Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0174.Roy et al.82-07-12Setween : IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEXENT BOARD OPSEU (D.P.Roy et ai) - and - The Crown in wright cf Ontario (Ministry of Health) E.3. Jclliffe, Q.C. S.D. ICaufman A.R. Rae Grievers Employer Vice Chairinar. >!ember Yember For the Grievers: G. liichards GrievancejClassi<icatisn Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union. For the Zmpiover: 3.W. Hansen Regionai Perscnnel Administratcr MiniStry .of Health Hearings: October 28 and November 2i, 1981 - 2 - DECIS ION In July and August, 1980, eight employees hereinafter named sought reclassification of the position held by them in the Central Accounting Section, Finance and Accounting Branch, Finance and Administration Division of the Ministry of Health. The eight grievors were the following: Dileep Paul Roy, Annie Pun, Irma Audain, Eileen J. Comeau, Cedric D'Souza, Laureen Dassakis, Sharon Mohammed and Swarna Devendra. These were all the incumbents of the position known as "Adjustments and Control Clerk," Code 05-7311-18, which for some years.has been repeatedly classified Clerk 3,' General. The grievances are as follows: I grieve under Article 5.1.1 of the working condition agreement that I am improperly classified. The "Settlement Required" was said to be: Reclassification to Clerk 4, General. : The agreement to which the grievors intended to refer was made in respect of the period between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 1981, between Management Board of Cabinet and Ontario Public Service Employees Union. It relates to both "Working Ccn- ditions and Employee Benefits." The relevant language in Article 5 makes the following provisions: -3- 5.1.1 An employee who alleges that his position is improperly classified may discuss his claim with his immediate supervisor at any time, provided that such discussions shall not be taken into account in the application of the time limits set out in Article 27, Grievance Procedure. An employee, however, shall have the right to file a grievance in accordance with the grievance procedure, specifying in his grievance what classifi- cation he claims. 5.1.2 In the case of any grievance filed under the above section, the authority of the Grievance Settlement Board shall b&limited to : (a) confirming that the grievor is properly classified in an existing classification, or (b) finding that the grievor would be properly classified in the job classification which he claimed in his grievance. It maybe worthy of note that Section 18(2) of The Crcwrl EmQlOyeeS Collective Sargaining Act also refers to classification grievances, providing that .in addition to any other rights of grievance under a collective agreement, an employee claiming that his position has been improperly classified may process a grievance, and failing settlement within the grievance procedure may refer the matter to arbitration under Section 19 of the Act. In this case, the position has a considerable classifi-. cation history. In 1974 it was classified with the same number but a different title as Clerk 3, General, Exhibit 2. Foliowing a reorganization of the office, another Position Specification and Class Allocation confirmed it as Clerk 3, General with the same title, Exhibit 3. In October, 1980, the title changed but the classification remained the same, Exhibit 4. Apparently as a reslzlir r -4- of the eight grievances, a "job audit" was done in February, 1981, Exhibit 5. It is dated February 20, but on the previous day, February 19,Supervisors Leclerc and Tiido as well as S.J. O'Neil, Manager, Central Accounting, approved a revised Position Specifi- cation and Class Allocation Form, Exhibit 6, again classifying the position as Clerk 3, General. For the purposes of this decision, the Job Audit, Exhibit 5 and the last Form, Exhibit 6, are of primary importance. The applicable principles are well-known. They have beer explained in a series of decisions by this Board, one or more of which may be cited in every classification dispute: Rounding 18/75; Thompson, 7/76; Lynch 43/77; 64/77:. Pretty Edwards & Maaoney 11/78 Wheeler 166/78; McCourt 198/78 and Montague 110/78. The then Chairman of this Board, Mr. George Adams, authored a comprehensive statement on the topic at pages 4 and~5 of Lynch: In cases of this kind the Board is limited to an assessment of what the grievor does against 1) the relevant class standards and/or 2) the duties performed by some other employee whose position has been included in a more senior classification. While a bargain- ing agent, once granted representative rights, may bargain with respect to the classification and job evaluation system to be emuloved bv an emolover. it is the exclusive function of the emolover actually to classify-positions. Under section 17(2)(a) of The Crown Enployees Collective Bargaining Act employees are given the right to challenge the propriety of the resulting allccation of their position to one classification as opposed to another. However the board has said on a number of occasions that a grievance filed under this provision cannot challenge the classification system itself or the -5- pay assigned to a job once classified, Rather the question before the Soard is simply whether the classification system in use was properly applied to the position cf the grievor. As noted, in making this determination the Board looks at two principal considerations - the documented classification standards against which the griever's position was classified and secondly the application of purported applications of those standards to other positions involving identical or nearly identical work to that which the griever performs. This latter consideration is relevant because the actual classification practices of the employer may substantially modify the dccumented standards relied upon and because the treatment accorded other employees is very often the underlying reason for grievances of this kind. The foregoing explanation is quoted here because it must be kept in mind when considering the evidence tendered by the parties at the hearings in this case. The first need is to compare the actual requirements of the position with the class standards for Clerk'3, General, and Clerk 4, General. The second question is whether the duties of the position are like those performed by another employee whose position has been included in a higher classification. It is first necessary to quote the relevant standards, Exhibit ,lO. The preamble thereto contains the .following paragraph. GFXEFULCLERICAL SERIES - 7 CLASSES: _ This series covers positions where the purpse is to perform clerical mrk entirely or in combination with incidental typing, stenographic or machine cperating duties. Where exclusion of the latter cold significantly change the character of a position, or M-,ere they occupy a large propcrtion.of tie wx-king time, the psition should be assigned to one of the specialized classes, e.g. Clerical Typist. Pcsitions for which specialized clerical series exist, e.g. Clerk, Mail and Vessenger, Clerk, Filing, etc. should not be assigned to this series. Group leader responsibility normally begins at the third level, while the fourth and above usually cover position involvtig line supervision; however, non-supervisory positions can also be included. Under the heading "Clerk 3, General" in Exhibit 10 the following is said of the classification now allocated to the grievers' position: CLASS DEFINITION: Fmployees in positions allccated to this class, as "journeyman clerks", prform rcutine clerical work of some complexity according to established procedures requiring a background knowledge of .specific regulations, statutes or local practices. Decision-making involves some judgment in the selection of alternatives within a comprehensive framework of guidelines. Initiative is in the form of following up errors or emissions and in making corrections as necessary. Doubtful matters not covered by precedent are referred to supervisors. IRuch of the Iwork is reviewed only psricdically, 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; assessment of the accuracy of statements or eligibility of applicants, investigating discrepancies an? securing further proof or documentation as necessary: overseeing, as a Group Leader, the work of a small subordinate staff by explaining procedures, assigning an3 checking work. This is a terminal class for many positions involving the competent parformance of routine clerical work commcn to the office concerned. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 12 or an equivalent combination cf education, training and experience. 2. About three years satisfactory clerical experience. 3. Ability to understand and explain clerical procedures and reguire- ments; ability to organize and complete +.ork assignments within prescribed time limits: ability to maintain gcod mrking relation- ships with other employees and the public served. 5 7- - Also appearing in Exhibit 10 are the "Class Definition" and "Qualifications" of a position classified Clerk 4, General, the classification sought by the eight grievors: CLASS DEFINITION: Employees in psitions allocated to this class perform a variety of responsible clerical tasks requiring a gocd background knowledge of specific regulations, statutes or local practices. Decisicn- making involves jrdgment in dealing with variations frcm established guidelines or standards. Normally, employees receive specific instructions only on unusual or special problems as the work is performed under conditions that permit little opportunity for direct supervisicn by others. Matters involving decisions that depart radically from established practices are referred to supervisors. Tbsks typical of this level include the evaluation or assessment of a variety of statements, applications, records or similar material to check for conformity with specific requlations, statutes or administrative orders, resolving points not clearly covered by these instructions, usually by authorizing adjustments or recommending payment or acceptance; supervising a small group of "journeyman -clerks" or a larger qroup of clerical assistants by explaining procedures, assigning and checking work and maintaining discipline. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 12 education or anequivalent combination of &cation, 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 in writing: ability to instruct and supervise the work of subordinates. In a case such as this, the onus is on the employee to establish a case: in other words, to show that the present class- ification is wrong and that the higher classification would be appropriate. The only witness to testify in support of the grievers' claim was Mr. D.P. Roy, who had been hired as a Clerk 3, General in 1973 and was therefore able to explain the history of the position in some detail. According to him, changes made in 1977 and also later added to the complexity and responsibility of the duties actually performed. It is useful to review the Job Audit done in February, 1981, and Mr. Roy's comments thereon, the Audit being more intelligible than the Position Specification. Mr. Roy said the Audit's description was "fairly accurate," but~he had some impor- tant reservations about certain passages. The Job Audit, Exhibit 5, began as follows: PURPOSE OF AUDIT: mis audit results from a classification grievance submitted by all incumbents in this position. BACKGKNND: 'Ihe subject position is located in the accounts office of the Central Accounting Section, Finance and Accounting Branch. Tne main function of the Accounts Office is to process and record all expenditures incurred by the Ministry for the Nrrent fiscal year, approximately 300,000 transactions annually. 'Ihe accounts office is divided into two closely linked working units - the Payments LSit,and the Adjustment and Control Unit. Each unit is headed up by a Lnit Super- visor at the Clerk 6 bargaining unit level reporting to the Acccunts Office Supervisor. Tne payments Unit receives all claims for payment, with the exception of government pharmacy invoices and journal entries. lhe Payment Unit's main function is to check and process travel, grant, bursary and expenditure claims and ensuring the accuracy, ccmploteness and conformance to apprcpriate government policies and procedures. Completed and checked items are forwarded from the payments unit tc the i -9- adjustments and control unit for vendorizing (assigning supplier codes, if necessary) and batching (or grouping with appropriate batch number1 for submission to the Ministry's Financial Management Control Computer system. It should be noted that the headings of the document gave the position number, 05-7311-18, the position title (Adjustment and Control Clerk) and gave the Supervisor's name and title as Ms. Shelagh LeClerc, Accounts Office Supervisor, with a classification of "Clerical Services CM-17." Actually, however, the grievors' immediate supervisor is Ms. Virve Tiido, who has been mentioned in the paragraph quoted above as a "Unit Supervisor at the Clerk 6 bargaining unit level." That point is significant. The Job Audit continued.as follows to set.out the "Duties of Position." B&r general supervision, incumbents are responsible for ensuring the timely and accurate processing of input to the Financial lManagement Control System within the daily ard monthly cut-off deadlines. Responsibilities in this regard include updating vendor master files, w supplying codes for new suppliers (vendorizing), updating, changing addresses, batching or grouping input forms at-d listing on control record details such as amount, date, batch number. lhese batches are submitted to the computer for processing. Should there be any incorrect batches they are returned to the branch or facility, by the incumbents, sJith a covering memorandum advising what is required or what acticn has been taken to correct an error. lhese memoranda are prepared by the incumbents and signed by the supervisor. cutgut Incumbents are responsible for reconciling computer output such as payment listings, remittance advices, input and balance listings, vendor masterfile charges. Responsibilities in this regard include * i - 10 - logging receipt of batches, reconciling output retorts with source documents such as invoices, journal entries and adjustments. Identi- fying errors involving keypunch, resolving coding problems, or partial rejection of an invoice. Incets make necessary corrections re- garding rejections, (unless a system "in-house" problem which is referred to the G&t Supervisor), and forwards corrected material for signature to Supervisor. Wumbents are respnsible for reconciling the ?aily run. The Unit Supervisor signs as "certified correct" all req-tnsitions being submitted for payment and forwards the run to the Accounts Gffice Supervisor who approves that funds are available. The Accounts Cffice Supervisor forwards approved daily run to the .Manager, Central Accounting for final approval. After the authorizations take place by the supervisors, the computer tape (which includes all cheques to be issued for payment that date) is forwarded to the Ministry of Government Services for cheque processing and the requisitions are forwarded to eeasury to record ministry's expanditures. Any errors or omissions are confirmed by memoranda, signed by the Unit Supervisor ti forwarded to the appropriate Branch or Facility. Mr. Roy challenged the accuracy of the next paragraph in the Job Audit, which relates to "Journal Entr,ies." Incumbents initiate-the processing of all jornal entries to correct' or transfer expenditures inter/intra ministry. Duties in this regard include the preparation of input by thoroughly reviewing supporting documents from other ministries (Go Temp. Bell Canada, Fleet Insurance for ministry vehicles, Topical Advertising, Stationery, etc.). Incumbents are responsible for checking for discrepancies in assigning apprcpriate codes. Incumbents identify that expenditures are correctly coded, through referring to the financial management control system reports, prior to transferring costs to other Ministries. rncumbents check original documentation, i.e., Wrksheets, Topic? ads, OS Tamp printouts, etc., to ascertain the source of internal discrepancies and take remedial action to correct errors. The Lbit Supervisor is responsible for the signing of the input dccuments and forwards fcr final approval by the Accounts Office Supervisor. According to Mr. Roy, the third sentence in the paragraph quoted above gives an entirely wrong impression. He said the - 11 - "discrepancies" to be identified were not exclusively in "assigning appropriate codes." There were various kinds of discrepancies in supporting documents, including erroneous figures. Sometimes there would be an error in input and "we have to know when this m'Jst become a Journal Entry." It 'was essential to understand the Government's accounting system and to know when an item should be a journal entry. This was not necessary before 1977 when another Section (which no longer exists) had been responsible for Journal Entries. This particular point was confirmed later in the testimony of the Accounts Office Supervisor, Ms. S. LeClerc, who describe:? the reorganization of 1977, It is apparent also from the diffe:e.?ce between Exhibit 2, the 1974 Specification, and Exhibit 3, the 1'177 Specification. Mr. Roy agreed that input documents, after being signed by a Clerk go to the Unit Supervisor and then to the Accounts Office Supervisor. It is perfectly obvious, however, that when 300,000 transactions per annum (or about 1200 each working day; ::::~' being processed, including the scrutiny of supporting documents tc detect errors, omissions or discrepancies, the .two Supervisors cannot possibly examine most of them: they must rely heavily on tie accuracy of the clerks' work. The next three paragraphs of the Job Audit relate to "Government Pharmacy," as follows: - 12 - Incumbents are responsible for controlling the recording of government pharmacy purchases fcr payment by processing invoices using established ministry procedures, ensuring amended or overdue invoices have expla- nations/certification of not being paid previously. If necessary, incumbents check records, verify computations and check payments's stamp (authority to process for payment e.g., goods received, etc.) for completeness. Incumbents are responsible for identifying and for- warding to the accountable clerk, for immediate processing, any pay- ment of invoices having a discount date available. Incumbents process approximately 3,600 sales invoices monthly ati ccst non-provincial invoices in sales ledger. Incumbents prepare journal entries for provincial invoices to appropriate purchaser (branch or inter/intra ministry). Responsibliities include the listing in journal entry log by amount, date, etc. When a non-provincial payment is received on sales, incumbents record and reconcile Sales Register and transaction daily listings. Incumbents make note of discrepancies betweenamounts of the cheque received and original invoice amount. Any overpayment or underpayment of an invoice must ba rectified by the incumbents by contacting appropriate sources. Incumbents are required to reconcile monthly expenditure reports to Government pharmacy's inventory statement and deal with discrepancies, take remedial action, ard forward outstanding invoices to the colleciton unit. ?he Supervisor reviews the month end statement and is responsible for its approval. Mr. Roy said the description set out above is "fairly accurate," but does not fully disclose the responsibility invclved. The work was additional to input/output procedures. When taking "remedial action" (referred to in the last paragraph above) it was necessary to investigate the problem independently, "by contacting appropriate sources." Month-end statements could be difficult, but only about one-fifth necessitated help from the supervisor. According to Exhibit 6, the 1981 Specification, there are about 3,600 pharmacy sales invoices to be processed each month, and it is required that clerks liaise with non-government purchasers such i - 13 - as nursing homes and hospitals. The Pharmacy accounts ncrmally take the full time of one incumbent, but all incumbents rotate through that function and other functions, so that the eight grievors must be familiar with all duties performed within the unit. .The next two paragraphs in the Job Audit are as follows: Incumbents manually prepare for typing monthly cash flow payments to the Health bits and Home Care Programs, Cancer and Addiction Research Foundations. obese payments must be received by the agencies, etc. by the last day of each month. As well, they are responsible for reconciling ministry expenditures to Treasury reports under general supervision. Incumbents are responsible for assisting the Unit Supervisor in the preparation of information for the annual Public Accounts Report Volume III. Wumbents answer telephone inquiries relating tc vendors, cheques, coding, duplicate payments, discounts, inter/intra ministry journal entries, authorizations, etc. According to Mr. Roy, the statements abcve are "fairly accurate." He emphasized that month,ly reports are done indepen- dently, but the supervisor must be consulted about it "once a month." Referring to the "Skills and Knowledge" required, Nr. Roy said the increased use of.computer tapes had created more responsibility. Formerly, corrections could be made befcre a cheque was written, but now it was often necessary to write to Treasury officials to prevent an error being made in payment, and 14 - ask return of a cheque for cancellation. However, he had no serious fault to find with the final paragraph --- "Skills and Knowledge" --- in the Job Audit. 'lhe position requires a good understanding of government'accounting procedures with a knowledge and understanding of basic accounting procedures, i.e., accounts payable/receivable, credits, debits, etc. An appreciation of computer system control procedures. Initiative ark3 ability to organize work load to meet deadlines. Ihe ability to communicate effectively with ministry clients, peers in other ministries. Such skills are normally acquired through a combination of related formal education and exprience. Mr. Roy said increased responsibility and changes in the work had an important result. The incumbents' immediate supervisor, formerly classified Clerk General 4, was now a Clerk General 6 --- as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the Job Audit --- but there had been no recognition of the changes so far as the grievors were concerned. The 1981 "Revised" Position Specification and Class Allocation, Exhibit 6, is the latest (and obviously the most relev;:~ of several which were filed in evidence. It is of course generally consistent with the Job Audit written at. about the same time. Since comparison may be useful, it appears in full as an Appendix to this decision. Perhaps the most important statements in it are the reasons given for the class allocation: - 15 - Incumbents work at the journeyman level performing routine clerical tasks of some complexity requiring a background knowledge of basic accounting procedures and a good understanding of government accounting prccedures. Incumbents exercise initiative in following-up errors or omissions e.g.. keypunch/coding, credits processed as debits, etc., following- up, making corrections, and resubmitting to system. Incumbents work under general supervision with doubtful matters not covered by precedent referred to supervisor e.g., system "in-house" problems in Treasury Payment Control system rejection. The class allocation was signed by Mr. D.W; Hansen as "authorized evaluator." Mr. Hansen happens to be Regional Personnei Administrator in the Human Resources Rranch of the Ministry: he also represented the Employer at the hearing of this arbitration. It is possible the 1981 allocation would have carried weight with the grievors had it been made by an independent evaluator. From the Board's point of view, particularly in a case of this importance, it would have more probative value if it were the work ol a Civil. Service Commission classification officer, who could have been called as a witness and who could have answered questions in cross- examination as well as examination-in-chief. As matters stand, the Board is obliged to rely strictly on its own assessment of the greivors' "duties and reSQOnSibili'CieS" as described by Hr. Roy, Ms. Tiido and Ms. LeClerc (all of whcm are interested parties) as measured against the Class Standards for Clerk 3 General, and Clerk 4 General. There is a notable and significant factual omissicn from - 16 - both the Position Specification, Exhibit 6, and the Job Audit, Exhibit 5. In cross-examination the Accounts Supervisor, Ms. LeClerc, admitted that Mr. Roy and Ms. Annie Pun "have been delegated to act in Ms. Tiido's absence." In re-examination, Ms. LeClerc attempted to minimize the importance of that fact by saying they were "chosen as part of a development program.i' 'The explanation is not very convincing. Ms. LeClerc herself has a full-time job with responsibility for supervising the ?;yments Unit as well as the Adjustment and Control Unit. The Unit Supervisor of the latter unit, Ms. Tiido, also has full-time respsnsibilities, which were described as follows in Exhibit 11: Responsibilities of Unit Supervisor in terms of authorization of documents Input & Cutplt Supervisor reviews that rejections are properly re-inputted. Irccrrect resutmissions could result in the wrcng cost centres, apprcpriation and vendor being charged or paid. Confirms daily run in balance in acco;-d with Treasury requirements as stated on requisition for payment. Journal htries Supervisor reviews journal entries to ensure where necessary, that correct documentation has been received (especially where interministries are involved, such as special agreements for various programs reguiring deputy minister's apprcval.) Government Pharmacy Errors are reviewed with the clerk and correct remedial acticn is decided. - 17 - Reconciliation is thoroughly checked before submitting outstanding invoices to collection unit. Treasury Reconciliation is reviewed carefully that correcting journal entries are prepared to balance to T.E.I.G.A. Report. It is the overall responsibility of the supervisor to ensure complete, prompt and accurate processing of all input received and to make sure the correct Cost Centre Apprcpriation is charged and suppliers paid. It is obvious that if Ms. Tiido is absent for any reason (as she must be from time to time) the rather responsible duties set out above must be carried out by someone, and Ms. LeClerc has said that such work has been "delegated" to Mr. Roy and Ms. Pun. If a Clerk 5 or even a Clerk 4 were given such an assignment, it would not be surprising. However, it is extraordinary,to say the least, that the Employer should call on a Clerk 3 to act in place of a Clerk 6 --- and expect the Clerk 3 to_ be qualified tc dc so. LMS . LeClerc testified that all payments require author- ization by Ms. Tiido, and added "but she can't check everything." Ms. Tiido said that in the ccurse of the day she "looks at" about 50 requisitions, 15 journal entries and from five to 10 memos. She also said "when I'm away Ms. LeClerc does it." Vo doubt I?s. \ LeClerc must supervise the work in the Adjustments and Control Unit and the Payments Unit, being responsible for both in her capacity as Supervisor of the Accounts Office. It is not credible however, that she would have sufficient time to substitute for Ys. - 18 - Tiido and supervise directly the processing of 1,200 transactions a day in the Adjustments and Control Unit. For this very reascn Mr. Roy and Ms. Pun have been "delegated" (as Ms. LeClerc put it) to act in Ms. Tiido's place. Later, Ms. LeClerc admitted that when Ms. Tiido is away on vacation, Mr. Roy or Ms. Pun act for her. Even when Ms. Tiido is there, her direct supervision is very limited because, as Ms. LeClerc testified: "The clerks check against supporting documents, but Ms. Tiido does not." In short, it is the clerks who are responsible for verification. Ms. LeClerc estimated that there are between 15 and 20 "adjustments" each day. Naturally some errors are more serious than others. They are all reviewed by the Supervisor.~.~A number of examples beginning with Exhibit 12, were filed in evidence, being Form 113 with the supporting documents, including purchase orders and invoices. The end result goes to Treasury, but it is the Ministry of Government Services which issues the cheques, a process recently explained in another case, John et al, 463/81, where threi clerks concerned were successful in getting their positions reclassified from Clerk 2, General, to Clerk 3, .General. Asked whether the complexity of the work had changed with re-organization, Ms. LeClerc said that previously one Clerk, 3 had been used on each function, but now they all do part of each function - 19 - daily, except that at least one works full-time on the Pharmacy . accounts for a period of some weeks. We turn now to the evidence, such as it is, of work dcne by other employees classified as Clerk 4. The only significant testimony as to this test was given by Mr. Roy. He said that in September and October of 1981 he had been assigned to an acting position as Clerk, Nursing Home Accounting. The positicn is class- ified Clerk 4, General, and Mr. Roy described it as having very similar duties to those he performs in the Adjustments and Control Unit. The Position Specification, part of Exhibit 17 (also tendered as Exhibit 8) indicates that the former classification was Clerk 3, General. However, on November 25, 1980,Mr. Hansen, in t,he capacity of authorized evaluator, gave a class allocation of Clerk 4, General, stating in Exhibit 17 the following reasons: Incumbents perform a variety of responsible clerical acccunting tasks i.e. collecting accounts receivable, assessing eligibility for benefits, ensuring all documents are in place and authorized prior to payment: such duties require an in-depth knowledge of accounts payable/receivable practices and procedures as well as computer processing techniques. Cecision making involves judgement in dealing with variations frcm established guidelines cr standards i.e. assessing a variety of documents to nursing homes and suppliers with the responsibility for authorizing payment or acceptance: judgement is also used in determining apprcpriate action to be taken in over-capacity situations re licenced bed capacity. Initiative is in the form of follcwing-up or deferring payments to hcmes and suppliers when documentation is incorrect: composing letters re non- payment of accounts to private/Public Trustees. - 20 - Incumbents work under general supervision with only difficult problems that depart significantly from established practices or require write- off of accounts referred to the supervisor. At the second hearing of this case, Mr. Hansen tendered a written statement by Ms. Norah Sandland, Assistant Manager of the Central Accounting Office, in which she explained that she could not attend due to prior travel commitments. Her statement purports to explain that Mr. Roy held the acting appointment for six weeks, during which he was "being trained on and carrying out" some of the duties of the position. On the position specification she had high-lighted in yellow those duties Mr. Roy had performed. Needless to say, Ms. Sandland's statement (which was witnessed but unsworn) is a highly.unsatisfactory form of evidence, if only because it is c not possible for the writer to be cross-examined by the represent- ative of the grievor --- or questioned by Board members. In this case the statement was accepted, but with reservations about its relevance and probative value. Most of it is irrelevant, in that it has little do do with Mr. Roy's allegation that the duties are similar to those of his own job. However, a comparison of the Position Specification in Exhibit 17 with the Position Specification which is Exhibit 6, discloses that there are indeed similarities, but there are differences. Among the differences (which are also among the tasks admitted to have been performed by Mr. Rcy when he was acting) are the following: - 21- - recording all patient movements on movement log to ensure the licenced 'bad capacity is not exceeded. - recognizing and coding items shareable with the Federal cpuenment..... - checking to ensure accuracy and completeness of application form and determining eligibility for Extended Care Benefits (5,000- 6,000 monthly) within a 24-hour deadline, by calculating from the attending >hysician's assessment of the applicant, the number of points required for eligibility and, if eligible, ensuring issuance of Certificara of Eligibility to correct address or advising approp- riate perscn by form letter if ineligible; I - checking yearly re-assessment of eligibility forms as in above point: - choosing ard recording cn the input form, from the Fhysician's written di.agnosis, the appropriate diagnostic code par the Inter- national aassification of Diseases manual. If the above duties are compared with those set out in Exhibit 6, and if i comparison be made between the reasons for Class Allocation given by Mr. Hansen in Exhibits 6 and 17, it be- comes arguable thar the duties of the Clerk, Nursing Home Accounting are distinguishable from those of a Clerk 3, General, in the Adjustments and Control Unit. An equally unsatisfactory form of evidence was tendered on behalf of the Grievors. This was fxhibit 7, photostatic ccpies of certain advertisements of vacant positions. Among them are invitations to apply for Clerk 4 positicns in tile Ministry cf Housing, the Ministry of Government Services, the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Education. The difficulty is that the descriptions of the jobs are so abbreviated that they provide no - 22 - adequate basis for comparison. A valid comparison would require scrutiny of the applicable Position Specifications and perhaps also examination and cross-examination of witnesses having know- " ledge of the actual requirements. In his argument on behalf of the grievors, Mr. Richards did not dispute the validity of earlier classifications but asked the Board to find there have been changes since 1977 sufficient to bring the grievors' position within the standard for a Clerk 4, General. Journal Entries and the Government Pharmacy accounts had been added. Instead of working in only one function, these clerks \ were required to perform in all fun'ctions, and Mr. Richards argued that "variety" of responsibility can be a criterion in assessing a classification. He emphasized the opening words in the Clerk 4 Standard: "Employees allocated to this class perform a variety of responsible clerical tasks..... Decision-making involves judgement in dealing with variations from established guidelines or standards." The employer, said Mr. Richards, had recognized changes in the work by reclassifying Ms. Tiido's position at the Clerk 6 level, but failed to acknowledge any change in the grievors' position, which was inconsistent and illogical. On the other hand, Mr. Hansen submitted on behalf of the Employer that the work falls squarely within the Clerk 3 Standard. - 23 - He referred particularly to the opening words thereof "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 spec :if ii regulations, statutes or local practices: Decision-making involves some judgment in the selection of alternatives within a comprehen- sive 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." ,i - .Mr . Hansen further argued that the grievors' job does not fit the statement in the Clerk 4 Standard: "Normally, employees receive specific instructions only on unusual or special problems as the work is performed under conditions that permit little opportunity for direct.supervision by others." He said: "The evidence presented . . . . . confirms that the grievors' independent, and discretion in carrying out their daily work is much more restricted than that contemplated by the Clerk 4 Standard because of the presence of Ms. Tiido." In summary, he argued that the onus was on the grievors to establish that they were wrongly classified and they had failed to do so: that the work did not fall - 24 - within the Class 4 Standard but did fall within the Class 3 Standad., and that there was not sufficient evidence to place the position on a par with that of the Clerk, Nursing Home Accounting. It now becomes necessary to state as clearly and concisely as possible this Board's assessment of the grievors' position on the basis of the evidence placed before us. There are eight grievors, now classified Clerk 3, General, all with the ,same position number. On the evidence we are not persuaded that six of the grievers are performing duties which fall within the Clerk 4 Standard, nor are we persuaded that their duties do not fall within the Clerk 3 Standard. We base this finding largely on the Job Audit, Exhibit 5, and the Position Specification, Exhibit 6, rather than on the explanations given by Ms..LeClerc and MS. Tiido. Although the Job Audit, according to Mr. Roy, is not complete in all particulars, he conceded it is "fairly accurate" in most :espects and it corresponds closely (in substance if not in language). with the Position Specification which was prepared at the same time.. Even if it be true, as we think, that there has been scme evolution in duties since 1977, the evidence does not establish thar changes were such as to bring the wcrk to the Clerk 4 level. It has 2 , .’ . T - 25,- indeed "some complexity" (as required by the Clerk 3 Standard) and the decision-making does involve "some .judgement in the selection of alternatives" (as also required by the Clerk 3 Standard) but it does not involve "authorizing adjustments," (a typical" task mentioned in the Clerk 4 Standard) since it.is . their supervisor, Ms. Tiido --- or the person acting in her place -,- who authorizes adjustments. There are two exceptions to the finding we have made. Although it is not menticned in either Exhibit 5 or Exhibit 6 (the Job Audit and the Position Specification) it emerged clearly in evidence that two of the clerks are required from time to time to act in place of Ms. Tiido;who, is classified Clerk 6. It was said at first that this duty had been "delegated" to Mr. Roy and Ms. Pun; Later it was conceded that one or the other acts for MS . Tiido when she is on vacation. As already stated, we are not impressed by the suggestion that Ms. LeClerc (who has a very respcnsible supervisory position) is also capable of acting for >:L. Tiido. No doubt she can, but it is most unlikely that she cculd spare the time for more than a few hours. Nor are we impressed by the use of such euphemisms as the word "delegated." If --- as Mr. Hansen stressed throughout his argument --- the work of the Clerks requires daily supervision, then it is certainly needed when Ms. Tiidc is away. The employer has met the i - 26- problem by choosing two Clerks --- both at the Clerk 3 level --- to substitute for a supervisor at the Clerk.6 level. Since it is obvious that neither Ms. LeClerc nor Ms. Tiido can be there all the time, and since there must be authoriza~tions and supervision daily, it becomes apparent that an integral part of the duties of Mr. Roy and Ms. Pun is to substitute for their supervisor when- ever that is required. We are therefore obliged. to conclude that the Employer has been wrong in failing to recognize that more is expected --- and required --- of Mr. Roy and Ms. Pun than the duties contemplated by the Clerk 3 Standard. We find nothing in that Standard to suggest that a Clerk 3 will ever be asked to substitute. for a Clerk 6. The issue is not one of merit rating. If the structure of the office requires that a Clerk 3 act in place of a Clerk S from time to time, it is the structure which becomes open tc que.%: : We do not think the position occupied by Mr. Roy and Ms. Pun can be equated with the postion occupied by the six other grievors. For the reasons indicated above, there is an important difference. It would be, both unrealistic and inequitable to con- tinue ignoring what is in fact among the "duties and responsibil- ities" of two grievors. In other words, the grievances of Yr. lioy : - 27- and Ms. Pun are upheld. The position occupied by them should be reclassified Clerk 4, General (as requested) doubtless with a new Position number and a new Position Specification which should make clear the requirement that the incumbent is to act in place of the Unit Supervisor whenever that becomes necessary. The reclassifi- cations should be made effective as of the dates of the grievances: July 22, 1980, in the case of Mr. Roy and August 5, 1980, in the case of Ms. Pun. DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 12th day of July, 1982 /... -! S.D. Iiaufman 67 2?=& Member A.R. Rae Yember EBJ:jce 2. ?UiAXi OF ?OSlTlONwvr weinns WS,~ION EX,~~ATE GJALZOBJKTIVE~ ETC.) To ensure timely and accurate processing of.accounts payable transactions (200,000 annually for $2.5 billion) to the Financial Management Control Computer System; to process and reconcile a variety of outputs to ensure payment to appropriate payee and accurate coding for apprapriatjon and Public Accounts, etc. To process adjustments and transfers to expenditure, payments and recoveries for Government Pharmacy account as well as reconciling inventory and expenditures. ???f. ‘:.lAflv OF DUTIES AN0 RESPONSIBILITIES II~OII~TEPERCEN~~GE~~~~EVENTON E*W I,GN,c,o~~T~~~\oK ,;R *TE ZCOTE. EOUI?MENI.WORIING mNolllaW “NUWAL FegvR” E7c.l . Ensures the timely processing,of input to the system (approximately 25,000 transactions monthly), byperfonning such tasks as: - vendorizing from Vendor Masterfile, and assigning new vendor numbers, updating or chan$ -~:~ 20% - addresses and inputting prior to submission of accounts; logging and batching input forms (and vouchers), entering details on batch form and Con? Records, such as amount, date and requisition, and forwarding batches for processing; - returning incorrect batches to branches/facilities with covering memo, or correcting anri advising. by memo, signed by supervisor. 2. Reconciles computer output (Requisitions for Payment, Payment Listings, Remittance Advices, Input and Balance Listing, Vendor File Changes) by performing such tasks as: - logging receipt of processed output; - comparing output: reports to source documentSi.e.. invoices, journal entries, adjustments; - identifying errors, e.g., keypunch/coding errors, credits processed as debits, partial re- jection of .invoices; correcting input and preparing resubmissions to systen; 30;: - loggina, for later reference and action, wrongly vendored payments; - resolving all rejections (unless system "'1 in house" problem involved in which case :: referred to supewisor), completely reconciling daily run prior to submission of como'i<er tape for issuance of cheques by Ministry of Government Services and requisitions for reco:' ing of expenditures by Treasury; - advising branches/facilities of all corrections, etc., by memo, signed 5y supervisor. 3. Initiates and processes &;.,?a1 Entries to correct or transier expenditures (interlintrs 9 ministry), by performing such tasks as: . preparing input by thoroughly reviewing supporting documents from other Ministries (G.?. Temp.,Bell Canada, Fleet Ins. etc.), checking discrepancies and assigning appropriate cod? - identifying, through referencing the Financial Management Control System reports, correct expenditure codes prior to transferring costs to other Ministries; ( cant'd on reverse! &SKILLS AN0 KNOWLEDGE REOUIREO TO PERFORM THE WOAKIST~TEEOUUTION.IR*IN,NG.LXP~RIEN~SEIC~ Good understanding of government accounting procedures with knowledge and understanding of basic accounting procedures i.e., accounts oayablelreceivable, credits, debits, etc.). An zb?rni-- ation of computer system control pracedures. Initiative and abiljty to. organize l)iork!oad 53 meet deadlines. Abiiitv to communicate effectivelv with Yinistrv cont'd on ~versz! 5.5IG';'ATUR=S . d . /