HomeMy WebLinkAboutBell 14-06-19
IN THE MATTER OF A
CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE
BETWEEN:
OPSEU LOCAL 353
-and-
DURHAM COLLEGE
Regarding the Classification of
Assistive Technologist/Learning Skills Advisor
OPSEU #2013-0353-0004
BEFORE : Kathleen G. O’Neil, Single Arbitrator
For the Union: Ryan Way, President, OPSEU Local 353
Andrea Bell, Grievor
For the College: Corielynn Phinney, Human Resources
Nicky Patel, Acting Director, Centre for Students with Disabilities
A Hearing was held in Oshawa, Ontario on June 4, 2014
1
A W A R D
This decision deals with a grievance claiming that the position entitled Assistive Technologist/
Learning Skills Advisor, currently held by Ms. Andrea Bell, is incorrectly classified at Payband G and
asking that it be reclassified upward to Payband H. The employer maintains that the job is properly
classified.
The dispute is to be resolved by application of the CAAT Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual
(referred to below simply as “the Manual”) to the job duties set out in the Position Description Form
(referred to below as “the PDF”).
Overview of the Position
The position in question, Assistive Technologist/Learning Skills Advisor, is situated within the Centre
for Students with Disabilities. The incumbent is responsible for providing support to students with
learning disabilities and the faculty and staff who work with them, by demonstrating how to use
suitable technical aids including hardware, software and other devices. Duties include researching
and testing assistive computer technologies, installing and maintaining software, as well as providing
training related to adaptive technology to students, faculty, management and community groups. The
position reports to the Director of Learning and Disability Services.
Nature of the Dispute
There is no dispute about the PDF or job description for the grievor’s position, and there is only one
factor in dispute: Service Delivery.
The College has rated this factor at Level 2, regular and recurring, while the union seeks
recognition at Level 3, regular and recurring. The Manual describes these two levels of the
factor definition as follows:
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.
2
Mandatory definitions include:
Tailor - to modify or adapt with special attention in order to customize it to a specific
requirement.
The commentary and Notes to Raters provide as follows:
This factor looks at the service relationship that is an assigned requirement of the position. It
considers the required manner in which the position delivers service to customers and not the
incumbent's interpersonal relationship with those customers.
All positions have a number of customers, who may be primarily internal or external. The level
of service looks at more than the normal anticipation of what customers want and supplying it
efficiently. It considers how the request for service is received, for example directly from the
customer; through the Supervisor or workgroup or project leader; or by applying guidelines and
processes. It then looks at the degree to which the position is required to design and fulfil the
service requirement.
Notes to Raters:
1. "Customers" refers to the people or groups of people who receive the services delivered by
the position. They can be internal, students or external to the College.
2. Consider the position's overall or primary focus of service. For example, the primary focus
may be to deliver or provide information.
3. To clarify the differences between the levels:
Level 1 - service delivery is typically providing answers to customers' questions. There may
be times when the incumbent will need to refer the customer to another source for the
answer or the incumbent may need to consult with others to provide the appropriate
answer.
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.
For example, positions working in the Financial Aid area would need to fully understand the
various student loan programs that are available and based on a student's unique situation
select or recommend the program that would best address the student's financial situation.
The incumbent doesn't have the ability to change the funding programs, which are
established by an external agency.
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.
Level 4 means that the position designs services for others by obtaining a full
understanding of their current and future needs. This information is considered in a wider
context, which is necessary in order for the position to be able to structure service(s) that
meet both the current stated needs and emerging needs. The position may envision
service(s) before the customer is aware of the need.
3
Considerations and Conclusions
To start, I note that the general instructions in the Manual acknowledge that more than one
level of a factor may fit a particular job. Evaluators are instructed to read each of the factor
level definitions until one appears to capture the elements of the job set out in the PDF.
Then, one is to consider the next level up and determine which is the “best fit”, based on the
entire factor definition. It is very common for there to be reasonable differences of opinion as
to which is the best fit when there are aspects of the job which are captured by more than one
level.
For service delivery, as the employer emphasizes, the current rating of Level 2 captures the
work of the incumbent’s job description related to selecting the most appropriate assistive
technology from options available at the Centre, based on a client’s needs, usually a student
with one or more disabilities. For the incumbent’s work with those students for whom this is
the only service provided by the incumbent, Level 2 is a good fit. This is akin to the example
in the Notes to Raters of positions working in the Financial Aid area who recommend the best
of the available options which are established by an external agency, with little or no ability to
change the options.
However, there is other work included in the PDF which is not captured at Level 2. For
instance, the factor definition for Level 3, includes the idea of “developing a full understanding
of the customer’s needs”, as contrasted with providing service “according to specifications” at
Level 2. Both the PDF and the discussion at the hearing make it clear that the incumbent is
charged with interviewing and assessing the client to ensure that their needs are fully
understood. Although the client typically comes with an indication of what his or her disability
is, from records or referral from other team members, there remains a great variety of
potential issues, especially when combined with individual learning styles and multiple
disabilities.
The PDF indicates in several places that the incumbent must interview the student to
determine the impact of disability on learning. As well, at page 8 of the PDF, it is indicated
that trials and tests are run to determine the best “custom solution” for the student. This
language is more consistent with Level 3, and the reference in the notes to raters to a
requirement to customize the way the service is delivered. Particularly when initial
suggestions are not being utilized effectively, and a client returns for further assistance, the
evidence does not support the idea that service is delivered according to “specifications”, as
at Level 2. Other portions of the PDF also show elements of the incumbent’s work which are
consistent with a finding that customizing is involved in the requirements of the job. For
4
example, at page 13 of the PDF, dealing with the planning and delivering of technology
training, it is made clear that it is the incumbent who determines how to best modify training
programs to better meet student needs. For example, original workshop plans may be
modified to ensure students are sufficiently engaged to learn the material.
As well, at page 17, the PDF provides that the incumbent is to provide ongoing support
throughout the academic year. This involves troubleshooting problems, adjusting devices
and developing plans for academic success. In this respect, I agree with the employer that
the example discussed in the College’s brief and at the hearing of adjusting a device to
change a pre-loaded option such as whether the device uses a male or female voice would
be captured at level 2 as choosing the best option. However, the elements of the PDF which
deal with the requirement for ongoing support require the incumbent to basically coach the
student through difficulties in learning and integrating the technology into their academic
program, to develop learning strategies, including consulting with faculty and staff to discuss
issues. These duties go much further than the Level 2 duty to provide service according to
pre-set options, in my view.
As discussed at the hearing, the dispute here boils down to a difference of interpretation of
the meaning of the word “tailor” used in the Level 3 factor definition. Tailor is defined in the
Manual, as set out above as “to modify or adapt with special attention in order to customize it
to a specific requirement”. Further direction is given in the Notes to Raters, where we are told
that tailoring involves asking questions to develop a thorough understanding of the
customer’s situation. Then, based on this understanding, the position 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.” I have highlighted the “or” in that passage, because it
is important to the difference of opinion in this case. The employer emphasized throughout
that the incumbent did not substantially modify the technology which she provides to the
students. For example, the incumbent is not responsible to program software or design new
software or hardware. She must know what is available, and offer that to the clients.
However, even if the incumbent does not substantially modify the technology, or what is
delivered, she is entitled to Level 3 if she must question the client to obtain a full
understanding, and then use that to customize how the service is delivered.
There is no dispute that the incumbent is required to thoroughly interview the client, as
indicated in the PDF on pages 8, 9, 10, and 21, among others. As well, she is required to
change the approach as necessary, as in the examples provided above about training, as
well as the provision on page 20 of the PDF that the incumbent must use creative measures
when presented with unique situations related to difficulties pertaining to studies or
5
technology. As the example in the Service Delivery portion of the PDF provides, the
incumbent must determine students’ technological accommodation and learning strategy,
anticipate challenges and provide learning strategy training using creativity to individualize
the training and assistive technology she provides, as well as to advocate for the student with
faculty when appropriate. Further, there is no doubt that this function is “regular and
recurring” as the Service Delivery example, with its theme of individualized approach, is listed
as daily in frequency. All in all, I am persuaded that the incumbent meets the requirements of
the notes to raters at Level 3 in that she customizes how the service is delivered, especially
when she is faced with a student who needs ongoing help. This is predominant in the
Learning Skills Advisor part of the job, which I find is not fully captured at Level 2.
To a certain extent, the PDF also supports the idea that the incumbent is responsible to
modify what is delivered, as the PDF requires ongoing independent research to identify new
technology and software so as to expand what is provided to the students, and to recommend
purchases in this respect. As well, she must develop the training programs, both for the
students and “train the trainer” programs for faculty and staff, and modify them to adapt to
individual needs and changing technology.
In the end, I find Level 3 for the factor Service Delivery to be a better fit for the incumbent’s
position as more fully capturing the entire range of the work set out in the PDF, in light of the
Manual’s definitions and Notes to Raters.
***
To summarize, for the reasons set out above, I find that the rating for the factor Service Delivery
should be raised to Level 3. This raises the point rating for the position to 530, which is within
Payband H, rather than G. The arbitration data sheet is attached.
I will remain seized to deal with any problems in implementation of the above decision, which the
parties are unable to resolve themselves.
Dated at Toronto this 19th day of June, 2014.
______________________________________
Kathleen G. O’Neil, Arbitrator
6