Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSobel 14-05-14IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 109 (FOR SUPPORT STAFF) (hereinafter called the "Union ") -and- COLLEGE COMPENSATION and APPOINTMENTS COUNCIL (FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS and TECHNOLOGY) In the form of FANSHAWE COLLEGE (hereinafter called the "College ") -and- GRIEVANCES OF DR. HAROLD SOBEL OPSEU File No. 2009 -0109 -0010 (hereinafter the "Grievor or the Incumbent ") ARBITRATOR: REPRESENTING THE COLLEGE: REPRESENTING THE UNION: Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb. Julie McQuire, Employee Relations Consultant Anthony Fields, Senior Manager, Technical Support Services Brody Lavoie, Manager, Academic Technical Support Services Ron Kelly - Local 109 Dr. Harold Sobel -- Grievor A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT LONDON, ONTARIO ON 8 MAY 2014. 1 AWARD Dr. Harold Sobel held the position of Clinical Learning Support Specialist during the periods of 3 October 2007 to 25 April 2008 and 9 October 2008 to 21 July 2010: He left his employee and went on short term and subsequently long term disability in January of 2010. He will not be returning to work and thus while this is a classification grievance it is realty about the job he was performing at the time and not the incumbent in the job. Nothing said in this award should be taken to affect either the Position Description Form ( "PDF ") or the job evaluation rating of the incumbent person. As I learned from the evidence the evolutionary phase of the job ended with the departure of Dr. Sobel. The position is now one of a purely technical support position. Technical Support Services (TSS) provides IT computer and systems support services to both the academic and service areas of the College. The Academic Computing Support within which the position of the Grievor is found, is one of three areas reporting into the TSS at the relevant times. Dr. Sobel was in a rather unique position of having both the experience and background to assist the College in establishing certain labs and determining how to use sophisticated equipment in them, some of which had been purchased through grants in earlier years and not been utilized due to a lack of knowhow as to how to incorporate them into a Lab. This is what I have called the evolutionary phase and no Ionger exists in respect of the position as it is now performed. The College evaluated the position of Clinical Learning Support Specialist which Dr. Sobel held and rated the position at 629 points, placing the position within Payband 1. The Grievor submits that the position ought to be evaluated at 737 points placing the position at the higher rated Payband K. The Grievor and the College are in agreement as to the language of the Position Description Form. Background The Clinical Learning Support Specialist provides customer service by: conducting research, development, implementation and administration activities associated with clinical learning technical support systems such as rewrote imaging, discipline cantered server -based applications, remote software installation and updating, electronic access services etc.; completing a variety of assigned computer technical support tasks involving high -tech medical related equipment and associated laboratory peripherals. Factors in Dispute There are three factor§ in. dispptein this proceeding. Bach of the factors in dispute will be dealt with below under separate headings. 2 LA Education: Ratings: College Level 4 / Union Level 5 The Union submits that the job that the Grievor fulfilled could not have been done without the background in medical technology and medical sciences. The job posting of 8 August 2008 specifically required "training in a medical related-discipline is required ". The College submits that the minimal level of formal education required to perform the responsibilities of the position has been identified at a 3 year diploma/degree or equivalent - related discipline with a substantial and varied emphasis on hands -on computer network theory, maintenance and operation as being required for this position. The College has been successful in filling the position with that education requirement as stated on the cut -rent PDF (incumbent Justin Robichaud) which does not apply to Dr. Sobel. Therefore, the Education factor is . appropriately rated at the Level 4. I find that Dr. Sobel was placed in a rather unique set of circumstances which no longer exist. He was required to perform a role in the evolution of the labs as well as supporting them from a technical point of view. That being the case he did require the medical related discipline background whereas the current incumbent while constantly adjusting to technological change is not required to play the evolutionary role that Dr. Sobel played. Therefore, I find that the Union has established a Level 5 for this factor because the College did need him to have "professional certification or equivalent" to do the job. 3. Analysis and Problem Solving: Ratings; College Level 3 / Union Level 3 + 4 This factor measures the level of complexity involved in analyzing situations, information or problems of varying levels ofdiffculty; and in developing options, solutions or other actions. The College and the Union agree on the level for the rating but disagree as to whether there ought to be an occasional Level 4 added on to the rating. The Union submits that Dr. Sobel was required to do significant investigation to perform his tasks particularly at the outset he had to engage in research to figure out how the boxed equipment which had been sitting idle could be used. The College submits that the occasional example is merely an amplification of the Level 3 requirement and has been taken account of in the rating. I find that Dr. Sobel did indeed, have to figure out the use of equipment which had been sitting idle for some time and was state of the art technology.' The problems were not identifiable:in the sense of how to use the equipment. Dr. Sobel did indeed do research and thus was on occasion 3 operating during the evolutionary stage at a level above the defined circumstances of Level 3. Therefore, I find the Union has proven the occasional factor and I so award. G. Independence of Action: Ratings: College Level 3./ Union Level 5 This factor measures the level of independence or autonomy in the position. The Union submits that the position duties are completed according to broad goals or objectives made using College policies. The position is an autonomous one and should be at the highest level. The College submits that there are more than College policies as constraints to guide the decisions made by the person in the position. There are many references throughout the PDF identifying specific results or objectives to be met which had been established by the subject matter experts. Furthermore, there are many examples in the PDF that contradict the Union proposition that the only constraints on the autonym of the position are College policies. I find that there is a problem with the Union position in that it is reflected more on the person and not on the position. Dr. Sobel presented himself at the hearing in a very engaging and accommodating fashion. He is also very knowledgeable with a real depth of experience. I find that he did undoubtedly engage the subject experts and to some extent push them towards specific objectives. However, that is rating the person and not the position. I find that the position is appropriately rated at Level 3 and the Union has not satisfied me that it ought to be rated at a higher level. The submission of the Union is rejected. 7. Sex-vice Delivery: Ratings: College Level 3 / Union Level 4 _ This factor looks at the service relationship that is an assigned requirement of the position. h considers the required manner in which the position delivers service to customers and not the incumbent's interpersonal relationship with those customers. The level of service looks at more than the normal anticipation for what customers tivant and supplying it efficiently. It looks at the degree to which the position is required to design and fit f l the service requirement. The Union submits that Dr. Sobel had to anticipate faculty needs. Dr. Sobel cites the interview lab as an example. The faculty was willing to put up with cassette recorders to simulate interview techniques. Dr. Sobel was able to show the faculty that there was other, more effective simulation equipment. They bought into such changes and the result was a much more effective real life interviewing situation. 4 The College submits that the position requires the person to query the faculty about their requirements for academic delivery based upon a full understanding of their needs. That is in effect a Level 3 rating. I find that during the evolutionary phase of the labs and their development there was a need to both query faculty and to anticipate or pro - actively encourage different delivery of services. Therefore, I find that the Union did establish the Service Delivery rating at Level 4. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons; I find that two of the factors and one occasional rating ought to be as submitted by the Union. Accordingly, the total points assigned for the position is to be 673. That point score places the position in payband J on the Schedule in the Job Evaluation Manual. The parties are hereby directed to take the necessary steps in order to implement this decision. If there are any disputes as to the implementation of my award, I retain jurisdiction to resolve those disputes and issue a supplementary award to complete the process of ensuring that the remedy is complete and the Grievor is made whole to the extent that may be required. I will remain seized of this matter with jurisdiction to complete the remedy in this award for a period of 45 days from the date herein. Either party may on written request to the Arbitrator ask me to reconvene the hearing for the purposes of determining the remedial aspects of this award. If no written request is received within the stipulated time frame, I will no longer retain jurisdiction over the implementation of the remedy arising from this Award. DATED at London, Ontario this 14'x' day of May 2014. Richard H. Mc aren, C.Arb. Arbitrator E ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION r":ge: FANSHAWE incumbent: Sobel, Harold Supervisor: Current Payband: I Requested Payband: K 1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form: R(The parties agree on the contents 2. The attached written submission is from: ❑ The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific details attached 0 The Union C►�' `fhe College Factor MANAGEMEN T _ Lii+ilON :... -. .. .. ARBITRATOR Regular & Recurring Occasional Regular & Recurring Occasional Regular & Recurring Occasional Level Points Level Points Level Level Points Level Points P ants 1A Education 4 48 5 ALevel 1 B Education 1 3 1 :P01,Ms 2 Experience 4 54 4 4 9 3 Analysis/Problem Solving 3 78 3 78 4 Planning/Coordinating 3 56 3 56 ding /Advising 5 53 6 53 F-4opendence of Action 3 78 5 142 j 7 service Delivery 3 51 4 73 43. 8 Communication 4 110 4 110 9 Phyalcal Effort 3 47 3 47 10 AudioNisual Effort 3 35 3 35 11 Working Environment 1 7 2 9 1 7 2 9 Subtotals (a): 620 (b) 9 (aj' -719 (b) 18 (a} (b) yt#" Total Points (a) t (b) 629 737 Resulting Payband 1 K (Union Represen five) TAxt?l va or's Signa r (Da ej (College Representative) � (Date) A _- ( ate) (Date of Hearing) . (Date of Aw d)