Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-0611.Raymond.87-01-301987 - OPSEU (Raymond) & Ministry of Revenue, GSB#611/84, (Brent) 611/84 I IN, THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION -Under -THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: OPSELI (Joyce Raymond) Before: For the Griever: i and -The Cr.own in Right of Ontario (The Ministry of Revenue) G. Brent, Vice-Chabrman J. McManus, Member I.J. Cowan, Member M. Farson Counsel Cqrnish and Associates Barriswrs and Solicitors ior the Employer: D. Kirk Labour Relations Advisor Ministry of Rever,ue Hearings: April 28, 1986 October 27, 1986 Griever I Employer 1 .’ ‘-The grievance in this matter (Ex. 1) is dated May 23, 1984 and alleges that the griever is impFoperly classified as a Clerk 4 General and shouldbe reclassified as a Clerk 5 General. The Union fndicated that the only argument it would make would be a "usage" test, in that it would argue that the~work which the grievbr waS doing was substafitially the same work as that being.done by the Title Search T,echnicians /employed by the Ministry of Government Services classified as a Clerk 5 General. The griever is employed as a Registry Clerk by the Ministry of Revenue. She has held the position for ten years~and hasp been employed by the Government of Ontario, for approximately seventeen years. There are two position specifications for the'grievor's position (Ea. 2 and 3). Exhibit 2 was made.in 1975, while Exhibit 3 was made in 1985 after the grievance had been filed. As we.understand the griever's testimony, she has some reservations about the accuracy of both specifications: the first primarily because it is dated, and the second because it may omlt some things. It would appear that the griever does agree with~the breakdown of her duties given in the later description, which indicates that 85% of her time is spent in the Registry Office. The purpose of the yrievor's lob is "to establish ownership, size, location and legal description of properties for mapping and assessment roll purposes" (Exs. 2 &i 3) by searching at the Registry Office. She does not dispute the accuracy of the purpose as stated in either specification. we wi,ll reproduce both Job specifications, along with a summary of the griever's comments regarding their accuracy. [Ex.~ 21 1,. Establishes the proper legal descriptions of all properties in the region by perform+ng such duties as: (’ , ,,’ 3 55%.) -receiving assignments from the Mapping Supervisor covering a section of the assessment region requiring searching; -thorough examination of records such as Deeds, Indentures, Agreement for Sale in the Registry/oy Land Titles Office(s) establishing for each property the correct legal description, dimensions and/or size, location, ensuring that all properties in section have been accounted for; -completing draft sketches of each property to ensure adJoining properties fit and do not overlap and showing ties, bearings, boundaries, H.E.P.C. Bell Canada easements, road widenings, etc. from information given in Deeds and other records; -returning completed searches to the Mapping Supervisor. 2. Verifies and/or sstablishes ownership of propertiesby performing such duties as: 25%) -checking abstract book to determine the most recent transfer of property, extracting name Of new owner, location and transfer number and locating deeds to the properties; -where a search indicates a property split or severance, completing an apportionment form, for forwarding to respective Valuation Manager for evaluation, and copies to the Mapping supervisor for map updating and the Municipal Clerk for municipal tax apportionments; -k~eeping daily record of deeds received and making copies of such Deeds and transfer and survey if attached, for ASsessment Services. as required; -repor.ting inaccuracies in De+ by following the Assessment Region policy as to whom referral is to be made such as the sol&citors, the surveyor, the Master of Titles, the Regional Assessment Commissioner or the Mapping Supervisor; -searching specific properties where there is an urgency such as appeals and as requested by Manager of Assessment Services and/or Mapping Supervisor; -as required checking properties liable to be sold for arrears of taxes listing each such property as to correct ownership, instrument number, liens, mortgages, etc. for manager of ASSeSSment Services. 3. PrOCesSeS Lien Clearance Applications by ; ,;f ‘._ ’ 4 performc ing such duties as: 15%) -receiving applications from vendors of properties for the issuance of Lien clearances under the Land Speculation Tax Act; -checking to ensure that the applications,and instruments are properly presented and whether such instruments fall within the provisions of the Act or outside the Act and if it cannot be clearly determined if application is within or outside the provisions of the Act, returning applications to applicants for additional information or explanation; -issuing lien clearances by applying the lien clearance stamp on the applicationandthe ins,truments, entering serial number of the application in the appropriate place on the stamped instrument signing and dating lien clearance stamp, collecting tax payable, issuing receipt showing serial number of application, returning stamped and approved instruments with extra documents to the applicant and forwarding copy of applications apd undertaking (when applicable) with cheques attached to the Land Speculation Tax Section; -keeping informed of the provisions of the Land Speculation Tax Act and regulations thereunder in order to answer correctly and efficiently the public's routine inquiries and directing the more complex inquiries to the proper persons at Head Office (Toronto). Perfor& other duties such as: 1 -where applicable, completing sales considerations by extracting from Deeds the salepriceofproperty, showing whether an all cash transaction, mortgagaor mortgages, chattles and lien incumbrances, and listing this informationinprescribed format for forwarding to the Manager of Ass+ssment. Services or the Mapping Supervisor; -as required,, keeping daily or weekly record of the number of searches completed etc. and a record of all monies charged for registry office services and forwarding to Supervisor; -assisting in the updating assesssment data information, the preparation and up-dating of the valuation file etc. as require& -as assigned. ’ L. .[E%. 31 1. Establishes and,verifies ownership of property _ and establishes the proper legalde~scription for all properties within the HaltOn-Peel Region by performing duties such as: 85% -receiving requests for information from the Mapping Supervisor, Valuation Managers, that require searching activity carried out; -examining the abstract book to determine the most recent transfer of property, extracting the name of.current owner, location, transfer number and.locating the deeds to the properties; -scrutinizing all records including Deeds, Indentures, Agreement for Sale in the Registry or,LandTitles Office to establish the correct legal description, physical dimensions, and location for eachproperty, 'as well as ensuring all properties within eachbpecified section have been accounted for; -completing draft sketches of required property to ensure adJoining properties are adequately described;indicating bearings, boundaries, Hydra Electric Power Commission and Bell easements, road widenings, etc., from information given in deeds and other records; -maintaining daily records of deeds received from the Registry Office, photocopying such deeds, transfers and surveys (if applicable). for future reference by office staff; -reporting inaccuracies discovered in deeds'to the appropriate person i.e. solicitor, surveyor, Master of Titles, Regional commissioner etc. ; -ensuring all new deeds andplans arepicked up at the Registry Offices and returned to ,the Mappiny Supervisor and/or Manager Assessment Services twice each week; -searching specific properties where there is anurgency such as'appeals and upon request of 'the Manager Mapping supervisor and/dr Manager AsseSsaWIt Services; -checking properties liable to be sold for arrears of tax; listing each such property as tom correct ownership, instrument number, liens, mortgages, etc., for the Manaqer of Assessment Services. 2.. Performs other related duties such as: 153 -completing, where applicable, sales . . I ,a, , 6 . a u* considerations,.by extracting from Deeds the .sale price of property, indicating whether a cash transaction, any mortgage or mortg~g+s, chattles and lien encumbrances for forwarding to the Manager of Assessment Services in +he prescribed format; -maintaining daily and weekly records of the number of searches completed, etc., and a record of all monies charged for registry office services; -assisting in updating assessment' data information; -as assigned. .-, The griever no~longer performs the duties listed under section 3 of Exhibit 2 because lien clearances were abolished in 1978. She now spends virtually all of her time performing the searches which are requestedof her. As we understand the two position specifications, they ajpaar to be virtually identical once one eliminates section 3 of Exhibit 2. She also said that the portion of Exhibit 2 which dealt with sales c&slderations was not ac&rately described at all. we further understand the yrievor's evidence as indicating no mayor disagreement with the position specifications, but rather as clarifying .wme of the matters set out in the specifications. -. For example, the griever indicatedthatalthoughS5 to 90% of her assignments come from the Mapping Supervisor she can receive~ass~ignments from all other staff in the Assessment office, and returns the complet+ searches to the person requesting them. She also indicated that she non longer completes apportionment forms when there are severances as indicated in Exhibit 2. She also indicated that the Job specification sheets were inaccurate in that they did not indicate that she Sometimes. has to search back to Crown grants. The work of the Mapping SuperVisbr involves preparing maps of a particular area for assessment purposes. These maps show the prol.'erty' and the current owner(s). The griever receives from the Mapping .r 1 7 Supervisqr a computer listing of the names of the last registered o~ner(s).of property to be searched, along with the location and description of the property (Ex. 9). Sometimes that .list will contain the number of the deed by which that owner(s) took titl~e. The griever will also be given a copy of a draft of the map which the Assessment Office is preparing from her searches. Essentially the job of the griever is to see if the computer list she has been given is correct or if the property has been transfe'rred to new owners. If there has been a transfer of ownership, the grievor must show the new owners of the property in question. 1~ may be that there has been a subdivision created out of what was formerly a large piece of property. In that instance she would have to search to find the new plan of subdivision, easements, road widenings, railway allowances through the area, Hydra easements, etc. In addition, if there are by-laws noted on the abstract which affect the property she must dbtain copies of those by-laws for the Mapping Supervisor. The griever also testified that in certain cases she has to go back to the Crown grant to,get a good chain of title. She said that "on occasion" chain of title is reques~ted by'the Mapping Supervisor. In thisconnection it should be noted that on the "Request for Property Search" form (Ex. 6) which the griever can be given there is a space where "chain of title" can be checked. The form also contains space (approximately five lines) for the report. she also said that on occasion she will not be able to find things in the Registry Office which are on the map. She said that in those cases she will ask the Assessor to go out to the site and take a look, and if the problem still persists she will have to.use her own ,. .‘. 8 V inititative to try to figure it out. The griever spends the ma]ority of her time away from her home office. Ske is given assignments to complete and sets her own order of doing those assignments within the deadlines that may be set for the work. Her work is not checked for accuracy'per se, although any miS&es which she makes will likely be caught in process of'drafting the maps. The griever is a graduate of a community college programme involving title searching. In addition, she had a six month course 1n searching when she first took the Job, and has also taken a L correspondence course involving searching. In the course of her Job she refers to the text which she usedin her courses. She testified that she must be familiar with the Registry Act, Land Titles Act, Surveyor's Act, and Conveyancing Act. she said that any amendments to the legislation which come to the office are passed 0" to her, and that where amendments are not provided she keeps up to date by reading the bulletin board at the Registry Office. Over the course of a month the griever completes approximately 460 to 5U0 searches, depending on the a;ea where. she is working. If she is working in Elrampton she can do SO0 or 900 searches a month. The example of a weekly log showing the griever's searches (Ex. 7) shows that she comp~leted 192 searches that week and that the number of searches completed in any one day ranged from a low of 25 to a high of 64. The griever is asserting that the work which she performs is substantially ,similar to that.performed by the Title Search Technician (Clerk 5 General) in the Ministry of Government Services. Evidence concerning the duties and responsibilities of that position was given by MS. Carolyn Disher, who'performed the work fdr five years until September, 1985 when she was SecondedtoLaasing. The purpose of the position, as set Out in the position specification (Ex. 131, is "To obtain information re description and ownership of a property being considered for acquisition or sale. To search title to real prop~erty to obtain related documentary evidence in order to establish and confirm validity of ownership, right to convey, easements, written descriptions, interests, etc.". The duties and responsibilities in the position specification for the Title Search Technician (Ex. 13) are set out below: 1. Obtains information required for appraisers, negotiators, surveyors and lawyers by: 60% -receiving assignment from supervisor to search title to property, including basic property information; -reviewing such related data as original request, plans and sketches, particulars, etc., to facilitate carrying out of search at land registration office; -visiting same, searching through records to obtain information about location measurements, extent of ownership, etc., and to determine and verify clear chain of title; -preparing abstracts, by listing descriptive data from documents, instrument numbers, etc. resolviny registration problems at source by discussing project and subject properties with Registrar of Deeds and Masters of Titles; -verifying status of road allowances, utility lines, easements, etc., by checking plans and documents in Municipal Offices, Municipal Clerks, Bell Telephone, etc.1 -visiting land registration office or Assessment'Office to obtain data to obtain pertinent information about comparable properties to be used by appraiser; -ensuring complete accuracy of information copied in field and abstracts made and ensuring sketches made are sufficient to guarantee that data held reflects all aspects of aproperty (failure to do so could result in a return trip to field areas). 2. After completion of search, compiles data and i . . ” , 10 prepares report by: 25% -confirming extent and ownership of subject and adjacent properties by scrutinizing all relevant documents determining that which appears,legally valid and/or requires substantiation; -preparing sketch (not to scale) of property, indicating bearings, measurements to identify ownership by colour code; -if problems encountered, preparing sketch L plans to scale; making required calculations by various trigonometric, algebraic and geometric formlae; -referring to supervisor contentious points of legal nature; -preparing title search andprojectfiles by collecting or reproducing copies of Registry Description Plans, Reference Plans, etc., to provide complete documentation; -preparing report on project searched, describing problem areas encountered,, discrepancies, etc. by analyzing information collected and comparing with option; submitting same to supervisor; -preparing draft description of property to supervisor. 3. After completion of negotiations, conducts a "sub-search" if required by:, llJ6 -receiving specific .instructions fr,om supervisor to search out additional data; -visiting offi~ce of land registration, municipal offices,'etc. to obtain required info?mation. 4. Performs related duties such as: 5% -as assigned. Ms. Disher testified that she was headquartered in Toronto,but covered the entire province. She said that she was responsible for documentation and survey plans for anyth+ng*to do with land for the Ministry of Government Services. She said that she provided title search documentation for any land bought by that ministry, sold by it, leased by it, etc. she said that she would get a request for a search from her boss and that the type of search varied and could include last . . 11 registered owner search, expropriationsearch, legal search, or a search regarding a particular question in connection with a piece of property. lier response to~the request would be to supply copies of pertinent documents, an abstract dealing with the property, which she would prepare, a sketch of the property and adjacent properties, and a report on the search and any problems she encountered. She said that her final report'could~be anywhere from two to about twenty pages of material on average. It was her opinion'that the completion of the report did not require substantial written skills but rather analytical skills. MS. Disher said that the time to do the searches varied. She said .-that some could take a half 'day, some two.days, and some cou1.d last three weeks. She said that she generally allowed one day per owner. ,, She said that when she was in the field she could call her supervisor on the telephone if she encountered~problems. She also said that she would try to find the answer herself by checking as many records as possible, going to the municipal offices, or going to the surveyor to~look at his field notes. she also said that there was no '4 direct check on her work and that any mistakes would surface during the follow up done on her work. Ms. Disher indicated that sometimes a mistake might not show up for years. She said that if she missed a mortgage or an adjacent owner on an expropriation the expropriation could be thrown out. It was her evidence that the majority of her work (approximately 70%) involved last registered owner searches.' She said that in that connection she would check the Crown Patent but not abstract a whole chain of title. She said if there was no good chain she would note that, but did not have'to do any investigation on a legal search in connection with an expropriation unless specifically asked. She said -1 that a clear chain of title search would involve checking the abstract to see if the person selling acquire,d title,and that there were such acquisitions throughout a forty year period, and also finding a clear root of title. She said that her search was the first-step in any decision regarding the acquisition of property., She also said thBt,if there was a decision to buy the property a local lawyer would be retained to handle the transaction and he/she would do a search and Close. It was.the evidence of Ms. Marchant, the Manager Of ASseSSment ..A Services, that the griever did the searching involved in the office's re-mapping of the area in order to allow the office to produce up to date maps of the area showing the last registered owner and the property owned. She said that the griever was not concerned with ascertaining a clear chain of title unless specifically requested to do so. She.. estimated that about 2% of the griever's work would involve requests for clear chain of title. She said that in cases of road allowances they would need a clear chain of title. Ms. Marchant testified that she has never performed a search or been trained to do so; however, she indicated ihat she can assess how complicated the~grievor's lob is because she used to see abstracts as an assessor and would take the ownership changes from them. MT. Wylie, the Manager of Mapping services and the griever's supervisor, also testified. He said that he expected the griever to provide him with the latest information available and to get a copy of the deeds, survey or reference maps which were available to enable his staff to draw their maps. He said that her gave the griever descriptions of the property, the most recent deed number in the office and the most . . ,, '8, ,:a 13 . V recent ownership shown on the office records. He said that the griever takes this information and u6ing the abstract book works back to the deed number given her by the office to see'whetherthe owner shown on the office &cords still owns the property or not. .He said that he has no need for a clear chain of title but just for the name of the present owner; hdindicated that it may be necessary to esablish a chain of title, but not a clear chain of title over a forty year 'period, because what occurred forty years ago is if no relevance to mapping Current owners for tax purposes. Mr. Wylie has performed the same type of search as that required of the griever for a considerable period of time. When a~sked about the need to get clear chains of title in relation to railways, road allowances, etc., Mr. Wylie said that he does not require a clear chainoftitlein,relationto a railway. He also said that it is never necessary to get ownership on a road allowance because they do not assess that He said that it is only necessary to ascertain .theproperty size andwherethe road allowance is. He indicated that when he designed the request form (Ex. 6) he meant that the chain would start at the last r~ecord shown on the assessme?t and bring it up to U date. He said that it was sufficient for that purpose to photocopy the abstract and there was no need to prove transactions back forty years. The Board also heard evidence from Mr. Douglas Frost, a Personnel Administrator in Personnel Services, subject.tothe objectio~n of the Union concerning the relevance of such evidence. At the commentiement of '. the hearing the Union had indicated that It would also be making an argument in relation to the class definition of the Clerk 5 General; however, in the course of making the objecrion it indicated that such an argument would not be made. Mr. Frost did the lob audit in connection , 14 with the most recent position specification, which was prepared.after the grievance. He also compared the ]ob to the Title search Technician position specification and to the Senior Registry Clerk position specification. In view of the argument being made by the Union, that. is, that the griever's work is substantially the same as that of the Title Search Technician, we d&not comsider that the evidence in relation t&the Senior Registry Clerk lob is relevant. Had the Union been pursuing the argument based on class definitions, or had it asserted that there was any bad faith involved in the classfication of the Job, then much'more of Mr. Frost's evidence would be relevant to the determination of the issues raised. In the instant case, since the Union is now only asserting that the Job is, improperly class'ified because the work performed is substantially the same as that of another position in a higher classification, we must accept that if that is not proven on balance, then the lob will be accepted as properly classified. Hence, we do not really need to consider any question other than whether the Union has shown that the position is substantiall$ the same as that of the higher classification, and therefore much of Mr. Frost's evidence becomes unnecessary. Where Mr. Frost's evidence is of some relevance is in his comparison of the griever's position with that of the Title Search Technician. In considering this evidence, however, we must keep in mind that Mr. Frost has never done a lob audit on the Title Search Technician, that he has never been exposed to the job, and that the basisof hisinformationwastheposition specification (Ex. 13) plus some conversation with the person who supervises Title Search, Technicians. We are prepared to accept that Mr. Frost has some ‘ : ,I . a 0 15 * . ‘L--expertise in administering the job classification system for the Employer; however, in assessing the weight to be given to his evidence we must consider both that he is not an impartial expert and the source of his information. Mr. Frost testified that he considered that there were substantial differences between the two Jobs with which we are concerned, in that the Title Search Technician searches for a different purpose than does the Registry Clerk. He said that'the purpose of the search carried out by the former is to develop a clear chain of title in preparation for purchase, etc., while the latter only is interested in establishing .' current ownership. He also noted that the Title Search Technician obtains'information for a wide variety bfbeople, while the +gistry Clerk is obtaining information for mapping only, and that the Technician's responsibility for verifying accuracy was grsdter than the Clerk's. In the course of their submissions counsel for the parties referred usto,the following authorities:-(GSB File 43/77); Knudson (GSB File 348/80); seals and Cain (GSB File 30/79); OPSEU V. Thepueen in Right of Ontario -e-t al. (1982), 40 o.R.(Zd) 142 (Div'l. Ct.); Lowman, -MOOre,Ta--f e and Teasdale (GSBFiles 13/82, 34/82, 35/82, 36/82); OPSEU -e--ta--l-. v, The Crown in Riqhtof Ontario (1984), unreported (Ont. Div'l. Ct.); Barges et al. (GSB Files 21/84, 22/84, 23/84); andcarvalho (GSB File 1484/84). Both parties agreed with the general principle'that 'in a case of this sort the onus is on the Union and the griever to show that on balance of~probabilities the central core of duties involved iti the griever’s Job is substantially the same as or substantially similar to the lob in the higher classification sought. In the course of~argument our attention was also drawn to the 16 ,. l ‘.-, Board's decision 1n LOwman, the subsequent Judicial review of that decision, and the Carvalh~o decision (all three decisions are cited above). In Lovman the,Board found that the class standard for the classification.claimed by the grievers did not cover the Job performed by the. grievers, and that there was one employee performing the s,alne job as the grievers who had been classified in the classification sought by the grievers (see pages 10 6 111. It then said, at page 11, "... where \ ,the written class standard clearly,does not embrace the lob in question and where only one employee who is performing the job is classified thereunder, theBoard cannot conclude that the Employer has amended its written class standard." In that case all of the grievers and the employee in the higher classified job were performing exactly the same work, and all of them held the Job of Regional Remote Sensing supervisor in the same ministry. The Board's decision was quashed by the Divisional Court which said: In our opinion the Board erred in failing to apply the second test in OPSEU vs. The Queen in Right of Ontario et al (1982) 40 O.R.(2d) 142 (Brecht Case). Having found that there was an employee performing substantially the same duties as the grievers and that such emplbyee had b,een deliberately classified by the respondent.in a higher classification, the Board acted unreasonably and without Jurisdiction in failing to find that the grievers would be properly classified in the higher classification. The higher classified employee and the four grieiors are the only persons in the public service performing the function of remote sensory. supervisor. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that it does notassistthe respondent to, argue that the senior employee ,may have,been improperly classified. The decision of the Board is quashed and~set aside and the matter remitted back to the Board. Costs to the applicant. ‘. .. ;. 17 ‘U Thhc "second test” in the Divisional Court's decision in the Brecht case referred to above is found at page 145 of that decision, where the court said, in connection with the matters which the Board must consider in a classification case, II.,. even if he fails to fit within the higher class standards, whether there are employees performing the same duties in a higher raw-e senior classification." In the Carvalho' case counsel for the griever relied on the Divisional Court decision in the Lowman case, and argued that if it could show that there was one employee who performed the same work and was classified at a.higher level it would thereby establish a-prima facie casethat there had been a debarture form the classification process. In reletting this argument the Board said, at pages 18 and 19: While this is an intriguing argument, it must be concluded that it would stretch matters too far for the Board to accept it. Reading the decision of the Divisional Courtin~Lowman as a whole, we are led~to conclude that the Division~al Court did not intend to reject the general rule of this~ Board that in order to succeed on a class usage argument the Union must show the existence of a consistent practice of varying the Class standard. Absent special circumstances, it does not satisfy this 'practice' requirement to show that only one employee in a higher classification performed the same work as the griever. ‘u The Lowman case...was anexampleof special circumstanceswhichbr oughtthe case outside the ambit of the general rule. As the Divisional Court noted in'its decision, it would have been impossible for the grievers to show tbat more.than one other employeewhoperforme d essentially the same work was c'lassified at the claimed higher level. In the entire Civil Service, there wer'e only fivepersonsperforming similar work --the four grievers and the higher classified employee with whom they sought to compare themselves. It seems to us that the Divisional Court recognized that to apply the 'practice' requirement of the Board in these circumstances would be tantamount to denying the grievots their right to grieve. Admittedly, the Lowman case involved a unique set of circumstances. There five people were performing identical work for the same ministry and all five had the same title, yet one was classified higher than the other four. Clearly, the Board had to deal with a difficult situation and it certainly recognized that the situation was one which called out for a remedy. In dealing with Board's decision the Divisional Court did not comment directly on the general proposition that it is necessary to show that there has been in fact an amendment to the Classification standards ,before the Board can conclude that an employee has been improperly classified. It found that the Board's fatal error was in refusing to find in the circumstances that one employee being classified higher than allthe others was a basis for reclassifying the others, Each case will naturally depend on its own circumstances; in some .situations the ~fact that one employee doing substantially the same work as another employee is classified in a higher classification,may be sufficient to Justify reclassification, and in others perhaps it will not. We do not consider that,the decision of the Divisional Court in Lowman can be read as a general direction to this Board that without considering all of the circumstances it must reclassify an employee in all cases where the employee can show that one other employee in the Civil Service is performing substantially the same work in a higher classification. In the case before us the assertion is, in essence, that every other title searcher in the Civil Service is classified as a Clerk 5 General and.so the griever should be as well. The only evidence which we have ss to the duties and responsibilities of other employees who perform searches in the Registry Offices is of the Title search Technician, and that evidence comes from Ms.Disher and the position .:. .: :,;, I L specification (EX. 13). we have no evidence before us concerning what other "title searchers" employed by Government of Ontario do. There is no doubt on the evidencebefore us thatboththe griever and MS. Disher do in fact shave comparable education and training in the field of title searching. There is also no doubt that when the "Skills and Knowledge Required to Perform the.work" section on the two position specifications are compared (EXs. 2 & 13) theTitle SearchTechnician position requires, among other things, "Ability to interpret legal, survey and registered documents relative to rights Of title", while the Registry Clerk must have "... ability to read legal documents pertaining to property descriptions and ownership". This difference betreen the ability to "interpret" documents and the ability to "read" documents is a reflection of the different purposes of the two lobs. The Title Search Technician "... obtainlsl information re description and .._. ownership of a property being.consideredfor acquisition or sale. . . . searchIesJ title to real property to obtain related documentary evidence in order to establish and confirm validity of ownership, right to convey, easements, written descriptions, interests, etc.? while the Registry Clerk "...establish[esJ ownership, size, location and legal description of properties for mapping.purposes and assessment roll". It therefore would appear thatthepurposes of the two jobs are entirely different, in that the Registry clerk is not concerned with questions of the validity of cwner6hip claims or the right to convey, etc., and,that -' as a result the basic abilities required to do the Jobs differ. In light of the purpose of the Registry Clerk's lob, and the evidence concerning thenumberof searchesthatare carried out in an average month, it is ,difficult to conclude that the requirements of the lob are to perform what could be termed as comprehensive title searches . : 4 of any sprt on a regular basis. Ms. Disher testified that the sorts of searches which she was required to carry out could last anywhere from d half day to several days and that she usually allowedherself one day per owner. The griever completes a minimum ~of around four hundred ,searches per month. Assuming that both the griever ,and Ms. Disher are equally proficient at their Jobs, it is reasonable to conclude that the sorts of searches which they are required to perform differ. Such a conclusion is borne out both by the Job descriptions and the testimony Of 14r. Wylie and MS. Marchant regarding the information which the Happing section requires from the griever's searches in order to complete the maps. ,~rom the evidence before us it appears that the vast majority of the griever's work is to supply information with which~ the Mapping section can work to update its maps identifying the land owned.by taxpayers. These maps are used by the assesmentpeople,butare of no le.gal force, according to Ms. Marchant. Any errors which may have been made in the search may be caught by the drafting departmentor by the assessors. It is difficult, given the purpose of the search and the inforniation requiredin order to update the maps, to accept that any significant partof the griever's work involves anything which could be termed s thorough legal search of title. Even though Ms. Disher described the majority of her work (70%) 8s being "last registered owner searches", this must be viewed along'with her evidence that she usually allowed a full day per owner ~per search. It would therefore appear reasonable to conclude that the sort of,"last registered owner search" which she did differed from thatdonebythe griever, 'who performed several hundred searches a month. This ‘. -,. ‘. ., ~,*! ‘i 21 -4 I ’ V conclusion is also consistent with the evidence that in doing such a search MS, Disher wouldver~ifythelastowner, do a Patent check, and note if there was no good chain of title. 1x-i order to bring taxing information up to date'it would not normally be necessary to do anything other than to determine whether the parcel of land is still owned by the owner appearing on the ASSeSsm8nt Office records. According to Ms. Disher, she could also be called upon to do expropriation searches, legal searches, and answer specific questions regarding specific pieces of property. There is no evidence before us that the grievor'was ever requested to perform these types of searches, although there is evidence that on occasion she wouldhaveto do more comprehensive searches in order to deal with road allowances in order to Ascertain the size of the property to be taxed This type of search m8y be equated to the sort of search that is in answer to specific questions. Further, there is sufficient evidence before us to allow us to conclude that, while the griever may be requested to follow a chain of ownership, the office for wh~ich she works is not interested in establishing legal title or the right to convey of any particular piece of property. eon the other hand, according to Ms. Disher, the Title SearchTechnician searching for expropriationpurposes, for example, would do a search to asceTtainif there was a clear chain of title for the purpose of establishing rights of owsership to the land in question arising out of a clear root of title and title over a forty year period, and would also have to note-any encumbrances on the property being expropriated. Tn comparing the sorts of people with whom the Title search Technician and the Registry clerk have contact if they encounter problems, differences also are apparent. The Title Search Technician I ‘V has direct contact with people in municipal offices, with surveyors, and with people in outside agencies. The Registry Clerk does, not have direct contact with any of those people, but refers any problems which she cannot solve herself to her supervisor, who then contacts the assessors or any other agencies which may be appropriate. That the information required from the searches performed by the two positions varies is also apparent from the evidence regarding the sorts of reports of those searches-which both of them make to those requesting the searches. The Title Search Technician submits a. report which may be as long as twenty $oo16cap pages. It outlines the various owners and mortgages on the property. Ms. Disher said that if there were numerous owners and problems with the title it could be a long report and would describe the problem areas enco&xered in the search. There is no evidence before us that the griever is expected to ,prepare a report of that scope, and it would appear that the most usual report which she would do.would be to update the informa,tion supplied to her by her supervisor. Given all of the evidence before us, then, while we certainly agree that both positions are required to do searches of some sort, that both are required to perform those searches in the Registry Office, and that bothmay havetorefer to some of the same documents iti the course of d&g their work, we do not agree either that both positions are'doing searches of the same scope or that they can be said'to be performing the same sort of searches. Given this, we do not,believe that we can reasonably conclude that the work which is required of the two positions is substantially the same. we hasten to point out that in making this decision we are not . . ‘. d 4, c 23 evaluating the griever's jobperformance butratherthe lob which she happens to occupy. Based on the evidence before us it certainly would appear that she possesses knowledge and skills in title searching beyond those which may be required to p&form the Job. It may also be that she is doing more than the Job requires, or that because of her knowledge, skill, andprofessionalism she searches more thoroughly than the lob requires. Be that as it may, we must base our decision on our assessment of the evidence placed before us, and in so doing we cannot conclude that it.has been proven to us on balance that the two jobs are substantially the same and so must dismiss the grievance. DATSD AT WNDON. ONTARIO THIS 30th DAY OF January, 1987 Gail Brent, Vice-Chairman 1. J. COY% Member.