Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0553.Bell et al.87-08-27SETTLEMENT 0553las IN TBB.MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER TRE CROWN EZMPLOYBES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BEFORE THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN: .- OPSEU (Bell et al) - and - Grievers THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO Employer (Ministry of Community and Social Services) BEFORE: FOR THE GRIEVOR: FOR THE EKPLOYER: HEARINGS : P. Knopf Vice-Chairman s. Dunkley Member D. Middleton Member S. Goudge COUIlSel Gowling and Henderson Barristers and Solicitors c. Slate% Counsel Legal Services Branch Ministry of Community and Social Services July 21, November 26, 27, December 1,2;1986 by II, 12, 13, 1987 ‘: ,/“ ’ ’ ._ AWARD This is a classification grievance. The grievors are classified as Developmental Class Instructors - Adult Sensory Programs. .They work in the Occupational Therapy Department at the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia. This is a facility for the developmentally handicapped which provides long term residential care to their clients and some support to the community of Orillia. The grievors claim that the work they do does not fit within the class series or description in which they have been placed by the Ministry. The grievors claim that the bulk of the work that they do fits best within the classification of an*Dccupational Therapist 2. Thus, the grievors have. asked that this Board' order that they be reclassified to the Occupational Therapist 2 level. The case involved eight days of hearing. The evidence presented by both parties reveals the complexities and skills demanded of the personnel in both relevant classifications. Much of the evidence was highly technical and delved quite deeply into the philosophy, theories and techniques of the therapies provided to the residents. This award makes no attempt to reiterate the many details that were presented to us. Instead, we shall only review aspects of the evidence that are necessary to illustrate the nature of the jobs and the points that relate .directly to our ultimate decision. In reviewing the evidence, we are fortunate that there was little, if any, factual dispute between the parties. While it is clear that different witnesses held different perceptions about the nature of the work being done, they did not disagree to any major extent over what was in fact being done. Further, we are satisfied of the integrity, credibility and honesty of all the witnesses who testified and their genuine efforts to assist this Board towards making a proper resolution of this case. -2- The de~artmont in which the grievors work is the Occupational Therapy Department. It consists of approximately 20 employees, headed by the Chief Occupational Therapist, Margaret Carpenter. There are a number of Occupational Therapists (0. T. 's) classified from Occupational Therapist 2 through to Occupational Therapist-4. The Occupational Therapists were assigned supervisory, as well as occupational therapeutic duties. In addition to the Developmental Class Instructors who were also part of this department, there is a Developmental Class Leader who has duties much the same as the other Developmental Class Instructors, out who has a supervisory role over Developmental Class Instructors. The nature of the supervision seems to be basically administrative but to some extent involves the professional services provided by the Developmental Class Instructors. The grievors all came to their jobs having had ' extensive experience as counsellors in the residential cottages of the facility. They have obtained a certificate from a community college qualifying them to be a Developmental Service Worker. They also acquired on-the-job certificates as Developmental Class Instructors. The acquisition of the certificate involved a two-year programme designed to cover all aspects of therapy in the department and to teach the purposes of occupational therapy as well as ensuring that the staff are competemt in all areasof the department. The residents at Huronia that the grievors deal with are adults who are considered severely or profoundly retarded and thus function at a very "low level". They often exhibit behavioural problems. Care and therapy are provided through many other other departments as well. The total programme for the residents is co-ordinated through an inter- -3- disciplinary team made up of representatives from every department who meet annually to discuss the treatment for the forthcoming year. The Developmental Class Instructors and Occupational Therapists attend these meetings on behalf of their particular clients and their respective caseloads. Because of the severe level of handicap, the objectives of the therapy vary with each client. But the general objective of occupational therapy is to develop a client to a point that s/he can function more appropriately with their capacities. Only very limited skills can be developed at what is considered as .a pre-vocational level. For example, the skills that are developed range from something.as fundamental as basic reflexes-up to.something more difficult such as colour identification. But the ultimate objective of all occupational therapy will vary depending on the nature of each client's disability. Clients with specific deficits are given specific therapy In order to .2 help develop. There are four types of therapy given. All the grievors are qualified to deliver therapy in all four areas: 1. Sensory motor therapy - In this area clients function at the level of two years of age or less. The therapy involves very basic development of the sensory and neurological systems. For example, clients with no self-protective systems must be helped to prevent them from falling without protection. 2. Perceptual and fine motor therapy - Clients function at the level of two to six years. Therapy involves basic perceptual skills such as recognizinp shapes and colours and devloping an ability to pick up objects with fingers .i -4- rather than fists. The purpose of this is to actually teach skills which could possibly lead towards development of a useful skill. 3. Advance perception and fine motor - This involves developing number and letter concepts, holding objects such as Dencils and even basic reading and writing. It is designed for' patients with the mental age of six or over. 4. Skill integration - This involves pre-vocational skills such as sorting, packaging and developing of attention spans. This is run in a workshop type sgtting but is not a workshop itself. Clients are referred to the Occupational Therapy Department from other aspects of the facility. Once a , referrals is made, an assessment must be done. Assessments are done by both Developmental Class Instructors and Occupational Therapists 2's.. There is some dispute over why a certain client may be assigned to one classification over the other. But the evidence convinces the'Board that the decision as to who does the assessment is made initially by the Chief Occupational Therapist who decides what general programme the client should be referred to. The supervising therapist in the area can then assign the files. The grievors claim that the supervising therapist discusses the referral with the therapy team within the Occupational Therapy Department and the cases are then assigned for assessment and therapy primarily on the basis of ensuring an even distribution of caseload amongst the occupational therapy and Developmental Class Instructor personnel. As a ~.?ractical matter, this seems to be the case. But it may also be that a specific case will be assigned to a specific person because of the nature and the skills of the therapist or the instructor. The purpose of the assessment is to determine if the referral to the Occupational Therapy Depar‘tment is appropriate, to see if the client could benefit from the treatments available and to form the basis of the treatment plan in the future. This decides the training objectives for the clients and the programme. Usually the person who does the assessment continues by devising the programme and performing the therapy upon the client in the future. The suggested programme and the assessment are then sent to the supervisor. Again, yearly or semi-annually, assessments are done on the clients by the person performing the therapy. All assessments done by a De%lopmental Class., Instructor are cosigned by an Occupational Therapist, including O.T. 2's. Although the grievors' impression is that the assessments were perfunctorily checked, the evidence of Margaret Carpenter and Christine Galvin is that the assessments were reviewed thoroughly. But Developmental Class Instructors such as the grievors rarely found their work being returned to them for revision because over the years, they have gained enough expertise to perform the assessments and devise the programme without remedial input from the supervising Occupational Therapist. This is not to suggest that we conclude anything other than that the Developmental Class Instructors' work was reviewed thoroughly by the supervising Occupational Therapist. The grievors claim that all occupational therapeutic supervision was done by Occupational Therapist 3's or 4's or by the Chief Occupational Therapist herself. Evidence filed through the Ministry indicated that Occupational Therapist 2's actually reviewed assessments of the Developmental Class Instructors. Further, Occupational Therapist 2's assessments were not cosigned after they had been in the facility long enough to be deemed to be capable of working independently. This was in a matter of a few months. Yet all Devclo~mental ClaSS >j -6- Instructors' assessments were always countersigned. But it clear, given the large departmental caseload and the fact that there was only one Occupational Therapist 2 working at the facility at any given relevant time in this case, there is very little interaction between the Developmental Class Instructors and the Occupational Therapist 2',s and very little time for them to observe each other's bark. This is inevitable even when people from the two classifications are working side by side because their main focus of concentration has to be the individual clients and their needs. The job standards are critical to this case. They need to be quoted at length. a- PREAMBLE INSTRUCTOR (OCCUPATIONAL1 CLASS SERIES This class series covers positions of employees who train, instruct and motivate residents or patients, in Mental Retardation facilities or in Psychiatric Hospitals, in a vocational or industrial setting. Each level in the series is written in two parts which, on the surface may appear to describe the same function. To some extent this is true;. however there are, in fact, differences in emphasis and in the training and skills required. Employees in positions in one part of the series deal with the trainable mentally retarded in an appropriate facility. In these positions emphasis is on training the mentally under-developed in how to perform simple tasks (such as: woodworking: domestic tasks, the preparation and serving of food, sweeping, cleaning, bed-making, polishing etc.: landscape, flower, vegetable gardening: industrial work, the assembly of plastic toys, telephone dial equipment, grease line fittings etc.: packaging items: salvaging waste) and concurrently to develop habitual acceptable social conduct an.d work habits. These are skills and habits which the trainees have not developed before. The objective is progressive ‘2 .’ ‘, - 7 - training to,a point where they are able to beg wholly or partly self-sufficient in the community. The basic training required for these employees relates more closely to the behavioural sciences than to psychiatry. Employees in other positions in the series deal with patients undergoing treatment for mental disorders. Emphasis is on the re-acquisition of habits and the self-imposed disciplines the patients once possessed: therapeutic activity in support of other therapeutic treatmen't; re-motivation and the fitting of the patients to return to useful productivity in their former occupation or in a new occupation better suited to their condition. The workshop environment simulates the conditions found in industrial life and, while the tasks performed may resemble those found in the Mental Retardation workshops, the objective is to revive and recover lost interest, competitive instincts and habits of hrodutivity, punctuality, co-operation and other social behaviour, lost or damaged due to their illness, and which will be required if they are to successfully re-enter life in the community. The basic training required for these employees relate to the proper handling and care of those under psychiatric treatment and suffering from a variety of mental illnesses. NOTE This series applies only to full-time positions in the vocation or industrial programmes. Positions of employees who may be assigned for periods of time to assist in an industrial or vocational setting are excluded from this series. INSTRUCTOR 2 (OCCUPATIONAL) CLASS DEFINITION: Employees in positions allocated to this class have successfully completed the prescribed Mental Retardation Certificate Course (Occupational) and, as qualified Instructors, are responsible for the care and training of a designated group of residents in a workshop or institution service environment. On shift as required and under the supervision of senior staff, they motivate, ins true t and assist the residents in the development of acceptable social behavi,our and effective work habits. > .’ -8- These employees instruct, direct and assess the performance and progress of a group of residents on or off the premises; ensure proper use of the equipment: maintain quality control and production schedules; ensure adherence to safety precautions; render first aid as required and assist in the maintenance of the equipment. They assist senior staff in the adaptation of-standard work procedures and techniques to the capacity of the mentally retarded resident. These employees meet with other Instructors and other staff to discuss problem cases. and methods of securing optimal development of residents. They may provide advice and guidance to less experienced Instructors and may supervise Instructors in training and be responsible for their practical instruction. They may temporarily be assigned to other areas of resident therapy as required.. OR - Employees in positions allocated to this class, as qualified Instructors, are responsible for the care and direction of a group of patients in an industrial therapy environment. They assist , in implementing therapeutic routines or procedures as directed by their supervisor or other appropriate staff; they demonstrate and maintain acceptable work standards and are responsible for productivity and quality control; maintain attendance and other required records; ensure adherance to safety precautions; the proper use of the equipment and assist in its maintenance. They assist in adapting work procedures and techniques to meet the abilities of the patients. They may be required to work shifts, to provide advice and guidance to less experienced Instructors and to supervise and instruct Instructors in training. Under general supervision they may be in charge of a workshop or section of a large workshop. They may also be required to obtain or assist in obtaining contracts and to sell or assist in selling products and to perform related duties. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Successful completion of the prescribed Mental Retardation Certificate course. 2. One year of experience at the Instructor 1 (Occupational) level. 8: _ - 9 - 3. Demonstrated ability and desire to understand the problems of handicapped persons; the capacity to establish and maintain effective working relationships with them; leadership; resourcefulness; integrity: emotional maturity. OR - 1. Grade 10 education, preferably grade. 12, and successful completion of an appropriate course as specified for Instructor 1. 2. One year of experience in a therapeutic industrial workshop in a psychiatric hospital or similar institution or an acceptable equivalent in formal training and experience. 3. Demonstrated ability and desire to understand the problems of the mentally ill; the capacity to establish and maintain effective working relations wih them; leadership: +- resourcefulness; integrity; emotional maturity. PREAMBLE OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST CLASS SBRIES This class series covers positions of employees who are trained in occupational therapy at the university level; who have completed the prescribed internship, are eligible for registration by the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapy and are engaged in clinical treatment work in an Ontario Psychiatric Hospital or similar facility. Their work is concentrated on individual and small group treatment in accordance with medical prescriptions to meet the needsof specific patients. Positions in this series appear in greater numbers in institutions with a large proportion of more active treatment, short stay patients. In institutions having a large proportion of long-stay patients, emphasis is on the vocational and recreational programme (covered by other classes) and the number of positions covered by this series is limited and they tend to concentrate on a pre-vocational assessment and training. Thus, the nature of the institution is a factor to be considered in allocating positions within this series. In general, on the basis of medical referrals or prescriptions for each patient, these employees plan and conduct occupational therapy activities, - 10 - taking into'consideration such factors as treatment objectives, diagnosis, prognosis, rehabilitation objectives, patient's skills and potential abilities and safety precautions. They observe patients engaged in occupational therapy individually or in groups; assess patient functioning, apply therapy and rehabilitative measures, including functional r-e-education and pre-vocational assessment and training; maintain records of progress of patients and their reaction to treatment; participate in diagnostic and review conferences attended by members of the treatment team. These employees are responsible for the requisitioning and maintenance of supplie,s and the care of tools, equipment and furnishings. They may be required to visit patients' homes or nursing homes to instruct in relevant activities. They may instruct and lecture to occupational therapy or other staff such as affiliated nurses, interns and ward staff. *- . . . . OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST 2 CLASS DEFINITION: This class covers positions of experienced occupational therapists engaged in a clinical programme under the general supervision of a senior occupational therapist. With considerable independent responsibility for the selection of methods and for the results achieved, these employees plan and develop individual and small group treatment programmes in accordance with accepted therapeutic principles and techniques. They design tasks to be administered by themselves or other occupational staff, adapting methods to the needs of particular patients. They may provide technical supervision to subordinate occupational therapists, non-professional staff and others participating in the programme: they may participate in formal instruction courses in occupational therapy and they perform all related duties as required. QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Basic. See preamble. 2. Two years' experience‘as a fully qualified occupational therapist, or a degree, from a university of recognized standing in J, ,c - 11 - occupational therapy and one year's experience in a psychiatric setting. 3. Demonstrated clinical ability; ability to supervise subordinate staff; ability to organize and administer a programme of occupational therapy in keeping with institutional or clinical treatment objectives. The grievors made it formally known to management as early as April 3, 1985 that they felt that they were improperly classified when an initial classification grievance was filed. The parties then agreed to aut that grievance in abeyance to allow a job audit to be performed in the hopes of coming towards a more neutral perception and appreciation of the Develogmental Class Instructors' positions. The audit was performed and re'sulted'in a document that came close to satisfying both management and the grievors, but not close enough~to resolve the grievances because of lingering philosophical and perceptual differences between the parties. Thus, these grievances were launched. In a nutshell, the evidence presented on behalf of the grievors was that the fundamental work performed by the Developmental Cl,ass Instructors was the same as the work performed by the Occupational Therapist 2's. The grievors claimed that they provided the same therapy to the clients, used the same equipment , employed the same skills and had the same therapeutic responsibilities as the Occupational Therapist 2's. Further, it was stressed that the Developmental Class Instructors brought to their jobs a wealth of experience with the residential clients that enabled them not only to cope with the clients but also give advice and instructions to the Occupational Therapists who were quite often employed directly upon their graduation from University. The Occupational Therapists had the benefits of a university degree with concentration on neurological matters. However, the evidence disclosed that at all ,- - 12 - relevant times, tne Occupational Therapists did not bring to their jobs the same depth of experiences in this particular field that the Devslopmental Class Instructors possessed. On the other hand, the evidence and assertions of the Ministry were that, while much of the therapy~. performed by the Occupational Therapists and the Developmental Class Instructors was the same, there are crucial differences between their functions and responsibilities that would make it inappropriate to reclassify the Developmental Class Instructors to the same level as the O.T. 2’s. The Ministry’s evidence conceded that the therapy that an Occupational Therapist 2 would provide could be the same as would be provided by a Developmental Class -Instructor if the two clients required the same kind of therapy. However, the Ministry asserted that the Occupational Therapist 2’s were expected to be able to and in fact did provide more specefic therapeutic programmes designed to meet the specific needs of the clients. In order to do this, the Occupational Therapist 2’s would draw upon the theoretical neurological training that enabled them to recognise and develop specific areas of this function. The Ministry also called evidence to distinguish the work and the responsibilitis of the Occupational Therapist 2’s from the Developmental Class Instructors. One apsect of this evidence dealt with the fact that the Occupational Therapist 2’s worked with clients outside the facility from the community and in doing so administered specialized therapy designed’ to help improve learning disabilities. This type of therapy was not used for the residential clients or appropriate for them. The work with the community clients was usually done on an overtime basis and was always done by Occupational Therapist 2’s. There was one exception of one Developmental Class Instructor who assisted with one community client. c The Occupationa'l Therapist 2's were also called uPon to compile and draft standard assessment and therapy forms in the department. There is no question that the Developmental Class Instructors and the Developmental Class Leaders had input that was utilizd in the completion of these forms. But the ultimate drafting responsibility fell to the Occupational Therapist 2's. Further, the Occupational Therapist 2's had some authority to discharge clients, whereas the Developmental Class Instructors did not. Further, Margaret Carpenter testified that the Departmental Class Instructors were limited in the use of some of the therapeutic equipment and techniques as Opposed to the Occupational Therapist 2's. This aspect of the evidence . ' concerned the concept of having the client "pushed to tolerance- in the sensory integration field. Management did not want Developmental Class Instructors to push clients to tolerance because of their relative lack of training and sophistication in the neurological fields as opposed to the 250 or 300 hours of neurology that the Occupational Therapists study in university. However, the evidence is clear that many Developmental Class Instructors did push to tolerance and that no harm has resulted from this. The Ministry also called evidence to suggest that the Occupational Therapist 2's, as opposed to the Developmental Class Instructors , were involved in research as well as committee and training work in the facilities. However, Developmental Class Instructors also served on committees. Further, the research aspect of the Occupational Therapist jobs was not significant enough to be a telling fsctor in this case. Another way the Ministry tried to distinguish the Occupational Therapist 2 and Developmental Class Instructor cases was by suggesting that the Occupational Therapist 2's took on the more difficult cases because of their more sophisticated training. While this may - 14 - be so, the evidence is also clear that when one Occupational Tnerapist left the facility, i.e., Christine Galvin, her caseload was transferred exclusively to De.velopmental Class Instructors only and was not taken over by another Occupational Therapist 2. Thus, while an Occupational Therapist 2 may well be able to provide different, more specialized or more specific therapy to a patient, in many instances, Devlopmental Class Instructors were allowed to take over the same patient from an Occupational Therapist The Argument 2. Counsel for the grievors claimed that there are three bases of improper classification in this c,ase. The first was that the Occupational Therapist 2 Class.Standard best encompasses what is actually done by the grievors. Secondly, it was submitted that the Occupational Therapist 2's and the Developmental Class Instructors do virtually the same thing land thus ought to Se classed.at the same level. Thirdly, or in the alternative, it was argued that the present class standard is not appropriate for the Devlopmental Class Instructors.and that a new class standard ought to be created providing for an appropriate level of remuneration. It was submitted that the evidence established that the work done by the Devlopmental Class Instructors is essentially the same as that done by the Occupational Therapist 2's and that this is sufficient to warrant a remedial order. We were referred to Wallace and Jackson, GSB File No. 214/84. Further, it was argued that the class standard pre-dated the job that was created at Huronia for the Devlopmental Class Instructors and could not be read to have been written to encompass the job that they are actually doing. We were referred to the following cases: Bahl et al. v. Ministry of the Attorney General, GSB File 891/85 (Samuels); and Wallace and Jackson v. Ministry of Health, GSB File 274/84 (Gorsky). . - 15 - On behalf of the Ministry it was submitted that if the grievors' duties insofar as usage are-compared to the class standards, it should not be said that they ought to be Occupational Therapist 2%. It was argued that there were several distinct differences between the jobs that create a significant difference. For example, the following were cited: the community caseload; the use and design of certain assessment tools; the use of specific therapies and the fact that the Occupational Therapists have professional responsibility for the programme area to which they were assigned. Further, it was pointed out that the Occupational Therapist 2's reviewed and cosigned assessments for Developmental Class Instructors and Develo&Ient Cfass Leaders. Further, counsel for the Ministry argued that in order to succeed, the grievors would have to establish that they did substantially the same work as the Occupational ' Therapist 2's. However, it was submitted that all that the evidence established is that there is an overlap of duties in some paraprofessional and professional responsibilities. It was said that this was not sufficient to have the grievance succeed. It was also also submitted that the grievors have to show more similarity than with one Occupational Therapist position in order to succeed. However, it was suggested that the Union had not even been able to establish one Qosition similar to the Occupational Therapist 2 job. On the other hand, it was argued that the grievors did fit within the class standard of a Development Class Instructor and yet not within that of an Occupational Therapist 2. We were asked to consider the standards as just general descriptions of generic functions which are used to categorise a vast variety of people into different'settings. When the grievors' positions were compared to those of the Occupational Therapist, the Developmental Class Instructor 2 - 16 - and other class standards filed before us, it was submitted that the Developmental Class Instructor is still the closest and best fit for the duties performed by the grievors. We were referrad to the following cases: Edwards and Maloney v. Ministry of Community and Social Services, GSB File 11/78 (Swinton); Montague v. Ministry of Housing, GSB File 16/78 (Swinton); and Carvalho v. Ministry of the Attorney General, GSB File 1484/84 (Roberts). The Decision The responsibility of this Board is to determine whether the grievors' position has Seen properly classified according to the class standards establishd by the Government's classification system. To do this, we look at' not only whether the grievors' jobs come within the words of the higher class system which they seek, but also whether their duties fit within the classification they presently hold. See Montague, w. In performing this function, it must be concluded that when the grievers' job is measured against the class standards of a Developmental Class Instructor, there is a basisfor concluding that their position has been improperly classiEied. To begin with, the class series is designed to cover residents in mental retardation facilities, vocational or industrial settings. The emphasis in the training and skills is for dealing with the trainable mentally retarded or patients undergoing treatment for.mental disorders. None of this is applicable to the residents at Huronia. This may largely be due to the fact that the Llevelopmental Ciass series was established before the Huronia facility was created. The inappropriateness of the Developmental Class Instructor definition at the Instructor 2 level is more striking when it is remembered that the class is defined as instructors Who are responsible for the care and training of residents in a workshop or institution service environment. Huronia is * - 17 - neither a workshop nor an institution service environment nor an industrial therapy environment. While 'there may be overlap in the kinds of care given in these two different settings, we are persuaded by the evidence of the grievors that the class definition, as presently framed, is inappropriate to the-work which is actually being performed by the Developmental Class Instructors. Thus, their present classification cannot stand. However, the grievors have asked us to QO further and to order that they be designated or classified at the level of an Occupational Therapist 2. While counsel presented extensive argument as to how much had to be established before the grievors should be reclassified.at the Occupational Therapist 2 level and how much evidence would be app.ropriate for this, we must conclude that in any of the tests mentioned in argument, the grievors' case has not been made out. We accept that on any given resident, the Developmental Class Instructor and the Occupational Therapist 2 may perform almost identical therapy. That does not establish that their duties, responsibilities and fundamental work requirements are the same. The evidence reviewed above convinces us that there are fundamental distinctions between the work done by the two groups of employees. To summarize, the following factors were particularly relevant to this Board. 1. Occupational Therapist 2's reviewed and cosigned the assessments of Developmental Class Instructors. 2. Occupational Therapist 2's are called upon and capable of administering specialized therapy for clients with learning disabilities that the Developmental Class Instructors are not capable of doing. - ia - 3. Occupational Therapist 2's are called upon to compile and draft assessment forms and have design responsibility for this as opposed to the input which is invited and utilized from the Develop&ental Class Instructors. 4. Occupational Therapist 2's have discharging authority over clients. 5. Developmental Class Instructors are limited in the use of some therapeutic equipment and treatments. For example, on the*Broda chair and with regard to pushing to tolerence in the sensory integration field. 6. Occugational Therapists are expected to assume professional responsibility for the quality of the programmes delivered as a whole, whereas the Developmental Class Instructors are only techically .responsible for the therapy they provide to their individual clients. We recognise and accept that the demands of the two particular jobs resulted in the fact that, to a large extent, on a day-to-day basis, it would have appeared that the Occupational Therapist 2's were doing the same work as the Devlopmental Class Instructors. However, we are not convinced that the distinctions in their jobs which are listed above were so insignificant that they can be ignored or discounted. Thus, at the end of the day, we conclude that, while the grievors are now improperly classified as Developmental Class Instructors, they have not made out a case that they ought to be classified as Occupational Therapist 2's. - 19 - However, they ought to be classified to a level that better reflects their professional responsibilities and skills. We therefore order that she Ministry embark upona reclassification of this position immediately. In the event that the reclassification results in a higher rate of pay, the grievors will be entitled to retroactive compensation from twenty days prior to April 3, 1985. It is to be noted that April 3, 1985 was when the Qrievors' position was first brought to the formal attention of the Ministry through an initial grievan&. Although the. initial grievance was withdrawn, it was on the understanding that it would be pursued if nothing was resolved by the job audit. The parties' efforts to resolve the matter through that process is to be commended and the grievors are not to, be penalized for embarking on that process. Therefore, they would be entitled to be compensated for any differences in pay arising from their reclassification at a higher level as a result of this award from the date specified above. This panel remains seized with all aspects of implementation of this award should the parties require our further assistance. However, it is hoped that the parties through their very able counsel will be able to resolve this matter expeditiously and that the Ministry will take immediate action on embarking on a reclassification process. To this end, the job audit performed by Janice Fraser should be of great assistance so Long as the comments of both Ms. Carsenter and Ms. Middleton presented at this hearing are also taken into consideration. _ .- -.- - .,: . - 20 - For all these reasons, the grievance succeeds, in part. dated at Toronto, Ontario this 27th day of August 1987. Paula Knopf, Vice-Chairman igy&x2+,- S. J. Dunkley, Member Jt .&g? &$tz%y/dq D. B. Middleton, Member