HomeMy WebLinkAboutBratic et al 13-03-13 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
SENECA COLLEGE
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCAL 561
CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCES OF JASMINA BRATIC & CARMEN ELLUL
(2010-0561-0024 & 2010-0561-0025)
JANE H. DEVLIN SOLE ARBITRATOR
APPEARANCES FOR THE COLLEGE:
DAN MICHALUK
SANDY DAWBER
CHRIS DUDLEY
ANGELA ZIGRAS
CINDY MACDONALD
APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION:
JANICE HAGAN
JASMINA BRATIC
CARMEN ELLUL
I
This award concerns classification grievances filed by Jasmina Bratic and
Carmen Ellul in April, 2010. The Grievors work in secretarial positions providing
administrative support to the Faculty of Business. Ms. Ellul supports the School of
Business Management and reports to Chris Dudley, Chair of the School of Business
Management and the Centre for Human Resources. Ms. Bratic supports the School of
International Business and the Centre for Human Resources and reports to Angela
Zigras, Chair of the School of International Business and the School of Tourism. Ms.
Bratic also supports Mr. Dudley as Chair of the Centre for Human Resources.
As the positions occupied by Ms. Ellul and Ms. Bratic are virtually identical
and have been rated by the College in the same manner, the parties agreed to deal
with the grievances together. While both of the Grievors were described as excellent
employees, as the job evaluation manual makes clear, the assessment depends on the
content of the positions and not on the performance of the incumbents.
The summary of Ms. Ellul's position, which is similar in all material
respects to that of Ms. Bratic, provides as follows:
The incumbent provides secretarial and organizational support to the School of
Business Management in the Faculty of Business. This includes information
processing, revisions and filing of academic materials for faculty and co-
ordinators and organizing meetings, including preparing and distributing agenda
and minutes. Additionally the incumbent provides administrative secretarial
support to the Chair and responds to inquiries for students and staff, including
staff in service departments and other Faculty of Business Chairs and Deans.
The incumbent provides secretarial support for Advisory Committees. The
incumbent uses web technology to update and post subject outlines to the
College website.
2
There are three factors in dispute in this case, namely, independence of
action, communication and physical effort and the ratings proposed by the parties
together with my analysis of the factors in dispute are as follows:
1. Independence of Action
This factor measures the level of independence or autonomy in a position.
It requires consideration of (1) the types of decisions that are made; (2) the aspects of
the tasks that are decided by the position on its own and those that are decided by, or
in consultation with someone else, such as the supervisor; and (3) the rules,
procedures, past practices and guidelines that are available to provide guidance and
direction.
In this case, the parties agree that a rating at level 2 is appropriate for
duties that are carried out on a regular and recurring basis but the Union submitted that
some duties and responsibilities warrant a rating at level 3 on an occasional basis.
The two levels are described in the job evaluation manual as follows:
2. Position duties are completed according to established procedures.
Decisions are made following specific guidelines. Changes may be made
to work routine(s).
3
3. Position duties are completed according to general processes. Decisions
are made following general guidelines to determine how tasks should be
completed.
The term "procedure" is defined in the manual as a sequence of steps to perform a task
or activity. The term "guideline" is defined as a statement of policy or principle by which
to determine a course of action and the term "process" is defined as a series of
activities, changes or functions to achieve a result.
The Notes to Raters provide the following clarification with respect to the
differences between levels 2 and 3:
Level 2 - duties are completed based upon pre-determined steps. Guidelines
are available to assist when needed. The position only has the autonomy to
decide the order or sequence that tasks or duties should be performed.
Level 3 - specific results or objectives that must be accomplished are
predetermined by others. The position has the ability to select the process(es) to
achieve the end result, usually with the assistance of general guidelines. The
position has the autonomy to made decisions within these parameters.
In support of a rating at level 3, the Union submitted that when composing
written communications, including responses to complaints and requests for
information, the Grievors choose the wording, tone and details to be included. The
Union contended that the Grievors also compose email messages requesting
information and send reminders to faculty members of deadlines, such as those for
book orders or the submission of examinations and tests. In this regard, Ms. Ellul
testified that there is one faculty member, in particular, who frequently fails to meet
deadlines for tests and examinations and that in sending reminders, she adopts a
4
friendly tone and approach in an effort to secure co-operation. The College advised,
that it is the responsibility of the Grievors to advise faculty members of deadlines, to
send them reminders and in the event of non-compliance, to bring the matter to the
attention of the Chair.
With regard to written communications composed by the Grievors, there
was no dispute that the information to be conveyed is determined by their Supervisors.
There was also no dispute that communications to faculty must be written in a
respectful and professional manner and it is evident that Ms. Ellul likes to add a
personal touch and adopts a friendly tone in her messages. However, in my view,
choosing the wording, tone and details to be included in written communications does
not involve the type of decision that warrants a rating at level 3 where the information to
be conveyed is determined by management. In fact, the College advised that there are
no positions where it dictates the wording of written communications to be used by
incumbents.
In support of a rating at level 3, the Union also referred to the filing system
maintained by the Grievors. While it was acknowledged that in most cases, the nature
of the documents to be retained is pre-determined, the Union contended that the
Grievors do not keep their files in exactly the same way and that files may be organized
based on the needs of the School and the preference or discretion of the incumbent.
The College advised, however, that there are established procedures that apply and
that final examinations are to be retained for five years and organized by subject.
5
Minutes of Advisory Committee meetings and text book orders are to be kept in binders
and subject outlines are now online. While the Union contended that there are other
documents to be filed for which no direction is provided, I am not persuaded that
making decisions about the way in which documents are filed involves the use of
general processes so as to warrant a rating at level 3.
As to the Grievors' responsibilities with regard to the photocopier, which
are also relied on by the Union to support a rating at level 3, the evidence indicates that
the Grievors receive calls from faculty members who have encountered a problem with
the equipment. The Grievors then go to the machine and, in some cases, there may be
a message on the screen indicating the nature of the problem or the item to be
checked. In the event of a paper jam, for example, the Grievors try and clear the jam.
In other cases, they may check the paper trays or the toner cartridge, clean the glass
and turn the machine off and on. If these steps did not resolve the problem, the
Grievors call Xerox and arrange for a technician to service the machine. The Grievors
also check cartridges in the event of a problem with the grade master equipment.
Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Grievors are not expected to repair the
photocopier or the grade master. Instead, they follow certain basic steps to see if they
can resolve a problem with the equipment, failing which they call a technician. In my
view, conducting checks of the nature described does not warrant a rating at level 3.
Although the Union also submitted that the Grievors deal with students
who are angry or upset and that each student requires a different approach, "dealing
6
with abusive people" is referred to under the factor of working environment. I note that
under that factor, which is not in dispute, the PDFs provide that on an infrequent basis,
the Grievors deal with a student who is angry with his or her professor or with College
policy.
The Union submitted that the Grievors must also decide to whom to refer
a serious issue in the absence of the Chair or another member of management. The
Union also submitted that in some cases, the Grievors must select an alternate process
to deal with a problem. In this regard, Ms. Ellul described a situation in which a student,
who is being accommodated, attends at the test centre to find that the faculty member
had failed to leave a test for the student. Ms. Ellul testified that in most cases, she
would approach the Chair or contact the faculty member or the Dean. She testified,
however, if a mid-term test was involved, she could provide the test centre with a test
previously submitted by the faculty member.
Mr. Dudley testified that if the faculty member had submitted an alternate
test, he would expect the Grievors to provide that test to the test centre. In all other
cases, he would expect Ms. Ellul or Ms. Bratic to notify him to obtain approval regarding
the test to be given to the test centre. In view of this evidence, it appears that there is
an established procedure to be followed where a student attends at the test centre and
a faculty member has neglected to leave a test for the student. The College also
advised that if the Chair is away, the Grievors may refer an issue to another Chair, to
one of two Assistant Chairs or to Sandy Dawber, the Operations Manager,
Administrative Services. In these circumstances, I find that the evidence fails to
establish that a rating at level 3 is warranted.
The final responsibility relied on by the Union to support a rating at level 3
relates to the invigilation of tests and examinations. In this regard, the evidence
indicates that the Grievors may be called to invigilate when faculty members are late or
absent. Last semester, Ms. Bratic invigilated on one occasion and Ms. Ellul invigilated
on two occasions. Ms. Bratic recalled one case a number of years ago where a student
had a cell phone and she asked the student to put it away because cell phones are not
permitted during exams. The student failed to do so and in the end, Ms. Bratic
removed the student's test and her cell phone and reported the matter to the
responsible faculty member. In another case, Ms. Bratic found a piece of paper under
a test after it was handed in and again, she provided the piece of paper to the
responsible faculty member.
Ms. Bratic agreed that most students do not cheat and that, in many
cases, invigilating is a routine exercise. She testified, however, that if she invigilated on
four occasions, there might be one or two cases where she observed suspicious activity
or had to remind a student of the rules. Although Ms. Ellul testified that she has never
seen any written rules and that some faculty members do not enforce the rules, Ms.
Dawber testified that the rules should be on the cover of all examinations. The College
also advised that the rules are in the faculty handbook and in the academic honesty
policy. Ms. Dawber also testified that she expects to be notified if the Grievors are
8
asked to invigilate so that she can arrange for someone else to carry out that task or
alternatively, ensure that the Grievors' office duties are covered.
Based on the evidence, it is clear that there are rules that apply during
tests and examinations and, by way of example, cell phones are not permitted and
students are not to take their purses to the washroom. At the same time, it appears
that there is some ability to select the process to be followed to ensure compliance with
the rules. By way of example, Ms. Ellul referred to a case in which she carefully
watched a student who appeared to be looking over at the desk of another student. In
another case, Ms. Bratic initially asked a student to put her cell phone away and when
the student didn't comply, Ms. Bratic removed the student's test and her cell phone..
Nevertheless, given the number of times that the Grievors invigilate and
the limited number of occasions on which any intervention is required, I am not
persuaded that this responsibility ought to affect the rating. In fact, the Union appeared
to acknowledge that invigilating tests and examinations would have to be considered
with other duties and, for the reasons set out, I have found that the other duties referred
to do not warrant a rating at level 3 on an occasional basis. in the result, in the factor of
independence of action, I find that the Grievors' positions are properly rated at level 2
on a regular and recurring basis.
2. Communication
9
This factor measures the communication skills required by the position,
both verbal and written. It includes (1) communication to provide advice, guidance,
information or training; (2) interactions to manage necessary transactions; and (3)
interpersonal skills to obtain and maintain commitment and influence the actions of
others.
In this factor, the College has rated the Grievors' positions at level 1 on a
regular and recurring basis and at level 2 on an occasional basis. The Union submitted
that the Grievors' positions ought to be rated at level 2 on a regular and recurring basis.
The two levels are described in the job evaluation manual as follows:
1. Communication involves the exchange of routine information using
courtesy and active listening.
2. Communication involves the exchange of information that requires
explanation and/or interpretation.
The term "exchange" is defined as "reciprocal giving and receiving." The term "routine"
is defined as uncomplicated or straightforward, such as a task or procedure performed
in an unvarying manner. The term "explain" is defined as providing details or examples
to help others better understand the information and the term "interpret" is defined as
explaining or telling the meaning of; translating or conveying the meaning of something.
The Notes to Raters also includes the following clarification with regard to
level 2:
10
"Explain" and "interpretation" in level 2 refers to the fact that it is information or
data that needs to be explained or clarified. The position exchanges basic
technical or administrative information as the normal course of the job and may
be required to deal with minor conflicts or complaints. This level may also
include exchanges that are of a more complex technical nature, where all the
parties to the communication are technically competent. That is, for those
people the communication is relatively basic as they share a vocabulary and
understanding of the concepts.
As noted above, the College has rated the Grievors' positions at level 2 on
an occasional basis as some communications involve the exchange of information that
requires explanation and/or interpretation. In this regard, the PDFs indicate that the
Grievors demonstrate My.Seneca portals and software applications to faculty. They
also assist staff by showing them relevant ARIES codes and how to access information
on ARIES. As well, the Grievors resolve complaints from vendors for non-payment of
invoices and complaints from professors about book orders or School/College
procedures by explaining College requirements and policies.
The Union submitted that the Grievors' positions ought to be rated at level
2 on a regular and recurring basis. In support of this submission, the Union contended
that the Grievors provide information to students on procedures and protocols and may
refer students to a Professor, a Student Advisor or to the Registrar's office. The Union
contended that even when a referral is made, the Grievors have to explain why the
referral is being made and what the student needs to do.
The Union also contended that the Grievors explain to parents why
information cannot be released about a student's marks or whether the student is at the
11 '
College. In this regard, Ms. Ellul testified that on one occasion, a parent called inquiring
about a student's marks and asked whether the student was in class. Ms. Ellul testified
that she explained that for privacy reasons, she could not provide information about
students and that she had no way of knowing whether the individual on the telephone
was actually the parent of the student. On another occasion, an individual approached
Ms. Ellul wanting to notify a student of an emergency. Ms. Ellul advised that she could
not provide information about the student and escorted the individual to security, where
she explained the situation and advised the individual that perhaps security could
assist.
The Grievors also provide directions to students and the Union submitted
that because the Newnham campus where they work consists of a number of different
buildings and parking lots, some explanation is required. In the case of a student
wanting to obtain financial aid, for example, it was contended that the Grievors have to
explain where the financial aid office is located and because it is not easy to find, they
may actually accompany the student.
The Grievors are also approached by students who want to arrange a
meeting with the Chair and the Grievors advise the students that they must first meet
with the Professor and then with a Student Advisor or the Program Co-ordinator. If
those steps have been followed, the Grievors may schedule an appointment with the
Chair. The Union contended that the Grievors also explain to students how to view
examinations or initiate an appeal. As some students are new to Canada, it was
12
submitted that there may be a language barrier and the Grievors must ensure that they
obtain sufficient information to make the appropriate referral.
Ms. Bratic testified that she also frequently receives calls from students or
prospective students about programs. She advises them of the programs that are
offered, provides a brief overview and then refers them to a Student Advisor for further
information. Ms. Bratic testified, as well, that at the beginning of the semester when
there are long line-ups to see Student Advisors, she and Ms. Ellul may try to assist
students. The Union maintained that, in fact, most interactions require some
explanation.
The Union also submitted that the Grievors explain procedures to new or
returning part-time faculty. In this regard, Ms. Ellul testified that although Ms. Dawber
provides orientation, she reminds faculty to place book orders and advises them of the
new processes relating to subject outlines. Ms. Ellul also explains when learning
outcomes are required and the number of mid-term and final exams that must be
submitted. Ms. Ellul testified that she has also been in contact with the IT Department
because of difficulties that she has encountered with the processes for subject outlines
and that she may have to discuss these processes with her co-workers and her
Supervisor.
With regard to the communications referred to by the Union and the
Grievors, Ms. Zigras testified that in response to an inquiry about programs, she would
13
expect the Grievors to advise a student or prospective student of the programs that are
offered. She testified, however, that the Grievors should not be providing an overview
or details of those programs and instead, should refer the student or prospective
student to a Student Advisor. Ms. Zigras also testified that it is not the role of the
Grievors to assist students when Student Advisors are busy at the beginning of a
semester because information might be missed and it is important that students obtain
information from an academic advisor. Similarly, in the event of a question regarding
an academic appeal, Mr. Dudley testified that the Grievors should refer the student to
Ms. Dawber or to registration because procedures may change.
As to new part-time faculty, Ms. Dawber testified that at one time, she
conducted orientation sessions but as they were poorly attended, she made a
commitment to meet with part-time faculty individually. She testified that during these
meetings, she reviews the procedures set out in the faculty handbook. Ms. Zigras also
testified that if a faculty member has a question about the test centre, she would expect
the Grievors to refer the faculty member to the test centre to ensure that all necessary
information is provided.
As indicated in the job evaluation manual, communications at levels 1 and
2 involve the exchange of information and the difference between the two levels relates
to the nature of the information exchanged. In this case, there was no dispute that
some communications involve the exchange of information that requires explanation
and/or interpretation and the College has rated the Grievors' positions at level 2 on an
14
occasional basis. Having carefully considered the evidence, I am not persuaded that a
rating at this level is warranted on a regular and recurring basis.
Although the campus where the Grievors work may have been renovated
a number of times and include a number of buildings and parking lots, in my view,
providing directions does not require the Grievors to provide examples, to translate or to
convey the meaning of something, which is characteristic of communications at level 2.
The same may be said of referrals to other staff members in response to inquiries from
students or to cases where the information provided can be described as
straightforward or uncomplicated. As to students who want to meet with the Chair, the
Grievors advise them of the steps that must be followed before a meeting can be
scheduled. The process described is evidently one that must be followed in an
unvarying manner and, in this respect, the Grievors are providing "routine" information
as that term is defined in the job evaluation manual.
Moreover, I cannot conclude that listing the programs that are offered by
the Faculty of Business requires explanation and/or interpretation as Ms. Zigras testified
that the Grievors are not expected to provide an overview or details of the programs.
Instead, that type of information is to be provided to students by an academic advisor.
Ms. Zigras also testified that it is not the responsibility of the Grievors to assist students
when Student Advisors are busy at the beginning of the semester. Similarly, Mr.
Dudley testified that the Grievors should refer a student inquiring about an academic
15
appeal to Ms. Dawber or to registration to ensure he or she is provided with up-to-date
information.
As to inquiries that may be made by parents or others seeking information
about students, in my view, this is an area where some explanation may be required to
assist parents and others to understand why information about students cannot be
provided. Ms. Ellul testified, however, that she does not often receive inquiries about
students. Although Ms. Ellul has also been in contact with the IT department, the
evidence indicates that her communications have related to problems she has
encountered in dealing with the new processes for subject outlines and it does not
appear that such communications occur on a regular basis. In the result, as the
Grievors positions are already rated at level 2 on an occasional basis, I am not
persuaded that the duties referred to in this paragraph support a rating at that level on a
regular and recurring basis.
With regard to part-time faculty members, the evidence indicates that Ms.
Dawber meets with new faculty members and reviews the procedures set out in the
faculty handbook. At the same time, Ms. Ellul testified that she reminds part-time
faculty of procedures for book orders, cases in which learning objectives are required
and the number of mid-term tests and examinations that must be submitted. To the,
extent that Ms. Ellul is describing tasks that are performed in an unvarying manner,
again, she is providing "routine" information as that term is defined in the job evaluation
manual. I note, as well, that some communications with faculty are accounted for in the
16
rating at level 2 on an occasional basis and, in my view, the evidence fails to establish
that communications at that level occur to a sufficient extent to warrant such a rating on
a regular and recurring basis.
In the result, I find that in the communication factor, the Grievors'
positions are properly rated at level 1 on a regular and recurring basis and at level 2 on
an occasional basis.
3. Physical Effort
This factor measures the degree and frequency of the physical effort
required by the position but does not include stiffness and strain from poor posture or
work habits.
In this factor, the College has rated the Grievors' positions at level 1 on a
regular and recurring basis and the Union does not challenge that rating but submitted
that their positions ought to be rated at level 2 on an occasional basis. Levels 1 and 2
are described in the job evaluation manual as follows:
1. The position requires light physical effort.
2. The position requires moderate physical effort.
The term "light" is defined as pushing, pulling or lifting lighter objects (less than 5 kgs or
11 lbs). It also involves the ability to adjust one's working position to minimize physical
17
stress. The term "moderate" is defined as pushing, pulling or lifting heavier objects (5 -
20 kgs or 11 - 44 Ibs); sustained handling of lighter objects (less than 5 kgs or 11 Ibs);
or a restricted ability to adjust one's working position for longer periods of time (over 30
minutes) or sustaining awkward work positions (up to 30 minutes).
In support of a rating at level 2 on an occasional basis, the Union
submitted that moderate physical effort is required to handle boxes of examinations and
copier paper. With regard to examinations, the evidence indicates that each semester,
the Grievors make a number of trips to the print shop where they lift boxes of
examinations onto a cart and then push the cart to the elevator. The Grievors testified
that it is often difficult to manoeuvre the cart onto the elevator. They then return to their
work area where they unload the cart, put the examinations in envelopes, return them
to the boxes and load the boxes onto the cart. The Grievors push the cart to the
boardroom where the examinations are stored and unload the cart. The Grievors
testified that they spend a week prior to the examination period dealing with
examinations.
There was no dispute that a full box of examinations weighs between 5
and 20 kgs or 11 to 44 lbs. and the evidence indicates that four boxes of examinations
can be loaded onto the cart at one time. Ms. Bratic testified, however, that at times,
she receives a call from the print shop to pick up examinations when only two boxes are
available. Ms. Bratic also testified that in the fall and winter semesters, she handles
more than 10 boxes of examinations while Ms. Ellul testified that she generally handles
18
ten boxes of examinations in each semester. Fewer boxes are involved in the summer
semester. Ms. Ellul also testified that at times, she assists faculty members to load
boxes of examination booklets onto carts or assists faculty members in carrying books.
Ms. Ellul also carries flip charts to Advisory Committee meetings and she described the
charts as awkward and heavy.
The Grievors testified that they also order copier paper every two to three
weeks and that six boxes are delivered on each occasion. The evidence indicates that
each box contains twelve packages of paper. Ms. Ellul testified that the boxes are
generally left outside or inside the office door and that she has to push two full boxes of
paper under a credenza where they are stored. Ms. Bratic testified that she, too, moves
some boxes of paper to an appropriate area for storage.
With regard to examinations, the College maintained that even if each of
the Grievors handled 15 boxes in each of the fall and winter semesters, it would take 30
seconds to load each box onto the cart. The College also advised that it timed a round
trip between the print shop-and the Faculty of Business and that it takes six minutes.
The College noted that boxes would be on the cart only half of that time and the
College disputed that moderate effort would be involved in pushing the cart. Moreover,
even if time spent pushing the cart were taken into account, the College submitted that
two hours of moderate physical effort would be involved on an annual basis. The
College characterized this amount of time as minor and contended that lifting boxes of
examinations and pushing the cart cannot be described as significant or integral to the
19
Grievors' positions. In these circumstances, the College submitted that the rating
should not be affected.
With regard to copier paper, the College indicated that it was not aware
that the Grievors were moving boxes and advised it would arrange for the boxes to be
delivered to the area where the paper is stored. The College also contended that the
Union had not previously referred to the Grievors moving boxes of copier paper to
support a rating at level 2 and objected to the Union doing so at the hearing. The Union
contended that the issue of copier paper was raised during the grievance procedure.
As noted above, the parties agree that on a regular and recurring basis,
the Grievors' positions involve light physical effort and, accordingly, are properly rated
at level 1. The issue is whether a rating at level 2 is warranted on an occasional basis.
The term "occasional" is described in the job evaluation manual as follows:
The term "occasional" can be considered from a few different perspectives. It
can be defined as once or twice a month or three or four times per year. It is
important to remember that this term is to be considered when identifying
significant skills or responsibilities associated with activities that occur for a short
period of time, on a few occasions or sporadically throughout the year.
Ultimately, the primary focus is to determine whether the skill, responsibility or
activity is of note and as such needs to be reflected in the evaluation. For
example, if a description or example in the PDF applies to a skill that is used 5%
of the time and is deemed to be a notable element of the position, it should be
captured at the "occasional" level. However, if a skill is used about 5% of the
time and it is not a significant differentiating element, it would not be helpful to
assign the "occasional" rating level to the work being described.
No matter how often the activity occurs, however, the skill or responsibility must
be important and without it, the position duties could not be performed.
20
The Grievors testified that they spend one week in each of the fall and
winter semesters dealing with examinations and somewhat less time in the summer
semester. Some of their time is spent putting examinations into envelopes and clearly, a
task of that nature would not affect the rating in the factor of physical effort. At the same
time, the Grievors load boxes of examinations onto a cart which they push from the print
shop to the Faculty of Business. There, they unload the boxes and later reload them
onto the cart, push the cart to the boardroom and, again, unload the cart. There was no
dispute that a full box of examinations qualifies as a heavier object under the job
evaluation plan as it weighs between 5 kgs and 20 kgs.
Based on the evidence, it is apparent that moderate physical effort is
involved in lifting boxes of examinations on multiple occasions when the Grievors load
and unload the cart. Although the College suggested that this type of effort is not
required to push the cart, in some cases, four boxes are loaded onto the cart and
accept the evidence of the Grievors that the cart may be difficult to manoeuvre onto the
elevator. Moreover, although the College submitted that lifting boxes of examinations
and pushing the cart cannot be characterized as significant activities, these activities
arise in the context of the Grievors' responsibility to deal with examinations and, in my
view, that responsibility can be described as significant.
As noted previously, the Grievors also move a number of boxes of copier
paper every two to three weeks and it would appear that those boxes would also qualify
21
as heavier objects under the job evaluation plan. There was, however, a dispute
between the parties as to whether the issue of copier paper was raised previously. I
note that it is referred to in the Union's brief which was filed in advance of the hearing.
In any event, having carefully considered the matter, I find that the physical effort
involved in lifting and transporting boxes of examinations is sufficient to warrant a rating
at level 2 on an occasional basis.
Accordingly, in the factor of physical effort, I find that the Grievors'
positions are properly rated at level 1 on a regular and recurring basis and at level 2 on
an occasional basis.
Based on the ratings for the factors in dispute, the total points for the
Grievors' positions increase from 313 to 319. As this does not result in a change in
payband, the grievances are dismissed.
V
DATED AT TORONTO, this�3 day of March, 2013.
Sole Arbitrator
Arbitration Data Sheet — Support Staff Classification
College: SENECA Incumbent: BRATIC,I Supervisor: MARANDO, M
ELLUL,C
Current Payband: D Payband Requested by Grievors: E
1. Regarding the attached Position Description Form:
Q The parties agree on the contents
x
The union disagrees with the contents and the specific details are attached
2.The attached Written Submission is from: ® The Union The College
Factor! a =< `W
Regular/ Occasional Regular/ Occasional Regular/ Occasional
Recurring Recurrinq Recurring
Level jPoints Level I Points Level Points Level Points Level Points Level Points
IA.Education 2 22 2 22 2 22
1B. Education 1 3 1 3 1 3
2. Experience 3 39 3 39 3 39
3. Analysis and Problem 2 46 0 0 2 46 0 0 2 46 0 0
Solving
4. Planning/Coordinating Planning/Coordinating 2 32 0 0 2 32 0 0 2 32 0 0
5. Guiding/Advising Others 2 17 0 0 2 17 0 0 2 17 0 0
6. Independence of Action 2 46 0 0 2 46 3 9 2 46 0 0
7. Service Delivery 2 29 0 0 2 29 0 0 2 29 0 0
8. Communication 1 14 2 9 2 46 0 0 1 14 2 9
9. Physical Effort 1 5 0 0 1 5 2 6 1 5 0 6
10. Audio Visual Effort 2In 35=bl 2In 35 2In 35
11. Workin Environment 1 7 1 7 2 9 1 7 2 9
Subtotals a 295 a 327 b 24 a 295 b 24
Total Points (a) + b 313 351 319
Resulting Payband D E D
Signature:
/ia R-ItXL-, ktj�rucAq2q, '2tt-3 w-c" R) 62c),*��
Arbitrator's Signature Date of H aring Date of Award