HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0602.Piffard et al.87-01-021987 - OPSEU (Piffard, Newman, Buchanan, Harper Whitworth) & Ministry of COmmunitya nd Social Services, GSB#602/84 [et al], (Roberts)
602184; 605184; 606/84 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION -Under -THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT‘ BOARD Between: .~ OPSEU (C. Pi.ffard, P.
Newman E. L. Buchanan,R. G. Harper, R. Whitworth) -and -Before: The Crown in Right of Ontario (The Ministry of Community and Social Services) Prof. R. J. Roberts, Vice-Chairman I. Freedman,
Member H. Roberts, Member For the Crievor: -y .I. Miko Grievance Officer, 0ntario:Eublic Service Employees Unioi For rhe Employer: R. McCully, Counse 1 Legal Services Branch Ministry
of Community and Social Services Hearings: March 5; 1985 April 1, 5, 1985 December 2, 3, 9, 10, 1985 April 28, 29, 30, 1986 June 11, 1986 Grievers Employer
DECISION 1. I. INTRODDCTION: This is a classification case involving a number of grievances which were consolidated for purposes of this proceeding. At the time of the grievances, the
5 grievors occupied the position of Eligibility Review Officer (ERO) in the Ministry. This was a relatively new position. In 1984, the grievors were notified that the ERO position was
being atypically classified at the level of Clerk 6 General, retroactive to April 1, 1983. Thereafter, in March, 1984, the grievors filed the grievances herein. Essentially, they claimed
that the ERO position was improperly classified, and should have been classified at the higher level of Clerk 7 General. In support of .this contention, evidence was led to compare the
duties and responsibilities of the RR0 position to (1) the class standards; and (2) the position of Parental Support Worker (PSW) which was classified at the Clerk 7 level and was claimed
to be substantially similar to the ERO position. II. THE EVIDENCEi According to the evidence, the roots of the present dispute reach back to January 1, 1979, when the Ministry decided
to streamline the delivery of family benefits by decentralizing its system. This decision was implemented through several phases involving the.. , improvement of the data network, the
transfer of files to the field and the delegation to the field of power ~. over the granting and refusing of benefits. In 1982-83, as part of this reform, the Ministry started 7 pilot
projects in 7 different municipalities with the object of co-ordinating its efforts with the municipal distribution of welfare benefits.
This resulted in the integration Of office space and personnel, with. some provincial employees working out of municipal,offices and reporting on a day-to-day basis to municipal management.
MS. P. NEWMAN: The first witness to testify for the Union was Ms. P. Newman, an EBO from the Ottawa office. It was stipulated .' that her testimony was to be taken as representative
of her own duties and~those of her colleague, Ms. J. Piffard. Ms. Newman testified that she began working for the Ministry in February, 1981: She stated that she was hired into the ERO
job, which was well established at that time. Her title, .however, was not Eligibility Review Officer: it was, instead, Welfare Field Worker 1. She added that at the time,‘ the system
of the Ministry was still centralized. It did not decentralize until June,.'1982. ~~ According to Ms. Newman, her job as an ERO at the time of the grievance involved reviewing the cases
of Family Benefits Allowance recipients in the dttawa area who were suspected of being ineligible for benefits. Typically, Ms. Newman stated, an investigations would be initiated after
receiving complaints by telephone from neighbours, ex-spouses, or ex:friends of the, recipient. Most of these complaints would concern women who had begun living common-law with their
boyfriends but continued to collect Mother's Allowance.
\: P _' 3. n The first step, Ms. Newman testified, would be for the ERO to interview the complainant if possible in order to assess credibility and gain more specific information. Next,
the ERO would complete a referral form and forward it to the Income Maintenance Officer who was responsible for administering the benefits for the recipient in question. Thereafter,
it would be up to the Income Maintenance Officer, in consultation with his or her supervisor, to determine whether to confront the recipient and/or request a full eligibility review.
In the latter event, the case would go back to the ERO supervisor for assignment for further investigation. In this phase of the investigation, Ms. Newman testified, the ERO would request
information from a number of sources in the community, e.g., Workers Compensation, Revenue Canada, banks, l~oan agencies, social service agencies, drivers and vehicle licencing bureaus,
credit agencies, correctional institutions, and the police. Information received from these sources, in combination with other information obtained from interviewing the recipient and
the alleged common-law spouse, would then be distilled into a detailed chronological case review. This review would include conclusions as to eligibility and a recommen~datic to the
ERCls supervisor as to appropriate action to be taken. Such action could include suspension, cancellation or reduction of benefits. In extreme cases, there also could be a recommendation
that the case be referred to the Ontario Provincial Police for prosecution for fraud.
-" . ', 7 4. " Ms. Newman also indicated that the RR0 remain involved in prbceedings which followed upon his or her.recommendations. Where benefits were, e.g., suspended or cancelled
and the recipient sought an administrative appeal, she stated, the ERO would discuss the matter with his or her supervisor to determine whether any additional information provided by
the recipient warranted'reopening the investigation. The ER(I then would prepare for his or her supervisor's signature the appropriate response to the recipient or her legal representative
and would act as the contact point forthe recipient's representative throughout the appeal process far purposes of offering interpretations of the pertinent legislation. ._ Ms. Newman
further stated that in Ottawa,~ it was' the EXO who prepared the submission of the Ministry for the Social Assistance Review Board (SARB). Ms.~ Newman insisted that it was the ERO and
not the ERO's supervisor'who performed this function, which involved the ERO in having to anticipate the strategy of the other side. She added that it was she who interviewed the witnesses
prior to the hearing. Thereafter, she would sit down with her supervisor and discuss the case and the strategy. At the hearing itself, Ms. Newman added, it usually .~ was the supervisor
who would present the case with MS. Newman acting as.a witness; however; on occasion, Ms. Newman acted as the presenter. .While only 10% of her time was involved in dealing
_ . s 5 _ 5. with the above appeals, Ms. Newman testified, about 30% of her time was devoted to cases which were recommended for fraud prosecutior In such cases, Ms. Newman stated, the
RR0 screened the files very carefully to ensure that this was not a case which should go the ,civil, as opposed to criminal, route. This was done, MS. Newman stated, because the EROtias
acutely aware of the devastating consequences to a recipient of a fraud prosecution, including removal of her only source of income and the possibility of a criminal record. Upon completion
of this screening process with respect to a number of files, it would be time to call in the Ontario Provincial Police. Ms. Newman indicated tharit,was the ERO who made contact with
the police in order to set up a meeting to discuss the files but conceded that before this was done the recommendation of the RR0 would be verified by the ERO's supervisor. If a file
were selected for prosecution by the police officer in the course of this meeting with the ERO, the latter would .then prepare a chronological Fraud Summary and Synopsis which .,.. included
a case history and summary. He or she also would establish a fraud file for the case to retain all documentation~.related to check requests, court action, sentencing and follow-up. ,:~,.
In each case, Ms. Newman added, the RR0 would collaborate closely with the police officer throughout the latter's investigation and maintain liaison with the Crown throughout the course
of the judicial process. Ms. Newman stated that often, these
F ! ? 6. cases were not given high priority by the Crowns. This meant that when charges were laid and a court date,established, it would be up to the ERO to harass the Crown with telephone
calls in order to prevent a prosecutor from being assigned to the case perhaps only one-half hour before the case was to go,on. In court, Ms. Newman went on, the ERO would act as a witness
and advisor to the Crown in, order to ensure that the Ministry's interests were protected and that the relevant legislation was being properly interpreted.. The ERO also would have considerable
input into the pre-sentence report once a conviction was obtained, Ms. Newman added, in order to ensure that an appropriate order were obtained. For example, she stated, it would not
be appropriate to seek restitution if the defendant were back on Mother's Allowance. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to seek the imprisonment of a recipient having 6 children. It
was indicated that a lot of community services orders resulted from these prosecutions. The ERO also would be responsible, Ms. Newman testified, for reporting to the Ministry on developments
regarding the case, including-certain statistical data such as date of charge,-.-name of recipient, date case finalized, etc. Other statistical information which the ERO would be responsible
to provide would include quarterly caseload statistics, calculation of overpayments .~. and the completion of retroactive budget calculations for periods of complete or partial ineligibility
of recipients.
i. MS. Newman~ also stated that she and her co-worker in Ottawa participated in staff training,by giving addresses to Income,Maintenance Officers and General Welfare Workers regarding
developments and criteria for eligibility review. They also would attempt to teach staff the proper way in which to fill out various reports which the ERO's required for purposes of
their investigations.. On cross-examination, Ms. Newman generally agreed that.she did not~'spend much time in court. She stated that she had~ never had ~a case go to trial, that almost
always the recipient pleaded guilty at the preliminary hearing. In two ..,. ._, _ other cases, Ms. Newman added, the charqes were dropped. Ms. Newman estimated that in 1982, she spent
perhaps half a day in court on six different occasions, mostly observing the proceedings In 1983, she stated, she spent a total of about 3 to 4 days in court. In 1984, Ms. Newman went
on, her total time spent in court as a witness and advisor would have amounted to 20 working days. There was no negotiation with the Crown, Ms. Newman stated, she was there to provide
the Crown with information. At the same time, Ms. Newman insisted that at the""~~ time the grievance was filed neither she nor her co-worker had to seek approval from their supervisor
before discussing potential fraud cases with the police. She stated that the first time that she and her 'co-worker, Ms. Piffard, had files
. .z ,?, I 0. I I to discuss with the police, the ERO supervisor sat. in on the meeting. Thereafter, the supervisor indicated to the qrievors that her participation was not needed because
they, the ERO's , were better able to assess what cases were suitable for prosecution. From that point on, MS. Newman stated, neither she nor h~e,r co-worker ever reported to her regarding
what cases were referred. The .~. only form that the supervisor would sign was one to authorize release of a file to the police. This. would occur about two months after the discussion
with the police and their agreement to accep~t the case for their own fraud investigation. Referring to the position specification for the higherrated position of Parental Support Worker,
MS. Newman testified that in her view, the level of duties, responsibilities, skills and knowledge were essentially the same. This specification read as follows:
9. VARY OF3 unEs w40 REsPc"s,suTIESIl. DU,t .UEI..-x 00n r* YI*rol LOI" UIIU~ ‘UCTDDI ,,J.c.1,1oILI.L0*~. . . .r ar‘*~-cololrloru-rrunr.‘mu 1. Conciliates between the parties in order
to avoid and/or facilitate Court proceedings by: -acceptinq r*fzrr*1s'frcm s variety of sources fe.g. Hi"istry/Mu"ici.pal personnel, Couits, lawyers, Desertion Services Unit); ,I -inr-t-vi-vinq.
assessing circumstances and providing practical advice -&id directlo", where approprrate. in order to negotiate setdemenrs;. -referring clients to other appropriate agencies (e.g. Credit
Counsellihg8 +ervices). i. Performs field responsibilities by: _c conui.ng investjflations to determine whereabouts of payers to obtain ,Support orders or to resume,payme"+s; -contacrina
esclovers and any. other sources of information~in order to &ocate the pa⩽ -if and when contacted, assessino payor's financial ability to provide support/maintenance: -obtaininq
documents and preparing o&se for ‘CoWt hearing: -in default situations. assessi" the payor's ability to meet the terms of the order and drredrs: . --monitoring tc ensure payer *yriilLs
his undertaking, and initiating the appropriate Court action, if necessary. /:. -&eor~-.ants the Ministry/Municipality in Pamily Court/Unified Pdmily Court to make SubmissLon~r and clarifying
Ministry/Municipal policy for-the Court on Support and Custody applications, default heari"gs,.variatio" applications,s"d motions by: srsi~+i"g soc4.31 ossistsnce recipients in completion
of "eoesssrY Court doou~~nts suoh as f~nsncial statements a.nd Affidavits; -m”ir.dring.a~ta.--interviewing and ~scwdting wxth clients, respondents, and their lawyers :. -preparing rapcrts
Ecc the Court on request; . -inter&lg with Court personnel in case preparation; -preparinq Minuccs ot Settlement. 1. Knitiates.~ C?urr actron in tne ndms of the ninistry/n~niciprlity
in sppropriate crr%2mstances. alone or jointly with the client: -b_ringinq initial applica,tions for support: -applying for a v?riat@OE ,Fanily Court orders; -I iniYrat1ng knfdrcement
of Family Court order8 and ocher orders cugrscered for enfbrcement; -preparing necessary docwentstion for Court action; ~'-conduo_ti% proceedings in Court, including examination and
crossexamination of witnesses; -present$ng Of dc~e"tary&d&& and submuns to the Court; -epply-Lhg for order 1" tne name of the nlnistry/Hunicipa~i~y tc collect -:. srrears owing to ninistry/Municipeli
ty. PerForm? such clerical duties as: -preparing Parental Support WcrZar/Hinistry/Municipdl f@es for court hahrinqs, including where necesssry, calculation of amou.otXn drredrs, s"d7cr
ensures that apprcoriate documgpfaf+n is availnble: -schedulinq dares for Court hearings; -!SCnitcrlnq active pay ledger sheets, in the absence of Automatic Enforcemen+: -mnjtorina dorn;rnt
cay ledger sheets: -preparing correspo"oence (e.g. staff): 1eCtcrs to lawyers. Attorney General's -Completing statistical and p-reports: -answering inqurrrd'and provides information.
! reform ict and other r&ted legislations. Knowledge of Community resources. 1 f,xcellent inter-personal skills. Ability to work and negotiate with clients who re experiencing stressful
situations. Ability to deal with siruaCc>ns with tact.and d+l!m+y.~ Ability to liaise with ofher professionals. 'Ability to tynction indep@Fn@y, meet deadJlneS,and work under pr~ssura.
Smong orqanzacional abillcy, abjlliW_tO deAl%rth details. St&g al and commur~rc_a~~on akiLL..%. OemonsSr~90d ‘-Ljm&ggpt and decfninn m&i&~ ability. ~itte_n~and dqrftlumcv in FrUnglisb
is ~s~e~tikl for two (2) of these positions. i.. Addressing the Summary of Duties and Responsibilities in this specification, MS. Newman stated that she received referrals in the form
of complaints from a variety of sources. She conducted interviews not for the purpose of negotiating settlements but for the purpose of assessing credibility and the situation of. the
interviewee, providing practical advice and determining if .-there WaS a problem with child abuse, drug abuse, etc. She indicated that-another purpose served in the interview that she
conducted .was to advise the interviewee of alternative forms of assistance which might be available through the province oi municipality
..r‘ 3 11. As to investigations, MS. Newman stated that the investigations performed by an ERO would be more in-depth and .complex than that of a Parental Support Worker. She stated
that all that a Parental Support Worker did was to investigate the whereabouts of someone and ability to w-y I whereas the purpose of an ERO's investigation was tom identify a boyfriend
or common law husband of a recipien,t."-,* Continuing on, Ms. Newman stated that, as in the case a Parental Support Worker, an ERO was responsible for contacting employers and other
sources of information and was required to assess the financial ability of recipients, e.g., to make' restitution. While an ERO did not prepare a case for a court hearing as did a Parental
Support Worker, Ms. Newman stated, he or she did prepare a Fraud Summary and Synopsis which became part of the Crown brief and often was quoted in court. As to representing the Ministry
in court, Ms. Newman pointed to the activities of an ERO in acting as a witness or advisor in fraud cases. On cross-examination, however, it wae concedeh~ that this representation did
not include presenting the case. Moreover, with respect to appearances : before the Social Assistance Review Board (SARB), the grievor conceded that generally she acted as a witness
and only rarely ever conducted a case. She added, however, that she always prepared the Ministry's submissions.
! f c‘ .’ 12. Ms. Newman also agreed that an ERO did not assist recipient in filling out court documents such as financial statements. They did, however, take affidavits from anyone
who wished to make a statement.. Moreover, she stated, just as a Parental Support Workers must monitor accounts etc., an ERO was responsible for monitoring restitution, compensation
orders and recoveries of over-payments. As to interviewing and negotiating with clients, Ms. Newman emphasized that an ERO was involved in a considerable amount of interviewing.in the
course of his or her investigation and beyond, but conceded that there was no negotiation.;"." As for reports for the court, Ms. Newman pointed to the Fraud Summary and,Synopsis and
the summary of‘cases used for precedents. It was agreed, however, that these were.prepared for the use of the Crown and not the court per se. There was a great deal of interaction with
court personnel, Ms. Newman stated, in connection with the position of the ERO asaclvisor to the Crown. As to the initiation of court action in the name of the Ministry, Ms. Newman testified-that
the responsibility of an ERO to refer a case for fraud prosecution was comparabl'e. Once again, the witness soughtto analogize the Fraud Summary:~and ~-Synopsis to a court document and
the advisory function in fraud cases to the function of conducting a case, including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. With respect to the latter, Ms. Newman pointed out
once agai'n the odd occasion when she conducted a case before. SARB.
13. As to the clerical duties of the Parental Support Worker, MS. Newman indicated that he or she performed similar functions to those of an ERO, including the calculation of overpayments,
the monitoring of restitution payments and the preparation of correspondence. In the latter context; the griever indicated that she did not correspond directly with the Attorney General
but prepared letters for the signature of her supervisor. She did correspond with lawyers under her own signature and aiso with respect to her sources such as credit agencies and Revenue
Canada. Likewise, she was required to complete statistical reports .and answer inquiries and provide information. Turning tb the. skills and knowledge required of a Parenta Support Worker,
Ms. Newman stated that every requirement applied to the job of an ERO except the necessity to know the Family Law Reform Act. She stated that an ERO worked with very little supervision
and considerable autonomy and independence. It was. important to be well organized and self-disciplined and.have strong communication and inter'personal skills. MR. BOB WHI~W~RTB: The.next
witness called by the Union was Mr. Bob Whitwort who also was a grievor. He stated that at the time of the"grievahc he was an ERO in the North Bay Office. Mr. Whitworth was alone among
the grievors in claiming retroactivity back to March, 1982. (The others claimed retroactivity back to April 1, 1983). On cross-examination, Mr. Whitworth explained that:March, 1982 was
the date upon which the duties of the ERO in the North Bay~Office
1 14. substantially changed. He did not file a grievance at that time, he stated, because he already had grieved his then position title of Welfare Field Worker 1 to Clerk 7. When he
received his formal classification as an ERO, he stated, he re-filed this grievance claiming, once again, the classification of a Clerk 7 General. According to Mr. Whitworth, he started
to perform the duties formerly done in Toronto in March, 1982. Prior to that time, personnel in Toronto decided upon eligibility, overpayments and fraud referrals. Upon decentralization,
the power to~make these decisions went to Mr. Whitworth's supervisor, he stated, but the responsibility to make the recommendation went to him. It was at that time that he became responsible
to perform retroactive budget calculations, draft the Praud Summary and Synopsis, request ~,'T. original family benefit cheques, draft submissions for SARB, and attend SARB hearings.
Mr. Whitworth went on to say thatthe responsibility to perform retroactive budget calculations was particularly burdensome. While the Field-Workers did retroactive budget calculations
for a period of three months, the stated, it became more,complex once you~were required to go back farther. He stated that to perform the calculation that was required of:him,.it took
about~ .. 15 hours.-It took considerably more time to gather the documentatio: upon which to make this calculation, e.g., from Canada Pension, ,Social Security, and former employers.
It became his sole responsibility to calculate the oveipayment on the basis of this information. The result was rubber-stamped, he stated, by his
I ,i 15. supervisor. As to the day-to-day duties that he performed as an ERO, Mr. Whitworth generally confirmed the testimony given by Ms. Newman. There were, however, a few points of
distinction. One of these was that in North Bay, Mr. Whitworth had the additional responsibility to investigate applications for general,welfare. assistance~ for municipalities in the.unorganized
townships. This, however, was not a major part of his job, he stated, involving only 6-7 cases in the last five years.. ~ A more significant point of distinction was that in North Bay,
Mr. Whitworth had sole responsibility for conducting the.case for the Ministry at SARB hearings. Mr. Whitworth stated that he alone presented the Ministry's case, examined and crossexamined
witnesses and made oral submissions on behalf of the Ministry. His supervisor, Mr. Whitworth testified, never attended. Mr. Whitworth stated that he would do at least 15 to 20 cases
per year. The average case lasted..for a period of two hours. With respect to the referral of fraud cases to the:~Ontario Provincial Police, Mr. Whitworth testified that he made the
decision to refer a case by himself with little more than a formal concurrence from his supervisor. He stated that his recommendation was never turned down. His supervisor always signed
the bottom portion of.the Summary of Case Report sheet which acted as the standard
16. cover sheet in a referral to the police. Like Ms. Newman, he testifiedrfrom that point onward, he was primarily an informationprovider to the police and the Crown. The norm was to
meet with the Crown and the'investigating officer on the day of the trial. In a plea bargaining situation, he would, without authorization from his supervisor, set forth the position
of the Ministry. When asked&to compare his job with that of a Parental Support Worker, Mr. Whitworth essentially gave testimony which mirrored that of Ms. Newman: however, when it came
to the question whether an ERO initiated court actions in the name of the Ministry, Mr. Whitworth agreed that an ERO did not. He stated that an ERO. did not deal with~family court, did
not prepare documents for court and did not examine witnesses in court. This, Mr. Whitworth stated,was the role of the Crown. As to the skills and~knowledge required of a Parental Support
Worker, Mr. Whitworth testified that ERO's had to have an.equivalent level of knowledge~of relevant legislation and community resources. He stated that similarly, ERO's had to have strong
inter-personal skills and the ability. to work with clients, He added that.he did not think that an ERO negotiated with a client any lessthan a Parental Support Worker, and in fact,
he stated, the situation would be more,,stressful for an RR0 because he or she would be trying to uncover information related to the case. With respect to a client, he stated, this meant
that the ERO wou ,ld want them to admit what was going on. He indicated that an ERO has to.liaise with bank managers, executives in federal
! D i . 17. '?. agencies, etc., in terms of getting information and must be.able to function independently , meet deadlines and work under pressure. He stated that organizational ability,
ability to deal with details and communication skills were as important to an ERO as to a Parental Support Worker, particularly when acting as a witness in court or as a presenter at
SARB hearings. It went without saying that good judgment would also be required. MR. BOB HARPERi The next grievor to testify was Mr. Bob Harper; .He indicated that he and another grievor,
Ms. Eva Buchanan, functioned as ERO's in the Sudbury Office of the Ministry at the time of the grievance. At the outset of his testimony, Mr. .Harper identified the job specification
for,,the ERO in Sudbury, which read asfollows: TO conduct Investigations related to nllsqations of fraud or other sltua~lohs where the ollqibllity of F.B.A. or G.w.A. recipients is questioned;
to gather information to support d decision reqardlnq ongoing olLgibLllty and/or .crimlnal PI-O.i.?CUCL~~. TO act on behalf of the Ministry as a expert witness in crlmlnal +rt,,.qr.before
the Social Assistance Review Board as and when required.
i 18. iti**y d WflESAhO REsPOtiSIstCIrliS 1a”O,Sllt ,UCI*r.CL 0‘ n-t “Lhl o* LA<” IIc.,‘IC.“I ‘“,.c,Iel ,I.a.l*.Y.*l. IO”.I*C co*olra.I ““*,*.L “*I”*‘, 110 1. 80% Review eligibility
of recipients Of F.B.A:;or G.W.A. in unorganized territory in cases where ineligibility is suspected: -Receives written/oral complaint regarding suspected lnfra+On from various sources,
e.g. fieldworker, "eiqhbour, etc. -Reviews'complalnt with supervisor to decide if there is enough information co wrrdnr. ellgibllity review investigation. -1ncervievs complainant co
aeeess crediblllty and gain further Lnformacion, inrerviews other sauces, de appropriate, depending on specific allegaciotis, e.g. ~“erpayment, fraud, eec. -Interviews recipient of allorance
to advise of the allegation, to deliver proper caut10*, to complete d present condition report, obtain a statutory declaration (positive or neqative), ix5 cessation. to advise of the
on-qoinq investiqaclon or -Reviews all information received; determines what information carries the most weight with regard to eliqibillty. -Makes recommendation to su~ervlsor with
regard to onqolnq eligibilty consistenT with F.B.A. policy and pro&dual quldelines or G.W.A. policy and procedural guidelines. -Maintains all personal notes and information from investigation
as part of the Eligibility Revlaw File for further reference. -Completes ONTAP order to input any changes in case Status as a result of eligibility review report. -Prepares letters,
as appropriate, to advise recipient of the cancellation of allowance and that file is under review. If Criminal Code or Provincial Offences Act offence has been perpetrated in relation
to assls~ance received under F.B.A. or G.W.A. by non-disclosure, mlsrepresentatlon or fraud, the incinbent and supervisor will recommend the case to the Area .Yanoqer/Dlstrict Hanager
to d;:ex$"e suitability of case for-criminal investiqacion. , the lncvmbent: -shall prepare case summary ro assisr police to ensure comprehensive inclusion of details and case history
Lnforbation. -Shall be responsible for mdintainlnq update of case SctiVitieS subsequent to the police accepting the case and CommeRcinq their own inVeS.tiqaEiOn and the court process.
-Upon request from the Provincial Prosecutor (Crown Attorneyl, shall asSist 1" case preparauo" prior to PresentatiOn in COUEE. -Shall act o" behalf of the Hlnistry as a" expert witness
in Criminal Court or before the Social Assistance Review Board as and when required; "may also be required to write reports for Ssclal Assistance Review Board submission for a Supervisor
S1g"acUEe~. -Shall report on case development is required. -AS required, shall conxecc Court ~inistrator/Probatlo" Officer to ensue Festltutfon payments are sent to Local/Are.3 Office
in jurisdiction of court. -Shall request cancelled cheques from Accounts Branch ensurinq their receipt, safe kee$i"q and return. -Conducts regular ongoing bi-annual school checks to
determine that beneficiaries of a" allowance are atcendinq school 8s required. -0acermine wrlods of eliqiblllty or lnelLglblllty by budget rev~eu process. -~ 1 -Verify receipt of contenw
of the corporate file when returned by O.P.P. 2. 159 Provides prastlcal counselllnq and direction to recipients as a result of eliqibility review involvement with reference to employment,
education, financial management, additlonel benefits, etc. Acts ee a resource specialfsi in ellgibilLty revlew and related metpers to Wlnistry and Nunlclpal Social Services Staff. 3.
5%‘ Provides statistical and other information reqardlng aligiblllt~ revieu.caseload in accordance with Ministry reportlnq requlreaente a"d other related duties. Performs other duties
as assigned.
I ‘. 19. NOTE: Thecomplexity and judgement exercised~by the Ellq&bility Review Officer In the i”vescigatLon activity, via a via, confidentiality, discretion, diplomacy and insight correlates
to the lenqth and breadfh of the parcscular lnvestlqation. Where thorouqh, systematic search/investigation is required, incumbents must be aware of the overall impact, effect of their
investiqation on the respective client’s livelihood, credit ratinq, self esteem, privacy, et=. and be sensitive to these issues uhlle conducting the Lnveatiqation. Incumbents may be
required to perform the duties at irregular hours due to the nature of the work. i 5K11.15A N0 KNOWLEOGER EOUlREO7 .0P ERFORMT "E waRKmr~1 ‘Dvormm. m.lwac.‘A~I"I‘*S‘~T" Several years
experience in a social service or related environment with ability to establish satisfactory relationships with clients, community agencies, business enterprises, peers and other Ministry
staff. Knowledge of the local social service aqencies and their resources. Ability to interview under adverse conditions and pursue factual lnfon&stlon. Requires utmost tact, integrity,
good knowledge of the relevant Ninistry Acts, Aegulatlons, Policies and Guidelines, i.e. Family Benefits AssLstance Act, G&?eral Welfare Assistance Act, Family Law Reform Act, Child
Welfare Act, Provincial Offences Act, CrLmlnal Code, Family C Children’s Services and other government programs. Demonstrated good judqement and decision makinq ability. A good knowledqe
and understandinq of the criminal court process and ablllty to undergo cross-examination by adversary attorneys in the criminal COUE. M.ISZ be able to meet deadlines, function in stressfu~~situations
and be detail oriented. A valid Ontario driver’s licence Is required. Eliqiblity Rzview Officer -hdbury po.siuM cede 17-7040-17 1*grAl3thatthLSLs*-*t8 &scrip* of the duties perform33
bythismJploye8.
i 20. Mr. Harper indicated that for the most part, he agreed that this specification described his duties and responsibilities. He indicated, however, that prior to the publication of
this job specification, in June, 1984, he and his co-worker made their own decisions regarding whether to proceed with an investigation. Now, he testified, that decision is made by the
supervisor, who might request additional information before authorizing an investigation to take place. Mr. Harper also stated that at the time of the grievance it was up to him and
his co-worker to decide whether to,call~ in the Ontario Provincial Police for the purposes of laying fraud charges. Now, however, he stated, the matter is referred to his supervisor
for approval. His supervisor plays an active role in the.decision making process, he testified, and often checks with one of them t0 assist in deciding whether the recommendations of
the other ought to be approved. Mr. Harper indicated that he also performed additional tasks. Because of previous experience as an insurance investigator, he stated, he often was called
upon to investigate the cost of building repairs alleged to be required by clients. In addition, he frequently searched titles both in the cours~e of, his duties -~ as an ERO and as
a favour to Field Workers and Parental Support Workers. On occas~ion, he added, he has been called upon to investigate complaints about Field Workers in order to determine whether a
change in Field Worker would be appropriate. Upon cross-examination , I
! 21. Mr. Harper conceded that at the time of the grievance he had not raised any of these additional duties with his supervisor. When asked to compare his duties with those of Ms. Newman,
Mr. Harper indicated that the number of complaints would be at about the same level, the duration of the investigation :would be longer --about 3 to 4 months --.and that the number of
appeals would be about 12 per year as opposed to 17. AS to fraud cases, Mr. Harper indicated that his office would handle about 7 to 8 per year, not 17. He indicated that ~the Ontario
Provincial Police detachment in Sudbury was strict about the quality of case that had to exist before they would take it on. As .to appeals to SARB, -Mr. Harper stated that by the time
of the grievance he had represented the Ministry only twice. He indicated that the current procedure is to have the case present& by the supervisor with the ERO being called as a witness.
Mr. Harper also indicated that about three years ago, .~ he was part of a seven-person committee which drafted the current ERO Manual over a period of about one year. He stated that
another of the grie~vors, Ms. Piffard, also~was a member of this committee.
‘< i 22. When asked to compare his duties and responsibilities, etc., with those of the Parental Support Worker from Sudbury, Mr. Harper gave testimony which essentially reflected that
of the other grievors. He agreed with Mr. Whitworth that an ERO was not involved in preparing documents for court or initiating court proceedings. Twice in the last eight years, he indicated,
he was involved in giving the Ministry's position "on the spot"in a plea bargaining situation; This, he stated,was like negotiating with the respondent and lawyers. As to the category
of skills and knowledge, Mr. Harper indicated that an ERO required all of the skills and knowledge listed in the job specification for the Parental Support Worker; He added that, in
his view, an ERO worked under much more stressfu. -;~ conditions than a Parental Support Worker and must use the utmost tact and diplomacy. He stressed the serious consequences -that
could result from the decision of an ERC. MR. D. HILL.-The Union also called as a witness Mr. D. Hill, who was a Parental‘Support Worker in the Mississauga Office of the Ninistry from
1981 to 1984, and thereafter became a combination Parental Support Worker-ERO for the regions of Halton, Peel"and the County of Dufferin. Mr. Hill stated that as of June, 1984, he spent
three days per week performing the function of a Parental Support Worker
23. and the remaining two'days as an ERO. On Monday and Tuesday of each week, he stated, he was occupied in Fami,ly Court in Burlington Milton and Oakville. This left one day per week
to accommodate the administrative/clerical tasks of his Parental Support Worker function. When asked for his opinion of the similarities between the Parental Support Worker and ERO jobs,
Mr. Hill stated that there was a strong similarity in the area of locating'people, in the sense that the Parental Support Worker located people, wh~o were under an obligation to pay
support while the ERO located people to act as providers of information regarding potential overpayment or fraud situations. The witness emphasized that, in his opinion, the crucial
factor was that the purpose of the two jobs. was very similar --recouping money for the taxpayer. Mr. Hill further stated that he believed that in both jobs, experience in the position
was of greater importance than in some other types of positions. He added that in both cases errors in judgment co."‘u..~~2; d-be costly, and that exercising sound judgment,~ tact and
diplomacy was more important in the position of ERO because of the negative impact of the latter's investigations upon privacy, etc. On cross-examination, Mr. Hill agreed with counsel
for , the Ministry that i t was necessary‘for the Parental Support Worker I /
‘, 24. to develop the ability to speak in court. From that standpoint, he stated, it would be more difficult to perform the Parental Support Worker job in the first six months than the
ERO position because it took this long to "get the hang of" making court appearantes. He stated that initially,-the' Parental Support Worker would feel inadequate and inferior in the
courtroom, and that it would take about one year for the Parental Support Worker to feel competent to handle anything that cropped up in the job. On the other side of the coin, Mr. Hill
stated that the ERO dealt with so many different situations that it would be impossible to "get it down" to a particular system like the Parental Support Worker position. He went on
to give examples of bizarre and unusual situations which had occurred ins the course of his experience as an ERO. He stated that nothing so strange had ever occurred in the context of
his job as a Parental Support Worker. He also indicated that the contacts of a Parental Support Worker were fairly limited and repetitive while the contacts of an ERO involved a wide-ranging
network of sources, many of whom the ERO had never before met. He further stated that the ERO operated without as many backup contacts within the Ministry .::.. as the Parental Support
Worker. ~. ~-MR. G. WISHAE: The next witness for the Union was Mr. G. Wishak who had been a Parental Support Worker in the North Bay Office of the Ministry from August 1979 onward. Mr.
Wishak gave detailed testimony regarding his duties as a Parental Support Worker. He
also stated that in 1984, he was approached by the General Services Supervisor, Mr. R. Ettles, and asked if he would consider rotating jobs with Mr. Whitworth, who was then the ERO,
in order to accommodate the latter's desire for career enhancement. Mr. Wishak indicated on cross-examination that he accommodated this request but did not really want it. He stated
that he believed that he should~ rotate into the job of Programme Supervisor in order to benefit his own career. In the end, nothing happened because shortly thereafter;~ Mr. Whitworth
left the Ministry to take.up responsibilities with the Union. Mr. Wishak stated that both he and the ERO in his office used a very similar networking of sources of information and cooperated
with each other in obtaining and sharing information. He was, however, unable-to provide any valid comparison bdtween the Parental Support Worker and ERO position. MR. R. ETTLES: Mr.
R. Ettles, who was the General Services Supervisor in the North Bay Office at the time of the grievances, was the first witness called to give evidence on behalf of the Ministry. Significantly,
he was the Supervisor of two witnesses who.testisfied on .. bahalf of the grievors, Messrs. Whitworth Andy Wishak. Mr. Ettles stated that the Parental Support Worker Programme began
as a project in the mid-1970's. Apparently, the Management Board of Cabinet became con~cerned that considerable amounts of money were owed to the Province of Ontario in the form of arrears
of debtor-husbands by virtue of the absence of
26. a working enforcement system. It was decided to implement the Parental Support Worker Programme to see to it that orders for support that were in existence were enforced. Later,
the progranunt was expanded in order to permit the Parental Support Worker to negotiate private agreements. Mr. Ettles went on to state that later, a similar kind of initiative led to
the development of the ERO position. This was set up to catch people who were receiving family benefits when they were not eligible, e.g., because they had fewer children than they claimed
or were not living singly. Before the ERO position was implemented, some of this work had been done by Field Workers, but this, according to Mr. Ettles, was a marginal kind of activity.
When asked to compare the jobs of Parental Support Worker and ERO, Mr. Ettles stated that the significant difference between them was that the Parental Support Worker was responsible
._ ;,I.i---,~. for making final decisions having an impact upon the entire process; the ERO, however, solely was responsible for making recommendations. It was common for the Parental
Support Worker, he stated, to be required to make on-the-spot decisions in court where he or she would be unable to turn to anyone else. This would occur inthe process of negotiating
a court order, he stated, when the court might make the'Parenta1 Support Worker an offer which has to be accepted or rejected. The de~cision would have to'be made upon the basis of the
worker's knowledge of the Judge and
. ‘, 27. the characteristics of the debtor. Such decisions were made regularly, Mr. Ettles stated, and led to a consent order. He added that if the Parental Support Worker opted not
to agree, it would be up to him to argue the merits of the case before the Judge and risk what the Judge would decide. The ERO, he stated, did not make any decisions having a final impact
upon.the programme. The final decision, he said, was made by the supervisor. He stated thata.Parental Support :~ . .:.,, Wdrker, in contrast, was able, without the supervisor's authority,
to commence actions under the Family.Law Reform Act, strike a deal in court with the debtor,-.and decide to withdraw an action. He also stated that Parental Support Workers frequently
corresponded directly with the lawyers for the debtors and signed their own lerte Supervisors did not become involved, -he stated;.unless something went wrong, It was their functions
as supervisors, he said, to guid.e them, not to do their job for them. The decision-making process of an ERO, by contrast, he stated, involved deciding which persons to interview with
respect to a given case. The FRO also had to decide.at the completion of the case upon what kind of recommendation to-make to the supervisor. But, Mr. Ettles emphasized, they would 'I'
only frame recommendations to go to him. In cross-examination, however, he conceded that he rarely refused a recommendation which,was made by Mr. Whitworth. He added that on occasion,
however, .he did reject hiss recommendations, although this might
have happened only one time in a year. As to the involement of a Parental Support Worker in a case, Mr. Ettles stated that it was of a continuing nature. He said that even after a Parental
Support Worker obtained an order in court, he or she had the responsibility to monitor the file to ensure that payments were actually made. If they were not, the Parental Support Worker
had to enforce the order by taking steps to summon the debtor before the courtonce again. If faced with a continuing refusal to pay, Mr. .Ettles testified, the Parental Support Worker
could, if it was thought to be appropriate, request an ordercommittingthe debtor to jail for defying the court. None of these things, Mr. Ettles stressed,.~would require the supervisor's
authorization. Then Parental Support Worker, Mr. Ettles testified, would consult with him but he would not interfere with the decision of the Parental Support Worker unless there was
a very specific reason for doing so. On this score, Mr. Ettles testified, the involvement of an ERO would be very different. Apart from lacking responsibilit. to initiate or conduct
a proceeding in court, there‘would be .~ little continuing involvement with the file.~~ If an order fbr -. '-restitution were issued by a court in a fraud prosecution, it generally would
form~part of a probation order which would be enforced through the Office of the Provincial Court. While the ERQ would check from time to time &see that payments were being made, he
would not have any responsibility to initiate
29. action in cases of default. His responsibility, Mr. Ettles stated, would be to contact the Probation Officer of the recipient and between the two of them, they would decide what
could be done about it. Mr. Ettles added that he had never been involved in this kind of a procedure. All of the restitution orders that he had seen, he said, were paid. When asked on
cross-examination whether the ERO position required ingenuity and a great deal of problem-solving ability, Mr. Ettles replied that ingenuity and problem-solving skills were required
by everyone in his profession, including Welfare Field ,Workers. He went on to say that an ERO was not an investigator but rather a person who reviewed the,eligibility criteria of persons
in receipt,of benefits. There was,he stated, some structure regarding how that review was to be done. He emphasized that the ERO was not to act as an investigator or a police officer.
The review performed by the ERQ, he said,was no more substantial than the review that an Income Maintenance Officer had to do. The ERO did not, he insisted, get into highly complicated
or quasi-secretive investigations. The job of an ERO, he concluded, required no moae“than a review based upon the eligibility criteria. MRS. C. BRUCE: The next witness to testify for
the Ministry was Mrs. C. Bruce, a~Parenta1 Support Worker at the Integration Project in the Regional Municipality of Peel. 'Mrs. Bruce testified that her job involved dealing with General
Welfare Act and Family Benefits
30. -A ct cases in Peel. In her capacity as a Parental Support Worker, blrs.Bruce stated,~she pursued support from the absent spouse right from the initial application for welfare assistance.
She stated that she interviewed the applicant to determine whether support might be obtained by voluntary agreementor whether she would have to go to court. Mrs. Bruce stated that the
Regional Municipality of Peel was integrated in January, 1983, before she commenced her duties as a Parental Support Worker. ~By virtue of this integration, the Provincial and Municipal
Assistance Programmes for mothers with dependent children were combined. The purpose was to streamlir, the distribution of benefits, with no duplication of files between the Municipal
and Provincial Offices. Mrs. Bruce went on to say chat only seven or eight municipalities have integrated in this fashion. The witness stated that for clients who had an unpaid support
court order, she would assist in initiating default proceedi before the courts. In such cases, MrslBruce went on, the order w-suld be assigned to the municipality or the Ministry: Once
that was done, Mrs. Bruce testified, she would attempt to contact the ~-spouse to see if hewould recommence payments prior to court action. If so, she would advise him to make the payments
at court and maintain contact with her if he should find himself unable to keep it up. If the spouse were unto-operative, Mrs. Bruce added, she would institute default proceedings before
the court. I
I 1 : ” 31. In all court proceedings, Mrs. Bruce stated, she negotiated between the parties. If the parties had lawyers, she negotiated with the lawyers. In the event that no settlement
was reached, the matter proceeded to trial. Because a Parental Support Worker did not have counsel, Mrs. Bruce went on, she had to conduct her own trials. She added that ocasionally
her clients retained their own counsel but she still would ask to speak to the court on behalf of the Ministry or Municipality. Mrs. Bruce further testified that she also participated
in variation proceedings which were brought by her clientor the debtor. She stated that the Ministry would encourage the bringing of such an action where the order was old, insufficient
or there was an improvement in the financial position of the debtor. On the other side of,the c,oin, she stated, she also had occasion to encourage debtors to obtain counsel and-seek
variation downward where it was obvious that they were unable to pay the~existing order and had fallen into arrears. Turning to the subject of post-benefit arrears, Mrs. Bruce stated
that when assistance ended, she had to determine how much the debtor's spouse owed the Municipality or Ministry:. ~: She explained that the Parental Support Workers were responsible
for moving to separate the ledgers in court. This was essential, she stated, because the assignment to the Ministry or Municipality would no longer be valid when the client went off
assistance.
32. As to her monitoring function, Mrs. Bruce stated that she was responsible for monitoring all Of her assigned cases, to check to see if the orders were being paid. If not, she said,
she then had to decide what to do, i.e., whether to take the matter to court, garnish the wages of the debtor, or take some other action. Mrs. Bruce went on to say that if the Parental
Support Worker were.unsuccessful in collecting money, he or she could apply to the Judge for a warrant of committal and send the debtor to jail. Mrs. Bruce further testified that she
completed a number of documents for use in court. At the outset, she stated, she would prepare with the assistance of the client a two-part application asking for custody and support
and outlining prior orders. This application might also request the court to make a finding of parentage. In addition, she stated, she would list . the grounds for the application and
prepare the necessary financial statement. Upon default, Mrs. Bruce added, she would prepare an affidavit of.arrears and a request for enforcement. The Parental Support Worker , she
stated, is authorized to sign such documents on behalf of the Ministry. Other documents which she independently prepared and submitted in court, Mrs. ~Bruce stated, included a request
for garnishment form and motions, e.g., for substituted service, CO separate ledgers, to rescind a garnishment, or for release-_
! i --33. of information regarding the place of employment or the whereabouts of the debtor. Mrs. Bruce added that she also prepared affidavits in support of these motions. The affidavits
would be sworn by anyone in the capacity of a Commissioner for Oaths in Ontario. Mrs. Bruce further testified that she also became involved in negotiating private agreements,for payment
.of support. She said that if the clientwantedto stay out of court and the spousewas willing to pay for support, she would write him a letter requesting.to discuss it. The letter would
include a blank .financiz statementfor him to complete and document. In such circumstances, Mrs. Bruce stated, the Parental Support Worker acted .as a type of "facilitator" upon behalf
of the client. The monthly payments werepaid to the client and not the Ministry. Mrs. Bruce also stated that she became involved in paternity suits on behalf of clients. According to
~her testimony, at least a 50% of her clients were not married. Not uncommonly, the dependent child might have issued out of a short term relation-.ship. In such cases,.Mrs. Bruce said,
the Parental Support Worker pointedout to the client tha'c the father still had 'an obligation ~.~ to support.the child. The nextstep was to make applicatiafi to .~ the court for finding
of parentage. If the alleged father denied paternity, blood testing could be required and the arrangements for this would be made by the Parental Support Worker. Mrs. Bruce added that
if it looked like there was going to be a fight in court regarding parentage, she would advise the client to
34. obtain her own lawyer as well. Another area in which a Parental Support Worker became involved, Mrs. Bruce stated, was reciprocal enforcement of maintenance. She stated that when
there was an order for support from another jurisdiction, she would obtain a certified copy of that order and have the client complete an affidavit as to the~amount owed, where the debtor
resided and worked,his physical description, the birth certificates of the children and the relevant marriage and divorce papers. These documents were then filed with the court to be
sent to the reciprocal enforcement office of the Lo Attorney General's Department. Mrs. Bruce stated that this ~was a long, slow process. She added that in this area, she dealt with
all the provinces of Canada, two-thirds of the states of 'the United States, Britain and Australia. Turning to the volume of her work-load, Mrs. Bruce stated that she got about 35 to.40
referrals per month. Of these, about 40% went to court.In an average week, Mrs. Bruce testified, shewent to court on Monday and Wednesday and normally remained there all day. Usually,
she stated, her hearings were over by 1:00 p.m. and she spent the remainder of her time in the courthouse filling in forms such as requests for enforcement or reciprocal enforcement
of maintenance, etc. She added that she usually met informally with the court administrator two times per month.
I On Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, Mrs. Bruce testified, shewas at the office. There she schedu1e.d appointments with clients to come in and complete the necessary court documentat:
Mrs. Bruce stated that she usually scheduled two to four appointmen; per day and that the average interview could take from one-half hour to two hours. While at the office, Mrs. Bruce
added, she was available for consultation with Social Workers. They might, she :;.: : explained, have questions about whether to make a referral to ~ her or.could have a complicated
case with two to three husbands and several children. Also, she testified, she scheduled training sessions once a month for Social Workers. In these she discussed problems she had noticed
in the preceeding month, administrative changes, and perhaps.new court procedures. As to the extent to which she was subject to supervision, Mrs. Bruce stated that she did not receive,
nor did she need, practically any input from her supervisor. Referrals came directly to her from the Field Workers. They did not pass through the supervisor. All of the court proceedings,
she added, were handled ~~..' ~-without involvement of the supervisor. . .._ '.. 1~ Upon cross-examination, Mrs. Bruce was asked to breakdown her job according to the amount of time
spent on each function. She responded that she spent the majority of her time on enforcement
: 36. of assigned orders, i.e., searching for spouses, interviewing spouses, garnishment proceedings and conducting hearings. Her next most frequent activity, Mrs. Bruce stated, involved
negotiating new agreements and filling out forms for obtaining new orders. The least amount of her time, Mrs. Bruce asserted, was spent on searching for debtors. In this regard, Mrs.
Bruce said, she depended to a great extent upon the assistance of Field Workers. MRS. J. M. O'CALLAEiAN: The next witness called to.testify for the Ministry was Mrs. J. M. O'Callahan.
Mrs. O'Callahan stated that in 1979-80,prior to decentralization, she was an ERO in the Mississauga Office of the Ministry. Then, in 1980-81, she became a Parental Support Worker. Thereafter,/from
November, 1981 to October, 1984, ~she went into management as the Income Maintenance Supervisor for the same office. In this capacity, Mrs. O'Callahan stated> she.supervised, inter B,
employees p.erforming the Parental Support Worker function. At the same time, she said, she never supervised any ERO's. Despite this, Mrs. O'Callahan added, she often was called upon
after she left the ERO position to give pointers to her successors regarding investigatibn, sources of infonnation,~ and interviewing clients. She stated that she was directly involved
in training four people in the ERO role: three prior to integration in 1982 and one post-integration, In addition, Mrs. O'Callahan testified, she remained involved in the fraud cases
which resulted from her work as an
i 37. EEO even after she became the Income Maintenance Supervisor. In fact, she testified, as of April 28, 1986, she was still going to court as a witness in some of these cases. Mrs.
O'Callahan went on to compare the ERO and. the Parental Support Worker positions in responsibility, level of judgment and complexity. With respect to responsibility, Mrs. O'Callahan
stated that the Parental Support Workers were responsible for their own decisions in the.course of their duties. For the most part, she said, they were charged with independent responsibili
By.way of example, she stated that the Parental Support Worker was required to think on his or her feet in court. The employee was not expected to say to the court that he or she had
to check with the supervisor to obtain permission before agreeing to a particular disposition. By way of contrast,~Mrs. O'Callahan went on, the job of an ERO.was to gather information
to support a decision on eligibility. There was no independent authority, e.g., to decide to suspend or reduce an allowance or to refer a case to the police. Amplifying these thoughts
upon cross-examination, Mr. O'Callahan stated that the ERO always had checks and balances before his 'or .'. her case went into court. I't'.went through the supervisor. Then the OPP
performed their own investigation, and evenafter that, the case had to "pass mus.ter" with the Crown.. These differences, she stated, placed the ERO position eat a lower level than that
of a Parental Support Worker. She stated that a Parental Support Worker
38. represented.the Ministry. It would be embarrassing to the Ministry if the worker went to cciurt unprepared or upon the wrong premise. The consequences of a loss would be a loss of
revenue to the Ministry. By czntrast she stated, an ERO could only embarrass the Ministry'if he or she made an erroneous recommendation and the supervisor agreed with it. Nrs.O'Callahan
went on to say that both the ERO.and Parental Support Worker positions called for strong investigative skills and required the exercise of good judgment at all times in the performance
~of an investigation. In court, however, an ERO was not required to present a case but merely to act as an expert witness. The Parental Support Worker, on the other hand, was expected
to act as an advocate representing the Ministry. These differences, she stated, indicated significantly different levels of responsibility and authority. At the same time, Mrs. O'Callahan
agreed on crossexamination that as an ERO she never went before SARB to present the Ministry's case. Nor, she conceded, did she contact court administrators-to ensure restitution payments;
request cancelled cheques; verify receipts: or calculate overpayments. -M-RS. P.KEEL.: The final witness for the Ministry was Mrs. P. Keel. Mrs. Keel testified that prior to leaving
the Ministry in February, 1983, she had several years experience as a-specialist in classification risccers.
39. Mrs. Kee which was struck to 1 testified that she was part of a committee establish the responsibilities of the ERO's and their classification. According to her testimony, some difficu
was encountered in establishing a classification for them. Initially, it was felt that they should be in the classification of Welfare Field Worker 2. They seemed to fit these class
standard in a narrow way in that they had a smaller case load with more intense involvement. The problem was that the non-client based nature of the position was foreign to the Field
Worker class standard. There was no on-going relationship intended between the ERO and the client. This was the hallmark of a Field Worker's job. 'Ads a result, it was decided that the
ERO's would be better classified in the clerical series. This would reflect the more administrative, auditing function. Accordingly, in 1983, the ERG's were classified atypically in
the classification of Clerk 6 General. Mrs. Keel also testified that she was involved in a group which was responsible for the classification of the positior of Parental Support Worker.
She stated -that like the ERO's, the Parental Support Workers were initially classified in the classification of.Welfare Field Worker 2. This was based u~pori '~ the counselling aspects
of the job and the responsibility to obtain maintenance from debtor spouses. When decentralization occurred, she stateh, many more resources were given to this 1 position-and management
asked for a review of the classification.
i: 40. The request for review was based upon an assertion that the level was not sufficient to recognize the duties which were being required to be performed. As a result of the review,
she stated, the job was reclassified in 1978,'somewhat atypically" in the classification of Clerk 7 General. Mrs. Keel stated that from a classification point of view, the positions
in the Income Maintenance program could be thought of as a continuum, progressing from the lowest-level job of Income Maintenance Officer to the highest level of Parental Support Worker.
At the ~bottom, she stated, the Income Maintenance Officer was responsible for initiating an application and maintaining an on-going relationship with the client. At the,intermediate
level, she went on , the ERO was responsible for reviewing the decision to grant benefits and related documents~,and to determine whether, inter &, criminal proceedings were to be taken.
At the highest level, Mrs. Keel related, was the position of Parental Support Worker. Employees in this position performed a very different function:. to get assignments of maintenance
to the Ministry so that some costs of the Income Maintenance Programme would be recovered and all spouses would fulfill their support obligations. This involved more of a relationship
--of a short-term nature --with the client than did the ERO job.. Moreover, Mrs. Keel added, this position, with responsibility for representing the Ministry in court would be seen as
more responsible than the ERO, which, in turn, is seen as more responsible than the Income Maintenance Officer.
In classifying a position, Mrs. Keel stated that first, .she would look at the Preamble to determine if the posit would fit into the Class Series. That is why, she explained, the classification
of the ERO position as Clerk 6 General was considered atypical. Upon first glance, the job would not appear to be .~F-.'~ very relevant to the classification at hand. But, she stated,
if one were to turn to the standard for Clerk 6 General it would become more relevant. ~ The standard for Clerk 6 General reads as follows: CLERK 6 GENERAL CLASS DEFINITION: Bmployees
in positions allocated to this class perform specialized complex clerical or sub-professional work which forms a significant part of the administration of the organization concerned.
Decision-making requires the analysis of complex problems in specialized cleric& fields or arise from the supervision of a large staff where the volume, variety and complexity of the
duties is extensive. Considerable judgment in the interpretation and application of a wide variety of regulations, statutes or practices is necessary to resolve these problems. The work
is reviewed through standardized reporting procedures, principally to assess the contribution made to branch administration. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Grade 12 education, or an equivalent combination
of education and experience: preferably successful completion of extension courses or similar training‘ related to the work to be performed; thorough knowledge of the techniques of office
management. 2. About eight years of responsible clerical experience, .~~ preferably involving some related administrative responsibility, or an equivalent combination of experience and
higher education.
i _. i,. I s’. 42. 3. Sound judgment: ability to plan, organize and coordinate the activities of a relatively large group of subordinates; ability to initiate and revise procedures,
and supervise the preparation of a variety of reports; ability to promote and maintain co-operative working relationships. . Reviewing this class standard, Mrs. Keel stated that employees
in the ERO position were regarded as perfor,m. ing a specialized complex fUnCtiCn as a.significant part of the administration df their organization. As to decision making, their decisions
required the analysis of complex problems, e.g., deciding whether there were grounds disclosed during an investigation upon which to refer a matter to the police for fraud. With respect
to the element of judgment, Mrs. Keel stated that the ERO did use judgment in the interpretation and application of regulations. Finally, as to supervision, she stated, the work of an
EROwas reviewed 'through standardized reporting procedures. Mrs. Keel stated that this implied that supervision was not of a day-to-day nature but rather by virtue of the incumbent making
report: to management which might be used in. assessing their work. Mrs. Keel added that the ERO would also have a need for the use.of sound judgment and ability to organize their work,
etc. -Summarizing her analysis, Mrs. Keel said that the whole class standard for Clerk 6 General was more expressive of a level of.work rather than a particular type of work. She stated
that she considered the duties of an ERO to-fit comfortably into~this
k3. class definition --not from a programme, i.e., social service, relationship but from the perspective of level of decision-making. Counsel for the Ministry then directed the attention
of the witness to the class standard for Clerk 7 General, which reads as follows: CLERK-l, GENERAL CLASS DEPINITION: Employees in positions allocated to this class perform clerical administrative
work in the implementation of a departmental program. Although these positions vary wide11 in the range of duties and the diversity of supervisory responsibilities, they are characteri.zed
by the finality of operational decisions made, the complexity of the $rogrE administered, and the confidence placed in the recommendations'of the incumbents. tiployees in these positions
receive general instruction on departmental. policy or changes in procedure from an administrative official who initiates new assignmer through~ expressed objectives. They supervise
personally, or through subordinates, all activities in a large clerical adminis,t.rative operation. They organize work assignments, originate, install and maintain procedures, assist
in selection and replacement of staff and integrate the work to produce results as expeditiously and efficiently as possible. In some positions, their supervisory responsibility is of
a functional nature due to the geographical location of their subordinates. In these positions they ensure conformity with departmental -procedures, observe expenditur trends, analyze
problem situations, and are responsible .-for all activities under their control. In other position: they perform specialized duties related to the drafting and presentation of policy
statements, instructions to staff and special reports to their supervisors. In all positions, they are required to exercise tact and judgment and to develop effective working relationship:
in their personal contacts.
..i ,. 5 ,... 44. QUXLPICATIONS: 1. Grade 12 education, or an equivalent combination of education, experience, and training: preferably comple. tion of related university extension or
other recognize courses; thorough knowledge of the principles and techniques of office management; considerable knowledgt not only of the program related to their work assignmel but
also of the policies and programs of the departmeni as a whole. 2. About ten years of progressively responsible, related clerical or administrative experience or an equivalent combination
of related experience, higher education and specialized knowledge. 3. Ability to analyze the effectiveness of the program for which they are responsible: superior judgment in making
decisions and in the recommendations which they present; marked ability to supervise and co-ordinate in their field of responsibility; ability to initiate, revise and interpret a~ variety
of complex procedures; personal characteristics suitable to good interpersonals working relationships with many professional persons. Referring to the class definition in this class
standard, Mrs. Keel stated that from a classification point of view.;.the positi of Parental Support Worker fit better into the above standard. ,. More specifically, she stated that
while the job was not typical of the class standard i.n its non-supervisory nature,the ,requirement of finality of operational decisions related directly to the decisions made in court
where the Parental Support Worker either.. '~ presented the case for the Ministry or acted as a witness for the Crown. Mrs. Keel stressed that Parental.Support Workers were independent.
They were more responsible than ERO's for the part of the programme in which they worked.
45. Expanding upon this relationship, Mrs. Keel stated that the real responsibility of the Parental Support Worker resided in its specialized nature and the court relationship, along
with the responsibility for negotiating private agreements and acting for the Ministry. By contrast, she stated, in the ERO position the courts work was handled by the Crown after an
OPP investigation. They also had greater access to their supervisor, she stated, before the final decision was made. Summing..up, the witness stated that Clerk 7 General was regarded
as a highly responsible level and that the Parental Support Worker fit the Clerk 7 General as well as an atypical classification cculd. She added that in context, what was most significant
was the generalized level of decision making and responsibility. Mrs. Keel also gave testimony regarding classification procedure. The initial step, she stated, was for the Classification
Officer from the Personnel Branch of the Ministry to look at the position, the manager's recommendation, the existing classification and the class standards. She stated that there are
many volumes of class standards. The first step is to look,in them for the occupational group which the position might fit. Then the job '~ is compared to the related class standards.
L until there is found a class series in which the officer is able to compare functions; skills and responsibilities.
At this stage, Mrs. Keel went on, the Classification Officer then begins at the lowest level and compares the whole job to each level until a match is found. 'All the duties are looked
at in combination, not singly. For assistance in making this compari the witness stated, the Classification Officer has access to the Civil Service Commission and can examine other positions
which are classified at that level to validate a classification decision. In response to specific questions regarding the position specification for the ERO in Sudbury, Mrs. Keel indicated
that she believed that there was a considerable amount of "specialized complex clerical work" which fit the ERO job. This would include, she stated the determination of fraud and recommendation
whether to lay char.ges. It also would describe the investigation to determine what action to recommend. The incumbents in the.ERO position, she said, do perform functions which require
analysis and the use of judgment and their work is reviewed through standardized reporting.procedures. AS to the determination of overpayments, the witness indicated ".. that this could
be characterized as a mathematical clerical task -which was complex clerical work. Mrs. Keel ,indicated in her testimony.that she did not. believe that the "sub-professional" part of
the definition for'~Clerk 6 General applied to the ERO posi.tion. She defined "sub-professional as comprising specialized knowledge that approached the professional ._ _ level, e.g.,
in accounting. Nothing in the ERO job, she stated required this type of specialized knowledge.. The.meaning she
< ‘;; 1 47.. was giving to this expression, she agreed, was one built up over the years by usage, by actual classification decisions. When asked to compare the duties and responsibilities
of the ERO and‘Parenta1 Support Worker and draw conclusions as to how they were classified, Mrs. Keel stated that the two positions had some similarity in that both were part of the
Income Maintenance Programme; as a result, t~hey possessed in common certain basic knowledge and procedures and some structural organizational relationship to each other. But, she stated,
she believed th‘e job duties were not very similar. She stated that they clearly were at different levels of responsibility with the position of Parental Support Worker being more responsible
than the ERO. ,' Referring to the job specif~ication for the ERO in Sudbury, Mrs. Keel stated that it made it clear that the ERO spent 80% of his or her time reviewing decisions of an
Income Maintenance Officer and investigating the appropriateness of that decision. They dealt with the Crown and the OPP to provide information and give them the benefit of the specialized
knowledge of the Income Maintenance Programme and appear as Crown witnesses. From this, she stated, the ERO position could be seen-as.a more intensive and more senior versil of the Income
Maintenance Officer, which was precisely why it was classified at one level higher than the Income Maintenance Officer. The Parental Support Worker,,on the other hand, Mrs. keel stated,
had a mix of responsibilities. Referring to the job
1 -; ,: 48. specification for the Parental Support Worker in Sudbury, she noted that 35% of the position --duties 3 and 4 --involved making applications to court and acting asan advocate
for clients. This was a more responsible position, she stated, because the Parental Suppor Worker ,needed additional knowledge to act more independently and at a level external to the
Ministry. The Parental Support Worker represented the Ministry independently in a situation where the decisionwas the final one of the court. By contrast, she stated, the ERO was only
dealing with the decision to lay a charge and this decision was subjected to several checks and balances. This, she stated,was why the Parental Support Worker was classified at a higher
level. Mri . Keel explained that atypical classifications were made when no one class standard definitively set out the duties of a position. For instance, she stated, it might be considered
at the first instance that the Clerk General Series was not.intended to cover the work of these positions. They did not categorically fit within this series in the same way as the job
of a Clerk Typist. The word "atypical", she stated, means that the duties are sufficienl related to those in the class standard to allow a Classification Officer to make a classification
decision, elg., by similarity o,f salary, types of duties, or skills and knowledge. In the Income Maintenanc~e field, the witness went on, 'there was a Welfare Field Worker series with
two levels. It had been used to classify people in that series but it did not Lo I
49. cover the auditing aspect of the ERO position or its review aspect even at its upper level. Moreover, there was no other classification where those duties typically fit. In fact,
Mrs. Keel went on, it was not now the practice in classification to have narrow specific groups. We are moving, she said, to broader groups with more general classification standards.
Amplifying her testimony in this respect, Mrs. Keel said that there were parts of the standards for Clerks 6 Andy 7 which did not apply.to either the ERO or the Parental Support Worker
position. An example was supervision. It was acknowledged that neither position supervised anyone. Eat; Mrs. Keel stated, she found no difficulty in relating the duties of the ERO to
the level of work in Clerk 6 General and the same was true with respect to relating the level of work of the Parental Support Worker to Clerk 7. Overall, she stated, it made sense. III'.
AN?LLYSIS: la) Comparison to the Class Standards: On this aspect of a claim of improper classification-, the Board generally has: (1) Compared the duties and responsibilities, etc. of
the,grievor to his or her existing classification; and thereafter, .-(2) ,made a similar comparison to the claimed ciassification.
. 50. These two comparisons were then used as a basis for determining whether the grievance should succeed. Sometimes this procedure would lead the Board to rely upon the "best fit"
doctrine. Recently, the Board described this doctrine as follows: In the context of classification grievances this has led the Board to articulate the "best fit" doctrine. Thus, where~
an employee's duties are such that he or she cannot be said to fall squarely within either the classification held or the classification claimed (on either a "standards" analysis or
a "usage" analysis) the Board will choose a classification which "best fits" the duties performed. This ensures that the Employer cannot, by~choosing n.ot to create a classification
which appropriately reflects the actual duties performed, effectively.prevent the employee from exercising his statutory right to grieve. The cases in which this approach has been adopted
by the Board include the following: Hooper 47/77 (Swan); Cassir 591/80 (Verity); and Woodcock and Van Alstine 564/81 (Samuels) . . . Re Angus & Ministry of Correctional Services (19861,
G.S.B. #203/84 (Brandt), at p. 61. ;_::-~..~-. , Where, as here; the dispute centers around the atypical classification of the grievers, the "best fit" doctrine tends to become strained
to the~limit. ,In -R e Dashfield and Ministry of Community and Social Services (19811, G.S.B. 333/80 (LIelisle), we were provided with a definition of "atypical" as follows: The expression
(Atypical) within the classification sought by the grievor deserves some explation. ,The Ontario Manual of Administration provides as a definition:.
. . . 51. ATYPICAL ALLOCATION -The allocation to a class of a position which in general fits this class better than any other, but ,is significantly different from other positions in
the class with respect to: the functions carried out; or the skills and knowledge required. . . . -Id. at p. 6. It can be seen that in comparing an atypica.lly allocated job to its existing
and sought-after classifications, the number of "bench marks" of "best fit" can be considerably reduced. Depending upon the circumstances, it might not be possible to compare functions,
skills~or knowledge to those recited in the class standard. Referring to the testimony of Mrs. Keel, it seems that the Clerk General series was selected for the atypical classification
of the ERO position because there was a degree of functional similarity. It will be recalled that Mrs. Keel stated that the Clerical series was believed to reflect the more administrative,
auditing function of the ERO. Within this series, the class standard for Clerk 6 General was assigned to the ERO position, Mrs. Keel went on, primarily because it reflected the level
of decision-making or responsibility'to be ,expected of an ERO. The class standard for Clerk 7 General, she stated , reflected a higher level of decision-making. Accordingly, in the
jargon used in classification jurisprudence, it was concluded that.Clerk 6 General was the "best fit" for the job.
0 .’ 52. On balance, the Board cannot say that this assessment was improper. Comparing the class standards for Clerk 6 and Clerk 7, supra, it seems that the incremental difference between
the two with respect to decision-making and responsibility is that the operational decisions of a Clerk 7 are final in nature while those of a Clerk 6; though requiring the analysis
of complex problems and the exercise of considerable judgment, are subject to review. Turning to the evidence, it.must be concluded that in the main, the operational decisions made by
Ms. Newman, MS. Piffard and Mr. Whitworth were not final. Ms. Newman testified that it would be up to the ERO supervisor to assign a case for full investigation. At the conclusion of
an investigation, it again would be Lipto the ERO supervisor to act upon a reconunendation as to the appropriate-action tom be taken. Ifs this decision became the subject of an administrative
appeal it again was up to the supervisor to take responsibility for the Ministry's response and-generally, present the case before the Social Assistance Review .Board (SARBI. Likewise,
it was the supervisor who held the responsibility for referring a case to the Ontario Provincial Police for a fraud prosecution. The Board acknowledges that within this larger framework
of decision-making authority, Ms. Newman had authority to make a considerable number of less responsible'decisions.
. * . '53. For example, it was up to MS. Newman to decide how she would conduct an investigation once she was authorized to go forward. In the case of an administrative appeal, she would
act as the contact point for the representative of the recipient . for purposes of offering interpretation of legislation, etc. She prepared submissions for her supervisor to use in
SARB proceec inqs. And in fraud cases, she acted as the Ministry's liaison with the police and Crown, and even as the latter's advisor and witness in proceedings in court. In each case,
however, Ms. Newman's power to affect the outcome of a particular case was circumscribed by the larger au2t-.h. ority of a superior. Ultimate responsibility either belonged to her supervisor
or, in the case of a fraud prosecution, to the police and thereafter the Crown. Accordingly, in a real operational sense, the decisions of Ms. Newman were not final-. At best they matured
into recommendations whose implemen,tation depended upon the say-so of. a superior. The same conclusion must be reached with respect to Mr. Whitworth, although there was some indication
in his testimony that at the time of the grievance his supervisor '-had delegated to him'certain larger responsibilities. Chief among these was sole responsibility for conducting the
case for the Ministry at SARB hearings. But this, we conclude, does. not suffice to raise the overall level of Mr. Whitworth'sposition to that of Clerk 7. Representing the Ministry at
I .‘.> _. . 54 SARB hearings did not constitute a major part Of Mr. Whitworth's job. It involved, according to Mr. Whitworth, 15 to 20 cases per year, for an average of 2 hours each.
The qrievors who traversed the line between Clerk 6 and 7 were Mr. Bob Harper and Ms. Eva Buchanan, who functioned as ERO:s in the Sudbury Office of the Ministry at the time of the grievance.
Mr. Harper gave undisputed testimony that at that time he and he co-worker made their own decisions regarding whether to proceed with an investigation. Be further testifieh that the
decision whether to call in'the Ontario Provincial Police fcr the purposes of laying fraud charges also was left up to them. It was only after the grievances were filed, Mr. Harper testified,
that these responsibilities were taken back.by their supervisor, who now plays an active role in making the.decisions. This :ci testimony was not contradicted by~any evidence inthe case
for the Ministry. Accordingly, we accept it as proven. In light of the above, we find that we are drawn to the conclusion that at the time of the grievance, Mr. Harper and Ns. Buchanan
made final operational deci-sions of sufficient significance to warrant the classification of Clerk 7. They made the final decisions as to which cases would be investigated, carried
throuqh'the investigation on their own, and thereafter made the final decision of the Ministry regarding which cases were to be referred for fraud
55. prosecutions. It simply cannot be denied that at the time of the grievances, these employees made substantial operational decisions which were characterized by their finality. Accordingly,
at the time of the grievances, the "best fit" for the two ERO positions in Sudbury was the classification of Clerk 7 General. At the same time, the Board recognizes that subsequent to
the withdrawal of this responsibility, the Clerk 6 General classification would have become appropriate. (b) Class Usaqe: Generally, in order to succeed upon a "class usage" claim, the
Union must show "that the Employer's actual classificationsystemdiffers from the written one.* Re Brick and Ministry of Transportation and Communications (1987.1, G.S.B. A564/80 (Samuels),
at p. 50. In its decisions over ,the years, the Board has come to accept that this test is satisfied upon a showing that the grievors are.performing substantially similar work to that
assigned to a job in the higher classification. See Re Crockford and Ministry of Community and Social Services (1985), G.S.B. #548/8.3 (Roberts), at p. 10; ore Aikins and Ministry of
Health (19831, G.S.B. #603/91 (Draper). -Further, we accept that the measure of "substantial similarity" is whether the work of the grievors "is the same in its distinctive and essential
elements as that being performed by employees in the classification sought".. -I d. at p. 7. In the present case, the Unions entered evidence
, ,.‘. . y-5'6. which was adapted to show that the work of the grievers as ERO's was substantially similar to the work actually being performed by Parental Support Workers. In this regard,
Mr. D. Hill, who was a combination Parental Support Work@r-ERO for the regions of Halton, Peel and the County of Dufferin, testified to the similarities between the jobs in the areas
of locating people: stress level; necessity for tact and diplomacy; and purpose, in the sense that both positions were intended to recoup money for the taxpayer. Essentially, this evidence
was not disputed by the counter-balancing witnesses for the Ministry, Mr. R.~ Ettles and Mrs. J. M. O'Callahan. Instead, they stressed what was considered to be the significant difference
between the jobs, i.e., that the Parental Support Worker was responsible for making final decision having an impact upon the entire process while the ERO was limited to making recommendations.
The testimony of the Parental Support Workers who were called by both sides tended to confirm that they were responsible for making these kinds of final decisions., Mr . G. Wishak, who
was called by the Union, testified that he had considerable independent authority, including autho~rity .. to reach a settlement to accept less than full arrears from a debtor-spouse;
the initiation of cases; making.and reviewing agreements; conciliating between the spouses;,and conducting cases in court. Mrs. C. .Bruce, a Parental Support Worker called by the Ministry,
gave similar evidence. In addition,
. I :>, . ,~-.. 57. she mentioned her responsibility for reciprocal enforcement of maintenance. Likewise, Mrs. J. M. 0. Callahan, who had been a Parental Support Worker, testified to
the high degree of independent responsibility exercised by a Parental Support Worker. The Board has already concluded that the "distinctive and. essential element" that was responsible
for the classification of Parental Support Workers at the level of Clerk 7. General was the final nature of their operational decisions. The foregoing evidence indicates that the.actual
practice of the Ministry was consistent with this criterion. Every Parental Support Worker who testified confirmed that, by and large, they were expected to operate on their own and
were responsible for making significant decisions which were binding upon the Ministry. The Board also has concluded that the only grievors who ever exercised this degree of finality
in decisionmaking were Mr. Ha-.r per and Ms. Buchanan. All of this leads the Board to accept the evidence of Mrs. Keel, the Classification Specialist called by the Ministry, to the,.effect
that the positions in the Income Maintenance Program might be thought of as,a continuum, progressing from the lowest-level of Income Maintenance Offi,cer to the highest level of Parental
Support Worker, with the BRO at an intermediate level of responsibility. We also refer .iO the conclusions of the Board fin Be Berry and
Ministry of Community and Social Services (19851, G.S.B. #217/81 (Samuels), where the position of Income Maintenance Officer (1~0) was distinguished from that of the ERO in a manner
which was consistent with the foregoing "continuum" analysis. In tne result, we must conclude that at the time of the grievances the only grievors whose duties and responsibilities were
"substantially similar" to~those of Parental Support Workers were Mr. Harper and Ms. Buchanan. The other grievors did not have sufficient independent authority to make final operational
decisions on behalf of the Ministry. Once again, the Board recognizes that upon the evidence indicating ~that the requisite responsibility was withdrawn from the two successful grievors
after their grievances were filed, they might no longer be entitled to the classification of Clerk 7 General. (c).-,-,Petroactivity: +, There remains the question whether the two successful
-grievers, Mr. Harper and Ms. Buchanan, ought --)t-o 'be awarded the classification of Clerk 7 General for the entire period in . .-which they had the requisite level of authority,retroactive
to April 1, 1983. We think that they should. It was not until shortly before they filed their grievances in March, 1984, that the grievors were advised that they were being classified
at the level of Clerk 6 General. At th~at time, the Ministry, by its own decision, granted retroactivity to
I ,-I c . ; -‘, 59. April 1, 1983. Given this, it would be inequitable to apply the general rule regarding retroactivity which was enunciated in Re Smith and Ministry of COmmUnity and
Social Services (19851, G.S.B. #237/81 (Roberts), which "would limit retroactivity to 20 days before the date of filing of the grievance. -I d. at p. 5. In that award, it was acknowledged
that circumstances might raise an equity against the Ministry's reliance upon this rule. It is our conclusion that such an equity is raised in'the present case, Accordingly,. the relief
awarded to the two successful grievors shall be retroactive to April 1, 1983. Interest is awarded upon these retroactive payments in accordance with the formulation set forth in Re Jones
and Ministry of Correctional Services (19841, G.S.B. #537/82 (Jolif Iv. CONCLUSION: Our award is that the grievances of Ms. Newman, Ms. Piffard, and Mr. Whitworth are dismissed; the
grievances of . . . Mr. Harper and Ms. Buchanan are allowed. The ,latter two grievors were entitled to the classifi.c.ation of Clerk 7 General for so long as they posseSsed the requisite
degree of ind,.e .p . endent authority to make final decisions on behalf of the Ministry: thereafter, they reverted to the classification of Clerk 6 General. Full retroactivity plus
interest is granted to April 1, 1983. The Board will retain jurisdiction of the matter pending implementation by the parties. ,._
60. . DATED at London, Ontario, this 20th day of January, 1987. /Freedman, Member H. Roberts, Member