The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-0429.Batho.84-03-13IN 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: OLBEU (Jackie Batho) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) Employer R. J. Roberts Vice Chairman H. Weisbach Member A. G. Stapleton Member G. Beaulieu Consultant Union Consulting Services C. Slater Counsel Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie Barristers & Solicitors November 17, 1983 January 23, 1984 DECISION In this arbitration the grievor, who is presently classified as a Typist Grade 2 seeks reclassification to the classification of..Clerk Grade. 3:: At the hearing, the Employer conceded that the qrievor was improperly classified, but submitted that the proper classification would be Clerk Grade':2,. For reasons which follow, we conclude that the qrievor should be classified at the level of Clerk Grade.2;. .The grievor is employed in the Ontario Photo Card Department of the Board. This is the d~epartment which is responsible for issuing what are commonly referred to as Age of Majority Cards. The grievor .is one of four persons in this department whose sole job it is to process applica- tions for these ~cards. It take four full-time people to do this because the department averages about 350 applications per day. About 10% of these are received from persons who personally appear at the department; the others arrive by mail. There appea,rs to be a well established routine for processing tbese applications. As each application comes in it i's recorded in a log book which is kept by the grievor and Herr colleagues. Each application is then y-- .:I -3- checRed.to ensure 'that it contains ~a11 pertinent information and tFie, $4;(1.g. fee:. rf something $s .ml'ssing, a rejection letterl's sent to the 'applicant. This is 'a pre-printed farm letter contaihEng a number of standardized reasons for rej~edtl70n. The clerk marks the box opposite the approprlateereason and may .tYpe in a few additional words of expJ.anatlon, T.f the 'a,ppl$ca:tl&n is complete the clerk initiates the ~process-,of &suing an Ontario photocard. This involvestyping the vital. statistics of the applicant upon a, pcooF card. After the photograph of the applicant is affixed to thecard, ~the complet~ed assembly is photographed on a, Polaroid camera and then run through a laminating ! machf~ne, Xt seems that two. cards~ for each ~application are created in this process: the first is returned to the applicant; the 'second is filed according to the serial number appearing on the card. Each card-also is recorded by serial number in a card control register which. is maintainedby the clerks in the department. Notall of theoperations involved in processing an applicati.on are per~formed by ~a single.clerk. The grievor and Herr colleagues determine among themselves whichperson .‘,’ - 4 - will be responsible for performing a particular function on any one day. So, for example, onone day the,grievor might do nothing but camera work; on anot'her,'the grievor might limit her activities to running the laminating machine. Therearea'fewother aspects to the grievor's job. In the, summer, the grievor might become involved in instructing a summer student in the department; however, there was nothing in the evidence to indicate that the relationship between the' grievor' and the summer student would be of a higher order than that of co-workers. The grievor would not be expected to supervise, but rather familiarize the summer student with the operation of the photographic and laminating equipment, and the various procedures involved in the routine of processing applications for Ontario Photocards. Ther~e was evidence to indicate that the grievor might assume some responsibilities of a supervisory nature when involved in a "project" at a college or univeristy. Accordr'ng to the evidence, a uproject" involves two or three persons from the department in travelling to the campus of a college or university for the purpose of processing on location applications from students for Ontario Photocards. Once they arrive on campus with their equipment, they instruct a team of student assistantsonthe required -5- procedures for processing the cards and the operation of the equipment. They then oversee. the work of this team in processing a large number of applications over a one or two day per'iod. The ~evidence tended to indicate that participation in projects is 'a sporadic and periphoral part of the job.~ Projects dare not part of a regular recurring program 6ut are set up at then ~request of each particular institution. T6e 'yrievor testified that in the last year there were only nrhe 'or'ten projects, On the evidence, the grievor might expec~t to fie' 'included among the personnel one four or less of these., Mr. .W. Bibl~e,'.hr$ supervisor, testified that 95% of the 'grievor's,job 'involved the routine of processing 0ntari.o Photocards. m these circums.tances , .it must be concluded that the most appropriate classification for the job of the griever would be Clerk Grade 2. Pn arguing for the classification of Clerk Grade 3, the Union stressed the"technica1 aspects of the gri,evor's job, i.e., the 'operation of the ‘cameras and laminating machines. It was submitted that these functions were more complex than the mere operation of a typewriter and that the classification of the grievor should be adjusted to reflec~t this. In our view, however;the evidence tended .‘.I - 6 - to indicate 'that the ~operation of the machines ,in question was relatively uncomplicated. rt was certainly. s.on%th.*ng that could bemastered in relatively short order by a '-summered-$tudent. Ne&ther the gri.eVor nor her colleagues were 'involved in the maintenancebf the machines, beyond dapto-day upkeep suchas the cleaning of the rollers of the 'lamrhating mach$nes~ and cameras. TF&classi‘f$catl:on of Clerks Grade 2 appears to be well adpated to.a job. suchas that at hand, the core duties of -vi&hare of a routine 'nature. .This is best seen upon examina- tion and appl&catton of the criterion of "responsibility level". The relevant factor dLffereritiating this criterion in Grade 2 cram that ,$n Grade 3'seeins to reside fin the complexity of the 'Wrk. The: classiflcat$on of Clerk Grades 2 requires a s'l$m$ted" degree ~of complexity. The classification-of Clerk Grade '3'requires' ."some complex~ity". Because there @a nothiag very complex, .in the sense of being complicated or fntricqte,' in a routine ~job, the job most appropriately must becharacterized as of limited complexity within the mean$ng of the ~classiftcation of Clerk Grade 2. bealjng wLth'the other cr$ter~ia in the two classifications, the crl'terion which.'is designated as "typical duties" does not appear to be helpful. From our review of the description of thi% criterlbn In each .classffication, It seems to be. -7- virtually $.mpossibIe 'to extract some,'general principle -- other thati coinplehl‘ty CwhSch 'already has been dealt with) -+ achwould assist in determining which classification ~i:s'most appropriate for the job. As to the ~next criterion, which. is "decision making/ complex~fty", it seems tha~t the relevant differentiating factor is 'initiative". The classification of Clerk Grade 2 'requires the exercise of little, if any, initiative, while Cl.& Grade 3recjuires' the exercise of limited initiative in, e.g., "following-up on errors and making necessary corrections.! The routine of processing Ontario Photocard Appl$catlons,~ on the 'evidence, appears to involve the exercise of little,',if any, initiative, within the meaning ,used in then classification of Clerk Grade 2. There is '~ little 'real responsibility for following up on errors or making necessary corrections. While it is true ~that in sharing the work load in the department the grievor might be 'in a poai.+ion to detect an error by a co-worker and bring it to his or h&r attention, therewasno indication in the evidence that it was part of the responsibility of the grlevor to do so or that she had express.nor implied author$ty to ensure that the correctionswere made. As 'to then remaining crLteria, it seems that the griever's contacts were 'Sgenerally limited to members of the work unit" within the meaning used in the classification of Clerk Grade 2. As to the criterion of "supetiision given", the bulk of the griever's, job involved none. Only on the rare 'occasion when the grievor was on a "project" would her duties involve any real exercise 'of supervisory responsibility; however , .th,is was not part of the "core" of her job. In these circumstances, it must be concluded, ggalh, that the best match for the grievor's duties is the criterion used in the classification of Clerk Grade 2, i.e., "no supervisory responsibility but may provide general fnforma,tion and assistance to staff performing related tasks." The latter part of this definition seems precisely to fit the relationship between the grievor and summer students, As to the 'criteria of "supervision received" and "entrance qualifications'; it seems that the duties of the griever are compatible with either Clerk.Grade 2 or Clerks Grade 3. There is little direct supervision of the grl'evor and her co-workers; however, this seems to be due more to the 'fact that they are performing routine duttes $ha.ntbat they have been delegated a significant degree 'of zbdependent discretion or responsibility. Accordingly, the lack of direct supervision cannot be glven~ great welgh~t in determining the classification of thti job ~of the griever. I . - -9- 0verall;there seems to be little ~doubt that the most appropriate classification.is that of Clerk Grade 2. Accordingly, we ~awa'rd th$s classification to the grievor, effedt2ve 'as. of -the date of her grievance. owe will retain jurisdiction of the matter pending implementation of the .,:erns of this Award by the parties. DATED AT LONDON, Ontario .this~ 13th day of March 1984. H. Weisbach, Member A,G, Stapleton, Member . I