HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-0367.Boire.84-02-02--
367/83
/
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between:
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employer:
Hearings:
OPSEU (Claudette Boire)
Grievor
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Labour)
Employer
R. L. Verity, Q.C. Vice Chairman
E. McVey Member
H. Roberts Member
S. Laycock
Grievance Officer
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
M. Milich
Staff Relations Officer
Staff Relations Division
Civil Service Commission
September 21, 1983
November 25, 1983
c -I In a Grievance dated February 14, 1983, the
C laudette Boire, alleges that she is improperly class
a Clerk 2 Genera'l. She seeks reclassification to the
level of Clerk 3 General.
The Gr ievor commenced work with the Ontario
- 2 -
DEC I S ION
Grievor,
ified as
higher
Governmen t
on November 26, 1979 with the Ministr-y of Revenue. On March 2,
1981, she began work with the Ministry of Labour in the position
of Clerical Typist. Subsequently on September 1, 1981, she was
reclassified as a Clerk 2 General.
Essentially, she performs the job of a Receptionist with
the Sudbury office of the Minist ry of Labour. The relevant Position
Specification and Class Allocati on Form (Exhibit 6 - 1981) indicates
that 85% of her job encompasses receptionist responsibilities; 10%
of the job relates to typing and clerical.services; and a further 5%
in the performance of "other duties".
In September of 1981, the Grievor was reclassified to her
present classification of Clerk 2 General. The Parties agree that
there is a separate receptionist classification; however,the Grievor
was allocated to the Clerk 2 General classification primarily as a
result of the similarity of a job in Hamilton, Ontario. There is no
doubt that the Grievor's present responsibilities are atypical of
the classification.
- 3 -
*’ >. . .
At the first hearing date, the Ministry agreed that the
Grievor was improperly classified as a Clerk 2 General and would
have been more properly classified as Receptionist.
offi,
Heal
and
At the present time, the Grievor works for the Sudbury
ce of the Ministry for five separate branches; namely,Construction
th and Safety; Industrial Health and Safety; Occupational Health
Safety; Human Rights; and Employment Standards.
In essence, the Un
Grievor was subjected to add
justified the higher classif
on alleges that in March,
tional responsibilities wh
cation. At that time, fel
982, the
ch in turn
ow employee
' Diane Gautier was transferred from the Employment Standards Branch
to the Human Rights Branch of the Ministry. Mrs. Gautier's position
has not been filled in the interim. The Grievor testified that in
March, 1982, she assumed duties in the Construction Health and Safety
Branch for the first time.
The Union alleged~that the core functions of the Grievor's
present job responsi bilities placed her squarely within the higher
classification when measured against the Class Standards. The Ministry
contended that the Grievor's responsibilities coul
higher classification. The relevant Class Standar
"CLERK 2, GENERAL
CLASS DEFINITION:
d not justify the
ds appear as follows:
Employees in positions allocated to this class normally
perform a number of clerical tasks of limited complexity
according to established procedures, where the prime
- 4 -
.<; ., responsibility is for accuracy and an acceptable rate
of production. Decision-making consists of deter-
mining whether material confor% to specific, set-out
procedures or standards and requires little background
knowledge of regulations or statutes. Employees may
initiate standardized letters involving little original
composition such as form letters, acknowledgments,
reminders, etc. They may also assist with the training
of junior staff. Assignments of unusual difficulty
are preceded by detailed instructions or are carried out
under close supervision. The work is reviewed for
adherence'to procedure and acceptable standards of
accuracy and volume.
DUALIFICATIONS:
1. Grade 10 education, preferably Grade 12; working
knowledge of arithmetic; correct punctuation;
spelling and grammatical usage; some knowledge of
common office practices.
2. At least two years satisfactory experience as a
Clerk 1, General, or an equivalent combination
of experience and education.
3. Ability to follow specific clerical instructions;
ability and willingness to perform clerical work
of limited complexity at acceptable standards of
speed and accuracy." (Exhibit 4)
"CLERK 3, GENERAL
CLASS DEFINITION:
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 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 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 eligibility
- 5 -
of applicants, investigating discrepancies and securing
further proof or documentation as necessary; overseeing,
as a Group Leader, the work of a small subordinate staff
by explaining procedures, assigning and checking work.
This is a terminal class for many positions involving
the competent performance of routine clerical work common
to the office concerned.
QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Grade 12 or an equivalent combination of education,
training and experience.
2. About three years satisfactory clerical experience.
3. Ability to understand and explain clerical procedures
and requirements; ability to organize and complete
work assignments within prescribed time limits; ability
to maintain good working relationships with other
employees and the public served." (Exhibit 5)
No useful purpose could be served by a repetition of the
able arguments presented.
Having regard to the evidence, the arguments presented
and the arbitral precedents cited, we are unable to agree that the
Grievor would be more appropriately classified in the higher class-
ification. In the instant Grievance, it would appear that we are
being asked to determine which of two somewhat inappropriate
classifications is the mqre appropriate. However, the Board adopts
the rationale of Vice-Chairman Gorsky in OPSEU (J. L. Charbonneau
and I.A. Skomorowski) and the Ministry of the Environment, 435/80
at pages 1 and 2:
"Article 5.1.1. of the collective agreement, which provides:
'An employee who alleges that his position is.
improperly classified may discuss his claim
- 6 -
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,'
limits the employee's rights, when objecting to
the classification procedure, to challenging his
assignment to a particular position and he cannot
challenge the system by which the classification
of positions was established, nor the classifications
created under the system, If the grievance is allowed
the jurisdiction of the Board is limited by art.
5.1.2, to:
'...(a) conforming that the grievor is
properly classified in an existing classi-
fication, or (b) finding that the grievor
would be properly classified in the job
classification which he claimed in his
grievance.'
That is, the jurisdiction of the Board is restricted to
a finding that the class to which the grievor has been
allocated is the one he fitsinto (confirming~the
employer's decision) or finding that the grievor's
assessment of the class, which he should be in, is
correct. The jurisdiction is declaratory only. and
such declaration does not extend to a findinq that
neither declaration encompassed in art. 5.1.2. is
appropriate, on the evidence adduced. In such a case
there is no authority to make a declaration as to the
correct classification to which the qrievor should have
been assiqned."(Our emphasis)
On the evidence presented, it is clear that the duties
performed by the Grievor fall primarily within the responsibilities
of a Receptionist. The evidence confirms that the Grievor does
spend approximately 75% to 80% of her time in the performance of
receptionist functions. In that capacity she receives approximately
250,telephone calls daily, welcomes visitors to the Sudbury office,
and;in most instances redirects inquiries to the appropriate
branch office. On the evidence, we find that the information
the Gri evor relays can best be characterized as routine in nature.
In addi tion, she devotes approximately 10% of her time to the
- 7 -
performance of clerical tasks. Her clerical responsibilities are
of limited complexity as is contemplated by the Clerk 2, General
classification. We cannot find that any of the Grievor's present
responsibilities are such as woul
degree of judgement contemplated
Clerk 3, General.
d require the exercise of the
by the higher classification of
It is always difficult for the Grievor to succeed in a
classification grievance, where the Grievor's job could be more
appropriately classified in a separate class series.
For the above reasons, this Grievance is dismissed.
DATED at Brantford, Ontario, this 2nd day of February,
A.D., 1984.
R. L. Verity, D.C. -- Vice-Chairman
"I dissent" (see attached)
t. McVey -- Member
H. Roberts -- Member
GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
File Numbeh: 367183 BUIRE
DiAAQnt 06 ELMER MCVEY
I do not agaee with .thQ Vice-Chaihman’A awahd in thin matte&.
Mhb Ctaudett*Q 80ihQ - GhiQvQd on FQbhuahy 1 4, 1 983’ - ~QQuQAZ-
ing a change in cLaAAi6dcafion 6hom C.t?e&k Senehat ‘m .to - Ceehk GQflQhae -111.
On LhQ ,$acQ 06 the caAQ i.t would appQah that XhQ phQAQnt
claAAi,$Lcat.ion 06 XhQ ghievoh .iA nox Xhe phopeh claAAi,(icaLtion,
and while impnopehey_c~abAidied, .the he’puebt 6oh an upghading
6hom Ceehk GenQhae 1 I .t4 Ceehk GenehuL ‘J’J I. ib noi the phopeh
CtaAAidiCa.tion eitheh. -
It in impOh~aflt to AQQ the di66ehQMcQ-in Xhe .two job6
Ctehk GQnQhd ii
Exhibit 4
&a66 de&Lnition: --pehdohm a numbeh 06 ‘c.t.Qhicat XaAkA
06 Limitted COmptQXity accohding 20 QbtabLiAhed phOCQduhQ6
WhehQ ihe phimQ hQAponAiAit.ity iA 60h aCiuhaCy and an aCCQp-t-
abee hate 06 phoduction.
CeQhk GenehUt m Exhibit 5
&aAA ded&nition: --pehdohm hOUfiflQ c-tehicat wohk 06
AomQ comp[QXi~y accohding fo Qbtafi.tiahQd phOCQduhQ6 hQquih-
ing a backghound knowLedge 06 bpQci6ic hQgutafiOnA, b,ta,ttu,tQA
Oh -tOCaL phaCfiCQb.
12 in obvious 20 mQ Xhit .Zhe ghieuoh phopehey bQ.tongA in fhe
CeQhk GQnQhae I II. in th.iA inA,taflCe -
Ceehk GQnQhat fl ExhibiX 4
DQCibiOn Making: COnbiA.tb 06 detehmining whQtheh
matQh.ia~~con~ohmA 20 specidic AQf auf phocQduheA oh bXandahd6
land hequ.ihQA .i?.i&t.tQ backghound kvlowt.edgQ 06 hQgulatiOflA
Oh A,tta.tu.tQA . AA WQti!, emptoyQQ.6 may i~i.ttiaX~ Atandahdized
tQttQhA .iflvOtving .ti.txte OhigiMUe compobition Auch UA 6Ohm
.tQt%ehb, acknowledgmentb, hQmindQhA, etc.
CLQhk Genehal 111 ExhibiX 5
DQciAiOn Making: invoi?.weA Aome judgement in ZhQ AQtQC~iOn
06 aLtehnativeb w.Lthin a comp&QhQnAive 6hamQwohk 06 guide-
LiMeb.
Ini.tiative. i6 in the 6ohm 06 do&Towing up QhhohA ‘~-
Oh OmmibAionA and in making COhhQCtiOnA a6 nQcQAAaJLy.
Mha Boihc’6 dutiQA 6aU~w.ithin .the Cdehk GQnQhUt 111 claAAi,(i-
caLion in Lhin inn~ance a4 WQtt.
- 2 -
Ctehk Gene/~& fl ExhibiX 4
Anbignmenth 06 ununuaL d.id@uLty Uhe pheceeded by de- iailed .ittlthUCtiOfld and .ahe cahhied ou.t undeh clone nupeh-
UibiOn.
The wohk ib heuiewed 6011 adhehence ito phoceduhe and
acc.ep&Pbbee h.tandahdd a 6 accutracy and volume. .-
C4?ehk Genehit 111 E x hi&it:_ 5 Uoub.t6uZ ma.t.teti not couehed by phecedenx ahe hedehhed
x0 6UpehVihOhh. Much 06 the wohk ii6 heu’iewed. o&y pe%iodicai?~y,
phinCip&ty 6oh adherence to poeicy and phoceduheb;
Again M&h. Boihe’d duitien phopehly place heh .in Xhe CLetrk
GefiehaL 111 - c.tas6i6.ica,tion.
Typicat? Tan k6
1X appeah6 thai .the tank6 ou.t.tined in Exhibit 6 adequaXe& he-
@ecXed Xhe d&ties when fdhn.
Boihe began wohk LPI Xhe h&iA~hq
06 Labouh Ub clehical 2ypih.t 2, bu.t heh du.tieh and hed-
pon6ibitiXieA cha%ed sub6tantiaiYy even a6ieh being hecLashed
.to Ctehk Genehue 11 OM SepXembeh 24, 1981. -
Cteik Genehat 111
--phepahation 06 da’c.tuaL hepoh.th, dXa.tementb Oh memohanda, he-
quihing 6ome judgemen in Xhe nei?ec;tion 06 da.ta assessmeits
06 the UCCuhUCy 0 6 62atemenfb etc.
1.t io again obvious dhom Mhb. BOihe'b evidence .tha-t heh du-tieo '
pttopetlty place he& -in the CLehk Genenae 111 ctansi6ication. -
ltiappeans .tha2 Viane Gauthiefi moved 6hom Employmen SXandahdd
to Human Rights in Zhe middle 06 1982 and UJUb r10.t hepLaced.
Heh d&ties .then became pUh.t 06 MU. Eoitre'6 du-ties. Then Jane
BheLt le6.t Oh wa6 hecLanbidied, not hepLaced, and heh
du.ties became pUh.t 06 Mhn. Boihe’A du-ties.
These .two occuhhence6 cheafed a vacuum amd fhe du.t.ies Wehe
as6umed by Mh6. Boihe, and accepted by heh AupehVibOhb- unftie
a ghievance WUh phocebAed - and a numbeh 06 Xhe d&tie6 wehe
taken away dhom heh.
Mh6. Boihe han pehdohmed houXtine c.tehicaL wohk 06 bOme compLexi<y
accohding Xo entablinhed phoeeduhe6 hequihing a backghound
knowledge 06 bpeCi&ic hegulationb, h.k.ttihtiCh Oh LocaL phac.ticeh.
Mhb.
Boih& decinion making involved ndme judgemeni in .the
belecXion 06 al,tehnaLiveb wi-thin a comphehensive 6hamewohk 06
guideLinen.
(Le.1 Mhb Boihe XebXi6ied that da2y, beiween the houhs 06 8:OO
and 8:30 am each mohning, duhing Lunch houhn and when no -in-
Ape&oh6 wehe in the InduhXhiaL HeaUh and Sa,(eiy Bhanch, and-
the COnA.thuCtiOn Heae.th and SaieXy Bhanch oddices nhe Zakeb
ale 06 Xhe injuhy and 6a.%a&ty hepoh.tA. Heh he&ponnibiLiiy
- 3 -
i6 20 obtain dhom the caeeehh Xhe necebhahy indohmation by
abking queb.tionb 20 ob.tain .the dac.tts. Then e duLieh heQuihe
both independent judgemenf and discheXion in detehmining wha.t
in+ohmation ib heQu.ihed 60 Xha.t the phOpeh bhanch wile be
abee 20 cahhy 0u.t the investigation heQuihed.
Mh6. Boihe a&o wohk6 6oh Xhe Human RiqhX6 Bhanch accepXing a
Lahae vahiexu OX ca.tY.b and Xi.& in comnlainZ herJOhtA. nickina
ou.tUXhe impoitant poinzts using key wohdb and pasbing ih’em on -
20 fhe maflageh Oh o66iceh in Xhe Bhanch.
‘hih.6. Boihe alho wohk6 6oh Xhe Emptoymenf SXandahdh Bhanch
t (a wehy bu6y bhanch) answehing inquihien concehning legihla-
tion fbozh phone and walk-in inquihied]. She phoo6headh and
COhheCti te.t.tehs don- bignatuhe6 by 066icehh. The wohk LA
noX heviewed. AU the wohk she pehdohmb i6 in Xhe Clehk
Genehat 17 1 cladb A.tandahd, which hequiheb “initiative in the
dohm 06 doetowing up ehhOh6 Oh omibnion6,and in making cohhections
Ub necedbahy. She a&o .tesLidied that nhe hegutahty signed
acknow.tedgement 1eLtehb 6oh -the EmpLoymen Sfandahdh 966iceh.
In heview - The C.tehk Genehal ii i6 a’6impee phoduc%ion
ohiented job. LiX.t.te, 3 any, judgement ib heQuihed
becaube 06 bimifed compLex.ity -” pehbohm a ntimbeh 06
ctehicae task6 06 Limited compLexitq aciohding to
established whoceduhed”- undeh cLose bUtZehVibiOn -
Exhibit 4. ’ - rho ~:Y~~he (i0~MP.hU.t m”noh6ohmA houX.ine clehical.
- The CLehk Geneha.! m”peh6ohmA ho&tine ctehicaL
wohk 06 dome compeexityaccohding to ebtabeinhed pho- linq to estabeinhed phO-
ceduhes ” - hequihing a backghound knowledge 06 bpeci&ic dqe od bpeci6ic
heguLations etc. “Much 06 the ruohk i6 heviewed oney
pehiodicaLLy etc. ”
hihb . Boihe WUb doing aLt 06 .these du.tieh heQuihed 06 heh a6 a
U.ehk GenehaL ii, buX should have been hecJ?a66i&ied UA Ctehk
Genehal 111.
Thehedohe it i6 my opinion that Xhe grievance bhould
succeed, a;d thax M/m Boihe be heceanni6ied 20 CLehk Genehal
171 eddecttive Febhuahy 74, ,19b3.
EM/ bm
opeiu 343