The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-0217.Berry et al.90-04-03J ONTAR, EMPLOY& DELI CO”RONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE “ONTARIO GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE c SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS IN TEE NATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: OPSEU (Berry et al) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Co,mmunity & Social Services) Employer . R.L. Verity Vice-Chairperson T. Traves Member A. Stapleton Member For the Grievor: For the Employer: Hearings: J. Miko Grievance Officer Ontario Public Service Employees Union S. Patterson Counsel Legal Services Branch Ministry of Community & Social Services June 22, 1989 August 10, 1989 November 30, 1989 December 4, 1989 SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION Fn’i ‘!owinR the Judicial Review in Carol Berry et al. in February 1986. the present panel issued a decision dated June 21, lSS8 Sranting remed i a’1 relief in two groups of classification grievances: namely. Berry et al. 2!7/83 and 41 campo et al. 2!8,‘83. It? the decision, this panel found that Income Maintenance Officers were not proper1 y classified as Clerk 5 General (atypical 1. In that regard, the panel concluded that the significant non-clerical component of the Income Maintenance Officer position was not encompassed in the clerical series. The panel granted the following remedy at p. 17: It appears to us that the Welfare Field Worker series is the appropriate classification with significant Cl ass Standards to ref 1 ect ctlrrent The Field Worker Ee!"?eS was last rn,ri-c-i yn 1951 and presumably with the passage of time -: ,3-L is in need of revision. In sum, we order the Employer to rev 7 se the Welfare Field Worker series or alternatively to create a new classification for I.M.Q. ‘s. The Employer now contends that the November 1386 reclassification of Income Maintenance Officers into the Office A,dministration Group Class Standard is the proper classification. However, the matter was remitted to the Board on the Union’s application and argument that the Employer failed to comply with the terms of the !9gn decision. In particular, the Union contends that O.A.G. 10 is not a new classification. Qn the first hear i ng day, the panel reserved its decision on the merits of the Union’s allegation and proceeded to hear evidence on the appropriateness of the O.A.G. 10 classification. The Office Administration category came into effect on December 3!. 1985 and forms an aopendi x to the Co1 lectjve Agreement. Essentially, it restructures the clerical services category and the office services category into a single class standard. MS. Christine Macbeth, policy advisor of the Ministry’s Human Resources Branch, WZC the sole witness to testify on behalf of the Employer. She has been employed with the Ministry since July 1988 and in her present capacity has had direct involvement in the implementation of the O.A.G. plan. Ms. MacBeth gave detai’led testimony on the rationale for placement of I.M.O.‘s into the 0.4.G. category at level IO. Andrew Todd, OPSEU’s chief negotiator, testified briefly as to the need for the c! . P. . G . class standard. The Board makes no attempt to repeat either the evidence adduced or the arnImen+s submitted. = - -. I .4s noted in the earlier decision, the detailed job audit. dated September 1984 and prepared by Heather Hal 1, assigned 75% of the I.M.O. duties to the management of an assigned Fami’ly Benefits caseload (between 300 - 400 cases ! , 20% to counselling tasks and 5% to other related duties. Under the ccunselling component. the job audit specifies the following tasks : advising clients of their rights and responsibilities I.- as recipients of an FSP. allowance and of the available benefits and re! ated services for which they may be eligible: informing clients of assistance available through comm~un i ty resources !e.g. Family and Chi ldrens Services! and recommend; ng the c! ient contact the resource grcxp fO!- assistance or slupport on such matters as fami l\/ counselling. credit ccunse~! 1 i ng , legal aid, day care; referring clients to Vocational Rehabilitation Services or to the ‘local Parental Support Worker as the Field Worker deems the circumstances to merit, completing referral forms and passing required information to counsel!ors: following up the results of the referral to determine if any changes should be made to the clients al 1 owance (e.g. earnings from a job, maintenance ordered); contacting agencies such as Public Health or Family and Childrens Services to reqjuest their involvement where health and safety problems are suspected or observed in a client’s circumstances (e.g. child abuse, unsanitary living conditions, inability of a client to cope with the current situation); referring clients found to require emergency assistance !e.g. food or shelter) to local agencies such as the Salvation Army, John Reward Society, or General Welfare after contacting the agency to advise the referral is justified and necessary; fol!owing up with the client to determine if a referral was helpful and if any changes have resu! ted to the client’s c; rcumstances that would impact on the c!ient.‘s e!i;lih+ !ity or allowance; .> I 5 The EmDlO?er contends that the counselling responsibilities are encomaassed in the 0 . A . G . serjes. With rSSD9Ct ~ we would disagree. Although the Employer’s position was careful ! y reasoned, and despite the credible testimony given by Ms. MacBeth, the Board is not persuaded that the counselling component is a comfortable fit in the office administration group. The client relationship and the need for “strong interpersonal ski 11s” is the focus of the I.M.O. position. The key duty of the job is the mana-7-n+ ~ - 1 .1. I of an assigned Family Senefi ts caseload. Essentially, the job of I.M.O. is a field position which in many significant respects is separate and apart from the traditional office setting. For the above reasons. the Board cannot find that the Emp’!oyer has mm I ied with the Dane1 ’ 1..11 ,~ s remedial decision of June 21, 1988. Unfortunate! y , a settlement of these grievances has --raned the -l--p parties fcr now almost ten years; a resolution must now be fina!ized. Accordingly, the Board orders that the EmDloyer shall find or create an appropriate classification within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Supplementary Decision. There will be no interim order for compensation. The pane 1 shall retain jurisdiction pending implementation of the terms of both the 19SS Decision and this Supplementary Decision, including retroactivity and interest. 5 DATED at Erantfct-d, Ontario this 3rd day of April, 1990. _~__ _--- R. L. VERITY. Q.C. - Vice-Chai !-person A. G. STAPLETON ’ - Member