Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Board of Education for the Borough of Scarborough, 1980 CanLII 767

[1980] OLRB Rep. December 1713

2003-79-R Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Applicant, v. Board of Education for the Borough of Scarborough, Respondent, v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Intervener #1, v. Glen Purcell, Intervener #2, v. Scarborough Educational Staff Association, Intervener #3.

BEFORE: George W. Adams, Chairman and Board Members J. D. Bell and D. B. Archer.

APPEARANCES: Barbara Linds and Norma Scarborough for the applicant, Norman MacL. Rogers, Q. C., Rod Mason and Robert Mitcheil for the respondent; no one appearing for the interveners.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 11, 1980

1. This is an application for certification.

2. The applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section l(l)(n) of The Labour Relations Act R.S.O. 1970, c.232 as amended.

3. By decision dated February 27, 1980, the Board directed the taking of a pre-hearing representation vote as requested by the applicant for the following voting constituency of the respondent's employees for which the Board was satisfied that not less than 35% of the employees were members of the applicant at the time the application was made:

All office, clerical, technical employees, teacher aides and cafeteria aides of the Board of Education for the Borough of Scarborough employed in the Borough of Scarborough, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisors, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week, students, and those employed in positions set out in Appendix "A".

4. Appendix "A" provided:

(a) Secretaries to the following:

Assistant Director of Education, Superintendent of Planning & Operations, Superintendent of Student & Community Services, Super­intendent of Program, Superintendent of Plant, Comptroller of Finance, Assistant Superintendent of Planning & Operations, Assistant Super­intendent of Student & Community Services, Assistant Superintendent of Program Financial Advisor, Chief Engineer, Purchasing Agent, Manager - Data Processing, Area Superintendents;

(b) All persons employed in the office of the Director of Education;

(c) All persons employed in the Communications office;

(d) All persons employed in the Personnel Department;

(e) All persons employed in the following positions:

Assistant Operating Engineer, Clerk "A" maintenance, Itinerant Music Teacher, Librarian, Security Officer, Senior Systems Analyst, Speech Pathologist, Systems Analyst, Physiotherapist, Psychometri­cian, Teaching Assistant (Waterloo Co-op), Water Safety Assistant;

(f) All persons covered by subsisting collective agreements between the Board of Education for the Borough of Scarborough and:

(i) Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 149; (ii) Canadian Union of Public Employees, and its local 149; and (iii) The Association of Pro­fessional Student Services Personnel, Scarborough Chapter.

On the agreement of the parties it is understood that students means a bona fide student who: (i) is taking a minimum of 151 minutes per day instruction in a school; (ii) is engaged in a co-operative education work experience program which is part of the student credit program; (iii) is taking his! her education, in a school on a semester program; and (iv) is employed during his/her vacation period.

5. In light of objections taken to the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit, the Board directed the segregation of the ballots cast by the following persons:

(a) Attendance counselors and community liaison officers employed in the attendance department;

(b) All persons listed in Schedule "A" and "D" as employed on a casual

and temporary basis;

(c) All secretaries to secondary school principals.

6. At or about the same time the Board directed a labour relations officer to enquire into the duties and responsibilities of all persons whose bargaining unit status was in dispute other than persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week and those employees referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraphs of this decision. With respect to these latter two groups of employees, the Board heard the evidence and representations of the parties directly at its hearing held on February 26, 1980.

7. In her report dated June 18, 1980, Ms. B. Mclean, labour relations officer, records that the applicant, respondent and Intervener #2 have agreed that the Attendance Counselors and Community Liaison Officers of the Student Services Department (consisting of Glenn Purcell, Elaine Dunn, Steve Bedley, Shirley Mitchell, Sheila Irving, Laura Quan, Barbara Ross and Shiam Tripathi) are not appropriate for inclusion in the bargaining unit. The parties have therefore agreed to the exclusion of these persons leaving for the Board's determination:

(a) the appropriateness of excluding or including persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week and persons employed on a casual and temporary basis; and (b) whether the duties and responsibilities of some twenty-five persons classified as "Sec­retary to Principal-Secondary School" should be excluded from the proposed bargaining unit by operation of section l(3)(b) of The Labour Relations Act.

8. Permanent Part-time vs. Casual or Temporary

Robert Allan Mitchell, personnel officer for the respondent, testified with respect to the respondent's position that permanent part-time employees ought to be included in the bargaining unit and that all casual or temporary (but full-time) employees ought to be excluded. The respondent employs permanent but part-time teacher aides; secretary/typists; cafeteria aides and clerical employees. Schedule B contains one hundred and thirty-four names bearing such designations. It is the respondent's evidence that the only distinction between permanent full-time and permanent part-time work is the number of hours worked by each group of employees. Part-time employees work 17.5 hours per week and full-time employees are employed on the basis of thirty-five (35) weekly hours. Part-time teacher aides are employed in school situations where the student/teacher ratio is too large for one teacher to handle. Three such persons are employed by the respondent. Mr. Mitchell could not give examples of regular inter-change between full-time and part-time teacher aides, but he understood that either group would be looked to first in the filling of vacancies. The respondent staffs its schools by way of a formula tied to enrollment and both the elementary and secondary school formulae indicate the allocation of one part-time typist at a particular enrollment range. Vocational schools are provided with a part-time typist as well. Mr. Mitchell testified that part-time typists work in the business office answering the telephone, completing reports and typing exams. Over time there has been some interchange between the employer's full-time and part-time employees. The Board was given a number of examples of employees moving from full-time to part-time and back to full-time employment over the course of their careers with the respondent. Mr. Mitchell also indicated that declining enrollment may require a school, by way of the staffing formula, to employ a part-time typist instead of a full-time typist. In such circumstances the full-time typist would be asked to consider the possibility of part-time employment.

9. Our attention was drawn to page 41 of the respondent's Personnel Policy Manual (Non-Teaching Employees) to contrast permanent part-time employment with temporary or casual full-time (or possibly part-time) employment. The provision at page 41 indicates "[s]upply clerical or peak load assistance to schools and to the administrative offices during extended periods of staff illness, maternity or compassionate leaves of absence or for special projects." Supply employees are paid a straight hourly rate on the basis of time sheets they complete at the end of each assignment. On the other hand, terms and conditions of employment of full and part-time employees are almost indistinguishable. They are provided with the same fringe benefits with appropriate correction for the reduced hours of part-time employees; the part-time salary rate is a precise one-half of the full-time salary rate. Both part-time and full-time positions are posted and both groups of employees are able to bid for such posted vacancies. Mr. Mitchell also described the duties of three part-time cafeteria aides employed in three smaller vocational schools. The working conditions of the full-time and part-time cafeteria aides are identical.

10. It was the respondent's submission that on the evidence presented the Board should find a community of interest between the full-time and permanent part-time employees and that the Board's usual approach to employees so employed ought not to prevail. Counsel submitted that the Board's usual separation of part-time and full-time employees was based on employment relations in an industrial context and had no application to the white collar office setting of the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that casual or temporary employees had no community of interest with full-time staff and ought to be excluded from any appropriate bargaining unit. Counsel for the respondent directed the Board's attention to a number of decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board in support of the propositions agreed to before us. They included Charterwai's Co. Limited and Hitchens et al(interveners) 74 CLLC ¶ 16,097; Radio Station CHQM, Division of2 Broadcasting Ltd. (1975), 11 di 16; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce(1977), 77 CLLC ¶16,091; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1977), 25 di 355; and Holmes Transportation (Quebec) Ltd., (1977), 20 di 306. The applicant union, on the other hand, submitted that it had relied on the Board's usual practice in organizing the respondent's employees and that, in any event, the facts before the Board were not exceptional and deserving of special treatment.

11. The Board recently dealt with a similar request to review its bargaining unit configuration policy on part-time and full-time employees in Toronto Airport Hilton, [1980] OLRB Rep. Sept. 1330. The Board outlined the purpose of its usual approach in these kinds of cases in the following terms:

The Board's general practice concerning exclusion of part-time employees and students from full-time bargaining units is set forth in Inter-City Bandag (Ontario) Limited, [1980] OLRB Rep. Mar. 324. (See also The Post Printing Company Ltd., a division of Thomson Newspapers Limited (Leamington), [1966] OLRB Rep. Mar. 930; Premier Plastics Limited, [1969] OLRB Rep. July 508; Wilson-Monroe Company Ltd., [1973] OLRB Rep. Dec. 647; and The Beacon Herald of Stratford Limited, [1975] OLRB Rep. Feb. 103.) This practice reflects the Board's view, supported by the extensive labour relations experience and knowledge of its members, that part-time employees and students, on the one hand, and full-time employees, on the other hand, do not generally share a community of interest since the former are primarily concerned with maintaining a convenient work schedule which permits them to accommodate the other important aspects of their lives with their work and with obtaining short-term immediate improvements in remuneration rather than with obtaining life insurance, pension, disability, and other benefit plans; extensive seniority clauses; and other long-term benefits. See, for example, Leon's Furniture Limited, [1976] OLRB Rep. May 232, paragraph 5, in which the Board stated:

we have learned through experience in such applications that part-time employees do not share a community of interest with full-time employees in many aspects of the collective bargaining scenario. More precisely part-time employees are more pragmati­cally concerned with immediate as opposed to long-term benefits with respect to improving their terms and conditions of employ­ment. In applying this proposition to more practical issues the part-time employee usually prefers to sacrifice long-term pension, medical and other welfare benefits for a more substantial increase in wages or a longer vacation period. The nature of seniority provi­sions contained in a collective agreement with respect to promotions, transfer and lay-offs does not always assume the same degree of significance to the part-time employees as it would to the full-time employee. In other words, the Board has discerned a natural, inevi­table schism in measuring the community of interest between the two categories of employees that invite separation into peculiar bargaining units.

For the foregoing reasons, part-time employees and students generally tend to have less initial interest in collective bargaining. Moreover, since the union organizing campaign may give rise to considerable uncertain­ty and apprehension among part-time employees and students with respect to the continued accommodation of their particular needs and desires for a convenient work schedule and maximum short-term remu­neration, they are prone to oppose applications for certification. Such opposition could preclude full-time employees from engaging in collective bargaining if the Board generally exercised its discretion under section 6(1) of the Act in favour of bargaining units which included not only full-time employees but also part-time employees and students. Accordingly, the Board's practice concerning part-time employees and students is not only a policy designed to avoid difficulties which may arise where groups with separate communities of interest are included in a single bargaining unit but is also an organizing rule which promotes the public interest, identified in the preamble of The Labour Relations Act, in furthering harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees.

12. We are of the view that the case before us presents much less compelling evidence for the requested inclusion of the so-called permanent part-time employees than existed in the Toronto Airport Hilton case. The employees in question work precisely one-half the hours of full-time employees and this fact is usually the critical advantage flowing to those employees attracted to part-time work. It is this reality that allows them to accommodate the other important aspects of their lives in a much more substantial way than full-time employment allows. For example, a 1976 study revealed that key reasons given for working part-time included: "going to school", "personal or family responsibilities" and "not wanting to work 'full-time'." See Robertson, Part-time Work in Ontario: 1966 to 1976, Research Branch, Ontario Ministry of Labour, August 1976, Study No. 20, page 18. The fact that part-time employees perform the same work under the same conditions as full-time employees and the fact that their terms and conditions of employment are similar are not unusual facts in pre­collective bargaining employment patterns and pale in comparison to respective attachments to the work place of full and part-time employees. As the panel in Toronto Airport Hilton case, supra, indicated, it is this Board's experience that part-time employees have less initial interest in collective bargaining than do full-time employees because of the aforementioned attraction of part-time work. Indeed, it is our opinion that collective bargaining would have been impeded for entire industries had this Board taken any other view. It is uninstructive to point to situations where parties are now providing for part-time and full-time employees in one collective agreement (and even here many qualifications have to be inserted). This is the end result of collective bargaining, after a relationship has matured and after the parties have come to an understanding over the proper balance of full-time to part-time work. In fact, without such an understanding, full-time and part-time employees may come into dramatic opposition should an employer decide to rely more heavily on part-time employees for reasons of economy and / or administrative efficiency. Finally, it is important to stress that none of the above deprives part-time employees of collective bargaining. Our approach responds only to the appropriateness of any bargaining unit where a party asks the Board to require their inclusion with regular full-time employees.

13. In the facts at hand the respondent points to the common terms of employment as evidence of a community justifying one bargaining unit. As noted above, these factors do not go to the different appetites for collective bargaining exhibited by these two distinct groups of employees regardless of industry. Moreover, such factors are often the product of unilateral employer action and, thus, unreliable indicators of employee interests. There is no indication that the respondent provided similar conditions of employment in response to employee demands or marketplace pressures. The interchange between full-time and part-time employment in evidence before us is also not unusual and is a phenomenon that can be accommodated by the collective bargaining process. This is not a case where there is no identifiable group of employees hired to work part-time as in Paris Poultry Products Limited, [1978] OLRB Rep. May 453; Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Royal York Hotel Case, [1960] OLRB Rep. May 1960; and in the construction industry. On the related issue of casual or temporary employees, our practice has been against making distinctions between per­manent and temporary employees. See Si'denham District Hospital, [1967] OLRB Rep. May 135 at page 137. In a volatile economy, such distinctions can become quite illusory. We have found that many work forces can be characterized at the margin as more or less temporary. See Laing & Sons Limited, [1961] OLRB Rep. Dec. 279; Peter Austin Manufacturing Co., [1967] OLRB Rep. May 144; Universal Cooler, [1967] OLRB Rep. Sept. 546. However, em­ployees employed on a truly "seasonal" basis may well merit a separate unit depending on when the application is brought. See Melnor Manufacturing Ltd., [1969] OLRB Rep. Mar. 1288. But in the facts at hand this rule or approach has no application. Accordingly, casual or temporary employees employed in full-time capacity on the date of application are to be in­cluded in the bargaining unit and part-time employees, whether permanent or casual, are to be excluded.

14. However, all of the foregoing should not prevent the Board from reviewing whether the twenty-four hour standard ought to be revised downward to at least twenty (20) hours in light of the changes in employment patterns that have occurred over the years. The current twenty-four hour standard is a longstanding policy whose origin probably dates back to the War Labour Board years (see Snyders Ltd. (1946), 46 CLLC ¶116,457; Davis Leather Co. Ltd. (1947), 47CLLC ¶116,491; and TA. Collins Transport Ltd., [1966] OLRB Rep. Oct. 504). Unfortunately, such a review is not practical in the context of a particular case because of the related amendments to the Board's forms that would be necessary (see Form 3-0. Reg. 32/73, s.8; Form 4 - R.R.O. 1970, Reg. 551, as amended by 0. Reg. 474/71; Form 17 - 0. Reg. 321/73, s.l0; and Form 51- R.R.O. 1970, Reg. 551, as amended byO. Reg. 474/71). There would also be the problem of the operative date of any change.

15. Secretaries to Secondary School Principals

The labour relations officer's report reveals twenty-five persons are so employed and that the parties agreed that the evidence of M. Thompson, R. Bacchus, F. Maidens and D. Ferguson is to be considered representative of the duties and responsibilities of all twenty-five. The respondent seeks their exclusion on the basis of both legs of section l(3)(b). The section provides:

Subject to section 80, for the purposes of this Act, no person shall be deemed to be an employee

(b) who in the opinion of the Board, exercises managerial functions or is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board's approach to the managerial functions aspect of the section was exhaustively reviewed and analyzed in McIntyre Porcupine Mines Ltd. [1975] OLRB Rep. April 261. Its particular application to white collar and professional workplace settings has been reviewed in Toronto East General, [1974] OLRB Rep. Oct. 671 and Spar Aerospace Products Ltd., [1979] OLRB Rep. July 700. Most recently see The Regional Municipality of Halton, [1980] OLRB Rep. Nov. 1684. The effect of both approaches is nicely summarized at paragraph 12 of The Lakehead Board of Education case, [1970] OLRB Rep. Feb. 1331, also dealing with the status of secretaries in secondary schools:

"Making a determination as to whether a person is employed in a managerial capacity is a more difficult assessment to make. The Board in a number of recent decisions has recognized the growing complexity of management structures, the diffusion of the lines of authority and the divergent elements that go into the decision making process. The Board, accordingly, in making such determination endeavours to distinguish between persons who truly exercise independent discretion or assert real authority, as opposed to those who merely implement decisions within a framework decided by others or whose independent discretion is limited to predetermined circumscribed areas. The Board is cognizant of the fact also that management today generally needs the assistance and advice of responsible and highly qualified individuals in the fields of their particular knowledge. The fact that such assistance or advice is sought and is accepted or taken into account by management does not mean that such persons exercise managerial functions in their own right. In all cases, the Board must evaluate the totality of each person's job functions in deciding whether the person concerned in an intrinsic sense, exercises managerial authority (see The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario Case, [1969] OLRB Rep. Aug. 669, and Ajax and Pickering General Hospital Case, dated February 19, 1970, Board File No. 15917-68-R).”

16. The second aspect of the subsection — "employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations" - has been held to require a "regular material involve­ment" in such matters. A good review of section l(3)(b) from this perspective is found in Coin tech Group Ltd., [1974] OLRB Rep. May 291 where at paragraph 13 the Board observed:

the conflict of interest as envisioned in the statutory exclusion, relates to a person being "employed" in such a capacity and to which, in the normal course of his employment, such a person has access to labour relations matters which if disclosed to the union bargaining on his behalf, would have an adverse effect upon the employer."

In reaching this conclusion, we find solace in the recent decision of the Board dated April 8, 1974, in the Metropolitan Separate School Board case (Board File No. 4442-73-U) where in paragraph 9 the Board stated as follows:

"In order that this decision be not misunderstood the Board stresses that the words "employed" as used in s. l(3)(b) must be rendered the meaning the Legislature intended. Had Miss Thomas as part of her duties and responsibilities, attended meetings where union management negotiations were discussed this Board would have no misgivings in excluding her from the bargaining unit. That is to say, such exposure would be integral to her job function. There must be "a regular material involvement" in matters relating to labour relations to justify exclusion from the bargaining unit (see; Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. [1966] OLRB Rep. Sept. 379, at p. 388-9). For example, persons employed as accountants who prepare financial statements and attend management meetings, (see Burns and Company Ltd. [1965] OLRB Rep. April 1; or personnel stenographers and plant nurses who as a necessary incident to the performance of secretarial or nursing duties have access to person­nel files (see; Canadian Motor Lamp Company Case [1969] OLRB Rep. May 189; Canadian Filters Limited Case [1967] OLRB Rep. April 36); and "technical advisers" such as time study technicians who require information derived from confidential files to perform their duties, (see; Boyles Industries Case [1971] OLRB Rep. March Ill; Canadian Acme Screw and Gear Limited Case [1967] OLRB Rep. Feb. 872 have been held by the Board to be persons who are employed in a confidential capacity relating to labour relations!"

In the result, we conclude that the purpose of the legislation is to, in effect, "insulate" an employee, who in the normal course of his employ­ment and as part of his regular duties, is directly involved in matters relating to the labour relations of his employer. In this regard, we are sat­isfied that the legislation, as such, is not primarily concerned with the nature of that employer's business. In the instant case, the evidence fails to disclose any material involvement by the employees subject to this application with any confidential information relating directly to the labour relations aspects of the respondent. Accordingly, we reject the res­pondent's submissions relating to its primary position that the employees as encompassed in the bargaining unit as initially proposed by the appli­cant, are inappropriate for inclusion therein because they exercise confidential duties within the meaning of s.l(3)(b) of the Act.

17. One posting for the position of Secretary to Principal dated December 1, 1978 reads:

Consideration will be given to all written applications received by the Personnel Department on or before 4:30 p.m., Friday, December 8, 1978.

All those applying must be on permanent staff and possess the required qualifications.

POSITION:

QUALIFICATIONS:

JOB DESCRIPTION:

SALARY RANGE:

LOCATION:

DATE AVAILABLE:

SECRETARY TO PRINCIPAL - SECONDARY

SCHOOL 12 Months per year - 5 days per week

APPLICANTS MUST POSSESS GOOD TYPING

SHORTHAND SKILLS AND A THOROUGH

KNOWLEDGE OF SECRETARIAL AND OFFICE

PROCEDURES. THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICANT

WILL ALSO POSSESS A HIGH DEGREE OF

INITIATIVE AND ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY

AND BE CAPABLE OF COMMUNICATING

EFFECTIVELY WITH ALL LEVELS OF STAFF,

STUDENTS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

EXPERIENCE IN BOOKKEEPING AND BUDGET

PROCEDURES WILL BE A DEFINITE ASSET.

RESPONSIBILITIES WILL INCLUDE

SECRETARIAL DUTIES FOR THE PRINCIPAL

PLUS DISTRIBUTION AND SUPERVISION OF

WORK TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE OFFICE

STAFF.

LEVEL V, SCHEDULE 1

$236.56 - $279.80 per week

DR. NORMAN BETHUNE COLLEGE INSTITUTE,

20 Fundy Bay Boulevard,

Agincourt.

DATE AVAILABLE:

A job description describing the duties of a Head Secretary was filed with the Board and

provides:

(a) Head Secretary:

(i) Responsible to the principal of the school for the preparation of reports and information for the Ministry of Education, the Scarborough Board of Education, and other agencies. This in­cludes the preparation of the Principal's Statement, the Principal's Annual Statistical Report, teachers' timetables for transmission to the Personnel and Administration Department and others.

(ii) The preparation of lists of teachers who must be inspected for recommendation for permanent certificates or a recommenda­tion to enable them to attend the Type A seminars, etc.

(iii) The allocation of the duties of the other secretaries in the general office and the supervision of their work.

(iv) The preparation and custody of the principal's correspon­dence.

(v) The preparation of memoranda from the principal to department heads, other staff members, and to the Board officials.

(vi) The maintenance of teacher information files with details of experience, certificates, etc.

(vii) Arrangement of principal's appointments with parents, stu­dents, teachers, and other persons having business with the school.

(viii) The preparation of daily and monthly occasional teachers' reports, and the receiving of teacher absences.

Maureen Thompson has been a "head secretary" since January 28, 1980. She describes her secretary duties as including: to go over daily work; to take part in administrative meetings with principal and vice-principal; the performance of ongoing office work; assisting in the re­placement of absent office staff; looking after teachers' records and files; the co-ordination of office staff; liaising between the principals of night and day schools; and the taking of minutes at weekly administrative meetings between the principal and vice-principal. There are seven employees under her direction and control, five of whom are located in the same office. She testified she is responsible for the quality of their work and co-ordinates their efforts when necessary. Her assignments of work are subject to the principal's approval. There appears to be no formal evaluation process in which she participates and she has no authority to hire employees. However, she does conduct hiring interviews with the principal and her views are listened to. She thought she had the power to issue a verbal warning but has never done so. She grants time off but it must be made up. She has no real involvement in the formulation or administration of the school budget. The files pertaining to teachers are the responsibility of the principal. She maintains them and the files are open to teachers but not to other office staff. She testified that she has, on occasion, provided the principal with an evaluation of probationary employees and other employees when asked and perceived that such evaluations were generally acted on.

18. Rita Bacchus has been secretary to a principal for the last nine years. She has been told that her duties include the supervision of other secretaries. She is responsible for five secretaries, two of whom are located in the same office. She has responsibilities for allocating work and problems over work quality have been brought to her attention. She has made hiring recommendations to the principal six or seven times and all such recommendations have been acted upon. She has been asked for her views on probationary employees and her recommendations in this respect have acted upon. She has issued only two verbal warnings and all discipline is cleared with the principal first. She grants time off which must be made up. She tries to resolve all office problems in the hope of avoiding the principal's involvement. There have been no absenteeism problems for her to deal with. She apparently talks to each member of the office staff about her performance annually. There are no formal reports arising out of such meetings, however. She testified she is not involved with teachers' files very often.

19. Flora Maidens has been the secretary to a principal for five years. She described her daily routine as: making appointments with the principal; screening telephone calls; typing and composing correspondence; handling confidential teacher reports; assigning duties to general office staff; sitting in on staff meetings; gathering material for budget; and general office duties. She testified that supervision is not a "direct type" but an informal observance of "general goings on." The assignment of work is generally done on an annual basis. She participates in hiring interviews but the principal makes the final decision (six or seven individuals have been hired). She did not think she had any authority to discipline and has never done it. She is able to grant short periods of time off but the time must be made up. The principal has asked her to suggest the office budget but these recommendations may be modified. She takes minutes at a monthly meeting of department heads and sits in on staff meetings (I) to answer questions regarding the office and (2) to be aware of what is going on in the school generally. The more confidential files are kept in the principal's office. She has access to teachers' files and budget files. She opens all correspondence sent to the school. There have been occasions where she has warned employees about the quality of their work. She types confidential memoranda pertaining to teachers.

20. Doris Ferguson has been the secretary to a principal for eight years. She saw her responsibilities as being of a management type in the sense of ensuring a smooth running office. She takes minutes at staff meetings. There are five secretaries under her direction and work assignments are usually on a daily basis. Supervision is on an informal basis. She participates in the hiring process and her recommendations are generally accepted. The principal regularly asks for her evaluation of probationary employees. She is able to give verbal and written warnings on her own initiative but she had no occasion to do so. She also participates in the evaluation of permanent employees. Any time granted off is made up. She handles vacation schedules on the basis of seniority. Only she and the principal have access to the personal files of the employees under her supervision. She does not deal with these files very frequently and has no involvement with the principal's confidential files. She opens all the principal's mail.

21. From the evidence of R.A. Mitchell, it is apparent that a head secretary may have direct contact with the Personnel Office in the areas of hiring, discipline, attendance, temporary staff, etc. It is also apparent that the principal is quite dependent on the opinion of his secretary in evaluating the performance of office staff. There has been at least one workshop for head secretaries aimed at increasing their communication skills and their appreciation of the head secretary's role. If the Personnel Office wishes a reference in regard to inter-school personal transfers, it approaches the head secretary.

22. On the basis of all this evidence we are satisfied that a head secretary or secretary to a principal either exercises managerial functions or exhibits a regular and material involvement in matters relating to labour relations to justify exclusion from the bargaining unit. While there may be some doubt on the available evidence whether the head secretary's authority in relation to other employees reaches the level of recommendations that "materially affects the economic lives" of such employees, the same evidence does reveal a regular involvement in confidential matters relating to labour relations, i.e. discipline, hiring, evalua­tion, access to confidential memoranda sent to the principal, etc. The evidence also suggests that each school is an administrative unit managed by the principal. In this light, the prin­cipal's reliance upon his secretary in matters relating to employee relations is somewhat obvious. Accordingly, we find that all office, clerical, technical employees, teacher aides, and cafeteria aides of the Board of Education for the Borough of Scarborough employed in the Borough of Scarborough employed in the Borough of Scarborough save and except super­visors, persons above the rank of supervisors, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week, students, and those employed in positions set out in Appendix "A" constitutes an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. Appendix "A" now provides:

(a) Secretaries to the following:

Assistant Director of Education, Superintendent of Planning & Operations, Superintendent of Student & Community Services, Superintendent of Program, Superintendent of Plant, Comptroller of Finance, Assistant Superintendent of Planning & Operations, Assistant Superintendent of Student & Community Services, Assistant Superin­tendent of Program, Financial Advisor, Chief Engineer, Purchasing Agent, Manager — Data Processing, Area Superintendents, Principals;

(b) All persons employed in the office of the Director of Education;

(c) All persons employed in the Communications office;

(d) All persons employed in the Personnel Department;

(e) All persons employed in the following positions:

Assistant Operating Engineer, Clerk "A" maintenance, Itinerant Music Teacher, Librarian, Security Officer, Senior Systems Analyst, Speech Pathologist, Systems Analyst, Physiotherapist, Psychometri­cian, Teaching Assistant (Waterloo Co-op), Water Safety Assistant;

(f) All persons covered by subsisting collective agreements between the Board of Education for the Borough of Scarborough and: (i) Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 149; (ii) Canadian Union of Public Employees, and its local 149; and (iii) The Association of Professional Student Services Personnel, Scarborough Chapter.

On the agreement of the parties it is understood that students means a bona fide student who: (i) is taking a minimum of 151 minutes per day instruction in a school; (ii) is engaged in a co-operative education work experience program which is part of the student credit program; (iii) is taking his/ her education, in a school on a semester program; and (iv) is employed during his/her vacation period.

23. On the basis of all of the foregoing, the applicant union was clearly entitled to have the pre-hearing vote conducted as it requested. The Board, therefore, directs that the ballot box be unsealed and all ballots cast by those persons found to be employed in the appropriate bargaining unit be counted.