Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPurchase 13-01-16INTHE MATTER OF ANEXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION,Local421 (FORSUPPORT STAFF) (hereinafter called the“Union”) -and-- COLLEGE COMPENSATION and APPOINTMENTS COIThCiL (FOR COLLEGES OFAPPLIED ARTSand TECHNOLOGY) Intheform ofLOYALIST COLLEGE (hereinafter calledthe“College”) -and GRIEVANCE OFCHARLES PURCHASE OPSEUFile No.20110421 0002 (hereinafter the“Grievor”) ARBiTRATOR:RichardH.McLaren,C.Arb. REPRESE1TING THECOLLEGE:Daniel Michaluk— Counsel KirkFleming- Directorof FacilitiesServices GrantBrummell- Manager ofFacilities Development andContract Services Karen Cullen- ExecutiveDirector, HumanResources REPRESENTING THE UNION:GordWright Local421 President Charles Purchase- Grievor AHEARiNG TNRELATION TO THISMATTER WASHELD ATBELLEVILLE,ONTARIOON 8 JANUARY 2013. AWARD Mr.Purchase,the Grievor,isemployed by theCollege in theFacilities Services Department Onthe 18th ofOctober 2011,hefiled a classification grievance that hisproper classification is PaybandI.Following thegrievance meetingin November,theGrievor’ssupervisor,whoisnow nolongerwith theCollege,re wrote thePositionDescription Form(“PDF”).Theposition wastitledin thatPDF astheposition of Preventative Maintenance Mechanic(hereafter referred toasthe “January PDF”).ThatPDFwas sent tothe scoringcommittee to be rated.The scoringcommittee was uncertain whetherthe processembarked upon bythe Grievor involved a newposition orareclassification ofanexistingposition.The Unionrating fortheJanuary PDF wasatPayband J.The Collegepresented the Grievor withare-writtenPDF dated13February 2012which underthe Collective Agreement isconsiderto bethePDF(hereafterreferred to as the‘TebruaryPDF”). Thatdocument titled theposition asaGeneral Maintenance Worker andthe Collegerating wasatPayband G. The Unionunder Article18.4.2.5 requested that the mattergoto aBoardof Arbitration asdescribedin Article18.4.4.1.The Articleunder whichthe Unionmade itsrequestrequires mutual writtenagreement signed bythe Collegeand theUnion.TheCollege wouldnotagree tosend the matter toa fullArbitration Board. TheJanuary andFebruary PDFs continued tobean issue betweenthe partiesand aroseat thetime ofthe hearing fordiscussion.I wasappointed asan Arbitrator under Article18.4.3.Iwasreferred to Article18.4.4astomy powersas an Arbitrator whenthePDF remains a partofthe grievance andisnotagreed upon. Under Article18.4.4,1have thediscretion todecide toproceed tohear the grievance orsenditto afullBoard ofArbitration afterreceipt ofthe documents stipulated inArticles 18.4.3.3and18.4.3.4;or,atthe hearing. Afterextensive discussion and questioning bymeat thehearing Iproposed to hear thegrievance butreserve thepower ofArticle 18.4.4and advisetheparties whenI reviewed thefile andtheevidence after thehearing todecideifthe mattershould gotoathree personArbitration Board.Neitherparty hadmade a recommendation 2 tothis effectaspermitted under theArticle,intheir writtensubmissions.The Collegeat thehearingpresented reasons whyIshould hearthe matter.Ielectedto proceed inthefashion just describedand theparties concurred intheprocedure I haddescribed.Ihave nowhadthe time toreflecton theentire matterand to realize that whilemuch discussion centeredon thetwo PDFsin thewritten materials and at thehearing Iwasable tofindexactly whatthe duties ofthe position were andnothave todeal withtheclashing PDFs.Therefore,Iwasable toratethe positiondespite theparties squabbles on thetwoPDFs.Having gone through this process,Iwould strongly urgethese partiesin anyfuture classification disputes tocome totheArbitrator with anagreedupon PDF.Thismatterbeing the veryfirstclassification grievance atLoyalist College,I waspersuaded toproceed in thewaydescribed herein.Buthaving done so,Iwould bereluctant todoso again.There havebeen management andsupervisory changes which havebrought changes inmanagement style andrequirements.Thechanges in management also meanthatthe personwho knew theworkof theposition bestand providedthe mostcogent explanations was theGrievor.TheGrievor hadin manyrespects, become his ownsupervisor andhad verydifferent views ofthework thandidthe representatives oftheCollege.The partieswould have benefited greatlyin agreeing onthePDF.However,Ido feelthat Iwas able toratethe position with the information Ihadaswill berevealed inthe discussionbelow.TheCollege will have tosortoutthe PDFafter thisaward,foreven ithaddisagreements with aspects of theirFebruary PDF. There wasasecond preliminary matterwherein the Collegenoted thatthe Unionin submitting thegrievance only claimedPayband I,butthecurrent arbitration proceeding has raisedenough factors thatifthe Unionposition was accepted,the claimcould beatPayband J.Theparties agreedin ordertoproceed with this arbitration that theLocal willoniy claimas a remedy,Payband I,butthatit may arguefor aPayband J.Thisagreement is withoutprejudice to any futureposition ofthe College whenconfronted with a similaroverly broad basedargument in any futureclassifications grievance. TheCollege has evaluated theposition ofGeneral Maintenance Worker inthe Facilities Services Department and ratedthe position at467points,placing the position withinPayband G.The soleincumbent,CharlesPurchase,grieves that evaluation,disputing 7factors,and claiming theposition ofGeneral Maintenance Mechanic oughtto berated atPayband I.TheGrievor andthe College arenotin agreement astothe languageof thePosition Description Form(PDF).Subsequent to filingthegrievance,the incumbent andhis supervisor created theJanuary 6, 2012 PDF.TheCollege disagreed with theJanuaryPDF andissued a further PDF onFebruary 13,2012. Back2round Theincumbent’sjob involvesinspections,scheduled maintenance andrepairs to HVAC units andmechanical systems.Other dutiesinclude responsibility for lighting,generalrepairs andother duties asassigned.Thedepartment conducts mandatory inspections via dailymorning rounds.Theincumbent shares thisduty with anotherGeneral Maintenance Worker ona rotationalbasis suchthat each mechanical room andHVAC unitis givenboth avisualand,where possible,an auditory inspection daily.Following the morning inspection,theincumbent completes other routine inspections(someof whichare notperformed daily), preventative maintenance jobs andrepairs assigned through theMainBoss System which include theutilization ofchecklists and logbooks. Mr.Purchase ordinarily worksunder acoordinator,Mr.Andre Dutrisac a fellow member ofthebargaining unit.Thecoordinator enters theday—to-dayactivity from therounds throughtheCollege’swork order systemknown as“MainBoss”.It is theexpectation of theCollege thatall maintenance workwill beassigned through andrecorded inthe MainBosssystem. TheMainBoss System dealswith preventative maintenance work andisintended tobe usedat all timesby the personin theGrievor’sposition inorder toschedule maintenance andrepairs andallocate work.The Grievor hasnotalways used the system,buttheexpectation ofmanagement forthe College isthat theywill always expect ittobe used. 4 Factors inDisnute There aresevenfactors indispute inthisproceeding.Eachofthefactors indispute willbe dealtwith belowunderseparate headings using thenumbering ofthe Manual. 4. Planning/Coordinatlnz:Ratinas:College Level2/UnionLevel 3 TheUnion submits thattheincumbent advises othersof theproperprocedures for filterchanges,coolingtower maintenance,motor andfanrebuilding and proper operation ofbuilding systems andcontrols.The incumbentcarries out the preventativemaintenance intheCollege andits residences.Theorder ofdoing work isseasonal andmust be donein connection with specialfimctions such as graduation.The dailyrounds ofthebuildings willlead todiscovery of deficiencies.Thedeficiencies areentered intoMainBoss,orshould be,andan appropriate workorder willbeissued.However,on occasion,actionmust betaken immediately,andinsuch acase,thepaper workmay onlycatch up later,even after thework iscompleted. TheCollege believes mostof theincumbent’sposition revolves around“doing work,notplanning others’work”anddoes notrequire theapplication of organization and/orproject management skills. (i)Rating byArbitrator ThePlanning/Coordinating factorrefers tothe organizational andproject management skills required tobringtogether and integrate activities and resources needed tocompletethe tasks or organizeevents. AtLevel 2,theperson intheposition‘plansandprioritizes its ownactivities“. At Level3,theperson intheposition“decides theorder andselects or adapts methodsfor many workassignments“. Thedifference between thelevelsis thatat Level2the planning andcoordinating activities arecentered upon completing 5 one’sownwork andachievingdeadlines;whereas Level3 involvesplanning and coordinatingactivitiesinvolving otheremployees. BoththeJanuary and FebruaryPDFsindicate thattheincumbentdoes notorganize orplanbutresponds by doingworkandnotplanning bywhomitistobedone. Thereislittle evidencethattheactionofthe incumbentdirectlyaffectsthe workof others.Thepointwasmadethat a failuretodotheworkor complete ontimewill affectgenerally peoplewithintheCollege.While I acceptthatpoint,itisnotpart oftheconsiderationoftherating system.Theincumbent does notaffectdirectly thework of others exceptonaveryinfrequentbasis.Heworksonhis ownand othersassisthimif specialized taskssuchaselectrical orplumbing requiretrades people withaticket todosuchwork.Furthermore,iftheMainBoss system schedulesandco-ordinates workthereislittleornoplanning oftheworkofthe position.Therefore,Ifindthebestfitof therating isatLevel2andIso find. 5.Guiding/Advisin2 Others: Ratings:CollegeLevel1(Occasional2)!Union Level 4 Theincumbenthasbeenin the positionsince2008.Heisvery knowledgeableof thesystems usedbytheCollege.Heis frequentlyable toadviseothersofbuilding deficiencies andthe impactonmechanicalsystems.Inhis discussionofthejob,it is clear thattheincumbentimpartshis extensiveknowledgeof how the building systemsandcontrols operateand isabletoexplain them tootherstoenablethem to understand buildingoperatingsystems. The Collegeadmitsthereis anoccasional responsibilityfor workingwithothers thatincludesproviding guidance.Alltheexamples in thePDFsareonesthat requirethe incumbentto give inputona periodicandinfrequent basisfor irregularly occurringtasks. (i)Ratingby Arbitrator Thisfactorrefers toanyassignedresponsibility toguideoradviseothers in areas of the position’sexpertise.Thereisnodoubtthattheincumbent has,becauseof hislongservice anddedicationtohiswork,considerable understanding ofthe 6 Collegebuildings and systems.Hedoesimpart thatknowledge and experience to others whenmaintenance and repairs arerequired.Thisis aclassicexample of whatthe personcan dobutnot whatisrequired ofthe position.The ratingprocess doesnotratethe incumbent buttheposition. ThetwoPDFs donot indicateany responsibility for guidingothers.TheUnion asserts theposition ought toberated atLevel 4 whereguiding isto takeplace “wit/iongoing involvement intheirprogress“. Thereis nothingin thesubmissions orinthe hearing evidencethat suggests theposition hasany responsibility for ongoinginvolvement.Mr.Brummel testifies thatonly 10%of the workof the position isdonewith othersand theremainder isdoing work alone.Level 4is completelybeyond thisposition.On thetestimony oftheincumbent,he does most ofthe work,as opposedto otherswho mightperform thepreventive maintenance orrepair andrebuild work.Therefore,Iwould agree withtheCollege ratingthat theposition as described inthePDFs provides forminimal requirements to guide/advise others.However,Level 2does provide for guidingsothat otherscan complete specific tasks.I amsatisfied thatthe incumbent’s evidence does demonstrate thatfrom timetotime,hedoes thisanddoes itwell,both forother employees andmembers of management.Therefore,Iaccept andconfirm the occasional ratingatLevel 2.Forall oftheforegoing reasons,Iconfirm therating of the College atLevel1and Occasionally Level2. 6.Independence ofAction:Ratings:CollegeLevel 2(Occasional 3)!Union Level4 TheCoordinator sets the“morning rounds”in termsof location andwho ison the rotation.Ineach roomwith aboiler orachiller andforeach HVACunit,the incumbent undertakes pre-determined steps that arestructured by a checklist.The Union submits thatthedaily workof completing specificgoals anddecisions are done byusingindustry standards anddepartmental policies asper thedescription inthe 4 th level oftheFactor.Itisasserted that thesystems aremaintained by the incumbent alone,checking to seeifeverything is runningproperly by going through ananalytical process ofwhether each aspectof thesystemis working or not.Inessence,this isindependent trouble shooting. 7 TheCollege believes thisisa verystructured position.Following morning rounds, activities areassigned in writing. The activities arethen givena time framewithin which theymust becompleted;apriority and access code;and ageneral description ofwhatis required oftheactivity.Schedules andchecklists provide consistency and reliability.Preventative maintenance is completed inaccordance withadetailed schedule.The tasksrepeat themselves a few timeseach yearand are completed inaccordance with detailedprocedures andmaintenance manuals. The incumbent completes basic repairsand usesdetailed safety procedures when dealing withcertain processes. (i)Rating bytheArbitrator I notethat inthisfactor thereis adifference between theJanuary and February PDFs.Theword“minor”isinserted before mechanical deficiencyin theFebruary PDF andtheexample removed it.I asked questions astowhat wasmeant bythe wordminor andessentially,it istodifferentiate frommechanical deficiencies requiring persons with atrade“ticket”oroutside contractors doing thework.The useof theword minoris apoordescriptor for thework andI disregard the College’sadjustments tothePDF onthisfactor. Thefactor ratesthe degreeofautonomy in thework oftheposition.Whatneeds to betaken account ofinrating theposition isthe typeofdecision and what aspects ofthetasks aredecided bytheposition.Theother matterthat needs tobe taken account ofiswhat isitthatprovides guidance and direction. Identifying a deficiency couldinvolve detecting a major issueorproblem or oneof less significance or potential consequence.The incumbent must beable to recognize thetype ofproblem thatis being encountered.Hethen mustreport that to theCo-coordinator forentry intothe MainBoss.However,whenhe comes back todeal withtheissue orproblem,theincumbent willdecide on whattasks needto be completed andthat might include recognizing that outside contractors or “ticketed”personnel are required toassistin therepair ofthedeficiency.There is limitedinput fi-om asupervisor orMainBoss.Theincumbent mustdescribe the problem accurately and carefully tobring intoplay others todecide uponthe course of action.That means thatthedecisions and the aspectsof thetasks are 8 initially decided by the incumbent.Iwould conclude fromthis analysis thatthe position dutiesare regularly withinLevel 3and notjustoccasionally atLevel 3as rated bythe College.Theissue is whether therating oughtto beatLevel 3 or4. Tomake thedecisions between those twolevels requires ananalysis of what provides theguidance and direction totheincumbent.First,there isexperience of having seen theproblem before.Next,theseverity of thedeficiency must be assessed including deciding ifitis anemergency situation whichcould pose dangers to othersin theCollege.Severity ofthedeficiency is assessed.Decisions would bemade bythe incumbent according tostandard information and operating procedures ofthe equipment supplies which wouldinvolve industry practices.I would conclude that thebetter fitforthisfactor iscloser toLevel 4than 3.Iaccept therating ofthe Unionas beingthe appropriate onefor thefactor. 7.Service Delivery:Ratings:College Level2/UnionLevel 3 TheUnion submits thatservice isan issuein theresidence buildings that are heated and cooled byGlycol.There are considerable requests from residents for maintenance and repairwork.The incumbent must work around the residents’ schedules and activities asto whenrepairs maybe effected schedules. The Collegesubmits that tailored services arenotrequired tocomplete thetasks assignedto General Maintenance Workers.It istheCollege’s positionthat the incumbent does notdesign orbuild anything new;they simply restore andrepair itemsto ensurethe properfunctionality ofequipment and machinery. (i)Rating by the Arbitrator Thisfactor looks at theservice relationship that isanassigned requirement ofthe position.Itconsiders the required manner bywhich theposition delivers service to acustomer.Itis notintended toexamine theincumbent’sinterpersonal relationship with those customers.Much oftheevidence ofMr.Purchase related totherelationship withthe student residents and wasnot about theservice relationship. 9 Theincumbent isnot required toquestion acustomer to understand specific needs and thentailor hisservice inresponse to thecustomer.When calledinto a building,routine inspections are calTied outor preventative maintenance is conducted in accordance with aschedule.Repairs are carried outtorestore functionality.Therefore,Ifindthat theappropriate level isLevel 2asrated bythe College. 8.Communication:Ratings:College Level 2/UnionLevel 3 TheUnion submits thatthe incumbent advises others ofHVAC andmechanical deficiencies.Itwassubmitted that thisfactor ties backtoadvising supervisor s and theCo-coordinator. The Collegesubmits that Level2is bestsuited tothis position asthe Grievor is responsible forcommunicating withothers who aretechnically competent and fullyconversant and knowledgeable inthese matters. (i)Rating bythe Arbitrator Inthe“Notes toRaters”,instruction#2states“do notconsider communication betweenincumbents andtheir Supervisors”.That isbecause such communications aretaken account ofelsewhere.Thisexplains why theUnion in itssubniission directed meback tothefactor on Guiding/Advising Others.Nofacts orcasewas made bythe Union tojustify a review oftherating ofthis factor.Therefore,the Arbitrator concurs inthe ratingthe College hasawarded tothe position. 10.Audio/Visual Effort:Ratings:College Level IFM/UnionLevel 2F1 TheUnion submits that thereare frequent interruptions that occurin carrying out the jobduties particularly inthe College residences when thestudents are occupying the buildings.Thefact thatthe incumbent needs togoto different parts ofthebuilding to effecta repair means thatthe work isinterrupted. 10 While theCollege acknowledges interruptions occur,itdisputes thatintemptions causeabreak inconcentration tothe pointwhere theGrievor cannot pickup where heleft offorthat histhinking process cannot bereconstructed. (i)Rating bythe Arbitrator This factormeasures the degree ofattention orfocus required andactivities over which theposition has littleor nocontrol thatmakes focusing difficult.The daily maintenance rounds may haveinterruptions,buttheir impact does notinvolve a levelof interruption that makesit difficultto goback towhere theperson was before theintelTuption andcarry onthe maintenance round fromwhere itbroke off.Therefore,the“focusinterrupted”levelurged bythe Union isnotpresent in the2 hoursof dailymaintenance rounds.Therepair work,particularly in the studentresidences,willinvolve interruptions from time totime.However,theydo notjustify the“focusinterrupted”rating becausethe impact oftheinterruption is notofa level that requires the incumbent to gobackand repeat stepsalready done. Therefore,the focusmaintained ratingadequately compensates forthe audio/visual effortrequired in theposition. Thedifference betweenLevel 1 andLevel 2isthe length ofthe period of concentration required.Onthe whole,any single repairis notofa lengthy duration sothe periods ofconcentration are regular andrecurring,butrequire shortperiods ofconcentration.Arating atLevel 1does permit occasional long periods of concentration.Thattakes account ofthe repair whichis outofthe ordinary and requires longer concentration.Therefore,I confirmthe rating ofthe College at1FM. 11.Workin2Environment:Ratings:College Level 2 (Occasional 3)!UnionLevel 3 TheUnion submits that theincumbent is exposed onadaily basis toaccessingcrawl spaces andconfined spaces thatare smelly,dirtyor noisy. TheCollege submits that anoccasional Level3rating adequately compensates forthe following environmental issues:(a)access and entryinto crawl spaces;(b)exposure toweather conditions;and(c)exposure to hazardous substances. 11 The College’spersonal records indicate that theGrievor has notbeen exposed toasbestos orother hazardous substances.TheKente building has someceiling tilesthat contain asbestos which isa designated substance under the OccupationalHealth andSafety Act.The remaining tiles areinone wing ofthe buildingrepresenting about 20%ofthebuilding’sarea.Itis notedthat thePDF isincorrect in referencing silica because thereis nolonger such asubstance onthe Belleville Campus. The watersin theHVAC system aretreated byanumber ofchemicals thatare added tothe system byanoutside contractor andnot handled bytheGrievor.Theincumbent does notperform that work,butmay have limitedexposure tothetreated water ofthe system.However,the hazardous chemicals inthe water arehighly diluted. (i)Rating by theArbitrator This factorlooks at the environment in whichwork isperformed and theextent towhich there exists undesirable orhazardous elements.Thelanguage in theManual for Level 3ofthe factoris definitely applicable tothe position.Itis amatter ofthefrequency astowhether this rating oughtto beaRegular&Recurring one oronlyan occasional oneasthe College hasrated it.Thework incrawl spaces is about 2%of theworkyear.There issome exposure toextreme weather because oftheneed togoon roofsto dothe maintenance rounds butitis onlyfor afew minutesunless there isemergency workto bedone.Theexposure tohazardous substancesis verylimited asthe briefofthe College citedabove indicates.Therefore,Idonotfind the frequency ofthese various aspects ofthe jobrequire anything more thanan Occasional 3 rating.Iconfirm the rating oftheCollege. CONCLUSION Based upon theforegoing analysis ofthe7 factors indispute Ifind thatonly onefactorrequires adjustment from therating scored bythe jobrating committee,thatbeing Factor#6:“Independence of Action.Theadjustment toaLevel 4resultedin anincrease in thepoints by64,butthe lossof theOccasional ratingreduces the 12 netincrease in pointsto 55for atotalpoints score of522.That scorerequires thatthe payband ofthe Grievor beadjusted toPayband H. Theparties arehereby directed totake thenecessary steps inorder toimplementthis decision.Ifthere areany disputes asto theimplementation of myAward,Iretain jurisdiction toresolve those disputes and issuea supplementary award tocomplete the process ofensuring that the remedy iscomplete and theGrievor ismadewhole tothe extent thatmay berequired. Iwillremain seized ofthismatter with jurisdiction to complete theremedy in thisAward for aperiod of30 daysfrom the dateherein.Either party mayon writtenrequest tothe Arbitrator ask meto reconvene the hearing forthe purposes ofdetermining theremedy aspects of thisAward.If nowritten request is receivedwithin thestipulated time frame,I willno longer retain jurisdiction over theimplementation ofthe remedy arising from thisAward. DATED atLondon,Ontario this l6 dayofJanuary,2013. Richard H.1cLren,C.Arb. Arbitrator 13 Arbitration Data Sheet- SupportStaff Classification Incumbent:Supervisor Current Payband:Payband Requested byGrievor: 1.Concerning theattached PositionDescription Form: o Theparties agreedon thecontents 2.The attached WrittenSubmission isfrom:n TheUnion disagreeswith thecontents andte spec4fic deta4lsMeattathed. TheUnion 0 TheCollege Factor Management Union Arbitrator Regular!Recurring OccasionalRegular!Recurring Occasional Regular!Recurring Occasional Level PointsLevel PointsLevel PointsLevel PointsLevel PointsLevel Points:::::::ii i 2 Experience¶jjL.I 1!4;sk: 3.Analysis andProblem Solving 4.Planning/Coordinating L 2 ..5.Guiding/AdvisingOthers 6. Independence of Action Lf)/Q 7.ServiceDelivery¶ 8.Communication - 9.Physical Effort: 10Audio/VisualEffort l 1I 11.WorkingEnvironment I1]L Subtotals(a)(b)(a)(b)(a)(b) TotalPoints(a)+ (b) Resulting Payband Signatures: (Date) College: (Grievor) (UnionRepresentative) (Date)(College Representative) (Date) (Arbitrators Signature)(DateofHearing)(DateOfward)