Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0343.Ashley et al.89-08-28 ONTARIO EMPLO YES DELA COUHONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL'ONTARIO a GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 780 DUNDAS STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSG 1Z8-SUITE 2100 rELEPNONEIrELtPNONE 180,RUE DUNDAS QUEST, TORONTO, {ONTARIO)61501Z8-BUREAU2f00 (416)598-0688- 343/85 , 354/85 , 355/85 , 356/85 , 357/85 , 358/85, 359/85 360/85 , 361/85 , 362/85, 363/85 , 364/85 , 364/85 , 365/85 366/85 , 367/85 , 368/85, 369/85 , 370/85 , 371/85 , . 372/85 373/85 , 374/85 , 375/85 , 376/85 , 377/85 , 378/85, 379/85 380/85, 381/85 , 382/85, 383/85 , 384/85 , 385/85 , 386/85 367/85 , 388/85 , 389/85 , 390/85 , 391/85 , 392/85 , 393/85 394/85 , 395/85, 396/85 , 397/85, 398/85, 399/85 , 400/85 401/85 , 402/84 , 403/85 , 404/85, 405/85 , 406/85 , 407/85 408/85 , 409/85 , 410/85 , 411/85, 412/85 , 413/85 , 414/65 415/85 , 416/85, 417/85, 418/85 , 419/85 , 420/84 , 421/85 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD Between: - OPSEU (Rabin Ashley et a1) Grievor and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) Employer Before: J .E. Emrich Vice-Chairperson F. C0110m Member G. Milley Member r I I i I ` r I I I For the Grievor : N. Roland ' Counsel Cornish & Associates Barristers & Solicitors I For the Employer: J . Zarudny Counsel Crown Law Office , Civil Ministry of the Attorney General Hearings : July 14 , 23 , 1987 October 22 , 23 , 1987 November 17 , 24 , 1987 April 29 , 1988 j May 12 , 1988 June 2 , 1988 I i I I DECISION In a grievance dated November b, 1984, Ms . Robin Ashley claims that she is improperly classified at the Clerk 3 General level and seeks reclassification to Clerk 4 General. Ms. Ashley holds the position of Direct Subscriber Processing (DSP) Clerk at the Ministry of Health, Health Insurance Division (OUIP) head offices in Kingston. She is' but one of some sixty-eight DSP clerks in Kingston who have filed individual grievances concerning the same issue. The parties have agreed that Ms. Ashley is to be treated as a representative grievor such that the outome of the other grievances before this Board shall be in accordance with the disposition of Ms. Ashley's grievance. Ms. Ashley was hired as a full-time DSP clerk with the Ministry of Health, OHIP Head office on February 15, 1982. She haslbeen classified at the level of Clerk 3 General since July 1982, following her initial training period. This set of grievances by DSP clerks is one of a series of reclassification cases brought before different panels of the Grievance Settlement Board by OHIP Clerks 3 General: Goobie 240/84 (Vice-Chair Verity) re: Information and Assistance Clerks; Peters 241/84 (Vice-Chair Jolliffe) re: Cut-of-Province Claims Clerks,"Ainsiie 812/84'(Vice-Chair Delisle) re: Group Processing Clerks; and Lark 0241/84 (Vice-Chair Fisher) re: In-Province Processing Clerks. As in the previous cases, the issue before us is whether the duties, responsibilities and requirements of the grievorIs job best fit within the Clerk 3 General Class Standard or within the Clerk 4 General Class Standard. Sme observations have been made in these .prior cases as to the nature of these standards and the function of this Hoard in'applying these standards. Fbr instance, at 0.28-30 in the Goobie case, the majority observed that it 2 i is the task of the Grievance Settlement Board to interpret the class standards, although it has no authority to amend or alter those standards. Furthermore, the standards are drafted in global and composite terms so as to encompass and be referable to a broad spectrum of work and working environments. Finally, it has been noted that there is an apparent overlap between the levels of work of the classes comprised by the General Clerical Services. however, the classes within the General Clerical Series are differentiated within this continuum by increasing degrees of ' responsibility, complexity, knowledge, authority, autonomy, judgement and discretion. Before proceeding with a review of the evidence, the Board pauses to note that counsel for the Union requested an order excluding witnesses, which was resisted by counsel for the IInployer. There was no mention or substantiation of any concern that the presence of members of management who would be witnesses or that the presence of observers who would not testify would impede the ability of the Union's witnesses to testify frankly and fully. Furthermore, this is not a case where there are issues of credibility at stake. This was a case where there was substantial agreement as to the nature of the work performed. Differences arose between the parties as to the significance of those facts and as to the appropriate characterization of those facts in light of the wording of the class standards. It was clear from the large number of observers that employees ' at the Ministry had a keen interest in the issue. Furthermore, an open hearing, where witnesses are able to follow the course of the evidence as it is tendered, can serve to reduce redundancy and to sharpen the focus of the hearing as the points of controversy Emerge. in a classification case such 3 For as this, the hearing serves an informative and educational function. these reasons, the Board refused the Union's request to exclude-witnesses.. A couple of other procedural wrangles arose early on in the course of the hearing. The Board would not ordinarily recount these in its award, but the parties requested that the ruling and reasons therefore be incl,ded in the award. Counsel for the Enployer objected- to the document, "Position Specification and Class Allocation Form" being presented to the grievor as she gave evidence concerning her jots functions. FMis document is created by the Enployer and is relied upon by it as an ,acburate description of the duties, responsibilities, and requirements of the Direct Subscriber Processing Clerk position. It is the doc=ent used by the. Employer toy classify the position as Clerk 3 General. Section 6 entitled Class Allocation sets forth the reasons given by Mr. Rey, dated April'28, 1982 for allocating the position to Clerk 3 General. Mus, it was relevant to the issues before this Board to ascertain to what extent the grievor thought this document accurately described her duties, responsibilities, and job requirements. It is the proper classification of the job which is the focus of the hearing. Thus the Board is not as concerned to`test the reliability of the grievor's recall of all aspects of -the job unassisted by the document. Accordingly, the Board directed-that the grievor be allowed to give her testimony with the benefit of the Position Specification before her, Finally, counsel- for the Unioi sought to adduce through the grievor evidence of what the duties, responsibilities and requirements were of Information and Assistawe 'Clerks. $pis evidence was tendered with a view to establishing how these duties connected with and ompared to the duties 4 r . I and responsibilities of a DSP Clerk. Judging from the length of the hearing, before other panels hearing the CHIP clerk cases, it was clear that many days were devoted to hearing evidence concerning the requirements of the I position at issue. Mac . Roland's argument was built around the standards ' i test, and not around the usage test. It is the usage test which entails comparison of job duties of the grievor's classification to those of a I higher classification for equivalence. The C,00bie decision contains an i exhaustive review of the evidence found to be relevant and decisive pertinent to the proper classification of Information and Assistance Clerks: 11be grievor has always worked as a Direct Subscriber Processing Clerk since! f her hire by the Employer. Thus, she can give the best evidence about the requirements of that position, rather than those of another position. After full argument by counsel and an opportunity to consult as a panel, the Board ruled that testimony concerning the job functions of information and Assistance Clerks should be excluded. In accordance with the parties' request, the Board includes the terms of the ruling delivered at the hearing: Having had an opportunity to consider the submissions of counsel and the case law cited, the Board is of the view that testimony concerning the job functions of Information and Assistance Clerks should be excluded. The parties are agreed that the test to be applied in this case is the "standards test" which requires measurement of the grievor's job against the wording of the applicable Class Standards. Thus, the kind of evidence which this Board must receive should ire directed to the nature of the job performed by the representative grievor and evidence as to how the Class Standards of Clerk 3 General and Clerk Q General are to be interpreted and applied to these functions. Any probative value to be gleaned by comparison or contrast to the other position of Information and Assistance Clerks would be outweighed by the attenuation of proceedings which would result from ; receiving this evidence and thereby evidence of other classified positions that in all likelihood would be put before this Board as apparently helpful comparisons and contrasts. Given that there is an extensive summary of the evidence and a thorough exposition of 5 T; r the reasons in the Goobie decision which can be addcessed in argument, the Board has concluded that it would not be substantially helptul to resolve the central. issue before it. to receive evidence as to the jots functions of Information and Assistance clerks. In reviewing the evidence, the Hoard adapts the format of the Peters decision as a helpful means,to organize the analysis. Accordingly, the Board turns to consider the wording of the first paragraphs of the Class 3 and Class 4 definitions. It is in these paragraphs that the key words or indices of distinctions in degree or quality are contained for the purpose of comparison and contrast. As was pointed out in the Peters award at p.47, the paragraph concerning typical tasks are illustrative' of the way in which the distinctive elements are displayed; but, 'being only examples, are neither exclusive nor comprehensive": The first paragraphs are in the following terms: Clerk 3, General Clerk 4, General Hnployees in positions Employees in-positions allocated to this class, as allocated to this class perform "journeyman clerks" perform a variety of responsible routine clerical work of.some clerical tasks requiring a good complexity according to background knowledge of established procedures specific regulations, requiring a background statutes, or local practices. knowledge of specific Decision-making involves regulations, statutes or local judgement in dealing with practices. Decision-making variations from established involves some judgement in the guidelines or standards. selection of alternatives . Normally, employees receive within a comprehensive specific instructions only on framework of guidelines. • unusual or special problems as Initiative is in the form of the work is performed under following up errors or conditions that permit little omissions and in making opportunity for direct corrections as necessary. supervision by others. Matter's Doubtful matters not covered by involving decisions that depart precedent are referred to radically from established supervisors. Much of the work practices are referred. to is reviewed only periodically, supervisors. principally for adherence to policy and procedures. 6 I r � i f ME INDICES r I Class 3 Class 4 I "routine clerical work of some "a variety of responsible complexity according to clerical tasks" established procedures" I As was noted in the Goobie, Peters and iaycock OHIF cases, these r indices represent a continuLa of copelexity within which there are progressive degrees of complexity as one advances through the classes from ; Clerk 1 to Clerk 7. j Ms. Ashley indicated in her testimony that she is required to peruse, a + wide variety of forms and supporting documentation, correspondenoe, and inter-office communiques when assessing initial and ongoing eligibility for i health insurance coverage of direct subscribers. Director subscribers pay i premiums directly because they are not entitled to coverage under a group health insurance policy. of these direct subscribers, some may be eligible ; f for premium relief, such as those who qualify for such benefits as premium assistance, temporary assistance, no"roup municipal welfare, and premium i exemption. Ms. Ashley explained that there are several manuals to assist I her in this function, including a training manual, a prooedures manual to assist with the computerized Subscriber Administration System (SAS) , a policy manual and a security manual. Each of these manuals contains a wealth of information. By the time of her grievance in 1984, the grievor had co mitted much of the information, instructions, and policy to memory. In addition, the grievor is circulated a constant stream of bulletins and 7 memoranda to update these manuals as changes are required to steep Current with developments affecting coverage. In 1982 when the grievor commenced working for OxiiP, the DSP unit was divided into eight sections. Most of these sections dealt with subscribers divided alphabetically. For instance, the grievor handles the files of direct subscribers in Ontario whose names begin with, the letters CHIN through COLE. in addition, one section.of DSP clerks handles the claims of direct subscribers on municipal welfare, and another section of fifteen or sixteen clerks was designated as the "one-window unit" . The "one-window unit" receives and assists dire;;t subscribers who arrive in person at an OHIP office to make enquiries. Prior to April 1983, the DSP clerks wete located at two different sites in Kingston, but they are now consolidated together in the head office building completed in 1983. At that tine, the number of DSP sections was reduced to seven, each containing approximately 10 DSP clerks. As of April 1983, the DSP clerks worked under 9 Group Leaders. Since that time the Group Leaders were excluded from the bargaining unit, and reduced in number. At the time of the hearing, there were five supervisors responsible for. 12-13 -clerks each. The, grievor explained that there are a large number .of foreign language subscribers in her "alpha". The grievor added that there is great diversity amongst applicants' ability to comprehend and complete forms or to compose 'and comprehend correspondence. Furthermore, in determining initial and ongoing eligibility for coverage, the grievor must ensure that all necessary information has been provided and substantiated so as to meet requirements of residency, immigration, .income, age, and so on. raving a large foreign population of subscribers, the grievor stated that she must be 8 i i familiar enough with a variety of foreign documentation to assess its i validity for OHIP coverage. Fbr subscribers seeking relief from premiums, she must be familiar with relevant sections of the Income Tax Act so as to be able to appraise calculations of income and allowable deductions for the purpose of meeting income criteria for premium assistance. In this connection, the grievor testified that she was expected to be on the alert i for fraudulent claims for premium assistance. j In addition, at Head Office, the grievor indicated that DSP clerks area responsible for processing status changes in Coverage such as a change from ' direct subscriber coverage to group coverage and vice versa, changes from single to family coverage and vice versa, a change from dependent coverage and cancellation of coverage upon death. The grievor testified that slightly less than half of her daily work was comprised of dealing with form letters, standard form applications and documents. Slightly more than half of her work was comprised of I correspondence or memos from subscribers, other sections of OHIP, District i CHIP offices and those acting on behalf of subscribers, such as lawyers and physicians. Tim Mason, the grievor's supervisor, did not contradict this characterization. Rather, he indicated that 908 of the grievor's work was ' coaprised of paperwork, whereas 108 involved dealing with subscribers directly, either by phone or in person. x'hece was no differentiation on hii part between paperwork involving standard forms rather than a variety of correspondence. Neither Mr. Mason, nor Ms. Ashley, found any major inaccuracies in part 3 of the Position Specification which sets forth the duties and responsibilities of a DSP clerk and allocates percentages indicating the proportion those duties represent of the whole: 9 1. Determines initial and ongoing eligibility of applications of (Non-Group, Municipal Welfare, Premium Exemption, Dependent Coverage, Temporary Special and Premium Assistance, Certificate of Payment Forms) from established procedures and processes theca by performing such duties as: 30% - examining information on applications (Non--Group, Municipal Welfare, Premium Exaupti.on, Dependent Coverage, Temporary Special and Premium Assistance) to ensure all necessary information has been provided by residency requirements, immigrations. documeats, income information, date of birch, alternate surnames, etc. ; - determining from enrolment policy the effective date of coverage for a new or reactivated registration; - assessing eligibility for Premium Assistance through a working knowledge of the Income Tax Act; calculating and recording said information to establish eligibility for full or partial assistance; assessing applications for assistance for subscribers presently covered in employer's group and notifying subscriber of exemption by appropriate form letter; - preparing necessary refund form for required group.adjustment when assistance overlap group periods; - referring, by letter, 'through Group Leader to Special Committee, those cases with extenuating circLnstances, eq. exceed established income criteria; - establishing the correct code .for type of assessed coverage, coding on SAS change form, and batching for delivery to Data Processing. Z. Maintains Direct Subscribes and Municipal Welfare Accounts by: 60% - receiving and analyzing contents of correspondence from subscribers, other sections of OHIP, District OHIP Offices, Municipal Welfare Offices, Lawyers, Physicians, etc. - resolving problems as far as possible on own initiative by utilizing reference resources at hand, eg. SAS transcripts, previous correspondence, source documents, cross-reference book, micro film, telephone/information cards, other sections of OHIP; - batching Prem ium Notices received from Welfare Offices for delivery to Data Processing; analyzing accounts that give subscribers multiple coverage to determine valid and vital information required to carbine multiple coverage accounts; - preparing memorandum to cashiers for debit and credit transactions; - returning all incomplete or irregular applications to appropriate source for required information clarification or supporting documents using fora cards/letters; forwarding to correspondence clerk if composed letter is necessary; 10 ' I - inputing appropriate transactions on SAS change form to correct or adjust subscriber accounts, eg. address change, name change, status change, etc. ; i - checking computer, results received from Municipal Offices to determine whether transaction was accepted, rejected or requires further investigation/action; - assessing computer rejects, eg. edit level, reject, update reject, warning message, or programme; - sending processed applications for microfilming, forwarding actioned correspondence for filing or to correspondence clerks for composed reply; - examining SAS transcripts for large refunds automatically generated as a result of retroactive Premium Assistance or Exemption and retaining appropriate applications for verification of refunds; - consulting with Group leader to resolve any irregular refunds; - analyzing "Y" Daily Computer results and taking appropriate action, eg . checking that group termination date is legitimate when a large refund of Direct Subscriber Processing premiums are produced and ensuring that the refund is stopped until verified; - checking unapplied Cash lists on a daily basis and determining whether payment is to be applied or refunded, eq. refund ` overpayment. I 3. Performs other duties such as: 1�� I - maintaining a daily record of work completed and producing a weekly count of production and backlog for Group Leader; - providing, when possible, answers to subscriber queries by obtaining data from terminal and relaying correct information to subscriber by phone; - maintaining current knowledge of changing policies and procedures; - determining work priorities; - ensuring confidentiality of subscribers when dealing with any inquiry from someone other than the subscriber hhuself/herself; - performing, on a rotating basis, Walk-In Inquiry Clerk's duties dealing with the public; - assisted with new staff training; - as assigned. i 1 i Turning to the first section of Part 3 of the Position Specification, it is apparent that 30$ of the grievor's job entails the assessment and processing of standard forms and supporting documentation to determine eligibility for health insurance coverage either with directly-paid premiums 11 � or through premium assistance. However. , 60% of the grievor's duties and responsibilities requires her to deal with a variety of correspondence frorn subscribers directly, from professionals acting on behalf of subscribers, from other OHIP departments and District Offices, resolving problem accounts through research, being on the alert for refunds or for duplication of coverage and verifying the propriety of refunds. Both Mr . :Mason and ms. Ashley testified that the grievor had responsibility to verify and authorize a refund of group premium up to $500.00. Any refund -in excess of that amount would be authorized by the grievor's supervisor. Direct subscriber refunds are approved by her supervisor based on her review of the supporting documentation and information. In'addition to the foregoing, 10% of the grievor's job entails performing miscellaneous"duties as set forth above. Among these duties include responsibility for handling subscribers' enquiries, ensuring the confidentiality of subscriber medical-information when handling other enquiries, keeping current on policy and practice, and dealing with the public on a rotating basis at the Walk-In Inquiry Desk Occasionally, the DSP clerk would be assigned to assist in the training of new staff. Having reviewed the testimony of the grievor and her supervisor with reference to the Position- Specification, the Board concludes that the grievor must deal with "a variety of responsible clerical. tasks" . 'Me paperwork which the grievor must process ranges from routine standard forms, more characteristic of the Clerk 3 level, . to correspondence of considerable variety in its clarity and conplexity. Through her Job requirements to process premium assistance applications of various sorts and premium exemption claims, as well as to verify eligibility for temporary 12 i i r I assistance, and to verity refunds, the grievor bears considerable I responsibility. However, central to the parties' dispute was the degree to which the I grievor carried out her duties and responsibilities "according to established procedures' . The Board will address this issue in the context of the index dealing with the quality of decision-inaking described in the Clerk 3 and Clerk 4 standards. Ms. Ashley indicated that she completes approximately fifty pieces of work per day. The exhaustive description provided the Board of her job duties indicates considerable variety and complexity in the nature of the work performed. In the Laycock award at p.5, the majority concluded that I given the volume of work performed by the grievor (800 claims a day) , the i work must be of a routine nature. From the whole of the evidence, including ) the volume of work produced by the grievor per day, the Board concludes that the bulk of the work performed by the grievor is best described by the Clerk + 4 standard rather than by the Clerk 3 standard. f Class 3 Glass 4 "requiring a background "requiring a good background knowledge of specific knowledge of specific regulations, statutes regulations, statutes, or or local practices" local practices" It was clear from the extensive evidence provided about the grievor's duties that she has committed to memory large portions of the manuals dealing with procedures, policy and security. Mr. Mason pointed out that the DSF clerks work in a competitive atmosphere such that backlogs are kept to a minimum, In order to handle the volume and variety of work in a prompt and courteous fashion, the Hoard finds that a good background knowledge is 13 J ' required. indeed the grievor's supervisor agreed in°cross examination that the grievor had to be very conversant with OHIP policies and procedures. Ibus, on this index, the Hoard concludes that the position is best described by the Class 4 Standard, rather than by the Class 3 Standard. Class 3 Class 4 "Decision-making involves "Decision-making involves same judgement in the selection judgement in dealing with of alternatives within a variations from established comprehensive framework of . guidelines or standards" guidelines" The evidence of the parties was most divergent on this index. The grievor's supervisor, Mr . Mason, testified that 90% of the grievor's workload would be cut and dried, requiring a selection of the appropriate solution from a comprehensive framework of OHIP policies and procedures, as set forth in the manuals, and up-dating bulletins. of the remaining 10% of the grievor's work, Mr . Mason estimated that 8% could be resolved if a thorough search was made of the relevant policy or procedures manuals and updating bulletins. He suggested in his evidence that a failure by a,DSP clerk to find the solution to a doubtful matter could be attributed to a certain lack of diligence in researching the resources available. He indicated that the remaining 2% of doubtful matters would be so difficult, such a radical departure, that not evert he, formerly a level 5 clerk and now supervisor, could resolve. He stated that he would refer such a matter to his manager for resolution. The problem with Mr. Mason's evidence is that it draws no distinction between work typical of a Clerk 3 and work performed at his level, as a former Clerk 5 until his promotion out of the bargaining unit in February, 1984. 'Through this promotion, he was given additional responsibilities for 14 I r � conducting appraisals and assessing discipline. however, Mr . Mason agreed I in cross-examination that his promotion out of the bargaining unit did not i affect the duties of the clerks he was supervising. Mr. Mason's evidence � was designed to suggest that of the 108 doubtful matters, 88 could be solved by a more intensive research of alternatives within the comprehensive i framework of guidelines - that is, judgement at the level of the Clerk 3 standard. His testimony was to the effect that the remaining 2% were matters that he had no authority to resolve. It follows that such problems therefore must require judgement at the level of the Clerk 5 standard, or i better . 'Thus, Mr. Mason's evidence provides no ambit or definition of judgement at the level of Clerk 4 standard. The logical conclusion is that judgement at the Clerk 4 standard requires decision-making that involves some interpretation of the CHIP � I policies and procedures in order to make them applicable to unusual or I difficult circumstances. This process of interpretation and application was I described by the grievor as "bending the rules" . Counsel for the employer took issue with that term and took pains to elicit from the grievor's i supervisor categorical statements to the effect that neither Robin Ashley nor he had authority to bend or disregard the rules governing CHIP practices, procedure, or policy. However, it was clear from Mr. Mason's evidence that' I the D&P clerks would be expected to resolve difficult problems on their own without referring to him. If he was consulted, then he would expect that ' the DSP clerk would recall that solution and not refer a similar problem to him again. He agreed that when Ms. Ashley would consult him about a difficult problem, she would propose a resolution, with which he would agree or disagree. Ms. Ashley testified that effecting status changes was an area 1 15 1 J• f which was apt to cause difficulties of application. She gave the example o£ a common-law spouse with medical expenses attendant upon a pregnamy seeking coverage under her common-law husband's family plan, which also covered his estranged legal wife. Since OHIP policy requires that only one of these wives be covered by a single plan, .a question arises as to when to cover as the wife of the policy-owner. Such a problem involves an analysis of the . intent of OHIP regulations and interpretation of the relevant provision to resolve a difficult application. Such an exercise in judgement is required of the Clerk 5 level as well, but. with a greater`degree of frequency and complexity. The comparable index for the Clerk 5 level reads: Decision-making involves judgement in the interpretation and application of policy or administrative directives to problems where the intent of existing instructions is ` obscure in specific cases. This frequently necessitates modifying work processes or the development of new one thoss. Difficult problems are referred as well by Information and Assistance Clerks working at District Offices throughout Ontario to DSP clerks at the head office in Kingston for resolution. Resolution of such problems may entail research-into various resources to trace what action has transpired to date, then contact with the pay-direct subscriber to ascertain the nature of the problem or to communicate the resolution. Mr. Mason agreed that DSP clerks are frequently required to have direct contact with subscribers by . telephone or mail., or occasionally person-to--person. In the course of carrying out their functions, the DSP clerks are expected to provide prompt, efficient and courteous service to the public. The DSP clerk must be able to 'analyse the nature of the problem presented, despite varying abilities -orn the part of those making enquiries to articulate their problem. DSP clerks are expected to deal with apprehensive, emotional and irate subscribers in a 16 i I I ' I manner which allays their anxiety and mollifies their anger. In the Goobie I award, the Board found that OHIP Information and Assistance Clerks are r required to exercise a range of interpersonal comunication skills and these I are enumerated at p.23 and 24. The evidence of Ms. Ashley and of Xr. Mason danonstrates that these interpersonal communication skills are required of DSP clerks as well. Indeed, "demonstrated oral and written cannunication skills" are required as minimal entry qualifications in Part 4 of the I Position Specification. There is no manual which the DSP clerks can consult) concerning this aspect of their work. Rather judgement is honed as these skills are utilized and refined with on-the-job experience. Indeed, tact and diplomacy are required in order for the DSP clerks to carry out their responsibilities in a manner which safeguards the confidentiality of subscribers' medical information, and which protects OHIP's interest in 1 preventing fraudulent claims for coverage or payment for services. No doubt virtually all the employees of CHIP are aware that the confidentiality of subscriber information is to be respected and that there ; is an obligation to protect OHIP from fraudulent claims. However, the extensive evidence provided as to the nature of the DSP clerk's i responsibilities makes it clear that the DSP clerk must be circumspect in dealing with a wide variety of contacts, both with the public and other governmental departments. From all the evidence, the Board concludes that the DSP clerk functions at the level of the Clerk 4 standard in respect to the index of decision-making and judgement. In this regard, the Board finds the nature and complexity of the DSP clerk' s position to be more analogous to the job of interpreting and applying statements from non-ontario doctors' to Ontario standards as set forth in the Peters decision than the task of 17 coding In-Province claims described in the Laycock award. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the complexity of the grievor`s work; the variety and extent of the DSP clerk's contacts, would serve to distinguish this case from the Ainslie decision which dealt with Group Processing Clerks at ttie OHIP head office in Kingston. Clerk 3 Clerk 4 Initiative is in the form of Normally, employees receive specific following up errors or instructions only on unusual oc. omissions and in making special problems as the work is corrections as necessary. performed under conditions which Doubtful matters not permit little opportunity for covered by precedent are direct supervision by others. referred to supervisors. The evidence of Mx . Mason was that when Ms. Ashley was transferred to work in his section in May, 1984, the branch was undergoing a reorganitation consequent upon a merger of two offices into a ne•,a facility. Mr. Mason was short-staffed and it was at this time that Ms. Ashley was enlisted to assist in the training of many new hires. The evidence of Mr. Mason suggests that he was asked frequently to resolve doubtful matters at that point in time. However his own evidence suggests, as does the evidence of the grievor, that as the DSP clerks were exposed to and became fully proficient with the full scope of their responsibilities, more reliance was placed on consultations with one another, or upon their own research to resolve doubtful matters, rather than referring the problem to Mr. Mason for resolution. Consequentlyr the Hoard finds that with experience in the position, the DSP clerk would normally seek Mr. Mason's advice upon unusual or special problems. Radical departures from established practices would be referred to Mr. Mason for resolution. 18 t i However, the evidence does not support an unequivocal finding that I there was 'little opportunity for direct supervision". Mr . Mason testified that between 70-758 of the time, he was available to the clerks for consultation at his desk, which is situated behind a baffle board about five; to ten feet away from the clerks' work stations. Ms. Ashley testified he r was available 59% of the time at his desk. At other tunes, he was usually I attending meetings which were generally held in the building. It cannot be said that in these circumstances that Mr. Mason was so inaccessible that r there would be little opportunity for direct supervision. However, the j Hoard would conclude that following the period of initial adjustment in i 1984, and by the time the grievances were filed and thereafter the DAP clerks became proficient in the full spectrum of the duties and responsibilities of their position specification. 'Their practice was to i confer with Mr. Mason on a more infrequent basis over time, except with respect to unusual problems or matters which required his authorization by policy or practice. It would appear that on this index there is same overlap between the Clerk 3 and Clerk 4 standard. With experience, the i evidence suggests that the job is performed closer to the level of a Clerk 4 than that of a Clerk 3. ; Class 3 Class 4 Much of the work is reviewed Matters involving decisions that only periodically, depart radically from established i principally for adherence practices are referred to i to policy and procedures. supervisors. Much of the comparison of the position against the two standards as to the nature and extent of the supervision has been reviewed above. Mr . Mason is required by policy to authorize personally such matters as large group refunds in excess of six hundred dollars and applications For 19 I temporary assistance which have exceeded the income eligibility requirements by mAre than $50 and Less than $100. Thus, for these situations, Mr . Mason would be in a position to check periodically for adherence -to policy. Similarly; in his position as supervisor, he mast conduct"Per formance evaluations periodically. With clerks newly hired into the position, Mr. Mason is undoubtedly required to provide a greater degree of supervision than to those who have been exposed to the .full range of the position regaitements over a period o£ time. Thus, the evidence concerning this job suggests there is an overlap between the Class 3 'and Class 4 'standards. . Taken as a whole however, a review of the position on all the key indices supports a finding that the position is better described 'by- the Class 4 standard than by the Class 3 standard. DEpical Tasks Clerk 3 Class 4 Typical tasks at this level Tasks typical of this level include the preparation of include the evaluation or factual reports, statements' or assessment-'of a variety of memoranda requiring some statements, applications, judgement in the selection and records, or similar material to presentation of data; check for conformity with assessment of accuracy of 6p6ccific regulations, statutes . statements or eligibility of or administrative orders, applicants, investigating resolving points not clearly ' discrepancies and securing covered by these instructions, further proof or documentation usually by authorizing as-necessary; overseeing, as a adjustments or recomending Group Bader, the work- of a payment or acceptance; small subordinate staff by supervising a small group of explaining procedures, °journeyman.clerksp or a larger assigning and checking work. group of clerical assistants by explaining procedures, assigning and checking work and maintaining:discipline. 20 a After a thorough review of the witnesses' accounts of the grievor' s , 1 job, the Board concludes that part of the grievor's work entails preparing factual reports, assessing the eligibility of applicants, investigating discrepancies and securing further proof or documentation as necessary. klarthermore, much of the grievor' s work in training new hires seems well i described as acting in a Group Fader capacity to explain procedures and i check work. however , the Hoard further finds that a large part of the i r grievor's work falls within the Class 4 description, as well. The evidence establishes that it is a core function of the grievor to evaluate or assess a variety of statements, applications, records or similar materials for compliance with OHIP statutory requirements, policy and practice. As indicated above, the DSP clerks strive to resolve points r not clearly covered by the statutory and policy framework. They are regularly required as a core function to authorize adjustments (ie. ' i movements between pay-direct to group; from pay-direct to a form of pre.Tnium assistance or premium exemption) ; recommend payments (such as large group refunds, where applicable) or acceptance (as a pay direct subscriber or as ' eligible for premium assistance or exemption) . Ms. Ashley has been assigned from time 'to time to train new DSP clerks. As such, she would explain policies and procedures and would check the trainees' work. However, the evidence establishes that the grievor is not? required or assigned to supervise "journeyman clerks" or a larger grcup of clerical assistants for the purpose of "checking work and maintaining discipline". The expectation is set forth in the preamble to the series ' that Class 4 clerks would "usually cover positions involving line supervision" . The grievor and other DSP clerks cover for their supervisor zl I " Mr . Mason when he is ill or on vacation by attending to such matters as taking messages, maintaining attendance records and gathering cases, for the special committee to consider concerning premium assistance. Vlvaevet, the Board finds that it is not a core function of the grievor's position to provide lane supervision to subordinate clerks, entailing such matters as performance evaluation and discipline. However, the preamble goes on to provide that "non-supervisory positions can also be included" within the Class 4 standard and above. If the Board were to find that on the key indices pertaining to level of complexity, responsibility, knowledge, judgement, authority, autonomy, and discretion the grievor is performiing a job which is best described by the Class 4 standard, it is clear from the wording of .the preamble that lack of supervisory responsibility is not an impediment to classification within the Class 4 standard. For instance, in the La cock decision, the Board found that absence of any supervisory responsibility was not relevant. gualifi cations: Clerk 3 Clerk 4 1. Grade 12 or an equivalent 1. Grade 12 education or an combination of education, equivalent combination of training .and experience. education, training and experience. 2. About three years satisfactory clerical 2. About four years of progressively experience. responsible clerical experience or .an equivalent combination of 3. Ability to understand and experience and higher educational explain clerical procedures qualifications. and requirements; ability to organize and complete.work 3. Ability to.communicate clearly . assignments within both orally and in writing; prescribed time limits; ability to instruct and supervise ability to maintain good the work of subordinates.. working relationships with other employees and the public served. 22 I . I I 'fie Board received evidence of Mr. Neale, who has held the position of Regional Personnel Administrator in London since 1982. Prior to this ! position, he had ten years' experience in classification matters with the ! Human Resources Secretariat. He testified in the Goobie, Peters, Ainslie I and La cock hearings as to how the Ehployer applies its classification system. In this hearing, Mr. Neale confined his testimony to the issue of how the qualifications sections of the standards are used by the Employer in classification matters. The Hoard finds this evidence relevant to the issue before it and admissible. Certainly such evidence is not dispositive of how I the classification standards ought to be applied to the grievor's job, since that is the ultimate issue before the Board. In the laycock decision, it was noted that the qualifications section of the standards were used as a I hiring criteria for staffing positions but not as an analytical tool for f classification. In Peters, it was noted that the qualifications sections of the standards had been superceded by staffing standards issued by the for.er Civil Service C =ission. I Mr. Neale explained that the qualifications sections of the Class Standards were used to set entry level requirements as hiring criteria for staffing, rather than as analytical tools for discriminating between class; levels. In cross-examination he added that the qualifications are naturally I relevant and complementary to the duties of the position, but pointed to section 4 of the Position Specification as setting out the qualifications needed to perform the work of a DSP clerk. As was noted above, Section 4 of the RSP clerk position specification places particular emphasis upon J knowledge of a variety of legislation in addition to the Health Insurance 23 i I Act and upon demonstrated oral and written communication skills, so w., to be able "to deal tactfully and efficiently With the general public, other employees and other government agencies" . , The Board .finds that these qualifications seem comparable to the sort of qualifications set forth for the Class 4 Clerk General standard. Conclusions In reviewing the evidence on the key indices of the class standards, the Board indicated the inferences it drew. To recapitulate, the Board finds that in respect to complexity, knowledge, judgement and initiative, the D5P clerk's work was best described by the Clerk 4 standard. In respect to the quality of supervision received, the Board found some overlap but held that the Clerk 4 standard best describes the position as it would be performed by an experienced and proficient clerk who had been exposed to all aspects of the position specification. in respect to the typical tasks performed, the Board found some overlap, but that the Clerk 4 description was applicable except with respect to the supervisory authority exercised. However, the pream'ale to the class series makes it clear that lacking supervisory authority is not an impediment to classification at the higher level. Taken as a whole, and given' that overlap between the classes is to be expected, the Hoard concludes that the Union has established that the grievor's job is best described by the Clerk 4 standard. The Board accordingly finds that the grievors are entitled to be paid at the Clerk 4 General level as and from the dates of their grievances, but declines to award interest on the compensation ding from the date of the grievance to the date of the award on the same grounds set forth at p.62 of I 24 i I the Peters award. We retain jurisdiction to hear and determine at the i request of either party any problem encountered in implementing this decision. i f � I I Dated at Kingston this 28th day of August_ 1989. i I J.E. Emrich, Vice-Chairperson ` I I I I 1 r . I F., 11om, Member 1 ' I I G. rii 11 ey I I I 25 GD co rt- �nn