HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0508.Boivin et al.89-09-21EMPLOY& ok LA CO”RONNE DE L’ONmRIO
CQMMISSION DE
SElTLEMENT REGLEMENT
DES GRIEFS
508/84
IN THE NATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EXPLOYERS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Between: OPSEU (Boivin et al)
- and - Grie'vor
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Revenue)
Employer
Before:
For the Grievor:
For the Employers:
Hearings:
R.J. Delisle Vice-Chairperson J. Anderson Member W. Lobraico Member
R. Wells
Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors
D. Kirk Labour Relations Advisor Ministry of Revenue
January 13, 1989 March 28, 1989
2
AWARD
Placed before this Board were 246 classification
grievances of Assessment Clerks from 25 offices throughout the
province. The Board assigned 25 file numbers to these grievances.
We have considered one group of grievances, numbered 1600/84 which
grievances came from the Sudbury office. These grievances, seeking
re-classification from Clerk 3, General to Clerk 4, General were
dismissed. This hearing was convened to consider Assessment Clerks
from the Pembroke office, which grievances are numbered 1675/84.
It was agreed that Marsha Beattie would describe her tasks and that
she would be taken to represent all the other clerks in the
Pembroke office. These grievances also seek a re-classification.
from Clerk 3, General to Clerk 4, General.
The date of the grievance is July 17, 1984 and the
evidence concerning the griever's tasks is confined to that period
of time. The gr'ievor described her activities throughout the year.
The grievor worked with an assessor under the supervision
of the Evaluation Manager. In the office there would be one clerk
to 6-7 assessors. There was a Position Specification for the
Assessment Clerk, Exhibit 3, developed following a province wide
audit. The grievor registered some disagreement with regard to
this document. While she did most of the tasks described she
maintained she also performed other tasks in addition. She denied
the operation of a data processing terminal which, according to the
Position Specification accounted for 20 per cent of her time.
In January the clerk would attend "open houses" with the
3
assessor, meeting property owners in their municipalities to
discuss re-assessments. The Position Specification mentions this
but describes it more as a secretarial role. The grievor maintains
that when the assessor was tied up she would talk with the people
directly; perhaps 4-5 people during a three day open house. As a
result of the open houses there'd be amended notices to prepare and
the clerk would go ahead and do these unless a field call was
necessary. The clerk would prepare a Data Entry Form as a result
and code the same for the keypunch operator. The assessor would
not regularly check her work but he was available. From February
through April the grievor would be occupied in ths generation of
equalization factors for use by counties and school boards. This
would involved calculations, more than an exercise in arithmetic
but still a standard exercise to be fol'lowed. She would work
closely with the assessor to do an overall audit of all thirty-
three municipalities in their care. During April and May she, with
the assessor, would be occupied with 1133*s18. The assessor goes
into the field to check on building permits for additions and new
buildings. That information would generate the data to effect
changes in the office. Sometimes the clerk would do the necessary
calculations herself. This in turn would generate Notices of
Assessment. The Position Specification refers to this task but the
grievor takes issue with "forwardi.ng completed appraisal cards to
assessoPt and says that rather she would just file the same.
During May, June, July and August, the assessor would be largely
in the field inspecting. The clerk would do the regular
correspondence and handle calls for the assessor. She would
4
frequently answer queries from callers by herself. During
September the clerk and assessor would be busy enumerating, and
costing. If there were any problems she would speak with the
assessor. During October and November the clerk and assessor would
work on Class Factors. Also in November there'd be the preparation
of the Roll to be sent to each municipality: an exercise in
arithmetic but demanding accuracy.
The grievor allowed that there were system checks to
ensure accuracy; e.g. Fine-tuning Reports and Frequency
Distribution Reports. The grievor also admitted that the costing
function she performed was a relatively straight forward exercise
once.one got familiar with the various manuals. The system was
standardized and manuals were available for guidance. The grievor
testified that the assessor was the technical expert and the clerk
was there to assist: the assessor was accountable for value and
would have to defend the same if called upon.
Murray schultze, the assessor who worked with the
grievor, described their relationship. In essence, his testimony
indicated that he was responsible and the Clark assisted. Routine
matters could be handled by the clerk but he was kept apprised of
all inquiries. With respect to severances, the clerk would do the
routine and he the difficult.
Ken Bertrand, Valuation Manager, described the operation
and the griever's involvement in it. He described her role as, in
the main, the processing of a variety of documents. The clerk did
some costing following guidelines in the manuals. He was available
if clerks had questions. Depending on how busy it was, and the
5
competence of the clerk, supervision would vary: he testified that
the grievor was very competent and there was little need to check.
He described a variety of quality control checks within and outside
the system. He allowed, that when Schultze was ill on two
occasions, for a total of 9 weeks, the grievor stood in his place.'
It is for the grievor to persuade us that her work
deserves the higher classification sought. In this she has been
unsuccessful. In evaluating the facts we need to bear in mind the
job requirements rather than the griever's attributes. The duties
and responsibilities of the Assessment Clerks in Pembroke are, not
unexpectedly, quite similar to those in Sudbury. We find, again,
that .the decision-making involved in the grievorls job, most
appropriately fits within the Clerk 3 General Class Standard of
"within a comprehensive framework of guidelines" rather than the
clerk 4 General Class Standard of "involves judgment in dealing
with variations from established guidelines or standards." Also,
and again, the Clerk 3 Class Standard is a better fit with regard
to supervision: "Much of the work is reveiwed only periodically".
There was always supervision available to the grievor. Accordingly
the grievance is dismissed,
Dated at Xingston this 21:'~day of ~x>ephember,.1989.
A?Aw . . flxze-Chairperson