HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-1354.Scala.91-10-10
~-=~
~, \
I ~~ , ONTA~IO EMPLOYÉS DE LA COURONNE
'It
I ¡- CROWN EMPi OYEES DEL'ONTARIO
,
11111 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE
~
SETTLEMENT AEGLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSO lZ8 TELI:PHONEIT~LEtPHONE.· (4 J6) 326- [J88
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO}, MSO ¡Z8 FAcSfMfLEITE:LËCOPIE: (416) 326- 1396
1354/90
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SBTTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
OPSEU (Scala).
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of ontario
(Ministry of Health)
Employer
BEFORE: G. Brandt Vice-Chairperson
J. c. Laniel Member
A. Merritt Member
FOR THE R. Healey
GRIEVOR Counsel
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Barristers & Solicitors
FOR THE o. MacLeod
EMPLOYER Counsel
Genest Murray
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING April 30, 1991
September 12, 1991
,
;
2
DECISION
The grievor is employed by the Ministry of Health as an
Accountable Warrant Cheque Preparation Clerk in the Corporate
Accounting Section/Finance and Accounting in 'loron to. She was
previously classified as a Data Processing Technician 2 (OPT 2) .
In a grievance dated April 2, 1990 the grievor claimed that she was
improperly classified and sought reclassification to Office
Administration Group 6 (oAG 6) or, in the alternative, to Data
Processing TeChnician 3 (DPT 3).
In response to the grievance the Mi,nistry reclassified the
grievor's position from DPT 2 t(> OAG 6 and paid the grievor the
appropriate increase retroactive to March 7, 1990.
A pre-hearing was held on December 10, 1990. At that time the
union claimed that the position should be classified either at OAG
8 or DPT 3. The parties disagree as to what transpired at the
hearing. The union claims that it was agreed that the grievance
should proceed on the basis of the revisE~d claim and that a new
pre-hearing
· -
í'!
{¡
3
remedy than originally sought. In the further alternative it is
submitted that the revised grievance was not raised within the
mandatory time linlÌ ts set out in the collective agreement.
At the hearing of the grievance before the board the Ministry
did not pursue the preliminary matters raised in its statement.
Consequently, the board proceeded to hear the grievance which now
seeks reclassification to QAG 8 or, in the alternative, to DPT 3.
.~_4
The grievor is responsible for the recording and maintenance
of financial data and the production of varl.OUS kinds of cheques
issued by the Ministry. She performs her jOb at a free standing
IBM PC and an IBM Pro-Printer. She is responsible for the
production of 4 different types of cheques: Accountable Warrant
Cheques ( in payment of such items as Bell Canada accounts,
consulting fees, salaries for temporary staff, and petty cash for
custodians) ; cheques reimbursing payees for travel expenses
incurred; cheques paying salary or travel advances; and cheques in
respect of air ambulance or out of province ambulance claims. A
fifth duty requires her to ensure that payees who have received
advances in excess of their expenditures and who have returned the
excess are credited with a deposit in their accounts.
The procedure followed by the grievor is, in general,
essentially the same for each of the transactions processed,
although necessarily there are some variations in the kind of data
."
Ii'
4
that she is required to input into the system.
Thus, for Accountable Warrant cheques, travel claims, and air
ambulance and out of province ambulance claims, the grievor
receives the data in various forms f n:Hn Expenditure Clerks and
inputs that data into the computer. Data tor salary and travel
allowances and deposit credits is received from Sheila Ridgeway,
the Accountable Advance Clerk and input into the computer.
It is helpful to describe the grievor's principal duties and
responsible by tracing the processing of a typical claim for
reimbursement of travel expens ~s incurrl~d . Claims are submitted
to the Ministry by the claimant and reviewed by the Expenditure
Clerks who assign it a COCE Code number and approve of the claim.
A batch of claims are put together, totalled by the Expenditure
Clerks, and given to the grievor for processing at her computer.
The software program used by the grievor essentially requires
her to select various options from menus presented on the computer
screen. Once she has accessed the system she is presented with a
Main Menu which has a number of options that can be selected
according to the partiCUlar task that is to be performed. For
present purposes three of those options are primarily relevant:
Option 2: Enter Transactions, Option 3: Process Transactions
(produce cheques), and Option 5: Print Reports.
~
"
1-
5
Thus, to process travel claims and produce cheques the grievor
selects Option 2 and is presented with a screen which permits her
to access the relevant account by typing in the name of the payee.
She then updates the account by adding the new information set out
in the claim form. For travel claims that information relates to
kilometres travelled, COCE Codes, etc. For other kinds of claims
the information may be slightly different. All transactions are
executed by responding to prompts directing keystrokes for various
functions, ego U for update, À to add a new transaction, E to enter
an expense, etc.
This procedure is followed with respect to each of the claims
in the batch until all are done. The grievor then checks to ensure
the accuracy of her inputs against the totals reported by the
Expenditure Clerks by returning to the Main Menu, selecting Option
3 and further selecting an option which will instruct the computer
to produce a Pre-Printing Proof List. That list records all of the
transactions in the order in which they were entered and a total of
all of the entries. If that total disagrees with the total
prepared by the Expenditure Clerks the grievor checks to find out
the source of ~he discrepancy.
Cheque production is accomplished through responding to
. various computer prompts, viz, to load cheques into the cheque
printer, to enter cheque numbers, and to enter the issue location
..
for the cheques. When the cheques are all printed the computer,
"
t
6
without any further instruction, prints out two reports: a Cheque
Register, listing all of the transactions in the batch that has
just been processed along with the cheque numbers assigned to them,
and a Cheque Collection Register, listing only the transactions
that produced cheques, along with the cheque numbers assigned to
them. The cheques, the Cheque Register and the Cheque Collection
Register are all taken to Sheila Ridgeway who checks them and signs
them.
In addition to these d ëLÌ 1 Y duties the grievor also is
responsible for the preparation of various other reports. Thus,
monthly advance schedules, monthly requisition reports, quarterly
permanent advance activity reports, and certain annual reports may
be produced by selecting Option 5 from the Main Menu and, from a
Reports Available Menu, selecting thE! report that is to be
produced.
'l'he grievor may also required to prepare various ad hoc
reports respecting the history of the transactions in a particular
account. This too is done by selectinc;¡ the Transaction History
Listing option from the Reports Available Menu (Option 5 of the
Main Menu) and executing the prompts there set out.
The grievor testified that from time to time she corrects
spelling errors, incorrect CaCE codes or incorrect calculation of
travel claims on the forms supplied to her by the Expenditure
I
'f
I '-1 I
I
7 I
Clerks. She also stated that she is involved in ensuring that
duplicate accounts are not created as a result of other employees
inadvertently creating an account and assigning a vendor number to
it.
She also handles between 35 and 40 telephone inquiries a day.
These may be from other branches of the Ministry, from Expenditure
Clerks referring calls to her or from cashiers wanting information
concerning budget codes. While she may refer many of the calls to
others she is also expected to answer questions as to whether and
when a particular cheque was issued.
She testified that, apart from some "scanning" of her work by
Sheila Ridgeway, no one checked her work. Further, while one
employee, Mila Ong, was able to do some parts of her work, Le.
producing the cheques and the various reports and account
histories, she was not able to do the other parts of the grievor's
job.
The union seeks reclassification of the position either to OAG
6 or, in the alternative, to DPT 3. In our opinion this position
is excluded trom the Data Processing 'lechnician Series. This
series was developed in 1972 and, in our view, has been supplanted
by the QAG Series which more accurately reflects current uses of
computer technology in the management and processing of
information. Accordingly, we will restrict our consideration to
\-
i.
8
the claim for reclassification in the OAG Series.
It is appropriate
"?
. -
I (1
I
9
It is contemplated that few factors will match precisely with
anyone level of description in a factor and that the selection of
the appropriate level is to be accomplished by the use of a "best
fit" approach. The Plan prescribes that this approach is to used,
inter alia, when the position can apparently be related to more
than one statement at more than one level, and does not fully
relate to any one level definition. In that event the Plan
provides that the position is to receive the benefit of the doubt
and be assigned to the higher evaluation only if the higher level
requirement is integral to the functioning of the position such
that its removal would change the nature or character of the
position. Occasional. "higher" level requirements of an incidental
nature and not integral to the functioning of the position should
not result in an evaluation higher than that Which would otherwise
have been made.
The Factor Point Rating Plan also provides for a further
comparison of the subject position with relevant Example Positions
which are included in the standards to exemplify the levels and to
illustrate relationships among factors.
The statements of the parties initially proposed the following
evaluation of the various .factors:
Factor Level Points
Union Ministry Union Ministry
1- Knowledge . 2 3 85 135
2. Skill
~
¿-
10
a) ( Core) 2 2 45 45
b} (Technical Skills) 20 0
3. Judgment 3 2 180 115
4. Accountability 3 1 180 55
5. Group Leadership - - - -
Total Points 510 350
Class Level OAG 8 OAG 6
At the hearing the union altered its position by raising its claim
in respect of the Knowledge factor from 2 to 3 and dropping its
claim in respect of the Accountability factor from 3 to 2.
However, the point total still kept it within the OAG 8 range.
Accordingly, the respective e~val ua'tioI:Ls of the factors J.S as
follows:
Union lw:linistry Union Ministry
Factor Level Points
1- Knowledge 3 3 135 135
2. Skill
a) (Core) 2 2 45 45
b) (Technical Skills) 20 0
3. Judgment 3 2 180 115
4. Accountability 2 1 115 55
5. Group Leadership - - - -
Total Points 495 350
Class Level OAG 8
·
'Ì
11
evaluations of the factors were proposed in a statement intended to
facilitate possible settlement at a pre-hearing it would be
improper, in the absence of some evidence of agreement as to a
particular factor, to hold either party to positions taken in that
context.
We turn to the matter of evaluation the position against each
of the compensable tactors.
1. Knowledge;
This factor focuses on three general areas: knowledge of
methods and procedures including equipment and systems; knowledge
of the incumbent's and others's organizations and activities; and
knowledge of relevant acts, regulations and rules. The Plan
provides that each separate sentence or criterion within each level
is treated on an "and/or" basis and that it is not expected that a
position would meet all the criteria of a level. Rather the
selected level should represent the "best-fit" as compared to both
the levels preceding and fOllowing it.
The evidence does not support the claim that this factor
should be evaluated at level 3. We agree that the position
requires a knowledge' of a broad variety of methods and procedures
required to perform "semi-routine" ("partly repetitious" tasks as
defined in the factor definition. ) Although the grievor goes
through essentially the same process of accessing menus and
~
-'
12
fOllowing prompts with respect to the various transactions
processed, there are differences in the kind of data that is input
with respect to each of the 5 different kinds at transactions she
deals with. Further, she deals with a variety of different types
of telephone inquiries which cannot be responded to in a purely
routine fashion.
However, we do not consider that the position matches any of
the other sentences in level 3. The grievor is not expected to
have knowledge suf ficien t to "interpret" program/output. We do not
consider the requirement that she ensure that the various reports
which she produces are J.n the proper form as constituting an
"interpretation" of the data contained in those reports. Nor does
she conduct a "variety of involved searches". Similarly, we are
unable to see in the evidence any indication that the position
which requires a knowledge ot the methods and procedures relating
to accounting as the union claimed. We do not consider the
updating of accounts by the insertion or deletion of new data to
meet that requirement. Nor can it be said that the grievor
provides "comprehensive" explanations of the unit's services to
internal or external clients. The kind of information primarily
provided in the telephone inquiries· is .highly specific in nature
relating essentially to the status of a partiCUlar transaction.
Finally, nothing in the evidence indic,3tes that the grievor is
required to have knowledge of any regulations or manuals of
administration to resolve her own work problems.
'.J
I (l
13
In our opinion the better fit is level 2. Some aspects of her
work are routine. For example, the processing of a batch of travel
claims involves tasks that are "repetitious in accordance with
established procedures". Her knowledge of the operation of the
software used to process the transactions meets the standard set
down for knowledge of mechanical/electronic office equipment.
Finally the kinds of responses she makes to inquiries from internal
and external sources are "factual responses to routine inquiries"
as contemplated by level 2.
Accordingly, we evaluate this factor at level 2.
2. Skill
This factor is composed of a core element and a technical
skills element.
a) Core skills.
Core skills are considered to be common to and required to
some degree in all positions and include skills in oral/written
communication, arithmetic/mathematics, and organization of data.
We are satisfied that this factor should be evaluated at level
2.
The position can be related to statements in both levels 1 and
2. We consider her communication concerning the status of cheques
or budget codes to be essentially straightforward communication on
,
~
14
matters regarding her own work activities. Level 2 requires that
communication involve some "discussion" or "explanation" of
administrative procedures.
.
"J
.
r ~
'.
I
15
connection with the management of the data given to her is of a
higher level than contemplated by level 1, viz, "locate, retrieve
and re-file pre-indexed files" and "record basic transactions".
Although the grievor does locate and retrieve accounts she also
creates new files or accounts and adds data to those files which
she then stores in an altered form. Although we would agree that
most of the sorting of input data ~s done by the Expenditure
Clerks, some rudimentary sorting is also done by the selection of
which process to apply to the variety of types of records that she
is expected to maintain. Consequently, we find the position to
require skills to "sort, index, classify, store and retrieve a
~
variety of types of records (etc.) using filing systems and related
indices."
We turn finally to the question of skills required to "detect
errors in..input forms and documents for..processing or keying and
either making minor corrections or returning to source. " The
evidence indicates that the grievor performs these functions.
However, the Ministry takes the position that the board should
disregard any tasks done which are not stated on the Position
Description or are performed without the knowledge or consent of
the Ministry. The detection of errors is not specifically referred
to in the Position Description form. However, the grievor's
'evidence is that she performed them. This evidence was not
Challenged. Nor was she cross-examined on the issue as to whether
she had been instructed either to perform or not to perform these
,
~
16
duties. The Ministry chose not to call any evidence.
Consequently, the onlY evidence before us is the evidence of the
grievor that she routinely detected and corrected errors. We
conclude that she performed this task 'Ii'ith the knowledge and the
tacit, if not express, consent of her employer. ConsequentlY, it
is a duty which is to form part of her evaluation and is one which
falls squarely within level 2.
Thus, the situation we arrive at is one in which the position
can be related to more than one statement at more than one level
and does not fully relate to anyone level definition. In these
circumstances the plan requires us then to assign the position to
the higher evaluation level "only if the higher level requirement
is integral to the functioning of the position."
There is little doubt that the functions of sorting, adding
data to the file, storing and retrie~¡ing are integral to the
position. They essentially describe that part of her duti~s which
are involved in file maintenance. Similarly, we see the detection
and correction of errors as integral to the successful performance
of the jOb. Put simply if the data is erroneous the cheques
produced will also be in error.
Therefore, the "best fit" for the core element of the skill
factor is level 2 and we so award.
I
r¡
..,.
1
17
b) Technical skills
Technical skills are grouped in blocks according to their
similarities; blocks are graded according to relative complexity.
In order to qualify for scoring a "technical" skill must be stated
as a requirement ~n a position specification and it must be
required at an appropriately accomplished level, such as CSC
standards. In addition the skill must also be required to be used
on a regular basis.
~
The union claims that the position should be included in Block
Two, viz, touch typing on a Data Entry/Computer Terminal. The
Ministry submits that this claim must be rejected for failure to
meet an essential pre-condition, viz, that the particular skilled
is required "at an appropriately accomplished level, such as to CSC
standards." The Factor Definition also states explicitly that "a
position requiring input to a Computer Terminal but not requiring
touch-typing skills to CSC standards...cannot be credited with
points for this requirement.
There is no question that the grievor's duties primarily
involve inputting data to a Computer Terminal. The issue is
whether or not the position requires its incumbent to have touch
typing skills to CSC standards. Nothing in the position
Specification so indicates. Nor is there any evidence which would
indicate that this standard is required.
.-
to
18
The union, however, relies on an asteriSk notation in Block 2
which indicates that touch typing input to a data entry/computer
terminal may be done according to Ministry Standards if no CSC
standards are applicable. However, we have no evidence at all as
to what are the Ministry standards and as to whether or not the
grievor is required to perform to those standards. Consequently,
in view of tl1e clear indication in the Plan that credit for this
skill cannot be given unless touchtyping is required at either CSC
standards or Ministry standards, this claim must fail. The onus is
on the union to establish the grievor meets the requirements and it
has failed to do so.
Consequently, no points may be awarded for Technical Skill.
3. Judgement
This factor measures the extent to which the position requires
decision making. It defines judgement by reference to first the
variety and complexity of conditions or situations requiring that
a decision be made and, secondly, the availability of procedures,
guidelines or advice to aid In the making of decisions.
In our opinion this factor should be evaluated at level 2.
The great majority of the work involves making choices from
various menus presented on the VDT screen and responding to
straightforward computer prompts. A Travel and Advance Accounting
I
1
(I
19
System Users Guide provides a detailed and comprehensive guide as
to the steps that need to be taken to process the different kinds
of transactions that corne to the grievor. In our view this tits
comfortably within the statement that "decision making involves
selecting the most sui table procedures/methods wi thin comprehensive
guidelines and precedents." We do not consider the grievor to be
selecting the "best approach to take from a range of different
choices of action." That contemplates a situation in which there
is more than one way to aChieve an objective and the incumbent in
the position 'must weight the advantages and disadvantages of
different courses of actions. Apart from the selection of options
on a menu there are no such choices involved in the input of data
and the production of cheques.
,
For similar reasons we find it difficult to conclude that the
grievor "makes all work-related decisions referring to the
supervisor only matters that deviate radically from established
guidelines or policy." The reality is that the computer makes the
decisions for the grievor who ensures that the software program
commands are executed by appropriate keystrokes. The position does
not involve a considered application of guidelines or pOlicy to a
particular situation with reference only to a supervisor in
difficult cases.
Nor can it be said that the grievor is required to exercise
jUdgement in "interpreting pOlicy and administrative directives".
,
-
1
-
20
Her responses to telephone inquiriE~s do not involve any
"interpretation" of policy. In the main she informs people as to
the status of a cheque or provides factual information as to such
matters as budget codes. Moreover, there is no evidence to
suggest that the grievor has to adapt her procedures to resolve
work problems.
The evidence establishes that the grievor works under general
supervision and that her work is normallY subject to "only limited
checking by. . . others upon completion." The cheques, the Cheque
Register and the Cheque Collection Register are all given to Sheila
Ridgeway who "scans" them before signing the cheques. Moreover,
the software program used by thE! grievor has self checking features
which·provide an automatic check on the grievor's work.
Therefore, we rate this factor at level 2.
4. Accountability
This factor is used to measure the responsibility for the kind
of actions taken (i.e. pro-active accountability) and the impact
(of errors) of such actions (i.e. re-active accountability) . With
respect to impact the Plan specifies th,at impact should not be a
rare or "far-fetched" occurrence that a position might cause.
Rather it should be an impact that is practically ensured given the
level of responsibility that the position has in the organization.
Further it is provided that it must be assumed that others in the
c.
(i
<'
-.
21
incumbent's unit are competently carrying out their assigned roles.
We are of the opinion that this factor should be evaluated at
level 2.
Clearly the information which the grievor provides either to
other employees or to client/payees is "basic to general
straightforward information". It is essentially reporting on
whether or when a cheque will be issued or providing factual data.
In no sense can it be called "detailed and involved explanation",
However, she is, in our opinion, responsible for "performing
a mix of different kinds of assigned task". The evidence is clear
that her primary jOb is the production ot cheques and that she
produces different kinds of cheques. Although admittedly the
process is similar with respect to each cheque there are some
differences, particularly in respect of travel claims.
Further, it cannot be said that the grievor is "accountable
for following instructions". The evidence is that she works
largely without supervision and that she receives no instructions
with respect to the performance of her functions except, of course,
for computer prompts. We do not consider computer prompts as
constituting the kinds of instructions contemplated by this level.
In our view it ~s more accurate to describe the grievor as
"accountable for the production of cheques in a co -ordinated,
\
.
22
efficient, manner. "
With respect to errors it appears that the posit-ion can be
related to both levels 1 and ~, Insof':lr as errors could have a
.t:, .
serious impact on persons other than those in the grievor's own
work group, i. e. clients, the posi ti,on would appear to fall
squarely within level 2.
However, we have no evidence to the effect that the correction
of such errors would involve inconvenience and the expenditure of
time. Further there is no evidence to indicate that the correction
of errors would require the involvement of someone outside the
workgroup. Although level 2 does not expressly require such it
migh t be argued 1 by inference, that the explicit reference in level
1 to the correction of errors within the work group indicates that
to qualify for a higher level 'the errors must be of a sort which
require reference outside the group for correction.
There is some evidence which would indicate that errors can be
:.
,"J
~
23
I the Pre-Printing Proof list, which entries appear in the order in
which they are entered, with the claims in the batch.
Our finding that the position relates fully to one of the
statements in level :2 and partly to another staternentin level 2
justifies us in assigning the position to the higher level on the
basis of the "best-tit" approach. That approach is to be followed
where a position can be related "to more than one statement at more
than one level and does not fully relate to any one level
definition." This position meets that requirement. Furthermore,
the functions in question, viz, the production of cheques and the
detection of errors, are integral to the position.
Consequently, we evaluate this factor at level 2.
5. Group Leadership
Neither party took the position that any points should be
awarded for this factor.
Summary:
We reach the following conclusions with respect the
appropriate rating for the various jOb factors.
Factor Level Points
Knowledge 2 85
Skill
Core 2 45
Technical 0
~
('
,..,
"
25
In the result the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at LONDON, Onto this 10th äay of October, ,1991.
)3&
G. J. Brandt / Vice Chair
/'-----¡ ~
/1:2
! (/ . ,'"
klry////
/< /
J.. c. Laniel, Union Member
,
(' ",.; ,
, !' I' (
~lÜ~, ,) '."'7" t 'l.\. <7.(
. .. , ~ 0..:/'" .._c (,/ --...1
À. Merritt, Employer Member