HomeMy WebLinkAboutBorodi 13-12-20IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
Durham College
(“the College”)
and
OPSEU, Local 353
(“the Union”)
Classification Grievance of Marilena Borodi - OPSEU # 2013-0353-0003
ARBITRATOR: Mary Lou Tims
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE COLLEGE: Tina DiLauro - Human Resources
Norah Warmuth - Manager, Accounts Payable and
Receivable
Barbara MacCheyne - Executive Director,
Financial Operations
FOR THE UNION: Melissa Plank - Chief Steward
Ryan Way - Local President
Marilena Borodi - Grievor
Hearing held in Oshawa on December 10, 2013.
AWARD
I have before me the classification grievance of Ms. Marilena Borodi (“the grievor”)
dated January 7, 2013. As of the date of the grievance, Ms. Borodi held the position of
Accounts Receivable Clerk at Durham College. Her grievance challenges the content of the
Position Description Form (“the PDF”) for her position and the evaluation of the position at
Payband E. The remedy sought is the rewriting of the PDF and the rating of the position at
Payband G.
The parties advised that they attempted to resolve this grievance prior to arbitration.
Since the filing of the grievance, the College agreed to amend the factor rating for
Independence of Action from level 2 to level 3, regular and recurring, with the result that the
position moved to Payband F.
In addition, I was informed that the parties agreed to amend the PDF since the
grievance was filed, and the Union’s representative confirmed at the hearing that the content
of the PDF is therefore no longer in issue.
Further, the parties advised that the grievor’s position has been renamed since the filing
of the grievance to Accounts Receivable Analyst. I note that this is so, but shall refer herein to
the position in issue by its name as of January 7, 2013 when the grievance was filed.
While the parties narrowed the issues in dispute, the rating of the following four factors
continues to be contested: Analysis and Problem Solving, Planning/Coordinating,
Guiding/Advising Others and Service Delivery.
2
There were no objections with respect to my jurisdiction or to the arbitrability of the
grievance.
Both parties filed pre-hearing submissions in accordance with article 18.4.3.4 of the
collective agreement. These were very helpful and I thank the parties’ representatives.
In addition, I had the benefit of hearing evidence given by the grievor, by her supervisor,
Ms. Norah Warmuth, Manager, Accounts Payable and Receivable, and by Ms. Barbara
MacCheyne, Executive Director, Financial Operations to whom Ms. Warmuth reports.
ANALYSIS AND PROBLEM SOLVING
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring and level 3, occasional.
The Union seeks a rating of level 3, regular and recurring.
The Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (“the Manual”) defines levels 2 and 3 Analysis
and Problem Solving as follows:
2. Situations and problems are easily identifiable. Analysis or problem solving is
straightforward. Solutions may require modification of existing alternatives or past
practices.
3. Situations and problems are identifiable, but may require further inquiry in order to
define them precisely. Solutions require the analysis and collection of information,
some of which may be obtained from areas or resources which are not normally used by
the position.
The Notes to Raters are of assistance and state in part as follows:
At level 2, the work performed is still quite structured, as the incumbent performs it in
the customary or usual way. It is very evident when problems arise. However, the
position has some freedom in determining how the problem could be resolved if normal
past practice cannot be applied. . . .
At level 3, the types of problems that are encountered are readily identifiable but the
position must be able to identify when additional information is needed to clearly
understand the problem or situation. In order to develop an appropriate solution, the
position will need to gather more information. In many circumstances, this additional
3
information or clarification will be readily available, but there will be times when the
position will need to seek the additional information from a source it is unfamiliar with.
Level 2 versus level 3 – wording in a PDF that suggests there is a need to get additional
information, such as problems that require the incumbent to look at several sources of
information or ask questions of other departments, does not necessarily mean that level
3 would apply. For example, if dealing with a question regarding a “hold” on a student
record, the incumbent might have to check several screens on the student record
system to see if it is a financial hold, or an academic hold, and might even have to
contact the academic or finance department for an answer. However, these are
procedural steps that should be followed one by one until the problem is identified and
solved. There may be some judgement (level 2) in deciding which step to try first, but
the analysis, if any, is quite straightforward (level 2). For level 3, the incumbent would
be gathering information, analyzing each new piece of information in relation to the
other pieces, and possibly exploring new or unusual directions to seek more information
based on the results of the investigation or analysis.
The Union took the position that each of the examples of Analysis and Problem Solving
included in the PDF warrants a rating of level 3, regular and recurring.
The Union focussed particularly on the position’s role in completing third party billing
for sponsored students. It argued that “the incumbent has to interpret, analyze each individual
contract and gather further information from different departments within the College and/or
the sponsors or students to accomplish the tasks.”
The grievor explained that students may be sponsored by bodies such as First Nations,
government agencies or the WSIB. She testified that she reads the sponsorship letter and must
understand what expenses the sponsor undertakes to cover. Contracts are individualized for
each sponsored student and sponsoring entity. The Union explained in its pre-hearing Brief
that “if the terms and conditions of the contract are unclear, the incumbent will contact the
sponsor to provide further clarifications, assess the situation and explain the implications of the
contract to all parties.” While testifying at the hearing, the grievor referred by way of example
to a sponsorship letter stating that “tuition” is covered. In such circumstances, she might clarify
4
with the sponsor whether it accepts responsibility for paying “ancillary fees” or not. She further
described by way of example that she might contact a sponsor who undertakes to cover
expenses up to $3000.00 where expenses total $3200.00 as the sponsor may agree to pay the
entire sum when made aware of the total charges.
The Union noted as follows in its pre-hearing Brief:
Based on the information that was collected, developed, analyzed and implemented by
the incumbent he/she then assesses, registration, bookstore and parking and the entire
student account. The results of this assessment the incumbent will calculate the
required fees (parking, academic upgrading, student success advisor fees) and bring
forward invoices that will cover the approved charges (sic).
The grievor testified as well that where a sponsor does not cover all student expenses,
she communicates with the student involved to ensure that he is aware of his own financial
responsibility. She noted that she must ensure that a sponsor is billed for the charges for which
it is responsible. She also gave evidence that in monitoring accounts, when “something doesn’t
look right” she “asks why.” By way of example, she contacted Registration when she saw that a
student in second semester was billed ancillary fees as though he was a new student.
Ms. Warmuth questioned the suggestion that there is a regular need to contact
sponsors as she understood that sponsoring contracts generally “lay out” what is to be billed.
She also noted the role of the WSIB Student Success Advisor in contacting the WSIB regarding
students it sponsors.
The Union commented as well on the two occasional examples of Analysis and Problem
Solving included in the PDF, and argued that they reflect regular and recurring level 3 Analysis
and Problem Solving.
5
The first of the occasional examples addresses the position’s role in making
“recommendations regarding allowance for bad debt expense.” Ms. Warmuth accepted that in
doing so, the grievor is required to “gather up a lot of information and do a lot of investigation.”
The College agreed that this reflected level 3 Analysis and Problem Solving. Both Ms. Warmuth
and the grievor, however, acknowledged that the grievor is infrequently required to perform
such task, and indeed had not done so at any time in 2013.
The second occasional example of Analysis and Problem Solving included in the PDF
relates to situations in which “an invoice requestor reviews . . . accounts and challenges the
details.” Ms. Warmuth testified that a higher rating was awarded here because of the added
“leg work” occasionally required in addressing such matters. In addressing this example, the
grievor described that she reviews account agings daily, and at least weekly phones clients with
accounts outstanding for sixty days. The grievor and Ms. Warmuth both agreed that there are
few such accounts.
The grievor and Ms. Warmuth further agreed that addressing outstanding invoices with
clients is generally a straightforward exercise. The grievor acknowledged that in the majority of
cases, she can readily ascertain what and why a client was billed and answer questions posed
such as why HST was charged. In the College’s view, this role is captured in the first regular and
recurring example in the PDF and reflects level 2 Analysis and Problem Solving. The College
takes the position that it is only a small percentage of contacts regarding outstanding accounts
that involve a higher level of Analysis and Problem Solving, and that this more complex
analytical and problem solving task is appropriately reflected in an occasional level 3 rating.
The Union referred to the Manual as follows:
6
“Regular & recurring” may not be readily identified as a quantitative amount of time. If
a specific task occurs daily or weekly, it is easily identifiable as “regular & recurring.”
However, a specific task that occurs once or twice a year, every year, and takes up about
25% of the work year should also be recognized as “regular & recurring.” Any task or
responsibility that is an integral part of the position’s work and is expected or
consistently relied on should be considered “regular & recurring.” (p. 5)
In the Union’s submission, the occasional examples included in the PDF reflect tasks that are an
“integral part” of the grievor’s position that are “consistently relied on to collect funds to
balance Durham College’s year end.” It argues therefore, that the level 3 occasional rating
granted by the College should be amended to level 3, regular and recurring.
The College on the other hand maintains that the occasional level 3 rating should not be
disturbed, asserting that the occasional examples included in the PDF reflect infrequently
performed tasks that cannot be said to be “consistently” relied upon.
After considering the evidence before me and the parties’ submissions, I am not
convinced by the Union that the rating of this factor should be amended.
The Union emphasized the grievor’s role in completing third party billing for sponsored
students. I understand the importance of ensuring that the College, students and sponsoring
entities understand who assumes financial responsibility for which expenses. While there was
some issue between the parties as to how often it is necessary for the grievor to contact
sponsors to seek clarification, such “situations and problems” are, in my view, “easily
identifiable” and the required analysis and problem solving is “straightforward” within the level
2 factor definition.
I recognize as well the grievor’s role in dealing with accounts that are outstanding at
sixty days. There is no dispute that there are few such accounts, and that the grievor’s contacts
with clients with respect to such matters are in most instances straightforward. The first
7
regular and recurring example of Analysis and Problem Solving included in the PDF addresses in
part such straightforward follow up of outstanding accounts. I am not convinced that regular
and recurring Analysis and Problem Solving beyond level 2 is demonstrated in such role. To the
extent that a higher level of analysis and problem solving is required in a small percentage of
cases when addressing outstanding accounts with clients, this is captured by the level 3
occasional rating.
Similarly, I have considered the position’s responsibility relating to bad debts, also
included as an occasional example in the PDF. Again, there is no dispute that the grievor rarely
“makes recommendations regarding allowance for bad debt expense” and indeed has not done
so in 2013. To the extent that this function reflects level 3 Analysis and Problem Solving, I see
no basis upon which the occasional rating granted by the College should be disturbed.
Although not referred to in these proceedings, I have considered as well a third example
included in the PDF of regular and recurring Analysis and Problem Solving, involving cheques
not being posted to the correct account. The PDF sets out that the problem may be identified
when the grievor reviews the account agings, that she asks “probing questions regarding date
of cheque issue, cheque number,” and determines what account the cheque was applied to and
corrects the error. Again, I am not satisfied that this reflects Analysis and Problem Solving
beyond level 2.
Having considered all of the evidence, the rating of this factor at level 2, regular and
recurring and level 3, occasional is upheld.
PLANNING/COORDINATING
The Manual states as follows:
8
This factor measures the planning and/or coordinating requirements of the position.
This refers to the organizational and/or project management skills required to bring
together and integrate activities and resources needed to complete tasks or organize
events.
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. The Union seeks a rating
of level 3, regular and recurring.
The Manual defines levels 2 and 3 Planning/Coordinating as follows:
2. Plan/coordinate activities and resources to complete own work and achieve
overlapping deadlines.
3. Plan/coordinate activities, information or material to enable completion of tasks and
events, which affect the work schedule of other employees.
The Manual defines “affect” to mean “to produce a material influence upon or
alteration in” and also states that “other employees includes full-time, part-time, students,
contractors.”
The Union largely relied upon the third example of regular and recurring
Planning/Coordinating included in the PDF in support of its argument that a level 3 rating
should be awarded here. This example deals with completion of second semester tuition
invoicing for students with sponsorship contracts. The PDF states in part as follows:
The incumbent will review the contract, print statements . . . and process invoice. . . .
Review contract, student account statements, status in registration and financial aid.
The incumbent will verify that registration is completed and confirm student has been
approved for funding for next semester . . . . The incumbent will verify that the student
information is up to date . . . . Deadlines are determined per the semester schedule and
the registrar office . . . . . The contract may also establish invoice deadlines . . . . The
incumbent follows established guidelines which align with College practices.
The Union stated in its written Brief that the grievor engages in “individualized contract
analysis,” reviews “student account statements, registration activities, outstanding financial
issues from prior registrations or previous semester with the institution” and communicates
9
with “multiple departments throughout the college in order to verify information queried from
databases.” In the Union’s submission, such “activity requires excellent organizational and
coordination with Durham College deadlines and all other departments that are involved with
these deadlines which has a critical outcome that could be devastating to the student and the
institution. . . .” The grievor described that when completing second semester tuition invoicing,
she may make a note on a student file so that the Registration office will permit a sponsored
student to register despite nonpayment of fees. Conversely, she may place a hold on a student
account if the student’s sponsor has an outstanding balance, thereby precluding the student
from registering. The Union noted that the process engaged in by the grievor “follows Durham
College registration program and terms of payment” and that “any change to this schedule
must be determined by the upper management. . . . ”
In the Union’s submission, such role in invoicing second semester tuition demonstrates
level 3 Planning/Coordinating and “affects,” as defined, the “work schedules” of other College
employees and students. It asserts that “students” are included in the definition of “other
employees” for purposes of this factor. The Union noted in its Brief that the grievor’s assigned
role “can impact other departments when a student account is put on hold stopping other
departments from allowing the student to obtain grades or register into next courses,” and that
other “departmental staff will not be able to complete their tasks if the incumbent has initiated
a hold.”
The College in response took the position that only students who are also employed by
the College fall within the factor definition of “other employees.” In any event, the College
disputed that the grievor plans/coordinates to enable the completion of tasks “which affect the
10
work schedule of other employees.” Ms. Warmuth testified that where the grievor places a
hold on a student account, Registration office staff continues dealing with multiple other
students. She further noted that the grievor’s position works within established College
deadlines and guidelines.
I have considered the evidence before me, and the PDF in its entirety. The Union
emphasized that the grievor may place a hold on a student account preventing a student from
registering or may insert a note on a student account which permits the student to register
despite nonpayment of fees when involved in second semester tuition invoicing. The parties
differed as to whether or not students who are not also College employees come within the
scope of the factor definition of “other employees.” Even if I accept that non-employed
students are also encompassed within such definition, I am not satisfied that the Union has
been able to demonstrate that the grievor’s position plans and coordinates at level 3.
The Notes to Raters are helpful. They describe that at level 2, “the position plans and
prioritizes its own activities” and that planning and coordinating are “typically focussed on
completion of assigned activities within established deadlines or procedures….” At level 3, in
contrast, “the position decides the order and selects or adapts methods for many work
assignments” and “typically” involves “requests for materials/information by specific deadlines
in order for the position to plan events or activities….” The evidence before me demonstrates
that planning and coordinating in the grievor’s position is “focussed on completion of assigned
activities within established deadlines or procedures.”
Further, although placing a hold on a student account may be cause for concern by the
student in question, the evidence does not demonstrate level 3 planning/coordinating affecting
11
student work schedules. While a hold on a student account may preclude that student from
registering, I accept that Registration office staff continues its work with other students, and
that it cannot be said that a hold placed on a student account by the grievor reflects
planning/coordinating to enable task completion which affects the work schedule of other
employees within the level 3 factor definition.
I have considered as well the other examples included in the PDF, and particularly the
second regular and recurring example dealing with refunds. Again, on the evidence before me,
I am not able to conclude that such role reflects level 3 planning/coordinating.
The Union has not, in my view, demonstrated that the grievor’s position engages in level
3 Planning/Coordinating as defined. I find that the level 2, regular and recurring rating assigned
by the College is the better fit and such rating is therefore upheld.
GUIDING/ADVISING OTHERS
The College rated this factor at level 1, regular and recurring and level 2, occasional.
The Union seeks a rating of level 3, regular and recurring.
The Manual provides the following level definitions:
1. Minimal requirement to guide/advise others. May need to explain procedures to
other employees or students.
2. Guide others so they can complete specific tasks.
3. Advise others to enable them to perform their day-to-day activities.
The following defined terms must be noted:
Explain – provides details or examples to help others better understand the information
Guide – demonstrates correct processes/procedures for the purpose of assisting others
with skill development and/or task completion
12
Advise – has the authority to recommend, or provide knowledgeable direction regarding
a decision or course of action
The crux of the parties’ dispute regarding this factor relates to the position’s role in
dealing with student refunds. The PDF states as follows:
The incumbent will run the refund report daily and review each student account that
has been assessed a refund and whether or not a CINV exist of the student account –
incumbent will reverse the RFND and transfer credit to appropriate third party billing
company to credit AR account or request refund paid to third party. The file then is
saved electronically for Accounts Payable to initiate Management approval for the
appropriate refunds. Manager approves refunds prior to Accounts Payable releasing
and payment being issued.
The grievor and Ms. Warmuth both testified regarding this role and largely agreed on
the parameters of the position’s responsibility. The grievor runs and reviews a refund report
each morning. It is important that refunds not be issued in error to parties with outstanding
balances owing, and where refunds are payable to sponsors, it is necessary to ensure that the
refund is paid out to the correct party. After reviewing the refund report, the grievor gives Ms.
Warmuth “some heads up” regarding refunds that appear to be in error. Ms. Warmuth also
receives a separate weekly report with refund information, and it is “her call” whether or not
the release of a refund is authorized. In cases of sponsored students, the grievor adjusts
refunds from the student account to the sponsor’s account, and Ms. Warmuth assesses and
decides whether to approve the release of the refund.
I have considered the evidence before me including the PDF in its entirety. The Union
has not, in my view, demonstrated that the grievor recommends or provides “knowledgeable
direction regarding a decision or course of action” that “enables” Ms. Warmuth or others to
perform “day-to day activities” as contemplated by the level 3 factor definition. Ms. Warmuth
described the grievor’s role as one of being the “first set of eyes” in reviewing refunds, but
13
there is no dispute that Ms. Warmuth makes her own inquiries as required, assesses and
ultimately determines whether or not a refund is released. While it is a level 3, regular and
recurring rating sought by the Union here, I note that I am also not convinced by the Union that
the grievor on a regular and recurring basis “demonstrates correct processes/procedures for
the purpose of assisting” Ms. Warmuth or others with “skill development and/or task
completion” at level 2. The PDF describes an occasional responsibility for “guiding” work study
students “on proper process and procedures related to A/R functions.” The evidence does not
establish that this task warrants a rating beyond level 2 occasional as assigned by the College.
The College’s rating of this factor at level 1, regular and recurring, and level 2,
occasional, is therefore upheld.
SERVICE DELIVERY
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring and the Union seeks a
rating of level 3, regular and recurring.
The Manual sets out the following factor definitions:
2. Provide service according to specifications by selecting the best method of delivering
service.
3. Tailor service based on developing a full understanding of the customer’s needs.
“Tailor” is defined in the Manual as “to modify or adapt with special attention in order
to customize it to a specific requirement.”
The Notes to Raters must also be considered and read in part as follows:
Level 2 – service is provided by determining which option would best suit the needs of
the customer. The incumbent must know all of the options available and be able to
explain them to the customer. The incumbent selects or recommends the best option
based on the customer’s need. There is no, or limited, ability for the incumbent to
change the options….
14
Level 3 refers to the need to “tailor service.” This means that in order for the position to
provide the right type of service, he/she must ask questions to develop an
understanding of the customer’s situation. The customer’s request must be understood
thoroughly. Based on this understanding, the position is then able to customize the way
the service is delivered or substantially modify what is delivered so that it suits the
customer’s particular circumstances.
The evidence before me as it relates to this factor was largely undisputed and can be
briefly addressed. The PDF contains as an example of daily service “on-line billing/outstanding
receivables.”
The grievor testified that when payment of a College invoice is overdue, she “works with
the client” in trying to address the situation. The Union suggested that the grievor “tailors
service” in addressing with the client a timeframe for repayment. The grievor explained in
these proceedings that she follows up with clients when accounts are outstanding at sixty days,
and that there are few accounts unpaid in such timeframe. Ms. Warmuth gave evidence that
the grievor is expected to follow College policies and procedures, and that repayment beyond
ninety days requires her approval. The grievor accepted that this is the case.
The Union suggested as well that the grievor “tailors service” insofar as she described
that she sought and obtained the approval of Ms. Warmuth’s predecessor before agreeing to
payment by a client in six installments. The grievor acknowledged that she does not have the
authority to approve such arrangement.
The grievor described as well that the WSIB prefers to receive online invoices, and the
Union suggested that this too exemplifies the tailoring of service within the level 3 factor
definition.
15
The College stated that the position selects the best option for delivery of service to the
client, but has limited or no ability to change such options.
The Union has not, in my view, established that the grievor “tailors service” as defined,
and the evidence does not demonstrate that she is “able to customize the way the service is
delivered or substantially modify what is delivered so that it suits the customer’s particular
circumstances” as contemplated by the level 3 definition. Rather, I agree with the College that
she must know the options available and select the best option based on customer need, with
little flexibility to change what those available options are.
The rating of this factor at level 2, regular and recurring, is confirmed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, the College’s rating of the four disputed factors is
confirmed.
The Union referred to the following cautionary words found in the Manual:
If the evaluation of a position results in “occasional” values for 4 or 5 factors that
position should be examined carefully. There could be a problem with the PDF not
accurately reflecting the essential duties of the position or it may simply be the manner
in which the job has been designed. (p. 7)
I am mindful that four factors have been assigned an occasional rating here. That said, I have
considered the parties’ evidence and submissions, and have concluded that the Union has not
been able to demonstrate that the ratings of the four challenged factors should be amended.
16
Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
DATED at TORONTO this 20th day of December, 2013.
"M. Tims"
__________________________________________
Mary Lou Tims, Arbitrator