Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-0011.Edwards and Moloney.79-05-04Between: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under The CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARE Messrs. R. Edwards and C. Moloney And 11/78 The Crown in Right of Ontario Ministry cf Community & Social Services Before: Professor K. Swinton Vice-Chairman Mr. E. Orsini Member Mr. R. Cochrane Member For the Grievor: For the Emoloyer: Hearinq: Ms. j. Miko, Classification Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union 190: Ycnge Street Toronto, Ontario Ms. C. Roberts Personnel Services Branch Ministry of Comaunity & Social Services 5th Floor, Hepburn Block Queen's Park, Toronto October 29th, 1978 Suite 2100, 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario -2- This grievance comes before the Board pursuant to s. 17(E)(a) of the Crown mployees Collective Bargaining Act. The grievors, Clare Moloney and Robert Edwards, grieve that they have been improperly classified as Welfare Field Worker Iand ask that their positions be reclassified as Welfare Field Worker 2. Two other employees, Arleigh Carew and Pam Mills, also filed similar grievances, and the parties have agreed that the disposition of the Moloney and Edwards grievances will govern the Carew-Mills grievances (Ex.9). The grievors are employed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in the Peterborough and Lindsay District Office as Welfare Field Workers. Their duties include interviewing prospective applicants for assistance under the Family Benefits programae, a task which often requires explanation of the legislation, obtaining required documentation. such as bank accounts, insurance and tax information, and completion of the application forms to be sent to Toronto for a decision on eligibility.' The Field Workers are also required to interview Family Benefits clients on an annual basis in order to complete a Present Condition Report (PCR), which is necessary for the determination of ongoing eligibility for benefits. The Peterborough Field Workers are each responsible for about 350 cases. A further duty involves 'counselling" or provision of "practical guidance" to applicants or clients with regard to various matters such as budgeting, housing, special financial needs, employment or education. It is this component of the Field Worker's job which has generated the present grievance, i -3- the,grievors arguing that they provide "counselling" as required by the Welfare Field Worker 2 class standard (Ex. 4) and the employer arguing that they provide "limited counselling" and practical guidance within the Welfare Field Worker I class standard (Ex. 3). In classification grievances, this Board is confined to hearing the grievance of an employee that his job has been improperly classified; that is,that the classification system in use has been improperly applied to his job. In deciding these grievances, the Board looks to two questions: '(1) whether the position, measured against the relevant class standards, is appropriately classified; and (2) whether an employee performing the same duties as the grievor is included in a more senior classification (Re Rounding, u/75 at 4; Lynch s Ministry of Health, 43/77 at 4). In this particular grievance, the Board was required to look only to the first question, measuring the duties of the grievors against the relevant class standards. The task was not an, easy one, for the class standards for Welfare Field Worker I and 2 are quite dated, having been last revised in 1961. Yet the welfare legislation with which these workers operate has changed since then, as have the expectations and demands of the welfare clients with whom they work. The failure of the standards to keep pace with the changing nature of the job has given rise to these grievances. , -4- The relevant class standards for Welfare Field Worker I (Ex. 3) and Welfare Field Worker 2 (Ex. 4) are set out in full below. WELFARE FIELD WORKER 1 CLASS DEFINITION: This is welfare field work carried out from the District OffiCeS of the Department of Public Welfare involving the investigation and obtaining of information as to the eligibility or continuing eligibility of applicants for assistance under the Welfare AllOwariceS program. Employees verify applicants' or recipients' statements by visiting banks insurance companies registry offices and so forth. They revisit recipients at specific intervals. under the general supervision of a Regional Welfare Administrator, these employees are responsible for the planning and carrying out of their work on a day to day basis. CRARACTBRISTIC DUTIES: Interview, in their homes applicants for assistance under the Old Age Assistance, Blind Persons' Allowances Mothers' Allowances and.Disabled Persons' Allowances Acts and record on prescribed form all necessary information to'enable applicants' eligibility to be determined by the Department. On behalf of the Federal Government, accept applications for Old Age Security. Verify applicants' or recipients' statementi by investigating health and medical records; obtain Surrogate Court records executors' statements, details of bank savings deposits. statemnts of cash surrender values of insurance policies and statements of earnings from employers. Maintain close liaison with local welfare agencies and guide applicants for assistance to the awst appropriate source; keep abreast of Provincial, Federal and local welfare legislation; discuzs current siatus of particular cases with local officials; may offer limited counselling and case work service; make referrals to appropriate agency for additional case work. Maintain caseload records and carry out related clerical work; arrange interviews and appointments. -5- In unorganized areas accept applications for General Welfare Assistance, set up welfare budgets, issue emergency relief vouchers, approve and arrange transportation for indiyent hospitalization cases. QUALTFICATIONS: 1. Grade 13 education; pass standard (60%) in the Departmntal preliminary and course examinations. 2. At least six months' experience as a Welfare Field Worker (Probationary). 3. Ability to interview successfully under adverse conditions; tact, integrity; good knowledge of the relevant Acts and Regulations; ability to drive a car and an intimate knowledge of local geography. Revised September 1961 WELFARE FIELD WOP.KER 2 CLASS DEFINITION: This is welfare field work carried out from the District Offices of the Department of Public Welfare involving the in- vestigation and obtaining of information as to the eligibility or continuing eligibility of applicants for assistance under the Welfare Allowaoces progranrmes and the coonselling and guidance of applicants on financial matters, job opportunities, rehabil- itation, child grridance, health facilities, etc. The worker will be required to develop satisfactory relationships with applicants and agencies, to carry out the practices and techniques of case work and to maintain adequate social histories. At least 40% of the duties performed must concern cowelling and case work. CHARACTERISTIC DUTIES: Offer coonselling and case work service to all applicants and m3re extensive coonselling and case work to applicants selected by the Welfare Field Supervisor in conjunction with the Welfare Field Worker as most likely to benefit from this type of service. Represent the Province at Juvenile and Family Court hearings. -6- Interview, in their horns, applicants for assistance under the Old Age Assistance, Blind Persons' Allowances, Mothers’ and Dependent Children's Allowances, Disabled Persons' Allowances and General Welfare Assistance Acts, and record on prescribed forms all necessary information to enable applicants' eligibility to be determined Ly the Department. undertake the rehabilitation of applicants by counselling and arranging financial assistance. Provide parents with guidance in child care and training. Help applicants to obtain end maintain satisfactory housing. On behalf of the Federal government, accept applications for Old Age Security. Verify applicants' or recipients' statements by investigating health and medical records; obtain Surrogate Court records, executors' statements, details of bank savings deposits, statements of.cash surrender values of insurance policies end statements of earnings from employers. Maintain close liaison with local welfare agencies and guide applicants for assistance to the mast appropriate source; keep abreast of Provincial, Federal and local welfare legislation; discuss current status of particular cases with local officials. Maintain caseload records end.carry out related clerical work; arrange interviews and appointments. In unorganized areas, accept applications for General Welfare dssistance, set up welfare budgets, issue emergency relief vouchers, approve and arrange transportation for indigent hospitalization cases. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. A minimum of Grade XIII education; pass standard in the Departmental examinations for this class. 2. Three years ' experience as a Welfare Field Worker 1. 3. Ability to establish satisfactory relationships with applicants; ability to carry out practices end techniques of case work; good knowledge of the relevant Acts and Regulations; ability to drive a car. MAY 1961. The grievors argue that their work with clients goes beyond the "limited counselling" and referrals to appropriate agencies set out in the Welfare Field Worker I class and constitutes the counselling and case work required of Welfare Field Workers 2. A review of the class definitions for Field Workers 1 and Z.reveals that the point of departure between the two levels is the degree of contact and extent of involvement with their clients. To quote from the class definition of Welfare Field Worker 2. he or she is responsible for the counselling and guidance of applicants on financial matfers, job opportunities, rehabilitation, child guidance, health facilities, etc. The worker will be required to develop satisfactory relationships with applicants and agencies, to carry out the practices and techniques of case work and to maintain adequate social histories. At least 40% of the duties performed must concern counselling and case work. The distinction betweenthe two classes is also seen in the characteristic duties of the Welfare Field Worker 2, in particular duties 1, 2, 3 (last sentence), 4 and 5. The parties could not agree on the details of a job description for the grievors. The employer obtained an Audit Report of the jobs on August 26, 1977 (Ex. 6), which the grievors corrected and amended (Ex. 7). Duty 3, involving "practical guidance", is the most important job duty for purposes of these grievances. It is described by the Audit Report as follows: -a- 3. Provides practical guidaiice to applicants and clients either during home visit, office visit, or phone calls, on matters related to budgeting, housing, special financial needs, employment, education, recreation etc. by giving basic advice and by referring client to appropriate agency or cornunity resource for further assistance. NOTE: dgencies referred to include Childxs did, Salvation Amy, Ontario Housing, Municipal Welfare, Legal Aid, Family Counselling, Credit Counselling, Vokational Rehabilitation, etc. Incumbent may contact agency to set up an appointment for clients or to give or obtain information on clients behalf. On occasion, may participate in case discussion with other agencies. The grievors' amended version states that the incumbent "identifies the problem and the clients' needs, discusses alternatives and seeks the most effective course of action, when necessary, referring client to appropriate agency or community resource for further assistance" Clare Maloney, one of the incumbents, gave evidence to elaborate on this guidance function. He stated that in his caseload of approximately 350 cases, 50 to 60 receive in-depth treatment, varying from establishing a trusteeship for a client to assisting the client in entering educational progransnes to assisting with applications for government home ownership programmes. He estimated that 40% to 50% of his normal work week was taken up with this type of counselling and casework. Furthermore, he believes that this is an important part of his job. The work of the Welfare Field Worker is necessarily client-centred, and assistance for the type of clients involved cannot be "restricted" to providing information. These clients are often unable or unwilling to approach other agencies for assistance without a prior intercession by a Welfare Field Worker or i - 9 - without his accompaniment. His evidence also revealed some change in emphasis in the tasks of the Field Workers in the Peterborough Office over the years. For example, the Peterborough Office now completes only rural applications, the remainder being done at City Hall. Mr. Moloney also believes that the Employer's Reference Manual (Ex. 12). a training manual for new Welfare Field Workers I, also reflects an employer expectation that the field workers will engage in counselling, for skills required include identifying the nature of clients' problems and developing alternative options for action. Mr. Moloney's supervisor, Alex Smith, agreed that the Field Workers were responsible for identifying client problems and giving advice as to the proper source of assistance. However, he refused to characterize this as "counselling". In his opinion, "counselling" requires more extensive involvement with the client and an effort to move the client from one functional level to another. The Welfare Field Worker I's have no time to provide such in-depth counselling, because of the heavy administrative demands of the Family Benefits programme. Their primary role is processing applications and documents to determine eligibility. It is expected that they will give practical guidance and information to clients with problems that arise and possibly establish contacts with the appropriate agencies. but then responsibility ends. Smith estimated that 70% of the Field - 10 - Worker's time is taken up with completing application forms and PCR's. The "practical guidance" component, to which he could give no estimate, arises during the documentation process, and to a great extent, it is the individual who decides the extent of involvement in a given case. Smith has never indicated to his Field Workers whether they should provide detailed counselling and follow-up. The Board also heard the evidence of Penny Keel, Regional Personnel Manager, Headquarters and Northern Region, to the effect that Welfare Field Worker 2's normally carry a caseload of 40 to 50 cases. This is to allow them time for more in-depth involvement with client problems and rehabilitation. In contrast, the Welfare Field Worker l's have a caseload.ranging from 250 to 400 cases. If one looks‘to the class standards for Welfare Field Worker~I and 2, one finds a great deal of overlap in the characteristic duties, specifically with regard to the interviewing of applicants and preparation of application forms, accepting applications for Old Age Security, verification of information, maintaining close liaison with other sources of assistance, maintaining caseload records, and accepting applications for General Welfare Assistance in unorganized areas. Job classifications often contain overlapping duties, for it is difficult to design watertight job compartments. This makes the task of classification more difficult, although it does not necessarily mean that the grievors, because they perform many of the same tasks of the senior classification, are entitled to that senior classification (L.C.B.O. and Liquor Control Board, 35/77 at 12; Windsor Public Utilities Comission (1975). 7 L.A.C. (2d) 380 (Adams)). - 11 - It is particularly difficult to design classifications for jobs involving paraprofessionals, the situation in the present case. Routine jobs on a production line can often be distinguished by brightly drawn lines, with the job of a person responsible for the operation of a punch press easily distinguished from the job of the person keeping him supplied with material. In contrast, with para- professionals, and particularly with regard to those providing services to other people, as in the welfare and medical fields, it is often difficult to draw bright lines between different levels of jobs. The tasks performed by individuals in different classifications may appear very similar, yet it must be kept in mind that the classifications have been designed for a purpose - whether to reflect different emphases with regard to the similar tasks, or to reflect greater discretion or responsibility by those in one of the classifications, or to reflect the higher qualifications demanded of those in the more senior classifi- cation (the aim being to preserve the morale and status concerns of those more highly qualified in a particular field of endeavour). An arbitration board must therefore be particularly careful in assessing classification grievances where there is extensive overlap in job duties, so that a decision does not interfere with the overall aims of the classification system. The onus is on the grievor to show that he falls within the higher classification, and where there is extensive overlap in job duties, he should show that his job, in practice, is the same as that performed by a person properly within the higher classification. - 12 - Rearing this in mind, we must turn to the grievors' complaints that they are entitled to the higher classification of Welfare Field Worker 2. The overlapping tasks of the Welfare Field Worker 1 and 2 positions illustrate well the problems facing those designing classifications for paraprofessionals-. Both types of Welfare Field Worker collect informa- tion regarding eligibility for Family Benefits, and both are involved in some degree of counselling. It is the different emphasis placed on these tasks which distinguishes the two classifications. The Welfare Field Worker 2 is expected to be primarily a counsellor, spending at least 40X of his or her time on counselling and casework. to allow in-depth treatment of cases. While the Welfare Field Worker 1 is a The caseload is limited .lso expected to provide some counselling, it is of a more limited nature. Despite the qualify- ing adjective of "limited" in the characteristic duties of the Welfare Field Worker 1 class standard, the Board is not led to the conclusion that the Welfare Field Worker 1 is intended to act as a mere conduit for client complaints, passing them on to other welfare service agencies when asked. He or she must take responsibility in identifying client problems and aiding in their solution. Nevertheless, the ability to do this~must be to some extent restricted because the caseload of the Welfare'Pield Worker 1 ranges from 250 to 400 cases. Primary responsibility is information collection, with counselling and referrals interwoven with that task. The difference in caseload of the Welfare Field Worker 1 and 2 must necessarily result in a qualitative difference in the counselling provided. - 13 - The question for this Roard is whether the grievors' jobs fall more clearly within the Welfare Field Worker 2 classification than. the Welfare Field Worker 1. There is no doubt that the grievors perform the characteristic duties set out in the Welfare Field Worker 1 standard (Ex. 3). From the evidence, it appears that the grievors in this parti- cular case do more than is required of the Welfare Field Worker 1, in that they perform many of the distinctive duties set out in the Welfare Field Worker 2 classification (i.e., duties 1, 3, 4 and 5). The question is whether the counselling which they provide is sufficient to bring them into the Welfare Field Worker 2 classification. Mr. Moloney testified that 50 to 60 of his cases receive in-depth treatment, and he estimated that 40% to 50% of his normal work week was taken up with counselling and casework. The Board notes that this evidence was not contradicted by the employer, in that Mr. Smith refused to give an estimate as to the counselling component of Mr. Poloney's job. Nevertheless, Mr. Smith said that he had never asked the grievor to do "counselling" work on an in-depth basis. It is to be noted that the Welfare Field Worker 2 is expected to provide "more extensive counselling and case work to appli- cants selected by the Welfare Field Supervisor in conjunction with the Welfare Field Worker as most likely to benefit from this type of service." (emphasis added). Rather than selecting certain cases for in-depth treatment with their Supervisor, it appears in this case.that the grievors themselves have selected the cases for which they provide extra counselling and also decide the time to be devoted to such cases. Obviously, there is a demand . c - 14 - for counselling services from clients. As there is no Welfare Field Worker 2 available in the Peterborough office, the grievors have stepped in to fill a perceived void. Yet their involvement must be to some extent limited by their heavy caseload. In addition, the evidence does not show that they were asked by management to take on these added tasks to the degree required of a Welfare Field Worker 2. In fact, Mr. Smith, the Supervisor, was in the Peterborough office only two days a week and does not seem to have been aware of the exact degree of counselling provided. These two factors (caseload size and lack of employer instruction) weigh against the grievors. While the grievors' concern for their clients' interests is admirable, they cannot claim a higher classification through taking on the work of that classification voluntarily, without the employer's instruction. Furthermore, they have failed to satisfy the Board that they can provide in-depth counselling equivalent to a Welfare Field Worker 2 when they have 200 to 300 more cases to handle than has a Welfare Field Worker 2. The counselling interwoven with their primary task of completing documentation for the Family Benefits programne, must be regarded as secondary, rather than a primary duty as with Welfare Field Worker 2's. Wo doubt part of the problem in this case arises from the dated nature of the class standards, unrevised since 1961. The grievors' counselling function has clearly become more significant over the years, although we are not satisfied thatit satisfies the qualitatively different counselling component of the higher class standard. Grievances of this type may be eliminated by an updating to reflect the increased importance of the client service component of the Welfare Field Worker 1 job. ? - 15 - For the reasons given above, these grievances are dismissed. Dated at Toronto this 4th day of May 1679. Katherine Swinton Vice-Chairman I concur Esh Orsini Member *,I dissent Ron Cochrane Member *NOTE: For Dissent see Page 16 - 20 - 16 - DISSENT 11178 Messrs. R. Edwards and C. Moloney Ministry of Conununity & Social Services I agree with the majority award where it finds that the'8oard in receiving classification grievances is limited to determining (1) whether the position, measured against the relevant class standards, is appropri- ately classified; and (2) whether an employee performing the same duties as the grievor is included in a more senior classification and that in this particular case the Board was required to,look only to the first question i.e. measuring the duties of the grievors against the relevant class standards. With respect I am unable to agree with the majority award to dismiss the grievances. In particular I cannot agree that the grievors cannot claim a higher classification through taking on the work of that classification voluntarily, without the employer's instruction. Neither can I agree that the grievors have failed to satisfy the Board that they can provide in-depth counselling equivalent to a Welfare Field Worker 2. (See Page 14 Majority Award), A review of the class standards for Field Worker 1 and 2 positions reveals that the major difference between the two levels is identified by a comparison of the~two class definitions. The Field Worker 2 class definition in addition to embracing the Field Worker 1 class definition also charges the incumbents of Field Worker 2 positions with the responsibility for: The co&selling and guidance of applicants in financial matters, job opportunities , rehabilitation, child guid- ance, health facilities, etc. The worker will be required to develop satisfactory relationships with applicants and agencies, to carry out the practices and techniques of case work and to maintain adequate social histories. At least 40% of the duties performed must concern counselling and case work.~ This difference is further emphasized and reflected in the characteristic duties of a Field Worker 2 at duty numbers 1, 2, 3 (last sentence) 4 & 5. - 17 - It is of some importance to note that aside from these differences incumb- ents of Field Worker 1 and 2 positions share common duties. The evidence revealed that there are no Welfare Field Worker 2 positions in the Peterbor- ough Office (seemajority award page 14). It also revealed that duty #2 has become a specialist function and is no longer considered as a character- istic duty of Field Worker 2 positions. There is also no doubt that the grievors perform the characteristic duties set out in the Field Worker 1 standard. (see majority award page 13) From the evidence it is clear that the grievors also perform in addition to the duties that are conmion to both levels duty numbers 1, 3, 4 and 5 which are only found in the Field Worker 2 class standard. (see majority award page 13) I would emphasize that these duties personify the difference noted in the class definition for the Field Worker 1 and 2 positions. On this evidence alone it is patently clear that the grievor's duties fit more closely the duties of a Field Worker 2 than a Field Worker 1. How- ever, the Field Worker 2 class definition requires that at least 40% of the duties performed must concern counselling and case work. Mr. Maloney testified that 50 to 60 of his cases receive in-depth treat- ment, and he estimated that 40% to 50% of his normal work week was taken up with counselling and case work. This evidence was not contradicted by the employer, in that Mr. Smith (Mr. Moloney's supervisor) refused to give an estimate as to the counselling component of Mr. Moloney's job. (see majority award page 13) The employer's evidence indicated that the Ministry did not employ a~ Field Worker 2's in the Peterborough office and that the Field Worker l's are required to provide these client services and guidance as or if required. From the evidence in this particular case, I would find it difficult - 18 - not to conclude that the grievor's duties constitute counselling and case work to a degree sufficient to bring them within the Welfare Worker 2 class. The majority of the Board in the light of this evidence dismissed the grievance on the basis that the grievors cannot claim a higher classifica- tion through taking on the work of a higher classification voluntarily, without the employer's instruction. (See majority award page 14) In support of that conclusion the majority Board relied on the fact that the evidence does not show that the grievors were asked by management to take on these added tasks to the deqree required of a Welfare Field Worker 2. (See majority award page 14) and also the fact that Mr. Smith, the Super- visor, was in the Peterborough office only two days a week and does not seem to have been aware of the exact degree of counselling provided. (See majority award page 14) The Board's conclusion in this regard appears to lose sight of the fact that the employer's own evidence indicated that the Ministry did not employ UWelfare Field Worker 2's in the Peterborough office and that the Field Worker l's are required to provide these client services and guid- ance as or if required, Mr. Smith testified that to a great extent it is the individual who decides the extent of involvement in a given case and he ~also testified that he has never indicated to his Field Workers as to whether they should or should not provide detailed counselling and follow-up. (See majority award page 10) Surely the degree of counselling has to be affected by the Ministry's decision not to employ x Field Worker 2's in the' Peterborough office. - 19 - i The obvious effect of such a decision in-so-far as the employees are con- cerned is that they are expected to carry the work load of both the Field Worker 1 and Field Worker 2, which would have an adverse affect on the degree of counselling services available. It would also account for the high volume of cases handled. I do not think that the lack of a specific instruction from the, employer regarding the degree of added responsibility taken on by the grievors should tell against them. In this particular case the grievors were in fact required by the circumstances (setting aside for the moment the employer's evidence that they were required to take on the additional tasks of the Field Worker 2. as of if required) to provide these additional functions. The circumstances being the lack of x Field Worker 2 position in the Peterborough office and the inaccessability of the grievor's super- visor on a day to day basis. The second and last factor considered by the majority Board to dismiss the grievance was that the grievors failed to satisfy the Board that they can provide in-depth counselling equivalent to a Welfare Field Worker 2 when they have 200 to 300 more cases to handle than has a Welfare Field Worker 2. There was no evidence tendered by either party to illustrate what in-depth counselling would be equivalent to a Welfare Field Worker 2 position. I,don't think this can be inferred from Mrs. Keel's evidence because the Peterborough office does not have a Field Worker 2's. This also appears to touch on the second question which as noted at page 3 of the majority award the Board was not required,to decide. . The grievor's evidence is uncontradicted that he spends between 40 and 50% of his time on 50 to 60 cases providing in-depth counselling. What it all boils down to in the end is that the grievors are being denied the higher level because of two factors (caseload size and lack of employer instruction). Both, of these factors ares outside the control of - 20 - the grievors and for the reasons already stated, should not tell against them. The problem was brought about because the employer for whatever reason does not employ 2 Field Worker 2's in the Peterborough office. Given the particular circumstances of this case, I would allow the grievances and award compensation retroactive to June 30, 1976 when the grievances were first raised. I might add that this decision would not spell an end to Field Worker 1 position as many may fear. Hopefully it would encourage the employer to take a serious look at these offices where it does not employ any Field Worker 2's and where the Field Worker l's are expected and required to fulfill these added tasks on an as or if required basis. In these offices, consideration should be given to upgrading some of the Field Worker 1 positions. The matter deserves serious consideration, if we are to dispel the rumour that employee initiative is a dead thing in the Public Service. Signed Ron Cochrane. (Note: For majority award see Pages 2 - 15)