Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0634.Rusk.83-02-07IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: R. J. Roberts Vice Chairman M. V. Watters Member, P. H. coupey Member For the Griever: G. Beaulieu Counsel Union Consulting Services For the Employer: W. J. Hayter Hearing: OLl3EU (Ms. Mary Rusk) . - and - Griever The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer . _. Counsel Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart 6 Storie Barristers & Solicitors January 27, 1983 -2- DECISION This is a classification grievance. It was submitted by the Union on behalf of the Grievor that her job was improperly classified at the Clerk 3' level and should have been classified at the level of Clerk 4. In the course of the hearing -- during which the Grievor gave extensive testimony -- we felt considerable sympathy for her position; however, the facts simply are not strong enough to support a conclusion that there was an improper classification here. The Grievor has been employed in the Data Centre of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario for over 18 years. Initially, the Grievor was classified as a Keypunch Operator 3. In 1973, however, the Grievor assumed the position of Input Control'Clerk, which was classified at the Clerk Grade 3 level according to the L.C.B.O. & L.L.B.O. Classification Guide. It seems that the Grievor was unhappy with this turn of events. She had expected to become Supervisor of~the Keypunch Department, but apparently was passed over. -~ in favour of another employee,, Mrs. R. Ivey, who until that time had been the Input Control Clerk. -3- When the Supervisor of the Data Centre, Mr. Neilson, told the Grievor that she would be taking over the job of Input Control Clerk, the Grievor enguired as to the rate of pay assigned to the position. Mr. Neilson replied that the job was classified at the same level as her previous job, i.e. at the Grade 3 level. The Grievor understandably was ~disappointed at this news. It seems~ that she already was at - the top pay level in Grade 3. This meant that -. if the job was not upgraded all that she could expect in future would be co+ Of~.,&i+Fg, .:i?crease?. The Grievor took the position that the job should be classified at the Clerk Grade 4 level. Over, the years she expressed that opinion to management in her annual review sessions. On several occasions, the Grievor refused to sign her Annual Progress Report to symbolize her protest against the Clerk Grade 3 designation. Management, however, maintained the position throughout that the job was classified properly at the Grade 3 level. -- Ins 1981, thee Department underr~ent a reorganization. which saw the Input, Output and the,Xeypun&areas brought. together under the heading of Data Control. Mrs. Ivey~, became the Supervisor, Data Control. This move.made her, for the first time, the Grievor's supervisor. On October 19, 1981, the Grievor grieved her classification. In due course, this hearing followed. At the hearing, the Un.ion attempted to show . that~ the duties and responsibilities which are currently assigned to the Grievor's job are more appropriate to the C,lerk Grade 4 classification. -This showing was attempted via the usual routes, i.e. by comparing the core of the Grievor's duties with those of a co-worker classified at the Grade 4 levei, and by measuring the Grievor's duties and responsibilities against~the evaluation criteria of the Classification Guide for.Clerk Grade 4. As to comparison with her co-worker, it' 'was submitted on behalf of the Grievor that her duties and responsibilities were similar to those of the Senior Data Entry Operator, which was a new position created during the 1981 reorganization. This position was classified'at the Clerk 4 level. We were invited to compare the responsibilities and the duties, et cetera, of the position with a Position Identification Questionnaire which was filled out by the Grievor in June, 1982. It does not seem .to be necessary to . go into the details of this comparrson; it suffices to say that while there were several similar duties and responsibilities with respect to the processing of paperwork and records. th'ere was a one significant difference: the Senior Data Entry Operator was responsible for performing several supervisory functions while the Grievor was not responsible for any. The supervisory functions of the former included assigning work to seven Keypunch Operators, filling in for the Supervisor of Data Control, scheduling and allocating work among the Keypunch Operators, training new Operators, re-training 'the present Operators, and supervising the performance of certain complex Keypunch functions, such as "peeling" with which a Keypunch Operator might not be familiar. In light of this significant distinction between the duties and responsibilities of the two positions, it seems to be impossible to conclude that the Grievor is doing essentially the same job as a co-worker classified at the Clerk Grade 4 level. ,.~~ .. This brings us to the alternative contention of the Union, that when measured against the evaluation criteria of the Clerk Grade 4 classification, the duties and responsibilities of the Grievor's job fall close enough thereto to warrant the designation of Grade 4. Again, we conclude that the evidence is simply not strong enough to bear out this contention. The evidence showed that on the criteria of"typica1 duties ","contacts",and "supervision given", the duties and responsibilities of the Grievor clearly fell closer to Grade 3 than Grade 4. With respect to the criterion of"decision making/complexity"-some 90% of the Grievor's duties and responsibilities fell within the ambit of Grade 3; only 10% fell within the an-bit of Grade 4. Then sole evaluationcriteria for Grade 4 that the Griever's job clearly met were ins tie.areas of "entrance quali+ fica'cion? and "supervision received~"~, This level of congruity,. in our view, falls far short of what would be required to merit the designation of Clerk Grade 4. What the evidence does show is that in her many years with her Employer the Grievor has been a fine, ,. ,, -1 c dedicated employee. It seems that despite the disappoint- ment which occurred in 1973 the Grievor has ,.~' ~-I'-~~ been a willing and ~helpful worker.?-.~.always ~..~.~. -. ready to lend a hand to a new~employee needing familiar- ization and to1 performon her 0~1: ,in.iti,a,tive .many tasks .. which, though' not strictly within her job description, help the office run smoothly. While we cannot allow her grievance for the reasons given above, we can -- and do -- acknowledge the Grievor's value to her Employer. The grievance is dismissed. DATED at London, Ontario thi s Ithhday of February, 1983. "I concur" (see concurrinq opinion attached) M. V. Watters Member "I concur" P. Coupey Member 5: 2410 CONCURRING OPINION The Griever, Mary Rusk, aged 57, has worked for the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario for eighteen and one-half (18f) years. Since 1973, she has been employed in the Data Processing Department as an Input Control Clerk, which, at all'material times, has been classified as a Clerk Grade Number Three (3). The Griever, by grievance dated October 19, 1981, requested a re-classification pursuant to Article 3:2 of the Agreement between the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, The Liquor Li.d&ce Board of Ontario and the Ontario Liquor Boards Employees' Union, which was effective as of July 1, 1982. The specific request was for a re-classification to a Clerk Grade Number Four (4). While a certain amount of evidence wasled-to6support the contention that the Grievoi's duties and responsibilities had changed, it was not argued by the Union that these had 'significantly changed~' so as to bring the grievance within the scope of Article 3.4 of the Agreement. This Article of the Agreement was also not referred to in the above-noted Grievance Form. Vice-Chairman R. J. Roberts, in his decision of February 7, 1983, has noted that the Union adopted the traditional position with respect to the presentation of its case on behalf of the Griever. The Union essentially presented two (2) arguments to support the reclassification. The first argument focused on a comparision of the Griever's core of duties with those of a co-worker, Mrs. Thelma Carter, who was, classified at the Clerk Grade Four (4) level. The Board was then invited to conclude that the core of duties were substantially similar so as to justify placing the Griever in the higher classification. The second argument was that the Griever's job fell within the classification description for Clerk Grade Four (4) rather than the descrip- tion for Clerk Grade Three (3). 'With respect to the first line of argument, I am in complete agreement with the decision of the Vice-Chairman. The evidence, in my opinion, clearly demonstrated that the position of Input Control Clerk is substantially dissimilar from that of the position of Senior Data Entry Operator. The Vice-Chairman has correctly noted in his decision that "the Senior Data Entry Operator was responsible ,for performing several supervisory functions, while the Griever was not responsible for any". These supervisory functions, as described, present a clear contrast with respect to the duties and responsibilities , ,I .,. . ,.. .- ,> ” .,. * : ,~ -2- inherent in the two positions under consideration. The job description for the position of Senior Data Entry Operator which was filed as Exhibit Number Thirteen (13) at the hearing also depicts a job which is substantially . dissimilar to that described in the Position Identification Questionnaire completed by the Griever on June 11, 1982, and filed at the hearing as Exhibit Number Six (6). It is also noted in this regard that Mrs. Carter was not called upon to present evidence at the hearing. The second line of argument was not as easy to resolve. This is partly because of the fact that it is exceptionally difficult to draft classification standards which are clear and unambiguous for all purposes. The standards in this case, filed a; Exhibit Number Five (5), (Clerk Grade 3), and Exhibit Number Four (41, (Clerk Grade 41, did not provide an exception to the norm. This aspect of the argument required the Board to ascertain the duties and responsibilities of the Griever and then to determine whether they fell more clearly under the Clerk Grade Three (3) or Clerk Grade Four (4) classifications. In this regard, there was, in essence, minimal. disagreement between the parties as to the job performed by the Griever. I note that the audit completed by Ms. G. Chapman, dated September 9, 1982, and filed as Exhibit Fourteen (14), did not differ markedly from the Griever's assessment of her job as contained in Exhibit Number Six (6). A thorough comparison of the job performed by the Griever and the Classification Standards for Clerk Grade Three (3) and Clerk Grade Four (4) suggests the following: (i.1 With respect to the 'Summary of Responsibility Level' criteria, the Griever more properly falls within the Clerk Grade Three (3) level. While both classifications under consideration require the performance of clerical tasks, it is more appropriate, in my opinion, to describe those tasks as performed by the Griever to be those of 'some complexity' in contrast to those described as being of 'moderate complexity'. While the Griever may require a background knowledge of regulations, statutes and Board operations, she would not require an extensive understanding of such to adequately complete her daily tasks; (ii) With respect to the 'Typical Duties' criteria, the Griever more properly falls within the Clerk Grade Three (3). level. The tasks performed by the Griever, while varied, are essentially related to the receipt, recording, sorting and distribution of,hata, as opposed to the evaluation of data. -3- Reports or orders that the Griever might prepare would more likely be in relation to standard factual matters based on the routine compilation of data, in contrast to the more complex recording and interpretive functions performed at the Clerk Grade Four (4) level. It is also noted that twenty percent (20%) of the Griever's time is spent as a relief telephone operator, which~more clearly falls within the Clerk Grade Three (3) level; (iii) With respect to the 'Decision Making/Complexity' criteria, the Griever more properly falls within the Clerk Grade Three (3) level. The evidence presented suggested that to a certain extent the Griever would 'follow up' on certain clerical errors so as to effect the necessary corrections. It did not suggest, however, that the Griever had a decision making function in terms of variation from established guidelines, selection or analysis of data, or work methods and procedures. I would agree witlY the Vice-Chairman's assessment that approximately "some ninety percent (90%) of the Griever's duties and responsibilities fall within the ambit of Grade Three (3)"; (iv) With respect to the 'Contacts' criteria, the Griever more properly falls within the Clerk Grade Three (3) level. The evidence led suggested that mostbf the Griever's contacts would be internal in nature. Those with individuals outside of the I,.L.B.o. would generally tend to be related to straightforward and factual issues such as the ordering of supplies or the speaking with prospective suppliers. The evidence does not suggest that such external contact would be either frequent or varied; (VI With respect to the 'Supervision Given' criteria, the Griever more properly falls within the Clerk Grade Three (3) level. While the Griever was not responsible for the direct supervision of other staff, the evidence suggested that she had at times provided some guidance to new employees. It is noted that this criteria is not a mandatory requirement for the classification of Clerk Grade Four (4); (vi) With respect to the 'Supervision Received' and 'Entrance Qualification' it would appear that the Griever could fall under the Clerk Grade Four (4) level. #- Given the above, I would agree with~the Vice-Chairman's conclusion that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the requested reclassification, I would also endorse his comments with respect to the commendable employment record of the Griever. .,. ,:> .,. ,:> ,: :: ,: :: ,.. ,.. ,. ,. .~. .~. ~.~.. ~.~.. ,: ~. .:~~ ,: ~. .:~~ ~~,,.~... ~~,,.~... .~. .~. .I, - .I, - - 4 - Counsel for the Employer suggested in argument that the Griever should be precluded from processing a grievance under Article 3:2 of the Agreement, because she had not grieved the classification issue on first becoming a Clerk Grade Three (3) or within a reasonable time thereafter. He argued that since this had not occurred in this case that the Griever's rights to grieve should be restricted to Article 3:4 and that she would be required to demonstrate a significant change in her duties and responsibilities. This is a submission with which I must disagree. In my opinion, the rights provided under Articles 3:2 and 3:4 of the Agreement differ as to the type of grievance contemplated. Article 3:2 contemplates a grievance that a position has been improperly classified abinitio; Article 3:4 contemplates a grievance that a position should subsequently be reclassified as a result of a significant change of employee responsibilities and duties. The submission of counsel,.if accepted, would have the unwarranted effect of restricting the grievance rights of employees under both the Agreement in question and under The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 108; and is one that I reject. For all of the above reasons, I concur with the decision of the Vice-Chairman that the grievance be dismissed. DATED at Windsor, Ontario, this aLk day of February, 1983. /w)r~aed lLu2A.k w Michael Vincent Watters