Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-0306.Barnes.83-07-06306/82 Final Decision IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSEU (Fred Barnes) Before: Grievor - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (M~inistry of Natural Resources) Employer E.B. Jolliffe, Q.C. Vice Chairman S.D. Kaufman Member E.R. O'Kelly member For the Grievor: N. Luczay, Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union For the Employer: D. Nagel, Manager Compensation and Staff Relations Ministry of Natural Resources Hearings: October 18, 1982 November 4, 1982 November 18, 1982 Interim Decision: February 9, 1983 -2- FINAL DECISION The grievance of Mr. Fred Barnes (who retired on September 30, 1982) claimed that his position had been im- properly classified as Clerk 3. Prior to reorganization in 1973 he had acted as "District Accountant" at Cochrane class- ified Clerk 5 General. On being transferred to Lindsay, his .superior, classified FO2., was down-graded to Clerk 5, and the grievor's position to Clerk 3, but "red-circled." After his superior died, he complained to the Administration Supervisor, Mr. A.B. Kaufman, that his position should be re- classified and he sought a job audit, which he states was never done. This case came on for hearing October 18, 1982, and was continued on November 4 and 18. On the last-mentioned day the Union (which had previously completed its evidence and argument) sought leave to introduce new evidence, referring to an advertisement published by the Ministry of Natural Resources on November 5. The Board requested written submissions as to ad~missibility. These were duly received some weeks later. In an interim decision issued in February the board ruled that since the Union had not been aware of the advertisement until - ~._ . .;: ..,. . ~.~. ..~-. ., .,.. . ..~ ., .:. ‘~ .. - 3 - after closing its case, evidence was admissible, and that it would "be necessary to hold a ,further hearing limited to evidence and argument relating to the position advertised on November 5." It appears that.on December 23 Ms. Nagel on behalf of the Employer had written to Mr. Luczay, the griever's repre- sentative. as follows: In accordance with the directions of the Grievance Settlement Board, enclosed please find a position description entitled 'Assistant District Administration Supervisor' 09-3100-15, and a copy of the relevant organization chart. You should be aware that this position was created in October of 1982. Although the vacancy wasadvertised in the November 5 issue of 'topical', subsequently the competition was sus- px-&sd and the vacancy was not filled. Since that time, as part of the ministry's review of its operational requirements, this position has been abolished. , A copy of the above letter --- but not the position description --- was forwarded to the Board. Efforts were made by the Registrar's office to arrange a further hearing on May 17. On April 28, however, Mr. Luczay addressed the following letter to Board members: -4- With reference to your interim award in connection with the above grievance, O.P.S.E.U. and the employer have decided, without Prejudice, not to lead any further evidence in this matter on account of some technical problems encountered regarding the availability of evidence. Simply, the position advertised was abolished prior to the completion of the competition. As such, it would have been difficult to pro- duce viva vote evidence regarding responsibilities the job descrwon only describes. We await, therefore, the award in connection with the grievance, and will advise the Qievance Settlement Board to cancel the hearing date set for May 17th. We therefore come now, somewhat beiatedly, to the merits of the matter as they became known at the hearings on October and November. The griever's work was in the Lindsay District of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Since the Ministry's multi- farious activities are scattered province-wide, they are decentralized in several Regions, each of which has several districts under its direction. The Lindsay District (in the Central Region) has a Manager to whom a District Lands Super- visor-coordinator reports and also the District Administration Supervisor, Mr. Kaufman, whose position is now classified AM 13. - 5 - Exhibit 6, an organization chart prepared in December, 1981, showed that directly under Mr. Kaufman there were the following: (a) the Supervisor of Administrative.Support Services classified Clerk Stenographer 4, (b) two "Accounts Clerks" (including the griever) classified Clerk Generai 3, and icj an "Administrative Clerk," classified Clerk General 4. The incum- bent in (a) supervised three Clerk Typists 3. The. incumbent in (c) supervised one "Operations Clerk," classified Clerk General 3. The two Accounts Clerks, however, were not shown as supervising anyone. The Organization Chart represented the authorized complement on a more or less permanent basis. What it does not reveal is that the responsibilities and work-load --- and the number of employees --- actually fluctuate on a seasonal basis. Due to its location, the Lindsay District in certain months carries on many activities in connection with provincial parks, fishing and hunting licences as well as pits and quarries licenses, etc. For these purposes at appropriate times casual or "seasonal" employees are taken on the unclassified staff and these of course require training and some supervision, work which -6 - was normally done by Mr. Barnes. In summer, Mr. Kaufman testified, there are about 200 employees in the parks. The griever was responsible for preparing payrolls as well. as "assigning duties to and checking work of unclassified assistants." Although these duties are not reflected at all in the. organization chart, ] they do specifically appear in the "Position Specification and Class Allocation Form," Exhibit 3, which will be quoted in due course. This matter must be decided by reference to the effective Class Standards, adopted as revised in December, 1963. The issue is whether Mr. Barnes' position was correctly classified Clerk 3 General or,as he contends, ought to have been classified Clerk General 4. The preamble to the Class Standards gives the following explanation: aNEPAL CLERICAL SERIES - 7 CLASSES: This series covers positions where the purpose is to perform clerical work entirely or in combination with incidental typing, stenographic or machine operating duties. Where exclusion of the latter would significantly change the character of a position, or tiere they occupy a large proportion of the working time, the position should be assigned to one of the specialized classes, ‘..‘. : - 7 - e.g. Clerical Typist. Positions for tiich specialized clerical series exist, e.g. Clerk, Mail and Messenger, Clerk, Filing, etc. should not be assigned to this series. Croup leader responsibility normally begins at the third level, while the fourth and above usually cover positions involving line supervision; however, non-supervisory positions can also be included. Set out below in two columns for purposes of comparison are the "Class Definitions" of the two classes at issue here: CLERK 3, GEW%AL Bnployees in positions allocated to this class, as "journeyman clerks", perform routine clerical hrxk of some complexity according to estab- lished procedures reguiriq a back- ground knowledge of specific regulations, statutes or local practices. Decision-making in- volves some judgment in the selection of alternatives within a comprehensive framemrk of guide- .lines. 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. 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 eligi- bility of applicants, investigating: CLERK 4, GENERAL Employees in positions allocated to this class perform a variety of responsible clerical tasks requiring a good background knowledge of specific regulations, statutes or local practices. Decision-making involves judgment in dealing with variations from established guide- lines or standards. Normally, em- ployees receive specific instructions only on unusual or special problems as the work is performed under con- ditions that permit little opportunity .for direct supervision by others. Matters involving decisions that depart radically from established practices are referred to supervisors. 'Desks 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 regu- lations, statutes or administrative orders, resolving points not clearly covered by these instructions, usually by authorizing adjustments or recommending payment or acceptance; c - 8 - discrepancies and securing further supervising a small group of "journey- proof or ducumentation as wcessary; man clerks" or a larger group of cler- overseeing, as a Group Leader, the ical assistants by explaining proce- wzk of a small subordinate staff dues, assigning and checking work and by explaining procedures, assigning maintaining discipline. and checking'wrk. This is a terminal class for many psitions involving the competent performance of routine clerical work common to the office concerned. The "Qualifications" may also be compared --- as stated in December, 1963: CLERK 3, GENERAL CLERK 4, Bx'ERAL 1. Grade 12 or equivalent combin- ation of education, training and experience. 2. Ahzut three years satisfactory clerical experience. 3. Ability to understand and ex- plain clerical procedures and requirements; ability to organize and o>mplete hark assignments with- in prescribed time limits; ability to maintain good working relation- ships with other employees and the public served. 1. made 12 education or an equivalent combination of education, training and experience. 2. About four years of progressively responsible clerical experience or an equivalent combination of experience ad higher educational qualifications. 3. Ability to communicate clearly both orally and in writing; ability to in- struct and supervise the wrk of subordinates. Referring to Exhibit 3, the "Position Specification and Class Allocation" of his position, the griever said in his test- imony: "I agree the specification is correct but because of the way it's wirtten important things have been down-graded." He - 9 - conceded that the estimated percentages are "not in dispute." -. He said his major responsibility was as "cashier for the district." In that capacity he processed $ 776,899.40 between April 1, 1981, and his retirement at the end of September, 1982. Transactions are in the form of cheques and also cash. He was responsible for iecording and receipting the latter (amounting to about $150,000 per annum) with the assistance of mail clerks, who are not shown on the establishment set out by the organization chart. The Position Specification (which appears to have been prepared as a result of Mr. Barnes',complaint) was completed on December 16, 1981, when' the Regional Director signed it. The Class Allocation was signed by Mr. R.C. Fletcher, a Regional Personnnel Officer, on December 23, 1981, after an interview with the griever. The Specification begins by stating the "Purpose.of Position" as follows: To provide t~he Lindsay District with accounting services by performing duties, and directing unclassifid assistance in the prformance of duties, related to payrolling, accounts payable, expenditure accwnting, cash recel\'~"g, etc. ?tz assist the Administration Supervisor in the preparation of kstimates, budgets, etc. and in carrying out other related accounting and administrative functions. i: ‘. .’ -10 - The first group of "Duties~ and Responsibilities" (estimated to require 30 per cent of the incumbent's time, is set out as follows: 1. Performs accounts payable and expenditure accounting functions by: maintaining files of purchase orders and suppliers invoices; checking invoices for completeness, accuracy, Federal and Provincial tax, quantities ordered, invoiced and received, etc.: writing letters to and/or calling suppliers by telephone regarding errors and omissions: ensuring that'proper expenditure code appears on all invoices: deciding which invoices should be paid at District Office or sent to Region for processing: drawing chegues on District Advance Account to pay small suppliers, etc. (about 300 chegues annually totalling $50,000): preparing disbursement claims for abve items: checking travel and disbursement claims: checking coding on Expenditure Transmittals and Journal Entries returned from Region: checking and distributing various M.I.S. computer printouts to Divisions and Parks, etc.: explaining meaning of entries on printouts to Budget Control Officers (Division Supervisors, etc.): preparing Journal Entries for Pump reports, A.E. distribution and coding adjustments as required: operatirq a petty cash account for payment of items under $50.00.: keeping District staff informed regarding cutoff dates, year and pur- chasing! etc.: explaining meaning of related accounting directives, etc.: maintaining record of purchase order books issued to District: preparing Accountable Warrant and reconciling with Region (monthly): assigning work to and checking work of unclassified assistant: The second group of "Duties and Responsibilities" (estimated to require 25 per cent of the incumbent's time) is described as follows: 2. .- - 11 - Directs and performs responsibilities related to I.P.P.E.B., computer casual and short term payrolls by: assigning duties to and checking wrk of unclassified assistants: checking accuracy and completeness of hiring and payroll documents, eg. appointment forms, work agreements, time sheets, etc. and ensuring corrections are made: calculating gross and net earnings, preparing and/or distributing paychegues : for approximately 60 Regular and Probationary and 400 Lnclassified employees (about 150 cn short term and 250 on computer casual payroll annually): preparing a variety of records and summaries, eg. expenditure classifi- cations, U.I.C. separation certificates, income tax summaries, T4 slips for short term payrolls and request for O.T. payrolls for Regular and-Pro- bationary staff: verifing and reconciling various payroll records, eg. checks requests for O.T. premium pay, call back, on call, etc. for compliance with collective agreements, checks and reconciles I.P.P.E.B. input documents against payroll (N.B..this check is carried out only at the District): maintaining files for all documents: maintaining file re: eligibility of unclassified employees for O.E.I.P. benefits: providing advice to District staff re: hiring requirements - eg. advises type of wrk agreement - explains difference between O.T. and call back, etc.: maintaining records of total days/months worked during year by Ulclassified staff: The third group (30 per cent of time) is specified as follows: 3. Performs revenue accounting functions by: receiving cash from the public by mail and over the counter and from District cash receivers: issuing receipts to clear cash, etc. (approsimately 1,400 totalling about $150,000 to $160.000 annually): selecting proper revenue code as outlined in accounting directives: - compiling revenue summaries and preparation: - preparing bank deposits and depositing cash and chegues in bank daily or as required: ,.. of 4. - 12 - ,. advising District issuers of charges in revenue codes, preparation of sales summaries, parks blotters, etc.: maintaining ledger of Fish and Wildlife Licences: distributiq licences and permits to District issuers, etc.: reconciling control ledger with District issuers and with Head Office: preparing monthly reccnciliation: supplying cutside issuers (Sporting Goads Stores, etc.) with emergency supplies of Fish and Wildlife licences: assisting with investigations of outside issuers including collection of funds a& unsold licences: obtaining and posting exchange rate on U.S. funds, etc.: maintaining supply and record of cash receipt books (FM376) and distributing to staff. Finally the following miscellaneous duties (15 per cent time) also appear: Performs general accounting and administrative tasks such as: clarifyirg accounting circulars, bulletins, etc. to District staff: conducting operational audits of sub-offices, investigate unusual items, resolving minor difficulties, reporting serious problems to S+ervisor: maintaining eguipment control account: training new employees: maintaining newspaper and magazine subscription list: acting for Supervisor as required: assisting in preparation of estimates, budgets and forecasts: duties as assigned. The "Skills and Knowledge Required to Perform the Work" have been summarized in the following words: About four years progressively responsible clerical experience. Sound knowledge of Ministry accounting, O.P.S.E.U. collective agreements. Public Service Act, etc. Ability to communicate clearly and tactfully. A valid M.T.C.,driver's licence. - 13 - In arriving at a Class Allocation of Clerk 3 General or "Confirmation of Class," Mr. Fletcher gave the following reasons : Position performs routine clerical work of some complexity according to established procedures e.g. checking invoices for completeness, accuracy, sales taxes, etc. Decision-making involves some judgement in the selection of alternatives within a comprehensive framework of guidelines e.g. preparing journal entries and coding adjustments. Position involves the competent performance of routine clerical work. Mr. Fletcher also testified in defence of the Class Allocation he had made, of which more will be said later in this decision. Ms. Nagel for the Employer has argued that it is "not very relevant" to consider the Position Specification of the Administration Clerk --- who like Mr. Barnes --- was responsible to Mr. Kaufman and whose position was classified Clerk 4 General (also by Mr. Fletcher) on January 1, 1982. The purpose of that position was stated in Exhibit 7 to be: lb provide the Lindsay District with centralized purchasing and tendering, to ensure these functions are conducted as required by Government Policy and in the best interest of the Ministry: to assist the Administration Supervisor carry out duties associated with, Work Plan Preparation, Fish and Wildlife ticence Issuers ard General Office Administration. - 14 - The griever's explanation of his work-may be summarized as follows. There were several cashiers at the counter who took in cash receipts and "cleared" with him weekly. They included both classified and unclassified employees. Receipts by mail were entered in a cash boqk by the mail clerks. Mr. Barnes said an "average" of five employees were directly responsible to him. He reviewed all their entries on a daily basis. He wrote receipts and --- until shortly before his retirements --- made deposits. Records for which he was responsible were com- puterized in the Regional Office at Richmond Hill for input to the head office in Toronto. Until about three years ago "checks were made by my supervisor or the District Manager --- but not now. 8' The grievor said an important part of his work was dealing with the issuers of hunting and fishing licences, who are of course scattered throughout the District. When the Ministry (some years ago) was known as the Department of Lands and Forests, all issuers were "handled" by the head office at Toronto. After the reorganization, however, this function was , given to District Offices. He estimated there were about 200 issuers in the Lindsay District. They were authorized to grant licences and of course had to account for fees received. When advised by the computerized system that an issuer appeared to be in default, the grievor would investigate, visit the issuer and, if necessary, recover the balance of unsold licences as well as the amount due to the Ministry. The grievor also mentioned his responsibility for processing travel claims, which in one year totalled $44,509, and he held the~petty cash fund. At the time of reorganization it was thought all the work could be carried by the District Accountant (as the position was then known) and himself, but this proved impossible due to an increase in volume. A casual' employee was found to assist him, her position became full- time, classified initially as Clerk 2 General and then (in 1981) Clerk 3 General. This was a Ms. Clark, who has, since moved to a different Ministry. . The grievor said he supervised and trained new employees, including Ms. Clark, who was responsible to him until reclass- ified. He also trained and supervised numerous seasonal employees. In September, just prior to retirement, he was ; i i’ I.6 - supervising four classified employees and at least one un- classified employee. This of course was at the end of the summer season. Other summer duties included the auditing of accounts kept by the employees at provincial parks in the district. Paragraph 4 in the Position Specification contains the line "acting for Supervisor as required." The grievor said he had for some years acted as Supervisor in the absence of Mr. Kaufman, but "two years ago I refused to act for him while my grievance was pending," and thereafter he was "not asked.." Cross-examined, Mr. Barnes said he had been "District Accountant" at Cochrane and came to Lindsay as "Assistant District Accountant." He thought that "when the supervisor is reclassified his assistant should get it too." This was a reference to the fact that Mr. Kaufman, formerly a Clerk 5 General and then a Clerk 6 General, had been placed at the AM 13 level in the Management Classification Plan. He further asserted: "It's known in our District that anybody who grieves has a miserable time." ,,.,,.,... .~ .., ~. i. - 17 - The grievor conceded that Cicence issuers still-have the option of dealing with the Toronto Head Office or with the District Office. Sometimes he himself dealt directly by tele- phone or otherwise with the Regional Office and the Head Office. It was rarely necessary for him to refer problems to Mr. Kaufman, 1 his immediate Supervisor.. Mr. Kaufman testified as the first witness called by Ms. Nagel. He is responsible for office management, personnel matters and budgeting for the District. Referring to the Organization Chart, he said that the grievor and Ms. Clark were the two incumbents of the Clerk 3 General position. Shown as No. 7 on the Chart, but conceded that Ms. Clark's position had not been reclassified to that level until late in 1981. Mr. Kaufman said the grievor had to check invoices and reconcile discrepancies with suppliers --- "or refer it to me." He emphasized that there was a Coding Manual for coding invoices before being sent forward for payment and there were also directives explaining which accounts were to be paid by the. District. The grievor also had responsibility for a changing payroll, particularly in relation to the 200 parks employees in - 18 - summer. Although not mentioned in the Position Specification it was necessary for the grievor to maintain records of total days worked and also accidents. Mr. Kaufman made clear that the Organization Chart falls far short of giving a complete picture, mentioning "four people who constantly take in cash and also two pit and quarry inspectors." bringing in cash. Mr. Kaufman said that investigations of and collections from defaulting licence issuers was "really a Financial Services responsibility but they ask us to help." Mr. Kaufman conceded that not all duties performed by the grievor appear in Exhibit 3, citing as an example the "operational audits of parks accounts." He said the grievor had sometimes acted for him "but not in the recent past." Mr. Kaufman acknowledged that he checked the clerks' work "infreq- uently," being concerned only with 'adherence to "new procedures." Cross-examined, Mr. Kaufman agreed that an earlier organization chart would have shown Ms. Clark as being answerable to the grievor. He said that when he himself had held a Clerk 5 General position at the Regional Office he was Payroll Supervisor in charge of two classified and “some” unclassified employees. - 19 - Mr. Kaufman testified that Ms. Clark has assumed some . of the grievorts duties, such as invoices and the payrolls, but until her reclassification the griever remained responsible. Re-examined, the witness said that on an ordinary accounts problem the Regional Office would call Mr. Barnes, but if the problem continued they might call himself. "Some- times, 'I he said, "it was just a procedural thing." In some cases the griever would have to decide whether an issuer could have more licences; if the griever decided against it "he would probably check with me or Financial Services." He con- ceded, in answer to further questioning, that the griever "quite frequently" might have to depart from standard procedures in the Manual. He might, for example, advise a supplier to re- write his invoice in better form. Mr. R.C. Fletcher is Personnel Officer, Central Region, and was formerly a Classification Officer with the Ministry. He said he is now responsible for classification of bargaining unit positions in the Region. He had done an "audit" of Mr. Barnes' position and discussed it with him ‘. .~. .,~ - 20 - Mr. Fletcher testified that the reasons for classi- fication given by him in Exhibit 3 were "not exhaustive" and .he proceeded to elaborate by comparing the functions in the Position Specification with those in the Standard for Clerk 3 General. In his opinion, they matched. He said there was "a fair amount of decision-making" but it was not the griever's responsibility to deal with variations from procedures, and he did not make adjustments in invoices. Thus, in some respects Mr. Fletcher's testimony did not correspond closely with that of Mr. Kaufman. Mr. Fletcher said the reclassification of Ms. Clark (in which he was involved) was due to changes in her duties, but he could not say when the changes occurred. In Mr. Fletcher's analysis most of the griever's duties were routine, governed by established guidelines. The audits he described as"simple" but he conceded there was a responsibility for training unclassified staff, particularly in summer. Variety was "not very significant," and he con- tended that the increase in the district's volume of work during recent years did not "of itself" mean more responsibility. ..” .;. ;,., ‘. - 21 - Mr. Fletcher also said he had not discussed the work with Ms. Clark. The griever, in his opinion was under "general supervision --- not daily --- not over-the-shoulder --- but spot-checked regularly." He denied knowing that Mr. Barnes was chairman of the "Tendering Committee" --- as to which there really is no evidence. Finally, Mr. Fletcher asserted that in the five districts of the Central Region all jobs similar to that held by Mr. Barnes were classified Clerk 3 General. He did not know how similar positions were classified in Northern Ontario. This brings us to the question of the Ministry's advertisement of November 5, 1982 in "Topical", the subject of our interim decision in February. As explained therein, evidence in this case was heard on October 18 and November 4 and argument was begun but not finished on November 4. During continued argument on November 18, the griever's representative sought leave to introduce the advertisement in "Topical." A ruling on its admissibility was reserved at that time and we later decided that "it will therefore be necessary to hold a ~further hearing limited to evidence and argument relating to the position advertised on November 5." ,.,~ .: - 22 - We have since been told that the position advertised has been abolished following "the Ministry's review of its operational requirements, and that the vacancy advertised was never filled. We were advised also that the Union did not con- sider a further hearing would be useful. We are therefore left with no adequate explanation of the advertisement tendered to us on November 18 and recorded as Exhibit 8R. In view of Mr. Fletcher's contention that Clerk 3 General is the usual classification of positions such as that held by Mr. Barnes until his retirement, we think an explanation was called for. In fairness to Mr. Fletcher, it must be said that he disclaimed knowledge of classifications in Northern Ontario. The Lindsay District is not in what is generally regarded as Northern Ontario, but by reason of its proximity to areas frequented by cottagers,tourists, hunters and fisher- men --- as well as logging companies --- there is a strong resemblance. Notwithstanding the lack of an adequate explanation, we think it proper to admit into evidence and take into account --- for what it is worth --- the admitted fact that the follow- ing advertisement was published by the Ministry of Natural ‘. - 23 - Resources in November, 1982 --- while this case was in the course of being heard: ASSISTANP DISTRICI AIXlINISTRAl'IONSUPERVISOR (Clerk 4, General) (Schedule 3.7) $331 -375 per week (restricted) Required by the Ministry of Natural Resources, northern region, to: supervise, plan, 0rg;nize and implement the operational function of financial services within the chapleau district, i.e. accounts payable, revenue re- ceiving, expenditure accounting; supervise and process district payroll. lrcation: Chapleau. Wlifications: satisfactory demonstrated clerical experience; ability to understand, explain and carry cut and organize clerical and payroll procedures and requirements; good communication and interpersonal skills; good knowledge of the Public Service Act, a3llective agreement ard administration manuals; ability to supervise and obtain co-operation of staff; considerable knowledge of auditing and budget functions: background knowledge of expenditure accountirg system, Purchasing ard tendering functions; sound knowledge of revenue and acccunts receivable procedures. Return application/resume by Nov. 29 to: File NR-282, District Manager, Ministry of Natural Resources, P.Q. Box 640, Chapleau, Cntario, POM 1KO. It will be noted at once that the post advertised was not styled "Accounts Clerk" but "Assistant District Adminis- tration Supervisor." It should also be noted that for all I ., .: ‘.I - 24 - practical purposes the griever was Mr. Kaufman's assistant at Lindsay until Ms. Clark was gradually eased into the same position occupied by him. Suffice it to say that in 'many respects the position briefly described in Exhibit 8R seems almost identical to that held by Mr. Barnes at Lindsay. There is one other document in evidence which may be worthy of mention. Exhibit 4 is a memorandum issued by Mr.- Kaufman to Division Supervisors for "Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Recreation, Lands and Mineral Resources, Forests/Field Services. fa Dated April 14, 1982, it was as follows: Effective this date an employee of tha Adninistration Division will, when there is a need, make a trip to the Bank and/or Post Office each ark day at 2:30 p.m. Shirley Clark has been assigned this duty and will look after posting of registered mail, making bank deposits and purchasing of money orders, etc. Please ensure your requests for these services are given to Shirley before 2:30 p.m. each day. If Shirley is absent your requests should be directed to ma or the acting Administration Supervisor in my absence. .~ ,- ., .~. Y’ .., .,. ..l:. .,.~ - 25 - Mr. Barnes had been complaining about his classifi- cation for at least two years, but he did not file a written grievance until March 8, 1982. The memorandum quoted above was issued five weeks later. Prior to that time it had been part of his normal duties to transact business at the Bank. This development served to fortify Mr. Barnes' belief that his role was being down-graded because he had complained and then grieved about his classification. He also had a sense of injustice because he had trained and supervised Ms. Clark, both when she was a casual employee and when she became a Clerk General 2 on the classified staff. Moreover, the Organization Chart prepared in December, 1981, showed two incumbents of Mr. Barnes' Clerk 3 General position, although Ms. Clark was actually reclassified- (with retroactive effect) about the same time. In fairness, it seems likely that management wished to facilitate her progress, anticipating that she would have to replace Mr. Barnes on his retirement a few months later. She left', however, to take another job. In this case, as in others, there appears at the outset to be some overlapping as between the relevant standards. - 26 - For the griever to succeed it is necessary to identify elements at the higher level which are absent at the lower level or to identify in his favour elements significantly different. In some cases, such as Vukoje 13175, the Board has also taken into account the fact that substantially similar duties are carried out by another employee classified at the higher level: this may be described as the second test applicable in a classifi- cation case, but such a test calls for convincing evidence. As we have indicated, we are of the opinion that the advertisement for a Clerk 4 General position at Chapleau may be taken into account for what it is worthy, but it has such limited evidentiary value that we do not apply the second test in arriving at a decision. We must assess the griever's claim against the standard for a Clerk 4 General. We have come to the conclusion that the position occupied by Mr. Barnes (both before and after January 1, 1982) matches more closely the Clerk 4 General Standard than the Clerk 3 General Standard. In so concluding, we identify the following elements at the higher level. - 27 - (1) The Clerk 4 General Standard begins by stating: "Employees..... perform a variety of responsible clerical tasks requiring a good background knowledge..." The reference to a "variety" of responsible tasks does not appear in the lower standard, which merely speaks of "routine clerical work of some complexity." It is clear in this case that Mr. Barnes was required to perform a wide variety of duties; his was not a desk-bound job doing purely routine ~clerical work. For example, there were his audits of park.accounts, and also his visits to defaulting licensees. Mr. Kaufman tried to minimize the importance of the latter, saying it was really the responsibility of Financial Services "but they ask us to help." The fact is it was a job that had to be done and the uncontradicted testimony of Mr. Barnes is that he did it. (2) The Clerk 4 General Standard states "Decision making involves judgment in dealing with variations from established guidelines....." In contrast the lower standard says : "Decision-making involves some judgment in the selection of alternatives within a comprehensive framework of guidelines." Mr. Fletcher argued that the griever's work fell within the latter statement rather than the former, but Mr. Kaufman (who had much - 28 - more detailed knowledge of the job) conceded that it was neces- sary for the griever to make certain decisions falling outside the framework of established guidelines or procedures. Indeed, Mr. Kaufman said this might happen "quite frequently." (3) The higher standard goes on to say that: "Normally, employees receive specific instructions only on unusual or special problems....." This corresponds with Mr. Kaufman's account of his relationship with the grievor. It is conceded that very little supervision was needed --- or even possible. (4) Among "tasks typical of this level," the Clerk 4 General Standard includes "supervising a small group of journey- men clerks or a larger group of clerical assistants by explaining procedures, assigning and checking work and maintaining disci- plines." In contrast, the Clerk 3 General Standard defines one of the "typical tasks" as follows: "overseeing, as a Group Leader, the work of a small subordinate staff by explaining procedures, assigning and checking work." The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Barnes' tasks corresponded to the former definition rather than the latter. He testified without contradiction that just : :: a, _ - 29 - before retirement he was supervising four classified employees and at least one unclassified employee. Throughout the summer he was responsible not only for a fluctuating payroll but for the supervision or training required for numerous casual employees. This is rather briefly referred to in the Position Specification as "assigning duties to and checking work of unclassified assist- ants." Mr. Kaufman was candid enough to say that not all the duties performed appear in Exhibit 3, and then referred to the 200 seasonal employees in the parks. Mr. Fletcher testified that all the other "Accounts Clerks" in the Central Region are classified at the 3 level, but there is no evidence as to what their duties are. Further, no explanation hes been offered for the advertisement on November 5 of a~vacancy at Chapleau --- except that the position was "abolished" --- after a competition had been announced and while this case waspending. Although a Classification Officer with the Ministry, Mr. Fletcher was obviously unaware of the adver- tisement when he testified on November 4. Mr. Fletcher said an increase in the volume of work does not "of itself" mean more responsibility. That doctrine - 30 - may have some validity but it cannot be an absolute rule. For example, the standards themselves recognize a difference in volume when there is a difference'in the number of persons super- vised or instructed. Thus the standard for level 3 speaks of "overseeing.... the work of a small subordinate staff . . ..II but the standard for level 4 refers to "supervising..... a larger group of clerical assistants..." Clearly the difference in responsibility is recognized by the Standards. Mr. Fletcher said he did a job audit at the "first stage of the grievance procedure." As the grievance was not presented until March 8, 1982, thecstatement would mean that the audit was done after that date, unless Mr. Fletcher intended to refer to the first step taken by the Employer after Mr. Barnes' frequent complaints in previous years. In any event, the Class Allocation, according to Exhibit 3, was signed by Mr. Fletcher on' December 23, 1981, after the Position Specification had been completed by Mr. Kaufman on December 7 and signed by Regional Director Burgar on December 16. The Class Allocation, headed "Confirmation of Class," was stated to be effective Jan- uary 1, 1982 --- in other words no change. That result was to be expected in view of the fact that, according to Mr. Fletcher - 31 - all other Accounts Clerks in the Central Region were so classified. . The three reasons given by Mr. Fletcher for his allocation have already been quoted --- following quotations from the Position Specification. We find that all three .reasons are contrary to the evidence of the grievor and his immediate supervisor, Mr. Kaufman. .In our opinion the Classification Officer was wrong in his reasons and in the result. Although the grievance was not presented until March 8, 1982, we think it would be appropriate in the circumstances of this case to do what ought to have been done in the Class Allocation made effective January 1, 1982. Our decision therefore is that the classification of the position held by Mr. Barnes from January to September, 1982, is to be that of Clerk 4 General and that he is to be so com- pensated for the said period. DATED at Toronto,~this 6th day of July, 1983. S.D. Kaufman Member 1:5220 3:2414 z iz",: "I dissent" (see attached~) E.R: O'Kelly Member DISSENT ------- This has been a difficult classification case to resolve because of the long period of time involved in some of the events bearing on this case. It started with a Ministry re-organization following the change from " Lands and Forest" to Ministry of Natural Resources. This took place in 1973.Following this re-organization the griever who was a Clerk 5 was classified as a Clerk 3 - but was red-circled and continued to receive the rate of pay for a Clerk 5. I It is apparent that the idinistry plannedto have one Supervisor of Administration who would have one or two Clerk 3 reporting to him -. handling ti+e accounting and cashier's duties for this office. The grievers major responsibility was district cashier.Fellowing the re-organization,much ef the accounting work was computerized LI:~ the manual records were stopped. The introductien of computer controls and detailed prrcedure manuals would eliminate much of the decision making required under a manual system. Barnes experience and long service undoubtedly made it possible for him to do hid work with little direction from his supervisor. However, in my view his work was of a routine nature that fits correctlg~inte the Clerk 3 classification. It is Mr. Kaufman the Supervisor of Administration who is responsible for supervision and discipline and decisions involving variations from guide lines. Mr. Fletcher~the Classification Officer who checked and classified Er. Barnes' job testified the job left little opportnity for decision making. The Clerk 3 here is not authorizing any thing. He is simply checking work to see that it is correct accerding to guide lines. Any problems would be referred te a supervisor for a decision er approval.&. Fletcher stated that there are five Districts in the of the hiinistry and that functions of this type are lerks 3 in the other District Offices, Finally, in my view, &. &&es' job failed to meet the following requirements for the Clerk $General (set out on Pages 7&G of the majority award 1 : I.-Decision making involves judgment in dealing with variations from established guide-lines or standards. 2. Normally employees receive specific instructions only on unusual or special promblems as the work is performed under conditions that permit little opportunity for direct supervision by others 3 Supervising a small group off "journeyman clerks" er a large group of clerkical assistants by explaining procedures, assigning work, and maintaining discipline. I would havedenied the grievance.