuum with special brushes for the camera mIrrors. This task took from 15 to 30 minutes. The glass guides were then cleaned and the camera re-assembled. The person assigned to the operation of the rotary camera for the week would then remove the boxes of claim cards for filming from a cupboard where they were kept. Filming was commenced . and the film documents numbered. Claim cards were edited and the operator's ten-digit number entered. Steps were taken to ensure that nothing interfered with the legibility of the ten- digit number. Cards with such defects as ink blots or staples were pu 11 ed from the batches and left to the end of the day for return to the claims department. Filming was performed sitting in front of the camera. Batches were picked up on the right-hand side, and the cards were fanned and put through the camera after being numbered. Most of the day ( from approximately 8 a.m. to approximately 3 p.m. ) was spent filming. In an average day, 50,000 to 60,000 cards were fed through the camera. The batch cards, as they were photographed, were placed on the left hand side of the camera, and it was up to the control unit to remove them. Film was changed five to six times a day, with the camera unit being taken to the dark room and the film replaced with a new cartridge. Film exposed to the end of the day was prepared 24 for mailing to the office on Over lea Blvd by placing it in a plastic box and taping it. At the end of the day the cartridges of film were placed into a larger box with an authent~cation printed at the end of each one. Each time the film was changed, the operator had to clean the glass guides. In case of camera breakdown, a Kodak repairman was called by one of the Grievors without prior permission being obtained from anyone. On occasion, where service personnel were not , available, the Grievors would try to effect minor repairs such, as replacing belts and bulbs, cleaning wheels and setting the wheels. Four types of batch documents and printouts were referred to: 1) claim cards, 2 ) resubmissions, 3 ) source documents (batched) and (4)printouts. Resubmissions came from the claims unit and were delivered by the control unit. Resubmissions were documents requIrIng corrections on the claim cards. The procedure for dealing with resubmissions was the same as that for the microfilming claim cards, described above. On a busy day there were between 25,000 and 30,000 resubmissions, and on an average day 10,000 to 15,000. Source documents, identified as correspondence and receipts submitted by subscribers who had attended upon physicians out of Ontario, were said to come In all colours and textures, 25 from tissue to cardboard and from small to foolscap SIze. These would include photographs, birth, death and marrIage certificates, and ultra-sound readings. The source documents came in a folder and were not batched. Approximately 400 to 500 of them were photographed each day. Documents were edited prior to processing by removIng staples and making repairs. Crumpled documents were straightened and small documents were taped to regular sized pa pe r . The filming of resubmissions, source documents and printouts engaged the Grievors approximately one half hour a day, with some additional time being required for the editing process. (4 ) The flatbed camera, described as being approximately three feet by three feet, contained two lamps, was vertically mounted with the lens pointing down. Window cleaner was used to clean the flat part of the camera. The Grievors took simple voltage readings. If a reading was not correct they would open the camera and adjust it in order to obtain the proper reading. . An ~mproper reading could result in the need to re-film documents. The Grievors, in using the flatbed camera, would place a document on the table within the boundary lines, centre it, and then press the pr int button. If the day's filming was not completed, the camera was turned off, authenticity was placed on the current day's '; 26 work, and the work was then completed on the following date. Printouts, being sma II slips received from the claim clerks or their managers, were documents required to be placed on microfilm. On .an average day, approximately 1500 printouts were handled and sorted for logging. ( 5 ) The Grievors used the Bell and Howell reader/printer by . feeding separate loads of microfilm into it, scannl.ng to - - identify the portion to be photographed ~ ' then printed it. These documents were then sorted and prepared for mailing to the claims unit managers at satellite offices. ' ( 6 ) Shredding was performed whenever the Grievors had a few minutes to shred their film, microfiche and paper. In the case of microfiche and film, a set time was established for destruction. (7 ) TheGr ievors received a daily report on the previous day's films from the Overlea office, which resulted in the re- filming of documents where the quality was poor. They kept a log with respect to such documents. Where re-filming was required, the Gríevors would re-locate the origînal, documents, check them over, repal.r theM where necessary and re-shoot the film. 27 ( 8 ) Rush requests were frequently received. In such cases. the Grievors would have to stop what they were doing in order to attend to the requests. ( 9 ) Approximately two to three times a week, the Grievors trained summer students and cross-trained persons whose regular work was not microfilming. Students included those paid under the Futures program sponsored by the Ministry of Community Development. The amount of training given to students depended - - on how long they would remain with the Grievors. As part of the training process, the Grievors gave the persons being trained work to do, which they would later check. The did not have any responsibility for training Microfilm Operators. (10 ) Mr. Teeple was in the office where the Grievor's worked only about an hour a day and was not involved in any significant supervision on a day-to-day basis. On occas~on, when they experienced a problem with equipment, he would try to assist them. On rare occas~ons, when they were very busy, he assisted them by operating a camera, but he did not review their work for quality or quantity. (,11 ) Periodically, Mr. Hong would come to their office but he rarely said more than "good morning." He might ask them how things were going, but never asked them what they were doing, nor did he review their work. l .. 28 02 ) Periodic appraisals of the Grievors took place in Mr. Hong's office with Mr. Teeple being present. (131 The position specification (Exhibit 9) applicable to her and to Ms. Christie (annexed as Appendix 2 ) was generally accurate, but she regarded their duties and responsibilities, as above set out, as being greater and involving more , responsiblilty than those contained in Exhibit 9. . (14 ) Production records kept by the Grievors made it easier to re- locate film. (15 ) If the Grievors 'wished to take time off or to arrange for vacation scheduling, they initially cleared this with Mr. Teeple. ( 16) The Grievors did not use a densitometer, which instrument lS used to ensure that exposures are correct by checking voltage. This function was performed at the Overlea office. (17) Although the Grievors operated the cameras, the development process occurred at the Overlea office. Mr. Teeple's evidence with respect to his own grievance will be dealt with below. However, some of his evidence was relevant to the grievances of Ms. McGahey and Ms. Christie. He testified that: 29 ll) He had been appointed Senior Microfilm Operator In July of 1976, and held that position at the date of the grievance. He stated that he supervised the Grievors, and that he had trained Ms. McGahey. ( 2 } He drafted the appraisal forms with respect to Ms. McGahey and Ms. Christie, with the actual appraisals being conducted by Mr. Hong, with Mr. Teeple being present. (3 ) . His work In the microfilm unit involved training and supervision, and he was involved with the training of a number of different summer and co-op students. (4 ) He only performed the work described by Ms. McGahey during lunch hours and on breaks and when there was an overload. ( 5 ) Certain files came to his department from head office, which he opened and inspected. He was responsible for overall quality control. ( 6 ) He was responsible for cleaning the reader/printer. (7) The Grievors would come to him when there was a problem that they could not handle, such as a paper jam. When the problem was beyond his competence, a service person was called in. 30 (8 ) He referred to the employee with psychological problems who worked in the records area who was the subject of testimony from Ms. Connelly. He stated that when Ms. Connelly could not "take the pressure" she would call him and he would attempt to provide work for this employee. (9 ) He only had to instruct the Grievors McGahey and Christie about ten per cent of the time, as they were very familiar with the routine that would be followed on a day-to-day basis. .. -- About 50 per cent of his time was spent in,the microfilm unit, the balance of his time bieng taken up in mostly unrelated duties outside of the microfilm unit. At different times, while giving evidence, he estimated the time he spent outside "'< of the unit unit, as being approximately 75 per cent. <10 ) Except for microfilm, which was destroyed almost daily, other records were destroyed approximately every three to four months. The destruction of material was performed by himself, Ms. McGahey. Ms. Christie and by the students above referred to. Mr. Hong testified that: (1) He monitored performance. in the microfilm unit by visits, obtaining feedback from the user group and from the log reports. 31 ( 2 } Whenever a three-day backlog occurred, he would take such measures as were necessary, including helping out, to reduce the backlog. (3 } Although Ms. McGahey and Ms. Christie worked quite independently, they knew that their supervisor, Mr. Teeple, was always available in the event of problems arls~ng which they could not deal with. . The class standards with respect to the Operator 2, Microfilm and Operator 3 , Microfilm are as follows: OPERATOR 2, MICROFILM CLASS DEfINITION: Employees ~n positions allocated to this class operate elementary microfilming equipment under general supervision to produce miniature film reproductions of a variety of documents, not involving high preCISIon and not normally involving adjustment of the focussing, usually for file or reference purposes. They ensure that the material to be microfilmed is free of extraneous material, and repair torn documents, load the film, insert the document and expose the film. They check the quality of developed film and locate wanted records by using the microfilm reader. They may produce copIes of wanted documents from the microfilm negative using a printer or enlarger. They may maintain records of documents processed, dispatch film for processing and may check quality of the processed film remicrofilming where necessary. They clean the equipment and may mix chemical solutions. In some positions they may channel work to other personnel, destroy old files or operate auxiliary equipment such as shredding and baling machines, editing and splicing equipment, and may operate photocopying equipment. These employees may train and/or superV.lse an assistant or filing clerk. I .. 32 QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 10 education, or Grade 8 plus equivalent combination of education and experience. 2. One year's experience in the operation of microfilm equipment. 3. Ability to understand and follow instructions, alertness, accuracy, ability to maintain a satisfactory standard of quality and production. OPERATOR 3. MICROFILM CLASS DEFINITION: . Employees in positions 1n this class operate microfilm cameras of the planetary type to produce miniature film reproductions requiring a high degree of precision and involving the application of a high degree of skill. These employees process a variety of documents differing in shape, SIze, colour, and general condition, and presenting problems In terms of tears, wrinkles, folds, poor print, extraneous materia I, etc. These documents might include engineering drawings, blueprints, maps, charts, survey field notes, certificates; old vital statistics records, legal documents. These employees insert the document, and make the necessary adjustment to lighting, voltage, aperture, and focus, and may employ a densitometer to ensure precisely , accurate exposure, taking exposure readings at intervals. They load film into the units and are responsible for minor maintenance of the cameras. They may develop,film for test purposes or make copies and enlargements using such equipment as printers, enlargers, dryers, editing and splicing equipment and photocopying equipment. They check the quality of' film "returned from the processors re-microfilming where necessary. These employees refer only major technical problems and may be required to train junior personnel. This class also covers positions of group leader operators who ~n addition to operating microfilm equipment, supervise two or three operators engaged In routine microfilming work. These employees provide technical guidance to their subordinates, assign work and check quality of the work, keep records of documents processed, and requisition supplies. t I . 33 QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 10 education, or Grade 8 and equivalent combination of education and experience. ') At least three years' progressively responsible ... . experIence as a Microfilm operator. 3 . Demonstrated abil i ty In microfilming processes, instructional ability, accuracy and dependability. On a review of the actual duties and responsibilities of Ms. McGahey and Ms. Christie, we conclude that they might fit within . either of the two classifications, neither of which represents a perfect fit. They were in a position where they were required to "operate elementary microfilming equipment . . . to produce miniature film reproductions of a variety of documents, not involving high precISIon and not normally involving adjustment of the focusing, usually for file or reference purposes." Although it was suggested that they carried out their responsibilities with little superVls~on, the evidence of Mr. Teeple indicated that there was sufficient supervision so as place them under his general superVISIon. It was suggested by counsel for the Union that they fit more comfortably within the Operator 3, Microfilm class standard as they were said to operate "microfilm cameras of the planetary type to produce miniature film reproductions requiring a high degree of precision and involving the application of a high degree of skill. tt Although they did operate a planetary type camera, in addition to the rotary type cameras, the evidence did not disclose that this I 34 work required "a high degree of precision" or involved "the application of a high degree of skill. " The evidence disclosed that, for the most part the work performed by the Grievors did not involve "adjustment of the focusing. " The eviòence of Larry Patrick, a Microfilm Supervisor for the Ministry In Kingston, supported this conclusion. In support of the position that the Grievors ought to be ,classified as Operator 3, Microfilm, reference was made to the second sentence of the class definition. It was submitted that the Grievors processed "a variety of documents differing In shape, SIze, colour and general condition, and presenting problems 1n terms of tears, wrinkles, folds, poor print, extraneous material, et cetera, " and that they did, "ensure that the material to be microfilmed [was] free of extraneous matetial, and [repaired] torn docume{1ts. " The Operator 2 class def ini tion provides that an incumbent checks "the quality of developed film and [locates] wanted records by using the microfilm reader, " which IS what the Grievors did. Although they made a relatively minor voltage adjustment they did not "make the necessary adjustments to lighting . . . aperture,·and focus" and did not "employ a densitometer to ensure precisely accurate exposures" nor did they take "exposure readings at intervals. " Therefore, in the latter area, the better fit IS within the Operator 2, Microfilm classification. 35 As the Grievors loaded film into the units and were "responsible for minor maintenance of the cameras," this portion of the Operator 3, Microfilm class definition is more applicable than than the Operator 'J Microfilm class standard which contains .. , reference to the cleaning of equipment. The Operator 3, Microfilm class definition indicates that incumbents may develop film for test purposes, which the Grievors did not do. What they basically did was .. load the film, insert the document and expose the film. .. As IS also provided for In the Operator 2, Microfilm class definition, they checked "the quality of developed film and located [wanted] records by uSlng the microfilm reader. .. The Operator 3, Microfilm class definition provides that incumbents "check the quality of film returned from the processors re-microfilming where necessary. .. In the case of the Operator 2, Microfilm, the class definition on the same subject IS very similar, and the Grievors did "dispatch film for processing" and did "check quality of the processed film re-microfilming where necessary. " The Grievors did, as is set out in the class definition for the Operator 2, Microfilm, "destroy old files" and did "operate auxiliary equipment such as shredding machines " . . . . . . . 36 The Operator 3, Microfilm class definition indicates that incumbents only refer "major technical problems. " The evidence disclosed that the Grievors were only involved 1n dealing with what we regard to be very minor problems with the equipment, and we do not regard them as having had a significant responsiblity to deal with technical problems. Clearing mInor paper Jams, replacing light bulbs and putting a belt back in place are not indicative of the fact that only major problems were referred by the Grievors. Teeple's evidence was that he had to deal . In fact, Mr. with paper -- jams for them. The Operator 3, Microfilm class definition refers to an incumbent being "required to train junior personne 1, " while the Operator 2, Microfilm refers to the incumbent training and/or supervising an assistant or f il i ng clerk. The reference to assistant could apply to an Operator 1, Microfilm. The Grievors did not trained or superv~s anyone who could fall within the meaning of assistant. We do not regard the training of students who were not employees as fall ing within the ambit of either the training of an assistant or the training of junior personnel. To the extent that the Grievors gave training to persons outside the , microfilming unit, there was no evidence to show that they were junior to the Grievors. 37 The Grievors did not fall within the category of "group leader operators" as described In the Operator 3, Mic rof i lm class standard. Mr. Teeple's evidence was that the Grievors received some supervision from him. This IS more consistent with the language of the Operator ') Microfilm class standard than that of the Operator - , 3, Microfilm, which does not refer to an incumbent being under supervision. Where the duties and responsibilities of grievors fit within their current classification, as comfortably as do those of the Grievors, the Board should not be quick to find a misclassification because they might also fit within a higher classification. There would have to be some significant basis for preferring the higher classification. In some respects the duties and responsibilities of the Grievors point in favour of their present classification and In others in favour of a re-classification to Operator 3, Microfilm. On balance, however, the difference is not sufficiently significant to warrant a f indin,g that the Grievors were misclassified. Although the fit within the Operator 2, Microfilm classification 18 not perfect, it is not sO imperfect as to require the issuance of a Berry order. · -, 38 Accordingly, the grIevances of Ms. McGahey and Ms. Christie are denied. Grievan¿e of Wayne Teeple Mr. Teeple, whose position title is Senior Microfilm Operator and who is classified as an Operator 3, Microf ilm, claims that he , is misclassified and requests a Berry order. It was submitted that his position specification and class allocation form (Exhibit 11) - - does not ,adequately describe his duties and responsibilities, as he claims thåt, in addition to the duties and responsibilities-there set out, at least 50 per cent of his work took him outside of the microfilm unit and outside of his classification. He testified that he was engaged in a variety of technical work involving the serVICIng and repair of equipment in other units, including the servicing. and repaIr of computers. film equipment, reproduction equipment, doors and furniture. Mr. Teeple, who was trained as a millwright In Quebec, and later studied general technology, mechanical technology and business administration at Durham College, has a great interst in things mechanical. He gave evidence describing: (1) Duties that involved him in the testing and repair of a many kinds of furniture and equipment including computer equipment. 39 ( :2 ) His servicing and repairing equipment in the microfilm unit, including the two rotary cameras and the planetary camera. l 3) Working along with the Kodak technician who left him certain tools and parts to assist him In performing repaIrs and adjustments. Major repaIrs had to be performed by the outside technician. (4 ) His involvememt In: (a) repairing furniture. d (b) operating a Gestetner machine. (c) repairing a Gestetner machine. (d) making overhead transparencies. (e) ordering parts and repairing a 16 rom. film projector In the stock room. (f) splicing film. ( g ) repairing fans, kettles etc. (h' stripping, cleaning and re-wiring a number of different kinds of electric motors. ( j ) repairing and maintaining microfiche equipment and reader/printers in the records area. Referring to the reader/printers, he stated that they sometimes fail to function because of paper jams. In the case of the reader! printer, if a major repair was required he would call the service person. (k) repairing filing cabinets in the records area. I · 40 (1) repairing desks in the records area. (m) installing casters and fixing hinges on a door in the mai 1 room. (m) servicing and operating an imprinter machine. ~ (0) taking a postage meter to the post office to be ref i Iled. (pI cleaning a letter opener machine in the mail room. ( 5 ) A number'of duties in the claims area involving: the mainframe computer that was linked to the Kingston office of the -- Ministry; repair and servlclng 'of a high speed printer, photocopier and microfiche reader. ( 6 ) Cleaning, repairing and ordering parts, such as glass guides and light bulbs. ( 7 ) Servicing and repairing a paper shredder and a microfiche shredder. ( B) Maintaining doors leading into the claims area, involving the tightening of screws. ( 9 ) Repairing and maintaining desks with typewriter additions in the claims area. (10 I Adjusting the air vent system so that it would not blow directly on employees. , , 41 ( III Performing simple repairs on VDT's when requested to do so by one of the Grievors, Ms. Jane Waller, the Registry Clerk. If the repalrs were too complicated, he called ~n a service person. (12 ) Working 1.n a liason capacity with employees ln Kingston, when he was requested to run tests ,on a computer keyboard after problems' arose with the computer system. He stated that he also programmed the high speed printer linked to the . - - mainframe. (13 ) Devising a security code that prevented unauthorized use of the mainframe terminal. (14 ) furnishing computer access codes to a number of managers including Messrs. Hong and Armstrong. , (15 ) His responsiblity for changing paper in a high speed printer and servicing the daisy wheel associated with it. (16 ) His work in the inquiry area repairing and servicing a VDT and off-printer. (17 ) Performing repairs to, and servicing photocopying equipment, a security cabinet and the security bar associated with it, as well as a dual swing door located . 42 in the inquiry area. This included keeping supplies available for the proper functioning of photocopying equipment. , . (18l Performing typewriter repairs up to the point where it was necessary to call in a trained service person. <19 ) Providing assistance during a power failure, when he . checked breaker panels. - - (20 ) His perioidic review of files for the claims manager. . Our examinination of the evidence satisfies us that he performed many duties additional to those in the microf ilm unit. ... We are also satisfied that he only dealt with very minor technical problems both within and without the microfilm unit. This applies to all of his duties, including his involvement with computers. When his evidence is closely examined, while we do not doubt that his services were valuable and appreciated, he functioned as a handyman and not as a tectinician~ at a level of technical competence no higher, and very likely lower, than when he carried out his duties in the microfilm unit. Mr. Hong gave evidence and stated: I 43 (1) It was not unusual for him to call on Mr. Teeple to assist In performing minor repaIrs and the minor servicing of equipment outside of the microfilm unit. However, as far as he was concerned, Mr. Teeple was not expected to be involved In . activities outside of and unrelated to the mic rof i 1m unit without prior authorization. (2 ) He did not believe that Mr. Teeple had the training' or ability to perform other than fairly low level repair tasks at the . level of skill expected of a handyman. This is borne out by Mr. Teeple's evidence. ( 3 ) He believed that Mr. Teeple had taken it upon himself to respond to requests from areas outside the microfilm unit to perform the additional duties described, and that he neither knew of or had authorized Mr. Teeple's assuming the role of general handyman except on the limited basis described. ( 4 ) Neither he nor Mr. Armstrong expected Mr. Teeple to engage In activities outside of the microfilm unit for more than five to ten per cent of his time. Mr.Hong and Mr. Armstrong regarded the enlargement of Mr. Teeple's duties outside of the microfilm unit as having been undertaken without their knowledge or approval. If they had been aware of the extent of his activities as a handyman outside of the microfilm unit, they would have put a stop to them. . , 44 Although we find that Mr. Teeple spent a considearable amount of time outside of the microfilm unit, performing duties such as he described, we find that he was then usually responding to requests from non-supervisory personnel without the knowledge or prior approval of .his supervisors. It IS evident that Mr. Teeple very much enjoyed performing the variety of duties that he was engaged in outside of the microfilm unit. How'eve r , we do not regard most of his work outside of the unit as having been assigned to him as part of his regular duties and responsibilities, and there was no expectation that he should perform it, except when called upon to do so by hìs supervisors. In Hoffman-Fritz, 293/91,2787/91 (Knopf) , at page 9, the Board stated: Thus, In making the following analysis and com~ng to the following conclusions, we have done so on the basis of the duties and the expectations of the positions . . . . The microfilm unit functioned so smoothly that Mr. Teeple was . able to seek out work that he found more interesting. He is obviously a "people person," and his assuming the role of handyman furnished him with an opportunity to obtain greater personal satisfaction ~n the workplce. It ~s not surprising that his frequent absences from the microfilm unit would not be noticed and that the extent of his assuming the role of handyman would not be appreciated by his supervisors given the size of the operation in Oshawa. We are satisfied that if his supervisors had known of the extent of his handyman activities, they would have taken action as described by M.r. Hong. 45 It is one thing for an employee's supervisors to lead him to believe that he has been glven certain new duties and responsibilities. In such case, if the employee carries out those duties and responsibilities, it would not sit well for his supervisors to rely on the fact that they are not listed J.O his position specification. Where, however, as here, some limited handyman duties and responsibilities outside of the microfilm unit were expected of the Grievor, and he then took it upon himself to expand this role without keeping his supervisors informed, he cannot claim that he was expected to assume the expanded role. In the circumstances of this case, it would be proper to consider some five to ten per cent of the time that Mr. Teepl spent on hanyman's duties outside of the microfilm unit as representing part of his duties and responsibilities. Such involvement would be insufficient to affect the applicability of the Operator 3, Microfilm class standard to him, and we find that his core duties and responsibilities fit very well into that portion of the class definition which states: This class also covers positions of group leader operators who in addition to operating microfilm equipment, supervise two or three operators engaged ln routine microfilming work. These employees provide technical guidance to their subordinates, assign work and check quality of the work, keep records of documents processed, and requisition supplies. Mr. Teeple, by his own admission, did not dea 1 with major technical problems, and his duties and responsibilities ln this regard are well covered by the class definition: "These employees refer only I . 46 major technical problems. " In addition, as 1S set out in the class definition for Operator 3, Microfilm, he was: "responsible for minor maintenance of the cameras." We are also satisfied that Mr. Teeple was a resource person for Ms. McGahey and Ms. Christie when problems presented themselves, which, admittedly, was rarely the case. He would assist them in dealing with problems related, to the operation of the cameras and other equipment. . For all of the above reasons, Mr. Teeple's grievance' is denied. Grievance of Jane Waller I Ms. Waller was, at all material times, classified as a Clerk 3, General and held the position title of Registry Clerk. She claims re-classification to Clerk 5, General, or, ln the alternative, for a Berry order. Ms. Waller has. a seniority date of August 7 , 1973, and was first employed as a Claims Clerk in Kingston. She was transferred ,to Oshawa ln September of 1976. At the time the grievance was filed, her supervisor was Mr. Arkellian, the Director of the Oshawa district. ,.- 47 Her position specification (Exhibit 14) IS annexed as Appendix 3, and she testified that it did not accurately reflect her duties and responsibilities. Ms. Waller testified: (1) About the absence of any reference to her involvement in the work of the adjudication support section. ( 2 ) About the insufficient reference to the extent of her involvement with positions in a number of areas. -- (3) About her involvement with the registration of physicians, clinics, groups and practitioners for payment under the Health Insurance Act. (4 ) About her involvement in the registration of physicians etc., from the time they commenced practice after being licensed to do so. ( 5 ) About her involvement with clines and physicians who reqUIre pre-authorization prior to any surgery being performed. ( 6 ) About her further involvement on the registry side with physicians, clinics, non-physician practitioners and hospitals. Physicians, practitioners and clinics had to first be first be registered with the Health Resource Registry in order to be paid. l . · " "- 48 (7 ) About her receiving registration information .from persons and entities entitled to bill the plan. She reviewed the appropriate forms to see if they contained such necessary information as the correct specialist designation," year of graduation, institution graduated from, age of the applicant, OHIP number, address, status with the plan, payment option (physician or subscriber). (8 ) .1\bout her obtaining information for updating and recording at the Overlea office. (9 ) About the number of types of other interactions that took place between herself and physicians and non-physician practitioners relating to their registration. In addition to giving advice over the telephone, she furnished information on a walk-in basis. The average time spent giving advice during such yisits was one-half hour. 00 ) About her meeting 'physicians and non-physician practitioners in the customer service area. (11) About her involvement when forms were sent out by her to physician and non-physician practitioners for completion. Such forms were frequently returned marked to her attention, and she reviewed them for compliance with statutory and other relevant requirements. When her review disclosed that a form · 49 had not been properly completed, she communicated with the applicant in order to furnish advice. (12 ) About her submitting advice to the registration department, ~n Toronto, through the use of a three-part memo containing information relating to physicians and non-medical practitioners. In the case of clinics, group application forms were used involving a number of physicians. (13)- About her involvement in amending and updating information on - file. when necessary, she would directly call physicians, non-medical practitioners or their secretaries In order to advise them how information must be submitted and verified. (14 } About her involvement when clinics opted out or a physician was leaving a clinic. She was responsible for meeting with representatives of clinics to obtain information for entry on the appropriate forms and informed the Toronto office by memorandum. (15 ) About her involvement In advising registrants about relevant sections of applicable legislat:i:on. She frequently told them about the various options that were available, and of the effect of each option. These included options for a subscriber to pay the physician directly or to have payment go directly to the physician. I . . 50 ( 16) About her responsibility to furnish advice as to who was entitled to payment for performing certain tests. Under the that applied the time, I ' department of agreement at on 1 y , a I radiology could bill under the name of its department head. I I Other departments had to bill in the names of the individual physicians responsible for the tests. The billing by radiology department heads only' applied to hospitals and not to private diagnostic clinics. (17 ) About her preparation and submission of machine-readable magnetic tapes, in mèrnorandum form. (18 ) About her advising individual practitioners (frequently over the telephone) as to why their claims had been rejected and how to make corrections prior to re-subrnission. Reasons for requiring re-submission might be data error, damaged tape, or the absence of necessary information about a physician or non- physician practitioner being licensed. (19 ) That her duties as set out in the position specification and class allocation form took up approximately 85 per cent of her time. ( 20) About the adjudication support section, headed by Dr. D. Clark M.D., with the assistance of Ms. Roberta Hegney, which had the responsibility for assessing unusual medical claims requiring , 51 independent consideration or pre-authorization before surgery could be performed. Her role in advising physicians in this ~ area took up approximately fifteen per cent of her time. On average she spent every third week involved in adjudicative support matters. Dr. Clark and Ms. Hegney frequently requested her assistance In adjudicative support, and she worked along with them in carrying out this function. She had been initructed by Mr. ArkeU ian that she was to serve in a . backup and support role for Dr. Clark and Ms. Hegney. -- ( 21l About Exhibit 15, which IS a "Request for Authorization of Proposed Reconstructive Surgery, " which had to be approved before payment could be made. She reviewed the procedures referred to with the medical consultants to determine if they met the requirements (statutory and Ministry policy) for payment. ( 22) About the comments portion contained ~n the request form (Exhibit 15) which she prepared for submission to Dr. Clark, which comments indicated the basis for paying the benefits, using appropriated code references. (23 ) That during her employment with an emergency department at a hospital in Kingston, pr~or to being employed by the Ministry, she became familiar with a number of medical procedures. This knowledge in identifying what was involved In a particular >. ¡ . 52 procedure assisted her in carrYlng out her duties and responsibilities. She referred to the second-last document In Exhibit 15, being a request for authorization for proposed reconstructive surgery on an eye lid, and stated that her preVIOUS experience enabled her to identify whether the procedure was merely cosmetic. Among the requests in Exhibit 15 were ones relating to a. bilateral reduction mammoplasty, external and septal deviation hypertrophy of turbinate, septorhinoplasty and ostiotomies, rhinoplasty and reduction . with respect to a gross nasal deformity and nasal obstruction, tattoo excision, blepharoplasty - bilateral. When it was not clear that a surgical procedure was for non- cosmentic purposes, as when there was no indication of an airway blockage ln a request to perform septal rhinoplasty, i from the physician. I Ms.Waller would obtain further information She reviewed the various applicable considerations that applied In each of the cases testified to by her so as to differentiate between those that were exclusively cosmetic In nature and those intended do de?l with a physical problem. (24) About her familiarity with the guidelines in force as well as I medical po I icy bulletins. After reviewing a request to perform surgery, and concluding that it appeared to be justified in accordance with relevant legislation and policy guidelines, she completed the comments section found at the . J 53 bottom of the form, entering the appropriate codes and other necessary informat io'n. The completed form was then submitted to Dr. Clark for review and signature. (25 ) That when she concluded that there was inadequate information contained In the request form, she would write to the physician requesting additional clinical information. If Dr. Clark was present, she would advise him of the steps being taken by her. when he was not present, she sent out requests . -- for information on her own. (26 ) About her involvement in independent consideration cases. An example given by her was of a case where extensive suturing of a laceration was required with considerable detention time (which she referred to as constant care). Questions relating to a claim were submitted to her for review through the claims unit, with supporting documents from the doctor justifying the time spent with the patient. She would frequently have to reVIew a patient's medical history before submitting her recommending for payment to Dr. Clark. ( 27) About her assessment of claims for payment in units of detention time. An example given was when a patient was unconscious in an emergency ward with multiple injuries. . . 54 (28 ) That when Dr. Clark was present, she might ask him if he wished to write'directly to a physician or whether a request should be made to the claims assessor to obtain a patient's medical history. If Dr. Clark was absent, she communicated with physicians directly by phone or letter. (29 ) That a patient's medical history for the purpose of rev~eW1.ng claims included anything on the patient's file relating to claims paid or pending, and which had been entered into the -- ,computer. The computer rec'o rd disclosed medical procedures that had been carried out in the past and paid for by the plan. ( 30) That upon receipt of a medical history, she would first reVIew it and then submit it to Dr. Clark. Her reVIew was for the purpose of furnishing Dr. Clark with the information ,he needed to make a final assessment, and she would highlight significant information for him. Highlighted portions included any medica I information coverIng the period around the date of the claim, whether another physician was involved, and whether there were any claims by other physicians. In some cases she ordered microcopies of other claims. ^" ( 31> That she was familiar with and referred to medical po lie y bulletins containing questions sent by the Ministry to a committee of the Ontario Medical 'Association relating to when · , 55 a procedure qualified for payment. Approximately 100 bulletins a year were issued and retained as a set. She prepared an index of medical po I icy bulletins on her own for ease of reference. (32 ) About Exhibit 16, which is a medical policy bulletin representative of those used by her in adjudication support. The particular bulletin concerned out-of-province claims containing guidelines and fee schedule codes for payment. She sometimes had to refer to medical policy bulletins when faced with an out-of-province claim involving transplant surgery. ( 33) About Exhibit 17, which is the Ontario Health Insurance Plan Schedule of Benefits for Physician Services, which she referred to in order to deal with enquiries from physicians or their secretaries concerning claims. ( 34) That she was familiar with the guidelines found at pages 113- 14 of Exhibit 17, and used them in carrYIng out her adjudicative support duties. An example given was guideline 18 found at page 114 of Exhibit 17. ( 35) That she was familiar with Ontario Medica 1· Association sched'ule of fees (Exhibit 18), which she referred to because many medical specialists did not participate in the plan and . . 56 sent bills to their patients In accordance with the OMA fee schedule. She also frequently broke down a claim when a - physicians inserted a lump sum claim. ( 36} That there were instances when a physician would call her and make reference to a fee set out In Exhibit 18 and not to the GRIP schedule of benefits. In those circumstances, she referred to both documents. . (37) That, periodically, she had to . refer to Claims Services Communications updates as well as to additions to the fee schedules and guidelines issued by Professional Services at head office. (39 } That Dr. Clark was ill for a good deal of the time In 1982, and would be off work for six- to eight-week stretches. In his absence, she had access to the medical consultant at the Kingston head office with whom she communicated one or two times a week to deal with unusual problems. She also had occasion to deal with Dr. Deegan, who was located at the Toronto office. (40 } In the absence of Dr.. Clark, she would submit claims to Bobbi Hegney for approval or submit them to medical consultants, as above noted. , . 57 Ms. Hegney, who at the time of the grievance was the technical assi~tant to Dr. Clark, testified: (1 ) She was responsible for the approval of forms relating to reconstructive surgery and dental surgery. She would review claims and refer contentious ones to Dr. Clark or a medical consultant. The majority of claims were straight-forward and could be dealt with by following the available guidelines and the preamble to the fee schedule, and she was able to approve - approximately 95 per cent of the claims and apply a stamp with Dr. Clark's signature to the Request for Authorization of Proposed Reconstructive Surgery forms (Exhibit 15) . Only five per cent of the claims that had to be adjudicated were physically signed by Dr. Clark. ( 2 ) Ms. Waller worked in the adjudicative support area (a) when Ms. Hegney) was on vacation or ill in order to assist the persons who replaced her and ( 2 ) during lunch breaks. ( 3 ) In cross-examination, Ms. Hegne~ was. asked whether Ms. Wa 11 e r assisted her in performing adjudicative support functions relating to reconstructive surgery claims forms. She stated that this might be the case but could not remember if this was so because of the length of tim~ that had elapsed between the filing of the grievance and the hearing. In referring to claims forms, she acknowledged that Ms. Waller might have I I . I . i . i 58 prepared the adjudicative claim forms for Dr. Clark which he later signed. She later stated that when she was not present Ms. Waller dealt with reconstructive surgery claims and might have assisted Dr. Clark with the claims forms. She did not know how much assistance Ms. Waller gave to Dr. Clark. I I i We are satisfied that Ms. Waller's description of what she did while working in adjudicative support services was accurate. Even though Ms. Hegney experienced some difficulty in recalling events In 1982, she did not seriously challenge eMs. Waller's version of ' the facts~ In argument, counsel for the ,Union examined the duties and responsibilities of Ms. Waller In the light of the class standards for Clerk 3, General and Clerk 5, General. The class standards with respect, to Clerk 3, General are as follows: CLERK 3. GENERAL CLASS DßFIN¡TION: ì Employees in positions allocated to this class, as "journeyman clerks", perform routine clerical work of some complexity according to established procedures requiring a background knowledge of specific regulations, statutes or local practices. Decision-making involves some judgement in the selection of alternatives within a comprehensive framework of guidelines. Initiative IS In the form of following up errors or omissions and In making corrections as necessary. Doubtful matters not covered by precedent are referred to supervisors. Much of the work is reviewed only periodically, principally for adherence to policy and procedures. Typical tasks at this level include the preparation of factual reports, statements or memoranda requiring some judgment in the selection and presentation of data; 1 þ 59 assessment of the accuracy of statements or eligibility of applicants, investigating discrepancies and securing further proof or documentation as necessary; overseeing, as a Group Leader, the work of a sma II subordinate staff by explaining procedures. assigning and checking work. This is a terminal class for many positions involving the competent performance of routine clerical work common to the office concerned. OUALIFIC.ð.TIONS: 1. Grade 12 or an equivalent combination of education, training and experience. 2. About three years satisfactory clerical experience. 3 . Ability to understand and explain clerical procedures and requirements; ability to organIze and complete work assignments within prescribed time limits; ability to maintain good working relationships with other employees and the public served. The class standard with respect to Clerk 4, General IS as follows: CLERK 4, GENERAL CLASS DEFINITION: Employees l.n positions allocated to this class perform a variety of responsible clerical tasks requiring a good background knowledge of specific regulations, statutes or local practices. Decision-making involves judgment l.n dealing with variations from established guidelines or standards. Normally, employees receive specific instructions only on unusual or special problems as the work l.S performed under co'ndi tions that permit little opportunity for direct supervision by others. Matters involving decisions that depart radically from established practices are referred to supervisors. Tasks typical of this level include the evaluation or assessment of a variety of statements, application, records or similar material to check for conformity with specific regulations, statutes or administrative orders, resolving points not clearly covered by these instructions, usually by authorizing adjustments or recommending payment or acceptance; supervising a small I ~ · 60 group of " journeyman clerks" or a larger group of clerical assistants by explaining procedures, assigning and checking work and maintaining discipline. OVALIFIC.i\TIONS: 1. Grade 12 education or an equivalent combination of education, training and experience. 2. About four years' of progressively responsible clerical experience or an equivalent combination of experience and higher educational qualifications. 3. Ability to communicate clearly both orally and 10 writing; ability to instruct and supervise the work of subordinates. The c lass standard for CI erk 5,' Genera 1 IS as fo llows: CLERK 5, GENERAL CLASS DEFINITION: Employees 1n positions allocated to this class pe rform responsibl eel er ica 1 work reqUI rIng detai led knowledge ·of a body of regulations, statutes or local practices, together with a thorough understanding of the objectives of the work unit. Decision-making involves judgment in the interpretation and application of policy or administrative directives to problems where the intent of existing instructions IS obscure In specific cases. This frequently necessitates modifying work processes or the development of new methods. Al though the work is carried out with a large degree of independence, it 1S reviewed for consistency of decision-making. Difficult technical ques~ions, or those involving policy determination are referred to supervisors. Tasks typical of this level include responsibility for a significant non-supervisory, clerical. or clerical accounting function involving the interpretation, explanation and application of a phase of departmental legislation or regulations and requiring the ability to make acceptable recommendations or provide functional advice: supervising a group of "journeyman clerks" performing clerical duties of varying complexity or a smaller group engaged In more specialized work by planning, assigning and reviewing work, deciding priorities, maintaining production levels and carrying out responsibility for the total performance of the unit. · , 61 QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 12 education, or an equivalent combination of education, training and experience; preferably completion of additional training such as related correspondence and university extension courses; thorough knowledge of office practices and procedures. .2 . About six years progressively responsible clerical experlence or an equivalent combination of experience and higher education. 3 . Ability to evaluate the effectiveness of clerical procedures and staff performance; ability to superVIse the work of other employees; ability to interpret regulations and instructions into procedu res -- and practice; ability to prepare effective correspondence, înstructions and reports. On a review of the Grievorfs duties and responsibilities, we find that her best fit is within the Clerk 4, General class standard. The duties assigned to her amounted to more than the performance of "routine clerical work of some complexity according to established procedures. " Rather, she performed "a variety of responsible clerical tasks. " We also find that she had to have more than "a background knowledge of specific regulations, statutes or local practices." Rather, she had to have "a good background knowledge of specific regulations, statutes or local practices." We also find that her decision-making involved "judgment 1n dealing with variations from established guidelines or standards" in a significant number of cases rather than merely exercls1ng "judgment in the ,selection of alternatives within a comprehensive framework of guidelines." . ", J I 62 I I We satisfied that Ms. Waller received "specific I are I instructions only on unusual or special problems. " As she frequently worked when (1) Ms. Hegney was away, and (1 ) Dr. Clark was absent because of illness, she often performed her duties "under conditions that [permitted] little opportunity for direct supervIsIon by others." While it could be said that much of her work was "reviewed only periodically, principally for adherence to policy and . procedures" as IS provided In the Clerk 3 , General class definition, In many cases much of her work was accepted without ~ question in both the claims and adjudicative review areas, except where problem cases arose, which was rare. She was responsible for the preparation of "factual reports, statements or memoranda" but this required more than "some" judgment in the selection and presentation of data, particularly ~n the fifteen per cent of her work In the adjudicative support area. In the registration area she was required, as ~s provided for in the Clerk 3, General class definition, to assess "the accuracy of statements or eligibility of applicants, invest iga t i ng, discrepancies and secur1ng further proof of documentation as necessary". In that portion of her work involved in adjudicative support, she was engaged ~n the "evaluation or assessment of a variety of statements, applications, records or similar material to . . - 63 check for conformity with specific regulations, statutes or administrative orders, resolving points not clearly covered by these instruments, usually by authorizing adjustments or recommendlng payments or acceptance. " If Ms. Waller's duties and responsibilities had been limited to her registration functions, we would regard the evidence as being rather evenly balanced between finding her best fit as a . Clerk 3 or Clerk 4, General. We do not regard duties her and responsibilities while carrying out registration or adjudicative support functions required the "detailed knowledge of a body of regulations, statutes or local practices" as is set out in the class definition to the Clerk 5 , General class standard, nor that her decision making involved "judgement in the interpretation and application of policy or administrative directives to problems where the intent of existing instructions is obscure in specific cases. to She did not have to modify work processes or develop new methods. We conclude that a significant portion of Ms. Waller's duties and responsibilities were within 'the adjudicative support area so as to tip the balance in favour of finding that her best fit was as a Clerk 4, General. . I ·.~ to 64 Counsel for the Employer referred to Brooks/Whitney, 1816/90, 1817/90 (Dissanayake) at p. 10: . . . in our Vlew, for classification purposes not much weight can be attached to the evidence that an employee fills 10 for an incumbent In a higher class during the latter's absences. Those acting duties are irrelevant In deciding the appropriate classification of [the grievor'sJ own position. The collective agreement 1n article 6.1.1 provide.s a form of acting' pay "Where an employee IS assigned temporarily to perform the duties of a position In a classification with a higher salary maX.lmum, " provided the assignment IS for a period of [sic] excess of five consecutive working days. We have no evidence as to whether {the grievorJ met the prerequisites for acting ,pay on those occassions. Nevertheless, the fact that the co 11 ecti ve agreement makes special provision for acting pay supports our cone lusi-on that acting asignments do not go to determining an employee's classification.. We do not disagree with the above statement which deals with, an employee assigned to perform the work of a higher rated classification on an acting basis. Howeve r , there was no evidence disputing that of Ms. Wa 11 e r that Mr. Arke11 ian had assigned her to perform the duties that she described in the adjudicative support area on an ongoing basis and not just for a temporary period. Such an assig~ment was not "temporarily to perform the duties of a position in a classification with a higher salary maximum" as envisaged in article 6.1.1, but permanently to perform them, In the sense that they became part of her regular duties and responsibilities. The effect of this permanent assignment of new duties and responsibilities was to add additional duties and responsibilities to those described In Ms. Wa 11 e r ' s position specification and class allocation form. As noted above, when her actual duties and responsibilities are examined in the light of the · 65 General Clerical Series, the best fit IS within the Clerk 4, General classificatIon. We do not regard the duties and responsibilities of Ms. Waller as being sufficiently unrelated to those of the Clerk 4, General so as to warrant the issuance of a Berry order. Because of our decision, it lsunnecessary to deal with the arguments made on behalf of the Employer based on laches and the' prejudice that would affect it In presenting evidence because of the some eight year delay between the filing of the grievances by Ms. Connelly, Ms. McGauhey, Ms. Christie and Mr. Teeple. We have not found that the delay materially affected the Employer in its ability to adduce evidence with respect to the cases of Ms. Waller. Nor do we find that Ms. Hegney's memory of events was materially affected by the delay so as to prejudice the Employer in presenting its case. We hereby direct that Ms. Waller be reclassified as a Clerk 4, General, retroactive to 20 days prior to the date of the filing of her grievanee. She shall be entitled to retroactive compenstion, including interest calculated on the basis of the formula set out by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in Hallowel House Limited, <1980 ) OLRB Rep. Jan. 35. The Board remains seized in the event the parties encounter difficulty 1n implementing this decision. , _. .! . -, ':: \ 66 / Dated at Toronto this 9th day of November, 1992. ~Pt:f-?~I-~ , M. Gorsky - Vice chairperson //J- ~ ~)f~d' J.CLaniel - Member - (¿ . ~0~.1£ -~~ ! A. Stapletøn - Me er . -- Appendix 1 . ® 1'OSIT'--' SPECIFICATION AND CLASS ALLOC4TION FORM 'OftTtOfl £.J.)O' . ~ VUOO/U" "......,,~ ...'.'.~ .., ..~ -~. ..... .... ;""i<, ~ ... ,. "''''511~ ""0 '''I C"",~",,"O' '''1 CI" ~ n~"'CI '010"'1&10 .. 05-8254-74 ONl....UC' .:J....c ..111'111(1 . I ... ~ ..... ~ ·..."'1···0... 'I'Lf 'HIS pOil r 10.. It. ...... ..-t... SENIOR RECORDS CLERK r 1)C Ilt... I::'I.!) .PA"l'Vi~OSltfON ""LI C'L.An "'''l.1 W'ü-'lôo. 'OI"IQ..,. coot SENIOR FILE CLERK I CLERK 3, FILINC -..L 51024 J 05-7257-18 1;¥i:DU'l'~ sU"i~v io~-i tI',~ì _____._. -___ _...___,_,____ _. ___u ...__._ 'oliTtO,. tOOl ---.. ..--..... SUPERVISOR, SUPPORT SERVICES -.--1 05-8254-72 .~i1, ""I ... -, - ...-. --- --:---'---~--_·""----Ô~V.IIO'" .~..__._~-- .------....----...--- HEAl TH HEALTH INSURANCE I~""CH --- ilcf,6~---·· --- Lo.';"ióiO i"õõ~iiiÏ' Bond To';;érš',- --+--- ~FERA!lONS NDKIN.StRVIC~S 44 Bond St. ~.. '3ra Floor, õi- ;;"~"ï¡-;;;'ï1 'O'IT'O'" 51,1'1."'110 ,,,cü¡¡õfÑ,i,v.iovIŠiõ Oshava. Ontario. LIH 7Rl I al.....etL" rHOI...fCTI,.'" OUIllI[Cl'I.Y rHO' IIIIfl:'H.'" 1 -- -- 4 -- 2, PURPOSE. OF POSlnON,"";. DDU T"IHDlITIO" Uln' IT''TI''D..~lO'J(eTI\IU tTe" To co-ordinate the day-to-day filing and micro retrieval activities of the District, and to provide training and guidance to staff. 3, SU~lt.~t. R Y OF DUTIES .AND RESPONSI81~ IT I ES ""OleAn ",AC!~fA"l D' T'''! S'l~' 0" lAC.. Ile.."'c..... ,,,,HCllD". INUIc.:.1l 5C('I"[ tUUI't.lf N'. 'I'IIIO" (ING COlltOlTIONS Vtr. USlJA" 't A1UAlS. tle.1 1. Co-ordinates and controls unit activities by: training new staff. instructing staff in new or altered procedures, ensuring adherence to established procedures/schedules, equalizing I ~ork distribution to ensure optimum work out-put by all staff¡ investigating and re~olving I ?foblems reierred by staff, or by su?ervisor (e,g. file requests by unauthorized personnel, I file de (acemen t, "lost" HIes, at c. ): co-ordinatins purgins of files, cross -reference cards, ,40% and computer records according to established procedures/schedules; advisinS supervisor of potential problem areas (e.g. lack of (iling spsce. lack of staff to perform functions i adeq uately) and sugges ts so Iu tions -to these problems; sorting "nev mail", file reques ts. , and files for re-filing and distributes to appropriate file clerk(s). 12. Co-ordinates unit sorting and distribution of in-proce's and micro retrieval documents by: I assigning tasks, aistributing work, ensuring continuous work flow within priorities and 30% schedules established by Supervisor. advising unit leaders of schedule changes. Instructs new staff in detailed work procedures; provides continuing advice and guidance to unit staff. Assists Supervisor in performing administrative tasKs, e.g. recommending overtime. assisting in the preparation of eurplo)'ee evaluations, reporting .ny discipline problems. 3. Consolidates and maineains daily input/output figures. by typeof work. Compiles District Office productivity reports for Head Offiee and District Office use. Compiles District 115% Office statistics, i.e. daily productivity figures. month comparisons, status of d3ily ~ork I participates in work unit; performs other related duties as assiqned; !4. ^~5ists 1n supervision of unit staff by:maintainlng and completing bi-weekly attendance 1 I report for submission to Supervisor. scheduling vacations and/or casual time off (e.g. docto appointments) according to established guidelines; 15% under the quidance of the Manaq.r responsible for the completion of periodic I F.~ployee Appraisal & Development Guides; period~CallY checkinA staff vork, bringing ~rrors to the attention of the staff melllber(s). refernnq "problem cases" to the Supervisor for counsellinq. Suqqests improvement/alteration/elimination of standard procedures to Su?erv~sor or relays sU9gestions by staff to Supervisor. Participates in group/unit meetings, 'WI L lS' .:.NO Kl'lèWU OGE'Rt:!J\j1 II t: L)'10 p~AFOA"" T'HE'\lIUR K IST..n lOYC... '1'10"" I~AI~I~G. O~l~.l..u ftC" - FiIins and micro-retrieval e~perience; demonstrated initiative. supervisory abilicy and good oral and written communications skills. T. J, R AOE:R ,.¡;~. v>4'\.. OATI Wi'Þlll.t.utU 1£:1'" ISTIU TOPS, g...,. --.----, L~~_ ¡;Mr~___~... f. CiA. wo. ~ "f1, ~_--1_":'_L_.- I..... "'" ..........t.... t '1' A. J. Arkclian. Director, OHIP Oshava D. O. T. J. Reader. Executive Co-Ord., District Ops. I . . ?, -.... ,.,..... I~ - P"..' - .-.- ........... -. -- .. - \. p C --. ~~,~~/"OCA ¡;;~' "'~ '.-; ,".' ;: , .' '., ,,;' ,·~s,,:;...;: '~~'~ì'::¡'''-' .." ..._.. ~l_~:.~_~ !:l_:~_~._~.__._..... ,._ .___,:. .__l.,~_~~_~~______ _, _ ,~S_.~~.. . òt l ¿;~ !¿~ , ........-f Cl. ,,:'::tLlfU holtl IIQ$lhUN UNO'" AUTtolOll'lf". Oh.IGATtD 'c: ...·1 ." ''''I CINT'" ..,,,,,Sf'" &"0'''' .C~O"O"NC. "ITM TMI C'IY~L sri ll vlCl C-O.......·tU'o'-ro C:l.J.SSI~ I~" llOfill '5' .i.NØ"'''01 , 0" 'HI 'O,"-L.OW1NC IIl'....SOIltlS Responsible for day-to-day supervision of a self-contained medium-sized f 11 i n'" A operation. . Supervises 4 subordinates. , Participates in ....ork of the unit. ;~-_..._---~~- , , ~. 1·~·,"''''.n.i!'Q. (> 'I IDATI 1M.-;;-1;;:.....-1.·.. ,....... ---'j 1 D.. 1..0 I ... I ! ."J t..".. ~':'I o,¡,,;: 14 C'1 p, R.F. Rey - [...., ..,¡" ,M ';... . . - -- ! Appendix 2 ,X C\~c.. ~ ,.... S~ '"""\ rv"\c.~~ ~ ..,....; f ...,' f\' 'ç . ,·..;U "~I^"''''U'''ll''1.il'''L1 ~\ \ c. 1(,...:) - - \ L(,,(~'_... ._.,,_ PAnT 1 "'O:;.'IOl ll ll~'lC! ~ TUtSru-:';fIQHI'S; __ _ :-.~gT~OFILH OPlJUTOR ËI ~~~tSEO . "''''1;:\1Ii"'''''5 '011T10"" 'It....: 1 "I:I,.AS' fJT.... CI..AII C.001 "C1SHIO... ~õõ. 'U"'DI~Tl 5""".'so,,'."'TLI;:<;'c". ~ ~ I I'ÕiiTiõÑ cool 1:100 "rdc S'.pqni&Qr , . /- - u ! 05-7257-2f> -i,IINI~III" ÓWï;'OH Jì.,;;:,l Lh Health Insurance ' lI....,NI,,~' - -.. Sll:CTION ~O¿¡'¡ON1Åòön-~::':lJ ----...-- - In~ill'ancc Claims Oshawa Dist. Oshawa "nt.. ..C:VMI.ll."N. ".1 rO~I-rIO"'; - $~t;'r;n";iiiÕ ~;'¡¿ùMoì;;¡ti"iv~~~~$"io OlnL:CTl.... IIN01n1:c.n.v ouucU.'f 1~"'OI"'ICT1..Y J - - - - '2 :pu: ¡;>'" s È' 6i,' ròsl~T'iÖÑ~~HY DOES THI' .OSI T ION E x,m 51" Tl~~AU OIJEe TI';;;;;~. '~'o I.')¡'~)Xlr~ and microfilm documents for record retontion. To operate reader-printer ..::qUl.¡;'11cnt. . . 3. ~,-,;,;MARY Of OUTl ~S AND RESPONSIBiliTIES lINOICAre 'EAC~NTAÇ~ OF mol. '.ENT ON EACH SI(\N"ICANT FUNCTION. 1""~)iC" f& SCOII(;:, eUUIPMe~T. WOA (JNC CON'OITIONS UNUSUAL l:(A Tl)A'$ ETC.] I ..);~ 1. Prep.:¡res and nù.croíilms .vario\.:.s doc\.1JlÌents, W1der general supervision, by: - preparing documents for filming by removing staples, patching tears, checking legibility and clarity of original; - o~rating either a Rotary or Planetory Microfilm Camera to film records such as claims, letterhead accounte~-etc.; , - lOfidin~ camera with film, adjustin~ voltage as necessary), - referring exposed films to Head Office for processin~; - conforming to microfilm standards, as determined by Head Office Microfilm Section. ho,~; 2. Opcl':ltC:; a reader-printer by: - in:;cl'ting film cartridGo; - scanning fi~n and producing print-out of document, as requested) - returning film cartridge in correct sequence. 10':; 3. Haintains equipnent by: - performinG minor repairs and /Inking minor adjustments on all microfilm equipncnt¡ - clean:!1lg mechanisms, lenses liglt. sources, ate. at periodic intervals. 5;'~ 4. Pcrl'orlll~ ol:.her related duties at: aZ3icned. 1 ".; :i::', 1~;~;,-^~tÜiZÑOWlEDGE REQUIReD TO PERFORM THE WORK IST-.TI Eout#.TtON. TMININO. Ul'(RIENClITC,1 Gl':}.:.!U 10 education. At least one year IS experience in òperation of microfilm equipnent. I A.:llity to understand and. fallow instructions. Alertness, accuracy, ability to maintain I s:,"~::":Jr;lC'~ory standards of production. 'U,::~;'1Üï1ES ~ . MINi Tn... 0'" ^\r. OAT" , ' "''',,,''''OOn'''''llO'' _ I 0... c:~ 1:~~'H·' " ,- '.._ I 'g' I '2 U: ~t""""" '-r.'. ...._tr..'" '.. _.... ... - t...... ........ .nlc~·. ~.. ....I t.... ...., .._.._ ..--- .........- , G, ('. .. ,I'LLt,":^';ION ,..,____,_. . -... , t. ' I ...____........_ ._. _.. . .,~_.- C'L^....euor -- IbCCU'A.T'ON~I~ n"..,,,,"'''''''. 1'1'''1..1'' .....11 ~4 . c...... .. '. "I , '1',\1,,(':~, U'Lcrc.XilJn .. \ ~¡:'~i:¡:; \ C~ - ~I ".' -!-,"~...~: ! 'l~ 1.1'.\ ," ".:,":: I. ;. .IliI:: "II::.lltÞN lIti111.' ^UI~n"u, 't nrlL:1iÞt'tlO '0 M-L UV ..IU lJ-l:.t'1J(Y ,.,N1::;'lU ^Nl,Þ IN ACCUttlJANC:£ WI,n '.UII c;l"t... $LIIVK:ll ,aM....t..~ "1.:...\.. "I,·.T..n·..·~ :.IA""ilAl'U;:; rl.JtllllG ,"O\.\.OWIHO nEA'IQH:Þ; J:.~~';.ltc:; microfilming equipnent. under genero.1 supervision. .. ¿"I.;;"¡~·C:;; documents to be filmed are clear, lesible, patched, etc. " '.' .1,,0""; l;IJ[,jr;:J on microfilm reaùer. I I ... I~. _ _ .".. .... c. ......~I ·@, Appendix 3 X¡-J . 'l"""'" too. 1 ~ ~OSlfIO~ ~ECIr¡C^ TION MoIO CLASS ALlOCA.l tON 'ORM 1,.1..( \,11""" "'t..., t'1." 1~IJ llt1/' 1C',"'ru"~""'l.......t-1 u·'Ult·...u.'-lAf..- II '...'1" OSA82S4·26 _Iþ('~" "'1 ~ ....0 Jut c......þlll....... 0; f l ' (r..'~ It~....c, ,,,,,¥IllII",.llJtIII I :'i'!~,.,. ~~ 1." ""~I'~\ ___, .-. . .... -. - , .._,IiI'..r;:"'....:T;.,...~:1-.._. ~ -. - ...---- ...n I 1 ~ 1 I~I Ill'" RlGI S 11n CU.R ( I J lI~v'UO '.YIUU-S "~":Itl(~" Illdi t.....,.1'""" C\."tOul ...... '. .·......,i...-:;;..........' NrW I I I .. lilt (I, ... I.. ".~. ". ,,".1 "'. I, t 1 . "e,'1Ið.. ~uvf UISIHICT OlMEC1UR I 05-8254-01 "'I.'~' .. ,. - at'l'1~...... II Cf\ L 1lI lIEAL1H INSURAIICE I""'C" ..- -...... He'.;'" .' . ...... \0(""0" IAO 'l.A(,U .... ,. _..._.. _..... __ua --.- UI'(f!ArIOUS OSI!AWA 0,0. Bond Towers. ''''('''",,,,,, I""'''O~' ~\"(."$I0 '''eu''f/_'lll''f~''SlO 3rd floor. 44 Bond St. W,. lIu~fl.." f'''Ot.."e,..., O··l('"" r-U11li. 0(.; '... " OshawJ, Ont. Llfl 7Rl 1 . . . - -- 'u " I ',. t lJ r rli~ II UN ,..... COli Tlhl .,"', ",.. I.'sr' Ih r I GC~lHl.Jle "VH Fl e I 10 rag1ster, physicians, clinics, groups. practitioners, etc. In the Oshawa District ror payment, under the Health Insurance Act. šW','''' Il, ur' ¡"U i I~S ¡IIG Ãtš~ÛÑši8il.IT Id "~,,,,~ii~r.F' õ;;;;ì¡;i;;;;;~~ï.ë;;;;; (A_r '....cr,O.. -- ,"'t;or."., " "1 ..... ..·.......~"",·"¡"Il~þtuClJ,..O..,'O...,U"\,I1..,..L '..1UtllC..'C,Þ 1. 1' O(E'~SI?S additions/changes to reqhtriltions, eligibility files arId records by: e~¡tlng appl1catlon forms to ensure that data provided (address, specIalty. pay OPtion, clinIc organiutlon,ttc.' complies with the Ilealth Insurallce Act; 10!. )ðthisiug r(l9¡~.tranls on relevant sections of the ^ct~repilr¡nlJ and submittIng '-lJI"IJU tll'r tn¡lut fOrlllS 't i nves t 1911 t ¡"\I and I'(lSublll it II rI\I '·(!Jp.cted datil, contact I n9 ({'Ill, al rC\llstr'y, Professional ScrviCl!S Urallch("to re\olve difficult or ullusual c,,~~~, a'ld physichns, clinics. etc.">io resolve and advlst on registry matters¡ ildvt~itlq yroup leadersl chims processing clerkS of registry information as rpllull'ed. , '0\ 2. Mll1ntainS u~i"try record! on file by accusing terminal to verify Health Resources Ile~iatry dau. 1;\ 3. f'I'OC~O$"'lII ul~uest.J tor d..JlII card. .ud other OHIP' supplies linq¡¡iry forms, pan'phlets, He, I by rehrrjng rf!que,t l:n stt/ell: roo/ll fQr Iction. monitoring use of addleu plat.es. controlling' th~ handling ,lnd stonge of same I assisting in t h~ prodllctlon of claim cards du unq peak periods 41 require<!. 5. 'I, f'crt'lrIl\9 other I.hted duties all ...ign.d.. , šKiï¡ Š á;ö KimVl"liôëfÃIOuiAiõ'iõH¡i'oñM Till WURK,sraU 'D\JW'ON,ItU.,~',IO( .UJt'lIllCl UC.l rrov!'n clerical uperlene. (r.llled OllJr preferrl!d). Ability to correspond in writing alld CO'"l1unlcate by phone. Good or9ðldzatlonal skills. row edge of relevant legislation. T)pll1ll not ~Chll Servfce Conlntssion standords. ' ;..: .. -.~'. ,.IIt~U U_'_.. rnc 01" ,1{¡rUII Ullt!> . " , .. ' ,'. OAO. .,,(..'0', 'U'f~ e, co "0. ""1' ..,..,$1.'(1" IA . , or~ 0." I IIC. g".. ..., __ .... Il TI" . . ..... _, '.. ~ . - 002'" __I, _.1...:.1...".:.... ~ '79J2 -.- ,L__L,__L._. ~'.." "'fÉB t 7 Ir_' ~ '1" - i..J. ^"~el 11, trectol'. 01111' Osha",,) 0,0. I T .J. Rea cr. ElIee Coord. Districts Ops , ::-_.. _ :-. ...::~..~:.~ ~ ~,~.~ l; '!: 'A~:~ _!(;~"~j '~~'. "~~ .~. .t;:.'. .~. ~'"& 1 -.~ :.:~~ ~ ~.;:J: ~~1l. J:; 1~~~ .I" .-¡".". ".:+" , ~~"'::" "Ll(,¡I.ATIY'. · '''It -...-,... - _... . ._--~-- h¡i,tue' --_. r;¿¡'OÒIÀl.êi/ldtJiiO -- r .·'~c'·.r Oa'1 -- I .... ..n .-. .Cl~rk ), G~ner~,l.. ....,'.. _ .510~4, ,." . CS-Ol". ø J 10 '4..lr 1. .', , t ' ~'.' '1" I' ''''S ~~'~"'l1'o .....t',,, allt",,,,,, T l'lLIG" HI:' 10'" U too' DI"'" T "''',SIl'' ~"O'" aCCUl!f)AltCt ..'h. 'Iff CI\OII. ""'OC( toOOA' ,,,,,.. ':J·~I· ., .. 'I~'" ,fANO"¡'HO$ ; un 1'" f 01. LORI"" .f.."....,. PC[ror~s routine eleriçal work of some e~nplcxity aeeordino to establ1$hcd pIocedures rcqu1r1nç a backgl'ound knowledoe of thn Hoalth Insurance Aet and 01111' poliCieS. lIt'··isiuh-maldfJ'J involves 101l1C Ju<lQClllcnt in the ð:loD('·~Slllcnt. of the ðccuroC'y of S l 'lll.'lltCIl t!\/~ pp11eat 10115" th~ invl!stigntion of di sC'rcpilnelos and soeur Hy of fur Lher proof or docwl1entat1on. Dou~ttul mattec5 reterrod to .upcrvl~or.