Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLahaise 14-09-26IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 416 (FOR SUPPORT STAFF) (hereinafter called the "Union") -and- COLLEGE COMPENSATION and APPOINTMENTS COUNCIL (FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS and TECHNOLOGY) In the form of ALGONQUIN COLLEGE (hereinafter called the "College") -and- GRIEVANCE OF PAUL LAHAISE OPSEU File No. 2013-0416-0020 (hereinafter the "Grievor or the Incumbent") ARBITRATOR: REPRESENTING THE COLLEGE: REPRESENTING THE UNION: Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb. Leah -Anne Brown, Manager, Organizational Effectiveness Jeff Broughton, Manager, New Technology Store Nigel Parker, HR Consultant Jan Strickland, Steward Local 416 Paul Lahaise, Grievor Sandy Green, OPSEU Steward A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO ON 23 SEPTEMBER 2014. AWARD Paul Lahaise (the "Grievor") is a Computer Store Technician in the New Technology Store (the "Store") which is one of two retail outlets on the campus of the College forming the Retail Services Department. The Grievor is the incumbent in a position titled the Computer Store Technician. That position was reviewed by the College Job Evaluation Committee ("CJEC") on 19 October 2012. Both parties agreed ultimately with the contents of the Position Description Form (the "PDF"). However, there is no agreement on the pointing score for the position leaving four factors under the Job Evaluation Manual (the "Manual") without agreement. The College evaluated the position of Computer Store Technician and rated it at 449 points, placing the position within Payband F. The Grievor and his Union submit that the position ought to be evaluated at 567 points placing it at the higher rated Payband H. The Duties of the Position The incumbent is responsible for the repair, installation and maintenance of computer hardware, software, peripherals and accessories carried as part of the inventory of the Store. The incumbent is also responsible for the warranty support of laptops, desktops and similar computing devices serviced by the Store. He must also ensure that the College obtains and maintains its warranty authorizations for all hardware products as directed by Jeff Broughton, the Manager of the Store. The incumbent is also responsible for the maintenance and upgrading of the Retail Service's computer systems and provides hardware and occasional software support to end users within Retail Services. Factors in Dispute There are four factors in dispute in this proceeding. Each of the factors in dispute will be dealt with below under separate headings. Pj 3. Anal sis and Problem Solving: Ratings: College Level 2 + 3 / Union Level 4 This factor measures the level of complexity involved in analyzing situations, information or problems of varying levels of difficulty; and in developing options, solutions or other actions. The College and the Union disagree on the level for the rating and further disagree as to whether there ought to be an occasional Level 3 added on to the rating. The evidence establishes that the first step in the repair function is to determine if there is a hardware or a software problem. Hardware problems are typically determined by the use of manufacturer's diagnostic tools. The work can either be of a warranty nature or not. If the latter, the client must be contacted and an estimate of cost and the nature of the work provided to the client for approval. Software problems are frequently of a virus nature which is dealt with by the application of the correct anti-virus program to clean up the software. Once the anti-virus program has been selected, it is then a matter of running the program and awaiting the time it takes to clean the files. The non -virus software problems, which are far less frequent than virus issues, require the incumbent to look at the symptoms of the problem; then, through the process of elimination by trial and error, determine the nature of the problem, In particular, is it an operating system problem or an application one? The work is approximately evenly divided between software and hardware issues and the more challenging problem solving is certainly the software non -virus issues because of the elimination process which is the smaller component of the software problems. The Union submits that the technical nature of the incumbent's work requires the assistance from outside companies. Therefore the results are often achieved through the process of elimination, further research and analysis. Thus, justifying the Level 4 rating for the Factor. The College submits that of the three example problems, the work is regularly occurring at the Level 2 rating because the problems are readily identifiable, though it concedes there may be times when additional information is needed to help define the program or situation more clearly. However, it is only on occasion when further inquiry is required to define the problem and its solution. 3 Level 2 for this factor requires that "situations and problems are easily identifiable". Level 4 for this factor requires that "situations and problems are not readily identifiable and often require further investigation and research". The facts do not support that the regular and recurring hardware problems are not readily identifiable through the use of diagnostics. Similarly, the anti-virus problems are identified and resolved by the use of anti-virus software. This leaves only the non -virus software issues to be resolved by problem solving by process of elimination between operating systems and software applications and then subsequently through analysis of software applications. On this basis, I do not accept the primary submission of the Union that the work of the position requires Level 4 Analysis and Problem Solving. The majority of the work does not require 'further investigation or research ". Therefore, the work does not require the solution by "... the interpretation and analysis of a range of information according to established techniques and or principles " as was so ably argued by the Union. The subsidiary issue is, did the Union establish that the work of the position is at Level 3 or only occasionally at that level as the College submits? One half of the work is on hardware where with the use of diagnostic tools the problems are easily identifiable. There are only rare occasions where this is not the case that the problem solving is not dictated by the diagnostic tools. Therefore, I find that the hardware part of the work is at Level 2. The other half of the work is on software. A significant portion of that work involves eliminating viruses attached to the software. That requires running various anti-virus tools to clean the software and does not require much in the way of problem solving. Instead, it appears to involve a lot of time to eliminate the viruses. The Store has a flat $99 charge to do this work reflecting that it is time consuming, but not difficult. This part of the software work does not fit the description at Level 3 of the Factor. The remaining software problem solving is clearly more challenging and more easily fits into Level 3 because it frequently requires further inquiry in order to define the problem precisely. 4 For all of the above reasons, I find that the College has correctly rated the position at Level 2 with occasional Level 3 work because of the elimination aspect of the software problem solving. The Union did not establish its case on the Factor of Analysis and Problem Solving. The rating of the College is unaltered. 6. Independence of Action: Ratings: Union Level + 4 This factor measures the level of independence or autonomy in the position. The College and the Union agree on the Level 3 rating but disagree as to whether there ought to be an occasional Level 4 added to the rating. The Union submits that occasionally, the duties can only be completed using means other than industry practices and departmental policies. The College submits that at all times, the incumbent makes decisions according to departmental guidelines and practices and therefore, all aspects of his duties fall within established parameters. The Grievor testified that once or twice a week he is stumped by the problem presented and has to consult with the manufacturer on hardware issues. This cannot occur with software issues for the Grievor was unaware of any software developer who provided phone-in assistance; although there is internet information. I find that the Union has established that there is a sufficient occasion on which the incumbent needs to contact someone outside the established parameters so as to justify the Occasional 4 rating. Therefore, I find that the rating for the Factor Independence of Action is to be adjusted to include a rating of Occasional 4. 7. Service Delivery: Ratings: College Level 21 Union Level 3 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 5 customers and not the incumbent's interpersonal relationship with those customers. All positons 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 fulfal the service requirement. The evidence is that the first description of the problem may be from the counter staff who take in the item to be repaired. If the work is of a hardware nature and is on warranty; or, if it is a virus software issue where there is a flat $99 fee to clean up the computer there is no necessity to contact the customer the incumbent can proceed with the repair. In non -warranty hardware and non -anti-virus problems, a . need to contact the customer arises as well as to establish both the causes of the problem and what it will cost the customer to fix. The Union submits that the incumbent discusses issues with the client and then makes repairs based on client's request. The Union feels that each service is tailored following a full understanding of the client's needs and is therefore within Level 3 of the Factor. The College submits that the incumbent does not always speak with the client. If the work falls below a certain dollar threshold the incumbent is free to proceed with ordering parts or doing what is necessary to affect the repair. It is submitted that the incumbent does not substantially modify the service or its delivery so as to be within the Level 3 of the Factor. I find that the incumbent must determine which option best suits the needs of the customer. In obtaining the customer's authorization to proceed, the incumbent may well have to recommend the best option based on the customer's need. This aspect of the discussions on the repair is within Level 2. However, there is a need to "tailor service"" to both the pocket book and the desires of the customer. This requires an interactive discourse with the customer which is more in the nature of the requirements of Level 3 of the Factor, However, there is no customizing of the way the service is delivered because there cannot be such adjustments either certain aspects of the repair are performed or not performed. The "Notes to Raters " in the Manual discuss at Level 3 this requirement to "customize the way the service is delivered or substantially modify what is delivered so that it suits the customers particular circumstances ". This aspect of the rating is not satisfied. I find that the Union has not established that the rating it advocates is justified. Therefore, the rating of the College remains unaltered. S. Communication: Ratings: Colleu Level 3 / Union Level 4 This factor measures the communication skills required by the position, both verbal and written and includes: The evidence is that when the incumbent has to speak with a client, he must explain the nature of the problem with the repair item. This must be done in a manner which is easy for the customer to understand and is free of jargon of the trade for it involves communicating technical information. The incumbent will be asked for advice and options. He must try and obtain the consent of the customer to proceed with the repair as he envisages what is required to be done. The Union submits that the communication exchanges go beyond the exchange of routine information and common courtesy to customers. Gaining the client's approval or consent prior to proceeding with the repair work is vital to the flow of work through the Store. The College submits that the primary role of the incumbent is to do repair work. To do that work, it is necessary to explain how it will be done. They submit that the incumbent does not have to "instruct or train " others. I find that the College's rating does not place enough emphasis on the aspect in Level 4 of gaining "the cooperation of others. " The evidence is that the incumbent will have to be persuasive in obtaining the customer's consent particularly because many of them are students going to the College on a limited 7 budget. I find that the Union has established that the position ought to be rated at the higher category of Level 4 and so order. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, I find that the position ought to have a rating of 490 points. Such a rating places the position in Payband G on the Schedule in the 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 26`x' day of September 2014. Richard 14. McLaren, C.Arb. Arbitrator 8 Arbitration Data- Sheet - Support Staff Classification College: Algonquin College Incumbent: Paul Lahalse Supervisor, Jeff Broughton Current Payband- Payband Requested by Grievor: H 1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form, . Q The parties agreed on the contents 0 The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific details are attached. 2. The attached Written Submission Is from: (F) The Union Q The College ," y.� f C 3�s -- - �-s '"'r'.`3" Factor—�.5''`� -n-•��p-��—s�' i5 3.�--r `gn - �r i5 7`i ,-{ t h,3�... sEinlOn £ i r� - >� l - • r '� 1 et l��.3s.» ... �. Mi .i>•f.N� }-fr 3`t - Y .�:._...s: SftJiw _. _... ..� -. �_�. .- ..l - .` Y yltrat� - - :.- -rC: S..r .:..1.: _..��._ �..: Regular/ Recurring Occasional Regular/ Recurring Occasional Regular/ Recurring Occasional _4 ..1.' level Points Level Paints Level Points Level Points Level Points level Paints r Y = 1A, Education 3 35 12 3 2 35 12 2 3 18. Education 2 2. Experience 3 39 3 39 3 3. and problem 2 46 3 9 4 110 2 7sisg7 Salvin h, Planning/Coordinating 2 32 2 32 z S. Gulding/Advising Others 3 29 3 29 1j 6. Independence of Action 3 78 3, 78 4 9 3 7, Service Delivery 2 29 3 51 B. Communication 3 78 4 110 1 f l l q 9. Physical Effort 2 26 1 2 26 1 2 z 10. Audlo/Visual Effort 2 20 2 20 Z 11. Working Environment 1 7 2 1 9 1 7 2 9 Subtotals (a) 431 (b) 1$ (a) 549 1(b)18 (a) (b) Total Points (a) + (b) 449 567 Lit Resulting Payband F H Pg a re A ( rievor) (Date) (Coilege(R At Q Lk Uni Representative) (Date) -- I �Pf 2K, 44, (Arbitrator i na > (Date o He ng rM r pc W, epresentative) (Date (Date of Ati d)