Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0289.Rea et al.84-03-02SETTLEMENT IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: Before: For the Grievor: Grievors OPSEU (June Rea, et al) - And - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) Employer R.L. Verity,Q.C. Vice Chairman S. Hennessy Member E.R. O'Kelly Member D.I. Bloom, Counsel Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon For the Employer: R. Love Regional Personnel Administrator Ministry of Health Hearing: November 9, 1983 DECISION In four separate Grievances, June Rea, Lydia Tackaberry, Shirley Reynolds and Hazel Margaret Hughes allege that they are improperly classified at .the Social Worker 1 level at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. They seek reclassification to the Social Worker 2 level. At the Hearing, the Board was asked to determine three of the four Grievances and for that purpose the Parties proceeded with the Grievance'of Mrs. Lydia Tackaberry as a representative case which would also determine the Grievances of Mrs. Reynolds and Mrs. Hughes. The Grievance of June Rea was adjourned sine die. The Class Standard for Social Workers has two levels, namely Social Worker 1 (Exhibit 5)'and Social Worker 2 (Exhibit 6). The Class Standard for Social Worker 1 reads: "This class covers entry level positions of social mrkers who are gaining casework experience follaving coqletion of undergraduate professional education. mloyees receive instruction on dapartmantal programs and policies from a senior social worker whc assigns and supervises mrk. t&der close supervision, they con&ct interviews, compile case histories, assess problems, and reccnmand supportive treatrent. They provide counselling and utilize appropriate conmunity resources to maet clients' needs. In all positions at this level, assignments are selected to provide scope for the davelopmant of competence. Senior social workers provide professional guidance and review social treatment decisions. KNCWLBLGSANDSKIIISR!QUIRED: Good knowledge of the principles, technigues and methods of social xxrk and ability to apply them in the mrk situation: general knowledge of departrental programs and policies; personal suitability." -3- Social Worker 2 Class Standard reads as follows: "This class covers the positions of gualified social workers wi-c provide professional social work services to clients under the general supervision of a senior social worker or interviews, conpile social histories and formulate psychosocial diagnosis of the personal and enveomental causes of social dysfunctioning. Tbqimplemant treatsent plans to assist clients to resolve their problems and develop their maximum potential. They provide service by any one or a combination of the social wxk mthcds appropriate to the functions of the departmantamd service. They evaluate the effectiveness of the treatmant plan and modify or revise as necessary. They consult with man&rs of other professional disciplines and my serve as mrdxrs of treatsent teams, institutional and comity cmttees . They my supervise and review the wark of social work assistants, child care wxkers, residential counsellors and other staff in the area. They participate in conferences and group discussions, interpret departnental policy and objectives, and maintain liaison with other disciplines, jurisdictions, and cormunity agencies. They my assist in the training of departm?ntalpersonnel~d students in social service courses. KNOwLHx;EAND SKILTS REQUIRED: Thorough knowledge of the principles; techniques, and rrethcds of social mrk and ability to apply them in the mrk situation; ability to formulate psychosocial diagnoses and skill in iaple- nianting them; knowledge of diagnostic and treatnent procedures utilized by related disciplines: good knowledge of depar'cmntal programs and policies; ability to develop co-operative wxking relationships with other professional staff; personal suitability." Position Specification and Class Allocation Forms for the position Social Worker (Classification Social Worker 1) and Professional Social Worker (Classification Social Worker 2) at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital were filed as Exhibits 7 and 8. An audit of Mrs. Tackaberry's present duties and respon- sibilities which included the Griever's written comments was introduced as Exhibit 9. -4- The Grievor trained as a Registered Nurse from 1945 - 1948 at Brockville General Hospital. She was a General Duty Nurse until July, 1967 when she commenced duties as a Social Worker at Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. Similarly, the other two Grievors, Mrs. Reynolds and Mrs. Hughes were also Registered Nurses until they became Social Workers at the Psychiatric Hospital. The Griever began a three year on the job training program at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital during which time she was classified as a Social Work Assistant. Upon completion of the training period in 1970 she became a Social Worker 1. In 1972 the Grievor was assigned specific responsibilities as the Social Worker of the 175 patient geriatric unit. Miss Doris Crawford supervised the Grievor's work and shared equally with the Grievor the responsibility of the geriatric unit. In 1975 Miss Crawford left the Hospital and was replaced by Miss Suriti Ahuja. The Grievor alleged that her respon- sibilities increased substantially in 1975 as Miss Ahuja took on no case work herself but did supervise the Grievor for approximately one hour per week. As -of 1975, the Grievor had total responsibility for social work duties at the geriatric unit. In 1979, Miss Ahuja was replaced by Mr. Cowell who was subsequently replaced by Mr. Bagal in 1981. It was the Grievor's evidence that neither Mr. Cowell nor Mr. Bagal supervised her duties in any meaningful way, and accordingly that she worked virtually independent of supervision. In general, the Grievor's primary functions include the preparation of social histories and assessments; new patient admissions; completion of all data for Public Trustee; individual and group counselling; preparation of patient discharge arrangements; a~ttendance at treatment conferencesweekly with physicians, psychiatrists, sociologists, nurses; data collection and liason with community agencies. The Grievor's normal duties and respon- sibilities were detailed in the audit (Exhibit 9). The Hospital's Chief Social Worker,Peter Carter,testified that all Grievors were valued employees who were performing "excellent" service without extensive supervision. However, he testified that they were unable to perform the core functions of the S.W. 2 classifi- cation;namely,the formulation of psychosocial diagnosis and implementation of treatment plans. Mr. Carter's evidence was to the effect that the Grievorslatiked the "specific body of knowledge" and that they "didn't know the specific social work techniques" acquired through formal social.work education at a university or community college. In short, none of the three Grievors possessed a Bachelor of Social Work degree or a Master of Social Work degree or at least some formalized training at a recognized community college. Mr. Carter described social work as "a very exacting profession? and that knowledge of social work techniques could not be acquired in the work place unless there was "heavy supervision". He also testified that "counselling" and "therapy" have differing connotations in the field of social work and were not interchangeable. -6- Malcolm Stewart, Executive Director of the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers, testified that the Ontario Association "does not consider a person not holding a degree - a professional social worker". In cross-examination, Mr. Stewart admitted that 'the Ontario Association does have some "older people without degrees". In re-examination, Mr. Stewart explained that members without degrees joined the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers when it was incorporated in 1964 and were "grandfathered" into membership. Mrs. Shirley Reynolds testified briefly'that the Grievers met with Mr. Carter in June, 1982 to discuss their concerns. It was Mrs. Reynold's understanding that Mr. Carter agreed with their concerns and stated that he would recommend them for the higher classification. In cross-examination, Mr. Carter stated that he was of the opinion that the Grievers were Social Workers 2 but didn't tell them that fact directly. His recollection of the meeting was-that a reclass- ification in another department had annoyed the Grievors and that he felt the Grievers were simply requesting more money for their services.' In any event he agreed to take the matter to his superiors. On behalf of the Griever, Mr. Bloom reviewed the various tests used in past classification grievances. He argued that regardless of the test adopted that the evidence established that the Griever was performing work at the S.W. 2 level. Mr. Bloom argued that the proper classification depended on the degree of supervision given to the - 7 - Griever. Both the Class Standard for Social Worker 1 and the accompanying Position Specification at Brockville Psychiatric stress "close supervision". On the other hand, the Class Standard for Social Worker 2 and the related Position Specification talks of "general supervision". Mr. Bloom argued that the degree of supervision of the Griever at the Hospital placed her squarely in the higher classification. He also argued that the Griever was a qualified Social Worker who had achieved her professional status by on-the-job training. He made much of the testimony of Mrs. Sheila Irvine who held the degree of M.S.W. from Carleton university and who is now a Social Worker Supervisor at the Hospital. Mrs. Irvine had previously been a Social Worker 2 at the Hospital. Mr. Bloom argued that if the "fancy language" was taken away from the testimony of Mrs. Irvine, there was no real difference between her duties as Social Worker 2 and Mrs. Tackaberry's present duties. Mr. Love on behalf of the Ministry alleged.that the Griever's present work encompasses only the most basic social work concepts. He admitted that while parts of the present Social Worker classification do not apply to the Griever's duties and parts of the higher Class Standard do apply, that it was not unusual for duties to overlap to some degree. Mr. Love argued that the major duties or core functions of the Griever's position in view of her lack of formalized training as a Social Worker placed her squarely in the Social Worker 1 class- ification. The Employer has the right to establish Class Standards, and the onus is on the Griever to demonstrate improper classification. -8- In classification grievances, the first approach of the Board is to measure the Griever's duties against the relevant Class Standards. To succeed a griever must demonstrate that he or she performs at the level of the higher standard both from the standpoint of ability and responsibility. In that regard there appears to be little variation between private sector arbitrations and awards of the Grievance Settlement Boards. ,Generally, the approach taken by most panels of the Grievance Settlement Board is to consider whether the Grievor is properly classified in the existing classification. If the answer is in the negative, then the remaining consideration is whether the Griever would be more properly classified in the higher classification. Consideration must be given to the Class Standards in their entirety and not to selected or isolated duties of a classification. A second approach required a Classification Board to look to the duties of employees in the higher classification to ascertain whether they are performing substantially the same work as the qrievor who seeks reclassification. Several tests have been developed in arbitral precedent in the determination of classification grievances. The "core duty test" was utilized in O'Connell, 365/80 (Kennedy); Maitland, 388/82 (Brunner); Rounding, 18/75 (Beatty); Lynch, 43/77 (Adams). The "best fit test" was considered in Edwards & Mulloney, 11/78 (SWintOn); Brick, 564/80 (Samuels); and Hopper, 47/77 (Swan). On behalf of the Union, Mr. Bloom argued that regardless of which test was adopted by the Board, the Griever was performing duties at the Social Worker 2 level. - 9 - Having considered the evidence and the able arguments presented, this Board is of.the view that the Griever is properly classified at present at the.Social Worker 1 Class Standard. While the evidence discloses that the Grievor presently performs some of the duties associated with the higher Class Standard, inour opinion the evidence falls short that she performs the core duties of the higher Class Standard. On the evidence, we are satisfied that she does not formulate psychosocial diagnosis and related treatments at the level required by the Social Worker 2 Class Standard. We cannot agree that the supervision components of the relevant Class Standards is necessarily the governing consideration. In our view, the social work concepts expected of a qualified professional Social Worker is the more important ingredient of the higher Class Standard. Reference is made at the Social Worker 1 Class Standard to "gaining case work experience following the completion of undergraduate professional education". Although it is true that there is no specific reference in either Class Standard to the requirement of a Social Work Degree per se, it is difficult to ignore the specific wording in the Social Worker 2 Class Standard "qualified social workers who provide professional social work services". In our opinion, without the acquisition of formalized training from a recognized university or community college social work program, it is unlikely that an individual Social Worker could provide "professional social work services". - 10 - In the instant Grievance, the Grievers have received professional training in the separate discipline of registered nursing. We cannot agree that the three year period of on the job training from 1967 to 1970 and the subsequent experience acquired is the type of formalized education leading to professional des'ignation. In that regard, no evidence was introduced as to the content and extent of the three year training course. The degree of supervision given Mrs. Tackaberry is not a substitute for formalized education. In addition, the evidence surrounding the Griever's attendance at three separate three day conferences cannot be said to confer professional status. The evidence is clear that the Griever and,by implication, Mrs. Reynolds and Mrs. Hughes are presently performing valuable service to the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. However; in our opinion, the evidence also discloses that the Griever's duties when viewed in their entirety are more akin to the duties of a Social Worker 1 as opposed to a professional Social Worker 2 who is qualified to use psychosocial therapy for treatment. However, in recognition of the Griever's contribution and experience at the Social Worker 1 level, every effort should be made by the Ministry to encourage the Griever to acquire formalized training acceptable for entry - 11 - into the higher classification. In the result this Grievance is dismissed. I DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 2nd day of March, A.D., 1984. CT ,-(-cI 1 AC--- . 7 R. L. Verity, Q.C. -- Vice-Chairman "I dissent" (See attached) S. Hennessy - Member E.R. O'Kelly - Ue&wr-+ DISSENT ------- The grievance illustrates, what I believe is, the classic case of the old argument of "formalized education/training" versus "on the job training". Viewed in this light and based on the evidence in this case I must dissent from the majorities' decision and specifically from its finding that "without formalized training from a recognized university or community college work program it is unlikely that an individual social worker can provide social work services." Having said this I believe it only fair to the majorities' position to say that I found this case extremely difficult to decide given the inherent restrictions of the legislation. However, the griever's duties, stripped of the technical language of the social work field, were so close to the Social Worker II standard that, in my opinion, it would be unfair to deny her the classification. My reasons for this conclusion are based on the grieves's train- ing program combined with her on the job experience and level of super- vision over the years. These facts establish that the griever does (when the language is stripped of its ~jargon) provide and implement a level of psychosocial diagnosis. This is further buttressed by the inequity of permitting an employer to hire and train an employee under the basic knowledge and skills required in the position specification of a Social Worker I and then to deny progression to the next level because of a formalized education requirement. If I am wrong in my assessment of this matter then the employer ignores the majorities' recommendation about opportunities to acquire formalized training at its own peril not to mention the morale, efficiency and labour relations repercussions with its employees.