Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-0891.Bahl et al.87-03-24BETWEEN: BEFORE: IN THE MATTER OF~AN ARBITRATION - Under - THE CROWN EKE'LOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD FOR THE GRIEVORS: FOR THE EMPLOYER: HEARING DATES: OPSEU (Bahl et al) - and - The’Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General) J.W. Samuels, Vice-Chairman I.J. Thomson, Member L. Turtle, Member A. Ryder, Q.C., Counsel Gowling and, Henderson Barristers and Solicitors . . v. Oster Staff Relations Coordinator Ministry of the Attorney General October 6, 1986 November 19, 1986 February 18, 1987 Grievers . Employer 2 The eight grievors are all the Warrants and Claims Clerks in the Travel and Claims Section of the Finance Branch of the Minisny~of the Attorney-General. They arc classified as Clerk 4 General. They claim that they ought to be Clerk 5 General because the Senior Clerk in their office is a Clerk 5 and the grievors say they do essen:ially the same work as the Senior Clerk. The evidence before this Board is somewhat limited. The Union called Mr. A. Broad, one of the grievers, to explain what the Section does, the changing organization of work and staff in the Section, the grievors’ job, and the Senior Clerk’s job. The Employer called the Senior Clerk, Ms. A. Moore, to explain her job and why it differs from what the grievors do. However, we ended our hearing on November 19 in rhe middle of her cross- examination. When we returned on February 17 to continue wi:h her cross-examination, counsel for rhe Union told us thar the day before Ms. Moore had met with her supervisor (and Hr. Oscer confirmed that he did meet with Ms. Moore and that he discussed the case with her, though he did not coach her in her evidence), and Mr. Ryder insisted that he could not continue cross-examination in these circumstances, that he had been denid the right to a full and fair cross-examination, and.that this Board should now disregard all of Ms. Moore’s testimony. We ruled that the cross-examination of his. Moore could not continue in these circumstances. It is critical that a witness under cross- examination be free from outside influence, in particular from her counsel and supervisor. However, we would consider that part of her evidence in chief which had already been subjected fully to cross-examination, and Mr. Oster could re-examine her on any of the cross-examination which had already taken place. Mr. Oster had no re-exa.minarion and called no further witnesses, though the Supervisor of Warrants and Claims was there in our hearing room. Thus, we have virtually no substanrial evidence from the Employer, because there is very little of Ms. Moore’s testimony which had been fully cross-examined. . We are left largely with the uncontradicted evidence of Mr. Broad, and he did prove the grievors’ case. It was 2 reorganization in Ihe Section in 1982 which !cd to the request for reclassification. 3 ,Tnere are three types of work done in the Section--processing of travel claims by employees on government business; paying for goods and services provided by part-time employees, police, lawyers and accountants, largely related to criminal prosecutions; and processing accountable advance cheque registers (AACRs), which concern accountable petty cash monies advanced to local sheriffs’ offices and courts to pay for witnesses, jurors, interpreters, and other expenses associated with the running of these offices. Up to 1982, there was a Supervisor; and there were three Senior Clerks, classified as Clerk 4, each of whom was in charge of one of the types of work done in the Section. The Senior Clerks supervised the work of 6 Clerks, classified as Clerk 3, who looked after geographic groups of reporting oftices. Each of the Clerk 3s did all the types of work. Each Senior Clerk then checked the work of all 6 Clerk 3s which was within his or her particular domain, and the Senior Clerks handled the more complex matters within their ,’ areas. In sum, the Senior Clerks were speci*tists and dealt with complex matters and each one was restricted to one type of work: The Clerk’3s were generalists, dividing up the less complex work of all three types on a geographic basis. Li 1982, ‘there was a reorgdniza~tion. Now .there would be one Supervisor, one Senior Clerk (classified as Clerk 5), and nine Clerk 4s: The work was parcelled out to the Senior Clerk and the nine Clerk 4s, based-on a geographic disnibution and in part on the particular expertise of the individual involved. In essence,’ these ten employees were equals.’ The Senior Clerk would provide some “quality connol”, by checking some of the work done by the nine Clerk 4s, but it was obviously impossible for the one Senior Clerk to check the work of the nine Clerks, as had been the case when there were three Senior , Clerks for six Clerks. Indeed, in what little cross-examination there was of Ms. Moore, ’ she described what was involved when she checked aayel claims, and it was very minor. Whereas pre-1982 there was a clear progression in the complexity of the work and in responsibility as one moved from the Clerks to the Senior Clerk, now there is a division of all the tasks, and the Senior Clerk does not do. more complex, more important, or more responsible work. Mr. Broad, who has acted as a Clerk 5, testified that the key differences between the jobs of the Clerk 4 and Clerk 5 were the following: --the Clerk 4 did more work; , 4 --overall, the Clerk 4 does work which is -It. if not more- than the Clerk 5; and --the Clerk 4 has more direct responsibility to other offices than the Clerk 5. Furthermore, he said that in most cases, the Clerks do not go to the Senior Clerk for help if the Supervisor is away. Rather they wait for the Supervisor to return, or they get the answers from other Clerk 4s, because many of the Clerk 4s have more experience than Ms. Moore, and some of the Clerk 4s are better able to answer questions than Ms. Moore. And this testimony, which was subjected to cross-examination, was not effectively challenged! We do have the position descriptions for the grievers and Ms. Moore. They are reproduced after the signature page of this zward. On their face, they do not suggest that Mr. Broad is incorrec: in his analysis. In short, the Union has proven that the grievors do indeed do the same or essentially similar work as is done by Ms. Moore, who is classified as a Clerk 5 General. Now the Employer argues that this is not enough----that the Union must show that there are a number of employees classified as Clerk 5 General who are doing the same work as the grievors. And Mr. Oster finds some support for this in several decisions of this Board. It would be useful if we looked back at the jurisprudence of the Board on this point. In Rounding, 18175, the Board said that a claim for reclassification would succeed if the employee is “being required to perform virtually the identical duties which, the class standard notwithstanding, are being performed by employees whose position has been included in some other more senior classification” (at page 4). There are two cominents to be made about this decision, Firstly, it is not clear that there must necessarily be an examination of the jobs done by more than one ocher eqployee. Secondly, the claim for reclassification will succeed if there is this similarity in duties, even if a reading of the class standards would not support the reclassification. In Lynch, 43/77, the Board said that its task was to assess the griever’s job against “the duties performed by some other employee whose position has been included in a more senior classification” (at page 4). This assessment is necessary because the documented class standards may be applied in such,a way that “the employer may subs!andally modify the documented standards relied upon~and because rhe treatment accorded other employees 1 5 is very often the underlying reason for grievances of this kind” (at page S). It is significant here that the Board is clear that it is sufficient to compare the grievor’s duties to only one other employee whose work is identical or nearly identical to the grievor’s. In Wheeler, 166/78, the Board said that, in order to succeed on the basis of this comparability test, a gsievor must show “that an employee doing the same work is within the higher classification” (at pa,, P 16, emphasis in the original). Again, it is clear that the comparison need be made with only one other emplbyee. In McCourr, 198/78, the Board said that the claim for reclassification would succeed, even if the griever were properly classified in accordance with the class standards, if she was performing “virtually the identical duties to another employee who was classfied at a higher level” (at page 8). Yet again, it is clear that the comptison need be made with only one other employee. In Beals and Cain, 30/79, we find a clear statement of the purpose of the classification system and how it works in these cases (at pages 11-12): It may be assumed that among the objecrjxes of the employer3 dassificarion system are the achievemenr of uniformity in policy and consistency in practice rhroughour rhe public service, and equitable treatment of individual employ=s. It follows rhar it is .LQ abuse of the system and unfair to. employees where rhe.>ositions of employees who are performing substantially similar work art placed in different classifications. By intervening where rhat condirion is found TO exist rhe Board, rarher than frustrating the intent or undermining the operarion of the classification system, is preserving the legitimacy and rhe credibiliry of that system. 6 The employer is clearly entitled :0 creare whatever classifications it deeps necessxy to the effective orginization and direction of its employees. 6ut :he employer must acce?: to be held to the consequences of departures, in particu!x cases, from setrled policy or practice. Ii is not open to the e.mp!oyer, for example, to fix :he &ties or 03 direct the work of incumbenrs of positions placel in one classi:lca;lw so as to require or ,Xrmit them, in e!:ecc:, to pcrfcrm :De du;:es o! ;osi;:Jr.s placed in another c!assifica:ion. Ir is well es:ablisi-xd ;?a:. in ?osirion classiilcarion cases, :.?e Soard must direct: i:s inquiry :o the qiresrions, first, .wher.ier X Soi I.:c work acruaUy performed by the employee is rhd: set out in an appro;ria:e class standard and, secsnd, wherher or :.Ot ne is ?er!orming NV-:;; wbstantially similar to thar ‘ei;i; perform& jy an employees ‘UACie p3sitisn has bee? placed in anorher dassiflcarlon. In :?e firn ins:a;lce :.:c employee’s work is measured agai,xr class szandards and in :he second ir :s measured against Oat. of an employee in a jxsition ma: 5as been differenily classified. The pur?se is :o enabiish ei;ber that rhe cmpls~e: is conformin: 3 its classification sz.ndxds cr :ha: :he employer has, 13 effect, modified those standards. And once again we find the Board saying rhar it is sufficient to compare the griever’s duties to those of one other employee who is higher classified. Then in Monrague, 110178, the Board said that in some cases it might not be suffLzient to compare the griever to one other employee. At pages 5-6. we find the following: 7 The task of this,Board in classification grievances is to c assess whether the position has.been improperly classified according to the class standards established by the government's classificatidn system. 1.n deciding such grievances, the Board considers not only whether the ~grievor's job comesin within the words of the higher class standard which he or she seeks, but also~ whether the grievor's duties are the,same as those of an employee within the more senior classification sought (Re I;& 43/77; Re Routk?ing, Z@/75; Re Wheezer, 166/78/. A recent award by another panel of this Board elaborated on this second line of enquiry in McCmt and Ministm, df the Attime? GenemZ, 198/78. If another employee doing work identical to the grievor is classified.at a higher grade, it ma.y indicate that the employer's actual classification practices differ from the written classification standards. It should 'be noted, however, that the concern is~with the proper ap,plication'of the employer's classification system. ~Therefore, it may not be conclusive for a. grievor to show that one employee in a higher classification perform - the same tasks; for it mey be that such an employee has been improperly classified. In deali~ng with applications under Section 17(2)(b) of' the 001~ EmnZouees CoZZecttve Bargaining ,Act, S.O., 1972 C. 67, or. grievance regarding classification under the collective agreement, the Board is not directly concerned with discrimination between employees in the application of the classification system. unless the differential treatment demonstrates a change in the classification 8 system from the written standards. The Board's concern is with the question of whether the griever's job has been improperly classified, when that job is measured against absolute standards. Often, the description of jobs of employees in th,e higher classification will only serve to illustrate the application to particular cases of what are necessarily generally worded standards. Thus, it is suggested that, if the Employer can show that rhe employee with whom the griever is comparing himself is in fact wrongly classified, then it is not sufficienr for rhe grievor to show that his tasks are the same as this o:her higher ciassified employee. And this suggestion is reite:ated in Wrighr, 248181, at pages 5 (at the toeof the page) and 6 (about 2&d rhe way down the page). But this is the oniy exception suggested to the general rule that it is sufficient lo compare the griever’s job with the job done by one other higher rated eqloyee. And this exception does not apply in our case. The Employer did not suggest that Ms. Moore is wrongly classified as a Clerk 5 General. In McLean, 499/U, the Board said that the claim for reclassification would succeed if “the Grievers were performing the same duties as those of other employees within the higher classfications sought” (at page 11). While i: might be si?id that this sugges’s that the comparison must be made with more than one employee, the authority relied on for this statement is Rounding. Lynch, Wheeler, Montague, and,McCourt. And we have seen that these authorities say it is sufficient to make the comparison with one other employee, subject perhaps to the possibility that the employee to whom the griever is compared is wrongly classified. The Ontario Divisional Court considered the award in Brecht, 171181. In its decision (Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Queen in right of Ontario et al. (1982). 40 OR (Zd) 142). the Coun upheld the jurisprudence of rhe Board which we have just related. and said that the Board erred in findixg, RS it did in Brechr. rhnr rhe 9 detemrination of classification is an exclusive managemenr right. The Board is obliged to measure the duties performed’by the grievor against either the class standard or other employees performing the same duties who are in a higher classitication (in particular, see’ page 145). , In Re Anorney-Generalfor Ontario and Onian’o Public Service Employees Union er al. (1983), 44.OR (2d) 32, the Ontario Divisional Court upheld an award of the Grievance Settlement Board, which had granted reclassification upon proof by the griever that he was doing the same job as another employee who was higher classified. The Employer had argued that the latter employee was wrongly classified as a result of an earlier award by the . Grievance Settlement Board. The Court decided that the Employer should not be permitted to reopen the earlier case by means of a challenge to the reclassification of the new gtievor. Mr. Justice Osler said (at page 36): “The board has developed as ‘the law of the contract’ the view that employees ,in the same ministry doing identical work should be treated identically in the matter of classification”. Caution was suggested by Mr.Justice Steele so that w,c do not adopt a policy which means that one error will result in the automatic reclassification of many employees to an incorrect classification (at page 37). +e agree that there is need for such an exception to the autom&ic reclassification of an employee. But in our case, we reiterate that the Employer did not argue that Ms. Moore was wrongly classified. Indeed, the Employer’s position is that she is correctly classified, but the grievers are doing different work. . Perhaps the waters became somewhat muddied in Lowman, 13/82 er al., when the Board said (at pages 9-10): The thrust of the Union's case, however, is not based on the written class standards but on a comparison of duties with another employee, i.e. Mr. Drunetiych, who is classified ai Engineering Officer 3. At the outset, it should be said that the Board finds that the Grievors were performing duties which ~were substantially the same as i0 Mr. Drunewych, who is classified at a higher level. (In fact, it would aopear that the responsibilities assumed by all of the Regional Remote Sensing Supervisors, including Mr. Drunewych, were identical, although the actual functions which were perfomred may have varied based on the physiography of the region.) Nevertheless, in the Board's view, this is insufficient to establish the Grievors' claim. fis previously stated, the essence of the Soard's inquiry in a case of this nature is to determine whether the Employer has conformed to its actual classificaticn standards. These standards are measured by the Employer's written class standards unless there is proof that the Employer has varied the written standard. If there are employees classified at a higher level who are doing the same work as the Grievors, it may indicate that the Employer has by its practice varied its written class standards (Re Mcntague 110/75). !n these circumstances, the ,Cmployer's practice of classifying employees is a form of extrinsic evidence which may indicate that the Employer has in fact reinterpreted its written class standards, however, in order to rely on such evidence, there ordinarily must be a consistent practice of varying the class standard and, in the usuaT case, the c7ass standard must be sufficiently broad to cover the job in question*. Was tie Board now saying that the old jurisprudence was overturned, and it was no longer the rule that an employee claiming reclassification would succeed if he showed he was doing virtually the same job as an employee who was higher rated? If this was whar the Board said, ,a”d we are not sure that this is what was meant by !he panel which decided Lowman. then it is clear that the Ontario Divisional Cour? bvould have none of it. In its unreported hand-written decision of April 2-, 7 1935, the Courr quashed rhe decision of [he Board. 11 In our opinion the Board erred in failing to apply the second .test in OPSEU vs. ~The Queen in Right ofOntario et al (1982) 40 OR (2d) 142 (Brccht’s case). Having found that there was an employee performing substantially the same duties as the gricvors and that such employee had been deliberately classified by the respondent in a higher classification, the Board acted unreasonably and without jurisdiction in failing to find that the gticvors would be properly classified in the higher classificanon. It couldn’t be clearer. An employee must be reclassified if it is found that he is performing the same job as another employee who is higher classified. ,But then this Board in Carvalho, 1484184, considered this decision of the Divisional Court and said (at page 18): Counsel for the Union submitted that the foregoing decision ought to be interpreted as an indication that it was sllfficient to establish a prima facie case f.or the qrievor to , show that at least one person who performed the sane work was classified at a higher level. This,' it was submitted, would obligate the Ministry to lead evidence showing that it had not, In fact, departed from its classification practices.' Because no 'such evidence was led by the Ministry, the ~arqu.ment conclud'ed, the,decision of this Board on class usage must go in favour of the qrievor. . . While this was an intriguing argument, it must be con- clude3 that it would stretch matters too far fqr:thc Board to accept it. Reading the decision of the Divisicnal Court in Xe Lowman as a whole, we are led to conclude that the DLvisional Court did not intend to reject the general rule cf this Board I I . I ‘. 12 that ir, order to succeed on a class usage ar5smer.t the union must show the existence of a cor.sistent practice of vary:?,5 the Class Standard. Absent special circumstances, it does no= satisfy this “practice” requireaent to show that only one enployoe in a hiTher classification perf crned t.he same k’crlc as the q=;evor. With the greates: respec:. we simply cannot agree. A decision of one panel of this Board should nor be over-mled unless [here is clear reason ro do so and [he earlier decision is manifestly incorrect. In our view, the decision in Carvalho is not supponable. It is c!ear f?om the review of the jurisprudence we have conducted here, and from the decision of the Ontario Divisional Coun in the Lowman case, that there is no requirement that the Union go beyond showing that one employee in a higher classification performs the same ,work as the griever. This is enough to succeed in the ciaim for reclassification. unless perhaps ii can be &own that the’ comparison employee is wrong!y classified. And we have already said that this exception does not apply in our case. ’ Indeed, in our case, it would simp!y not be reasonable to find that the grievers do substantially the same work as Ms. Moore, yet leave them in a lower classification, with lower wages, than Ms. Moore. The whole purpose of a classificanon system is to ensure that employees doing the same job arc classified and paid the same. In sum, the Union has demonstrated thar rhe grievers perform substantially the same job as Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore is classified as a Cle.& 5 General. The grievers ought to be classified as Clerk 5 General. Now with respect to retroactivity, the grievances were filed on August 21, 1985, but ask for retroactive pay back to January 1, 1983. We heard nothing fo explain why the grievors failed to make their claim in 1982 when the reorganization which caused the problem occurred. As far as we know, the grievo:s did not make their claim unril the grievances were filed. In these circumstances, there is no reason 10 grant a remedy beyond 13 20 days before the grievance was filed--see Hooper, 47177. at pages 18-19; Smirh, 237181 , at page 3; and Remedios, 1703184, at page 5. Thus, we order that the grievers be reclassified to Clerk 5 General, and that they be compensated for lost wages and benefits back to August 1, 1985. And we will retain our jurisdiction t6 determine any matters arising out of this order, should the parties not be able to agree upon this themselves. Done at London, Ontario, this 24th day of March , 1981. L. Turtle, Member (see attached Addendum) . . Although I concur rich the decision I would have adlpd the following paragraph for the record. “ihe to the unusua! circuxscances in this case (page 2 of this award), the unanimous decision of the board in favour of :he union is essentially by default of the employer. The mplcyrr did not or could net present sufficienr ,xr.zissable eviaencr :o scpporr i:s posi:ion. For this reason the award stanls on its WC and has no re!arion io pas: cases of a similar ~.atl)re ar.d sure:y can not be used as a precedent in the future.” L. R. Turtle . . r , A) &zcountabie Advance Account Cheque Registers -auai:lng Aovance kccounr Cnecue Reglsrers conxa~n,ng paF,ients for various court services, emergency office sujplies; teiephone servi;e'e;c. tieies and reieted tiata; fo; aurhorizing signatures, -verifying xaie-da?ed accounts to avoid duplicate pafllents; -checking to'ensure mathematical accuracy and conplianc e with Administraiion of Justice reguiations and MinisrrylGovernnent poljcies and procedures, inclziing directives from E~na.gen?nt Bo.qrd; : -coding accounts for. data processing; ensuring correct cost distrjbution to approximateiy 3 0 cost centres representing various appropriation a~c:cunts; separating judicial from 5 administretive exoenditures; -maintaining iiriion with court 2ahinisrrative staff to obtain information to resoive contentious metters;‘to make corrections; to ensure proper payxzts are made; -providing written and teie?hone.instructions to cci;rt offi'ce s-;eft on correct pr0:edures. and i-eqairements'to be f.oiiow2d ior 1o:ai 'p-j-0 bank accour,t; C. ,~nts to be made fro? the ministry's central: -resoivin! conpie:: 2nd difiictii: orobiems 'in resoect of reoues:s for cxtrary :o regulations, iegisia??on, p2ymnts which are j ex. directly with Cdurt Staff and/or-9ranch E! : Djvjsjon scads; ,' -rfzfyr;na m~‘to .>z L--fS ro:Supervisor ,n cases wnere~errors a?e frequert view to providin? training cssistance,by visitin the office; iy repeatel, \i<th a : -zsseiijlina co;;iTreted accounts into daily batches for further Travel~al~ processing~by tii~a Seniors 1 . -Claims Cierk; _ Yf:iiowinc uo with ai] of-;<~es to recuce re;nS&-semen; time exure proqt subzjssions ci Checnc Recisters so is to for the centrai bank account to avoid.or minim;ze the possibiiity of overdraft in the bank account; (continued overieaf) 3 -~ revietiing and correcting errors causing rejects from the E3P system en5urin.g rejectei accounts are given priority in order rc reduce deja?'. 81, Travel and Ciain Accounts, -auc,~lng rravellnospi~~ality claims from employees/suppiiers and freelcnce individuais -0 To audit and process Accountable Advance~Account Registers, Office Potty Cash, Travel, Services and Judges' iiiiowance accounts received from 350 fieid offices;'to ensure conpliaxe wiTh t'linistry and Government policies, legislation and reguiations such as the Administration of Justice Act, Provincia,l Offences Act, etc. ' I ensure all a:,loun:s ciaimed are In comoi lance w;:n Kanagement Soard oollcies and/or ~drr,inis:rztlon cf Justice Regula::ocs; -verifying ant/or ob:c:ning prcoer authcr;z:ng slgnarurt :?ns?s:cnt wi:r, items and amounts cjained; ensuring that all resujred receipts are provioed by me c;aiman::; -verifying and calculating Cl2icS on the bzsis cf z-52 rraveiied Y.e. So;thern /:<.-!-f hem ,," _ Gntaric and Out of Province et:. in:ludi:g d:screTlon2ry a‘;ioviances anl currency exchanges; ensurfng no duplication or we-pa.vmen: is made; -coli!q 2TCCUrliS for data processing; ensuring correct ccsi d:s:ribu:ion to 2porcr1care;) 353 ccst centres reoresentfng various apprcp-:2rion 2ccoun;s; sep2r2tfng Jui:!cial frcm 2zministrzrlve eroenses; -auditing ciaim accounts from individuals prcv:c<hg person21 serv?~ns to a.11 leveis of :ourts; ecsurlns conpii2r.z with reiev2nt Reou;eticns 2no Legisiation, i.e. kministration of Justice Act, ?rovinrial Ofienses A::, Crwn Artcrne~s AZ: etc.; -reviewing 2opliczble records 2nd reports ta ensure 21i non-;riSin2l 2:icxis hSv2 net previously been paid; -C001T,~ 2:cou;I; 's for c'2;2 processi:;; ensuring :crrcc: i2st ;jszriubrian -3 v2rio;s appropri2:ion 2tcounis; 7sssenbiinp comoieted a:ccunts into C2iiy ba::nes ior further processin? by the jenior Travfi 2.n; C;aYr;!s Cierk'; -z2int2is:nc iiaison ti';th ci2;m2n;s 2nd m:nistr;,ofTiziais to ensure ccm,oleteness ~of <a-,2, ioi?oAins up es necessary, z '. ,nclucing provic:nS wr7:ten and!cr VT321 ;nstruztions in detril to iieid offices to ensure proper procerures are adhered tc; . . -resolving FTCJ!ZZ 2:coun:s k';;n c ieimancs ar,d/cr jr;~,i'~,,//jQjgf3r, ;+- ,ctis when .2ctour,:s 2rf net In eccordence with ?egulrtiocs, IG2nucl z,f :i.5nisrr2:io:. f;c.; ;re;err<r.s z2;;ers to supervisor oniv in verv unusu2.i circussr2ncest j.e. ;:ib!em on requi2tions 2nTYcr :rrsrpre;er;on of Yec:sleticn governfng pa-Ten; o7 - fcoc. ' -cxxunicatinc v;<th ci2;z2nt's, tr,eir -"-,, ; ; Y.2 -- I . aathematical aptitude and the ability to organize own work to meet processing volumes and jealiinesin a high volume ooeration; ability to work under liX;;it?d SuOcZrV~jion; f?mii?2rity cr+th EDP coding stl-uctures and in/output requirements; good communication skiiis; ;ni?iative, jood jodgenent and Tut. 3. ~Hoyer / IH. LiDDS _, ,h’_._ :,: .. :~ ~-..: ~:~rforms"r~spon~ibl'e'cle~icai~ task; which' requ;ri a good ba~kground'knocledge o'f specific " statutes , reguiations, rules and practices. ~, _,. - _ ...~, . . USeS jUdgeTEnt and &kes~decisions when.'dealinS"'with~variances wj de, j ties ..':.: from"standard;.and ttpwards. we only I I !NCuMBENT: A. Mcore ,, Pcm,'on 1111t \?o>ma cm PLnllO" ,0mubw 1." &...-a, SENiOR TRAVEL & CLAIMS CLERK 02-5112-12 1 SC". +I,*. vdorl IR.P.5. Pcrn. OnlYl C\,,, yn. - - - I. w-. m WC-3 Y .co--c- 1 ,,c -c ,mz S"5 . POIl,lDn 111k Porltlon coal S"%%?‘"iravel. b Claims Clerk 02-4112-12 Ml"llwY ,D ,",‘,D" Attorney General ; Proq-anuses A AdzinistratiOn Linncn .nd s.mml ueoc,. Lee. cm. Financial Momt. & Prooramme Planninfr St.E.,Srd Flr.,TOr. 695C.l NC. 01 PI- Pror**s glow I.9cle"hlD to: ,mmed>,tt S"mwror~r 111k S"P*"o(Or L rJOYl!D" coot NO. 01 poirionr NO. 01 IBlrn 1 Suoerviscr. Warrants b Claims 02-Gil?-07 2. Purpcm of position lwn~ don tnir msmon win?1 To provide special expertise for the auditinc and prOC?SSinS Of Special expense acCounts associated with criminal investigations, emoioyee and/or appojntee relocation expenses; Credit : card accounts and for ensuring Compliance W; 'th Legisiation and rcguTations; to control the _: issuance of all credit cards and air fare tickets; responsible for providing interpretation OT rules and reoulations aoverning the provision ..-__ -- af court services and for training court office and section staff in the proper application of the rules and regulations. - 3. Dutia d t&d & ks~s smct1011 muinl m da. how r~) tin*? tn~mn emrunt& 0) nmm went gn U* ct~n) 1. Audit and process accounts by performins duties and tasks such as: 45% -. -auditing and processing accounts submitted by the Criminal Law Divisjon for expenses - related to advances issued in trust to lawyers and/or seniorLaw Enforcement Officials for ._ criminal investigations; ensuring full accountability of all disbursements for conduct '. : monies, witness expenses, etc, normally associated with pre-trial.inveXioations, e.c., fraud investigations; ensuring accounts are properly authorized for unusual expenditure items by 8ranch or Division Heads before processing; '- -' -~.' .: -auditing and processing all accounts, axoense and supplier accounts, for expenditfies .- I related to employee and/or appointee relocation expenses; ensuring compliance with ; Management Board policies; ,maintains appropriate files for accounts and/or contracts for : .-. ., relocating employees; -aud;ting and processine all personal services accounts for special contracts i.e., studie: related to Royal Commisfioni, and/or speciai studies initiated through the General Manager! office ensuring compliance with terms and contracts; -auditing and processing all foreign currency travel and claims accounts; ensuring proper conversion races, -withholding tax dedu,. +ions, ministerial approvals, etc.; -checking for correctness all accounts audited daily by sectIon staff; -processing all accounts into proper batches to facilitates correc; payment either by Ministry Advance Account Cheque or by Ministry of Government Services through the Government' s Central Payment System; -controlling the issuance of and maintenance of records for credit cards issued to employees; ccn:rols the issuance o1 z Air Canada Time Saver Tickets; -audits and processes all accounts for cred!: cards ensuring proper use of,,cards by employees and cross checkin? expense accounts to ensure no auplicate%ayments are made; .-. comolete cpst distribution for all exoencirures; 1. 9 -maintaining ControVregister and files to allow for tracing of accounts and to prepare monthly statistics of all accounts processed in the section; 73;; Provides interpretations for and initiates implementation of r~ules and regulations by: '> -reviewing relevant changes to legislation, e.g. Administration of Justice Act, Rules of Practice, Family Law Reform Act, etc. to extract any information relevant to expenditure 0' revenue associated with the provision of court services; -maintaining and updating directives issued to offices and section staff on all fees and revenues for J.P. services, prisoner and juvenile escorts, court reporters, process servicers, interpreters, witnesses, jurors, Per Diem Crown Attorneys, Judges etc.; provide interpretation to Court Office and section staff for the application of such fees and revenues;. i -reviewing internal control procedures and make recommendations for changes in processing to accommodate changes in legislation and/or court office operations resulting from such changes in legislation; j .-arranging for visits to court offices throughout the province to assist and traincourt ~staff in appropriate procedures for preparation and submissions of accounts; e.g. persona) 'service,invoices, travel expense accounts and centralized banking cheque registers. 3. Provides for Control Service by performing duties such~ as: -20%. iu' - reviewing and recording monthly,reports for mil~eage expenses paid under Management Board policy-or under Rules and Regulations; prepares and issues appropriate statements or reports for Excise ~Tax rebates and mileage rate reveiws; I$- -advising staff in section of employees and~freelance individuals who have reached upper 6 -- 'limits for-mileage.rate changes; -reviewing monthly'travel expense reports to ensure all cost is properly distributed to employees in accordance with the requirements specified by Treasury and Economics for 0' Public Account reporting; -providing reports to Human Resources Branch on a monthly basis of.all expenditures for :employee expenses associated with courses and staff development seminars; 18 -assuming overall responsibility for the supervision of the section during the s,upervisor: absence; -as assigned. 14. Skills and knowledge required to perform~job at tull working level. I~ndiute mendl~ory nacnriah OF lima. if a~p~icrb~c! / 'Progressively responsible directly related experience in an accounting environment; thorough understanding of Court Office Administration, particularly as it relates to the provision.of i I personal court services; good knowledge of legislation/regulations governing the provision of services of courts: .~ Good knowledge of ,Ministry and Government accounting, reporting systems; knowledge of ~expenditure, Payment and recording systems, coding structures anti EOP input/output control procdures, initiative, tact, excellent communication skills. “, -- ? . . I ~ Clerk 5 General 51008 CS-01 I 86 / h,", C,**,i,iLcl tn,‘!Jo,i,,on ,n act~,O*nce Wl,h me Civil S~n#c~ Comnl,rloo Clawfl:at,on st.ncarc, lo7 :nr !Illorlno r.smn: CONFIRMATION &, Auditing and processing of aCcoun+,s requite tietsile< knowleooe of governing recu;a.lons and pr,ocedures including a thorough understanding of obJeCL# *;ves o= unit and knowledge of minisr: -I operations and systems. e- Hi:. a.‘- Review'of legislation for the purpose 0, f preparing major changes in policy, involye decisio! making in complex and sensitive areas and judgement in interpretation of ooscure instructlol c. or issues. Duties reouire ability to make acceptable recommendations and provide functional advice f-0 senior managers regarding expenditures and related financial matters.