HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-0110.Montague.81-03-03Between:
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearing: .s
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under The
CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Miss Stella Montague
And
Ministry of Housing
(Grievor)
(Employer)
Professor K. Swinton - Vice-Chairman
Mr. A. Fortier - Member
Mr. H. Weisbach - Member
Mr. N. Lucray, Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Mr. R. Younger
Ministry of Housing
December 17th. 1980
In this case, Stella Montague grieves that her position
has been improperly classified. The grievor is presently employed by
Ministry of Housing as a Clerk 3 General. The title of her position i:
the
5 "Proces-
sing Clerk." She claims that she should be classified as a Clerk 4 General.
The grievance arisesas a result of the establishment of the
Metropolitan Toronto Housing Operations Branch in January, 1977. Prior
to that date, the grievor had worked in the Accounts Payable section of
the Rental Housing Division of the Ministry of Housing. That Division
then serviced rental housing for all Ontario. After January, 1977, it
serviced the area outside Metropolitan Toronto.
The grievor acted as a Processing Clerk in the Rental Housing
Division, which required her to verify certain items on request forms submitted
for payment by various rental housing units. Her job was to check certain
items such as the authorization, the accuracy of addition, and the correct
name of~the vendor against the invoice. The requests were then forwarded
'to two Coding Clerks, who put certain codes on the documents pertaining to
the budget, address, and amount before sending them on for computer process-
'ing and payment. These Coding Clerks were classified as Clerks 4 General.
Inanticipation of the establishment of Metro Toronto Operations
Branch, the Ministry designated that half of the employees from the Accounts
_.
Payable section would move.to the Metro Operations.Branch. This involved'three or
four people. Mr:. Raymond Rozins %as named as the Supervisor for Accounts .Payable
in the new Metro Housing. It seems that neither of the two Coding Clerks
were among the complement moving to Metro. Therefore, Rozins asked the
grievor if she would be willing to train for the coding job. She agreed, and
- 3 -
during December she worked with Herman Samuels, one of the Coding
Clerks, He trained.her for about a month in coding, familiarizing
her with the Chart of Accounts which gives guidance as to the appro-
priate codes to use for address, amount and budget. This Chart is kept
up-to-date by the Budget Department.
After the move to Metro, the grievor spent most of her time
doing coding, with about 10% spent processing. .She said that she was
the only one doing coding, although it appears that a Utility Clerk
did some as well. She testified, as well, that she had full responsi-
bility for the job, and denied that she ever consulted anyone about
difficulties with the codes. Rosins, however, said that she consulted
him about difficulties. .
In December, 1977 Miss Montague grieved her classification.
A review of the job took place in January, 1978 and a 'new position
specification was drawn up by Mrs. Lynn Weber after consultation with
Miss Montague and the Chief Accountant, Mr. Owen.
The summary of duties and responsibilities was as follows:
1. To ensure purdzase orders, mintsname service
requisitions wd cheque requisitions for @em-
Sons Metro are correct and ready fop payment
by perfozwring such tusks as:
-checking a22 docwnents for acczmzcy of .sz+pZier
name and address; amount[ extensions; calculati0r.s;
correct coding including consistency of code
structure tr:th accounting group&gs, identifying
cost centres and the proper appropriation to
individual projects and proper dcthorization.
-referring errOr. or discrepncies in ceding to Supervisor.
-preparing ckeque requisitions fmm Fwchase Orders
90% as required and obtainGzg cppropriate mcthorizctions.
-investigating and replying to queries regarding .s*3.2%5
of payment etc.
.-batching purchase orders and cheque requisitions dazz23
and f0mzrdir.g for payment.
-replying to queries from fieid stiff regarding
appropriate codes.
-isoZating i terns for urgent payment and arrcnging
for cheques to be prepared mrmuaZZy.
10% 2. Performs other related duties as assigned.
No.specific amount of time spent in coding is mentioned, and Lynn
bleber, who prepared the form, did not know how much time was spent in
that function. She also thought that all four of the Processing Clerks
in the Branch coded.
The position specification was signed by Rozins, the Supervisor.
He testified that he felt that the specification reflected the grievor's
job "in condensed form." However, he also stated that he felt that her
job was exactly the same as Samuels' job (that is, the Coding Clerk)
before the split of the divisions.
Montague's position was classified as-a Clerk 3 General after
the preparation of this position specification form. The class definition
for that position (Ex. 6) reads as follows:
WZoyees in positions allocated to this class,
as “+urneymn clerks”, perform routine cZericaZ work
of some comptexiity according to established procedures
requiring a background knowledge of specific reguzations,
statutes or ZocuZ practices. Decision-making involves
some judgment in the sezection of alternatives &thin
a comprehensive framework of guideZines. Initiative is
in the form of foZZoting up errors or otissions and in
making corrections as necessary. Doubtful, matters not
covered by precedent are referred to supervisors. Much
of the oork is reviewed onZy peribdically, principally
for adkerence to poZicy and procedures.
Typical tusks at this ZeveZ incZxle the prepam&?
of fackuat reports, statements or memoranda reqtciring
some judgment in the seZection and presentation of data;
assessment of the accumcy of statements or eligibility
of appticants, investigating discrepancies and securing
further proof or documentation as necesswd; overseeing
as a Group Leader, the work of a smZ1 subordinate stuff
by expzaining procedures, assigning and checking work.
This is a temrinaZ class for may positions invotving
the competent performance of routine clerk2 work common
to the office concerned.
The Clerk 4 General class standard, which the grievor
claims should be applied, reads as follotis (Ex. 7):
Employees in positions allocated to this class
perform a variety of responsible ctericaZ tasks
requiring a good background knowledge of specific
reguZations, statutes or loml pmctiees. Deciai-on-
making involves judgment in dealing tith variations
from established guidelines or standards. NonaZZy,
employees receive specific instructions 0nZy on
unusuaZ or special problems as the oork is performed
under conditions tFzzt permit 1ittZe opportunity for
direct supervision by others. Matters involuing
decision8 that depart radicaZZy from established
practice8 are referred to supervisors.
Tasks typica of tlris ZeveZ include the evaluation
or assessment of a variety of statements, appZication8,
records or 8imiZar n&eriaZ to check for conformity with
specific reguZation8, statutes or administrative orders,
reaoZving points not cZearZy covered by these inetruc-
tions, uswrZZy by authorizing adjustments or reconnnend-
ing payment or acceptance; supervising a smal Z group
of “joumeyrmn clerks” or a Zarger grow of CZeritiaZ
assistants by exp’kzining procedures, assigning and
checking work and maintaining discipline.
The task of thfs Board in classification grievances is 'to w
assess whether the posftfon has been improperly classified according to
the class standards established by the government's classification system.
In decidfng such grievances, the Board considers not only whether the grievor's
job comes in within the words of the higher class .standard which he or she
seeks, but also whether the grievor's duties are the same as thos.e of an
employee wlthin the more senior classification sought (Re w 43/77;
Re Rouziding Z8/75; Re ,MheeZer, 166/78).
A recent award by another panel of this Board elaborated on this
second line of enquiry in McCourt and Ministry of the Attorney CeneraZ, 198/78.
If another employee doing work identical to the grievor is classified at a
higher grade, it may indicate that the employer's actual classification
practices differ from the written classification standards. It should be noted,
however, that the concern is with the proper application of the employer's
$ i
-6- .
classification system. Therefore, it may not be conclusive for a
grievor to show that one employee in a higher classification performs -
the same tasks, for it may be that such an employee has been improperly
classified. In dealing with applications under Section 17(2)(b) of
the Crown EmpZogees. CoZZective &rgaaininq Act, S.O. 1972 c. 67, or
grievance regarding classification under the collective agreement,
the Board is not directly concerned with discrimination between
employees in the application of the classification system, unless the
differential treatment demonstrates'a change in the classification
system from the written standards. The Board's concern is with the
question of whether the griever's job has been improperly classified,
when that job is measured against absolute standards. Often,.the
description of jobs of employees in the higher classification will
only serve to illustrate the application to particular cases of what
are necessarily generally worded standards.
In measuring the grievor's job against the class stand-
ards far the Clerk 3 and Clerk 4 General, there does not appear to
be any basis for concluding that herposition has been improperly
classified, despite the change in emphasis.i'n her duties from pro-
cessing to coding when she moved to Metro Housing. The coding func-
tion is very much interrelated with the processing function, as the
evidence of people such as Mr. Owens, the former Chief Accountant,
and Mr. Rozins, the Supervisor, indicates. Both the coding and pro-
cessing tasks are routine, albeit there is some complexity and the
necessity for exercising judgment when making some coding decisions.
Even then, however, the Chart of Accounts .provides guidance in making
coding decfsions, and the supervisor is also available for consulta-
-7-
tion. These characteristics of the grievor's job fit within the
Clerk 3 standard, which refers to "routine clerical work of some
complexity" as well as the need for "some judgment in the selection
of alternatives within a comprehensive framework of guidelines."
In contrast, the Clerk 4 standard refers to a "good" background
knowledge of legislation and decision-making involving "variations
from established guidelines." The griever's independence and dis-
cretion seem much mare restricted than that contemplated by the
Clerk 4 standard.
The griever's dissatisfaction seems to have been
generated by a conception that the codingrfunction always fell to
an employee at the Clerk 4 level, while processing was performed
by those at the Clerk 3 level. She does not appear to have been
alone in the view that coding and processing were separate fuhctions,
with perhaps different classifications. To some extent, it seems
that Mr. Rozins also assumed that the functions were separate. In
reviewing the evidence, we can easily see why this conclusion was
reached, for the transfer to Metro Housing Operations seems to have
been handled in a way that was fated to lead to misunderstandings
and false expectations among the staff. It appears that Rozins
was told that he was to set up an Accounts Payable section with
named employees, without detailed discussion as to what was expected
of him. He assumed that this section would operate in the way that
the old system had, with both coding and processing clerks. There-
fore, he asked the grievor to take training' in coding. She drew the
inference that she was being promoted, because the Coding Clerk
training her was a Clerk 4. Instead the Ministry appears to have
-8-
beenplanning a reorganization of this section and a downgrading
of certain tasks. Unfortunately, these plans do not appear to have
been comunicated to the .employees who were directly affected by the
plans. Consequently, and not surprisingly, a grievance arose.
Classification of position does not necessarily turn,
however, on the fact that an employee performs a given duty, par-
ticularly when the classification standards under consideration are
very general and applicable to a wide range of positions. This is
especially true of the Clerk series of standards. Many similar
tasks will be performed by employees with different classifications.
within the Clerk series. Their 'classifications will vary because
of factors such as the degree of complexity of the task or the
degree of independent judgment required in performing the task.
Although Mr. Luczay argued for the grievor that the
coding function necessitated classification at the Clerk 4 level,
we do not agree. He lead evidence of a position specification for
Coding Clerk in the Controller's Office (Exhibit 9) which we classi-
fied as Clerk 4 in 1972. That evidence is of no weight without
further details about that job and its similarity to the grievor's.
More weighty is the evidence of Mr. Samuels' job, which was ClaSsi-
fied as Clerk 4. Although Samuels trained the grievor to code,
and although there are indeed some similarities between his job
and the grievor's, it does not appear that they are identical jobs.
The position specification for Samuels' job (Exhibit 8) is quite
different from the grievor's (Exhibit 5),, and shows that he has
more responsibility than the grievor. Not only does he code, but
he also has some responsibility for monitoring andupdating the Chart of
.: I ; i
c i -9-
Accounts. Furthermore, Rosins, the grievor's supervisor, did not
disagree with the position specification for the grievor's job,
except for some very minor details. There seems to have been no
concern about the contents or objection because of lack of recogni-
tion of the griever's responsibility for maintaining the Chart and
coding system. This indicates a significant difference between her
position and Samuels'.
Therefore, in considering the evidence, we have con-
cluded that the griever's job was properly classified as a Clerk 3
General and the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 3rd day of March 1981.
.
"K. Swinton"
Prof. K. Swinton Vice Chairman
"I concur - A. Fortier"
Mr. A. Fortier Member
"I concur - H. Weisbach"
Mr. H. Weisbach Member _.
/t