HomeMy WebLinkAboutKeshavjee 14-10-20IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
Algonquin College
(“the College”)
and
OPSEU
(“the Union”)
Classification Grievance of Freda Keshavjee - OPSEU # 2013-0416-0026
ARBITRATOR: Mary Lou Tims
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE COLLEGE: Leah-Anne Brown, Manager, Organizational Effectiveness
Lindsay K. Hinds, Manager, Operations and Program
Implementation
FOR THE UNION: Cindy Chapman, Union Representative
Freda Keshavjee, Grievor
Hearing held in Ottawa on September 30, 2014.
AWARD
I have before me the July 2, 2013 classification grievance of Ms. Freda Keshavjee.
The grievor holds the position of Receptionist at Algonquin College, working in the
Centre for Continuing and Online Learning. Her position has been rated at Payband C. The
grievance asserts that it ought to be reclassified to Payband D. Prior to the hearing in this matter,
however, the Union amended its position and sought reclassification to Payband H, without any
objection from the College.
There were no objections regarding my jurisdiction or the arbitrability of the grievance.
The parties both filed pre-hearing Briefs in accordance with article 18.4.3.4 of the
collective agreement. These were of assistance to me and I thank the parties’ representatives. I
also heard evidence from the grievor and from Mr. Lindsay Hinds, the grievor’s immediate
supervisor. Further, both parties’ representatives made submissions.
I was advised by the parties at the commencement of the hearing that they had agreed to
revise the Position Description Form since delivering their pre-hearing Briefs. They filed with
me an amended PDF dated September 30, 2014 (“the PDF”), and both agreed that this was
properly referenced in these proceedings.
The parties further advised that the content of the PDF remained in dispute in certain
respects, along with the rating of the following factors:
- Analysis and Problem Solving
- Planning/Coordinating
- Guiding/Advising Others
- Independence of Action
- Service Delivery
- Communication
- Physical Effort
- Audio/Visual Effort
- Working Environment
The Position Summary contained in the PDF describes the “overall purpose of the
position” as follows:
2
This position provides reception duties for the Centre for Continuing and Online
Learning. The incumbent receives incoming telephone calls, e-mails and walk-in
inquiries, responding to a variety of general and specific questions about the Centre for
Continuing and Online Learning, its programs and delivery options. The incumbent
greets and assists part-time faculty who instruct during the day and the evening.
The Duties and Responsibilities section of the PDF provides as follows:
As the receptionist – Approximate % of time annually – 80%:
• Answers telephone, e-mail and in-person inquiries regarding courses, certificates
and diplomas offered through the CCOL, ensuring matters requiring immediate
attention are routed to the appropriate person for action
• Explains the reception area procedures to part-time reception staff
• Assists part-time faculty by answering questions, making last minute photocopies,
and providing other assistance as required
• Troubleshoots unanticipated issues that arise during the evening e.g. teacher no
show, facilities problems.
• Contacts clients to inform them of course cancellations.
• Ensures that all classroom supplies for part-time teachers are in stock and
available e.g. whiteboard markers, exam booklets by placing orders to Grand and
Toy/Publishing Centre
• Stocks department reception area with course and program literature and ensures
area is kept tidy.
• Opens, dates and distributes incoming mail.
Provides clerical support – Approximate % of time annually – 15%:
• Inputting information and maintaining Excel spreadsheets.
• Word processes various documents, including manuals and exams as requested by
Implementations Manager
• Updates CCOL contact list on a semester basis.
Other duties – Approximate % of time annually – 5%
ANALYSIS AND PROBLEM SOLVING:
The College rated this factor at level 1, regular and recurring. The Union argued that it
should be rated at level 4.
The Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (“the Manual”) describes that 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 Manual sets out the following factor level definitions:
3
1. Analysis and problem solving is done according to established instructions and
procedures. Solutions may require selection of the most appropriate, predefined
alternative.
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 required the analysis and collection of information,
some of which may be obtained from areas or resources which are not normally used by
the position.
4. Situations and problems are not readily identifiable and often require further
investigation and research. Solutions require the interpretation and analysis of a range of
information according to established techniques and/or principles.
The Manual defines “established instructions and procedures” as “verbal or written
directions which outline the traditional way or explain the recognized way of accomplishing
something; a particular course of action for carrying out a process (what, how and when steps
will be accomplished).”
“Established techniques and/or principles” are defined as “recognized guidelines and/or
methods to accomplish a desired outcome. Can be defined as an individualized way of using
tools and following rules in doing something; in professions, the term is used to mean a
systematic procedure to accomplish a task.”
The Notes to Raters provide in part that at level 1, “the work performed by the position is
quite structured and there is limited and/or specific ways to complete the tasks.”
The evidence is clear that the Receptionist receives a wide range of inquiries by phone, e-
mail and in person, from diverse “student audiences.” At times, students don’t understand
College processes and terminology, and the grievor must “tease information from them” before
she is able to respond to their questions.
The PDF sets out as examples of Analysis and Problem Solving the grievor’s role in
assisting a client who has difficulty understanding the registration process, an Online Learning
student who cannot log onto a course, or a client who has been sent to the Centre for Continuing
and Online Learning by another College department.
In all such cases, the grievor receives an inquiry from a client. She may need to ask
questions to ensure that she understands the issue raised, and she may need to confirm matters
4
such as student identification and registration in a course. In answering a client’s question, she
may refer to resources such as the Centre for Continuing and Online Learning website, or the
master list of programs and coordinators. She could provide step by step instructions for logging
onto the system for example. She may also refer the student to the appropriate area of the
College for assistance.
The grievor offered further examples of Analysis and Problem Solving while testifying in
these proceedings. She described assisting a student experiencing difficulty in accessing the
College’s Genesis student record system. She testified that she checks to ensure that the student
is registered, that the course in question is running and that the start date has not changed. She
explained that if the student recently registered, she would advise that it may take up to 48 hours
before he will be able to access his network account. She agreed that if there is an IT issue, she
would refer the student to the IT office for assistance. The grievor also described assisting a
student where the instructor had not made available course detail, and confirmed that she would
direct the student to the Program Service Officer. The grievor testified that she shows students
where to go on what the College described as the “user friendly website” to log onto Blackboard,
and she accepted that up until 5 p.m. each day, Blackboard support is available elsewhere in the
College. The grievor testified as well that she may provide website links when she is contacted
by e-mail or by phone with respect to logging onto the network and she acknowledged that she
“has a page with the links.” While her supervisor suggested that it is not within the scope of her
duties to show a student the website when addressing an in-person inquiry, she described that she
does so. The grievor gave evidence as well that she assists full-time students who question why
they have received a letter confirming registration in a part-time course. She explained that she
verifies that the student is in fact registered in the part-time course, and then e-mails the full-time
Coordinator, copying the student, asking the Coordinator to address this with the student. Again,
subject to her supervisor’s evidence that she has acted outside the scope of her responsibility, the
grievor testified that she has assisted a student who received a letter advising that she was
required to complete courses that the student had in fact already finished. The grievor described
that she instructed the student to obtain her transcript and that the matter was referred to the
Program Support Officer. The grievor gave evidence as well with respect to her interaction with
students in the Taxi Driver program, and explained that where questions arise about registering
5
in one of the three courses where a student has failed one section, she speaks to them about
waiting lists and the need to contact the appropriate Coordinator.
I have considered the grievor’s evidence in its entirety. There is no doubt that the grievor
is required to respond to a range of inquiries posed by international, full-time, part-time, taxi-
driver and online students, and that students are in some instances not familiar with College
programs and procedures. As stated in the Union’s Brief, “some student enquiries are simple,
but there are often multiple questions and answers before the incumbent can direct the student to
the correct people/departments/schools.”
I am not satisfied, however, that the Receptionist engages in Analysis and Problem
Solving at level 4. While it may be that the grievor must clarify the nature of the inquiry posed
by a student who contacts her for assistance, there is no evidence before me that she encounters
situations and problems that are “not readily identifiable” and that “often require further
investigation and research.” Nor does the evidence suggest that solutions require “the
interpretation and analysis of a range of information according to established techniques and/or
principles.”
Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the grievor’s work is “quite structured” and that
there are “limited and/or specific ways to complete the tasks” as contemplated by the Notes to
Raters. While the questions asked of her may vary, the PDF and the further examples relied
upon by the Union reflect that the grievor responds to a wide range of inquiries by referring
students to others, by directing student inquiries to others for attention, and/or by following
predetermined steps to address the request for information or assistance. The analytical and
problem solving role described by the Union is one performed “according to established
instructions and procedures” as defined, and the solutions at which she arrives require the
“selection of the most appropriate predefined alternative” within the level 1 factor definition.
While there was no argument before me as to the application of the level 2 factor
definition here, I merely note that the evidence does not demonstrate that solutions to problems
encountered by the Receptionist require “modification of existing alternatives or past practices.”
Accordingly, the level 1 rating is confirmed for this factor.
PLANNING/COORDINATING:
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring, and the Union initially
sought a level 3 rating.
6
During the course of the hearing, however, the Union’s representative advised that the
Union withdrew its claim for a level 3 rating, and accepted that this factor is properly rated at
level 2.
Accordingly, the level 2 rating is confirmed for this factor.
GUIDING/ADVISING OTHERS:
The College initially rated this factor at level 1, regular and recurring and the Union
sought a rating of level 2.
The College advised during these proceedings that it agreed to amend the rating of this
factor to level 2, regular and recurring.
Accordingly, this factor is to be rated at level 2, regular and recurring.
INDEPENDENCE OF ACTION:
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. The Union sought a rating
of level 4.
During the hearing, the Union advised that it withdrew its position and accepted the
rating of level 2.
Accordingly, the level 2 rating is confirmed for this factor.
SERVICE DELIVERY:
The College rated this factor at level 1 and the Union sought a rating of level 3.
The Manual defines level 1 Service Delivery as follows:
Provide service according to specific requests and established methods.
Level 3 Service Delivery is defined as follows:
Tailor service based on developing a full understanding of the customer’s needs.
While neither party suggested that a level 2 rating is appropriate for this factor, I
nonetheless note the level 2 definition as follows:
Provide service according to specifications by selecting the best method of delivering
service.
The Manual further defines “tailor” as “to modify or adapt with specific attention in order
to customize it to a specific requirement.”
The PDF sets out as examples of Service Delivery answering inquiries, the sorting and
distribution of mail and packages, posting notices regarding cancelled or postponed classes, and
providing directions to a client who is “lost.” While the Union suggested that assisting with last
7
minute photocopying requests is another example of Service Delivery, the Union’s representative
indicated that the Union does not rely upon such responsibility in support of its claim for a level
3 rating here.
Rather, the Union took the position that the grievor responds to varied inquiries from a
diverse group of clients, and that in its view, service is thus “tailored.” The Union argued that
although the grievor may perform the same role in answering questions, the content of her
response varies, and she thereby tailors the service provided.
The Union addressed this in its Brief, stating as follows:
To become a college student there are many steps, and the steps differ depending on the
type of student, program they are hoping to take, whether their first language is English,
if they require accessibility assistance, or financial assistance. The incumbent frequently
has to outline the steps for students based on their specific requirements. The steps
would clarify which departments, schools, program coordinators they have to speak to,
and in which order.
The Notes to Raters are of assistance in addressing the parties’ positions. They provide
in part as follows:
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. . . .
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.
Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that Service Delivery is properly rated at
level 1. The Receptionist answers questions and thereby assists the students with whom she
interacts. As noted in the Position Summary section of the PDF, the incumbent responds to “a
variety of general and specific questions about the Centre for Continuing and Online Learning,
its programs and delivery options.” While the grievor clearly must understand the question posed
8
before she responds to it, and while her response naturally varies depending upon the question,
she does not “customize” the delivery of service based on “a full understanding of the customer’s
needs.”
Further, although there was no argument that a level 2 rating is appropriate, I note that
there is no evidence before me that “service is provided by determining which option would best
suit the needs of the customer.”
The level 1 rating of Service Delivery is confirmed.
COMMUNICATION:
The College rated this factor at level 2, and the Union seeks a rating of level 3.
According to the Manual, level 2 Communication “involves the exchange of information
that requires explanation and/or interpretation.” Level 3 Communication is defined as follows:
Communication involves explaining and/or interpreting information to secure
understanding. May involve communicating technical information and advice.
The Manual further defines “explain” as “provide details or examples to help others
better understand the information” and “interpret” as “explain or tell the meaning of; translates;
convey the meaning of something.”
The PDF includes as examples of Communication providing information on courses and
programs offered through the Centre for Continuing and Online Learning, “imparting
information,” dealing with minor complaints and redirecting clients to the appropriate person.
The Union suggested that “tailoring . . . service based on developing a full understanding of the
clients’ needs” is also an example of level 3 Communication.
The Union’s position was that the incumbent communicates technical advice when
responding to inquiries. It argued that the grievor has expertise insofar as she is familiar with
College processes, contacts, and the “language of the College,” and that she imparts such
“technical” information to others in performing her duties. The grievor described that she
assisted students pursuing work placements by reviewing required documentation, although Mr.
Hinds expressed the view that she acted outside the scope of her duties in doing so.
The Union also suggested that the grievor provides website links, and guides students
through College websites, Ministry websites, directives and policies. It stated that the grievor
assists students in logging onto ACSIS and Blackboard and that in doing so, she communicates
technical information as contemplated by the level 3 factor definition.
9
The College took the position that the Receptionist communicates information regarding
Centre for Continuing and Online Learning programs and directs students to the appropriate
areas for assistance. In its view, the grievor does not explain or interpret information to “secure
understanding,” but rather, refers students to persons who do so.
The Union agreed with the College that the grievor ensures that she understands what
information is sought by a student, and that she then provides direction as to where the student
should go or who he should see.
I am not convinced that this factor should be rated at level 3 as requested by the Union.
The Receptionist responds to a broad range of inquiries. At times, she refers the student
to others for assistance. She may also be involved in the “exchange of information that requires
explanation and/or interpretation.” While she is clearly knowledgeable about the College, its
processes and its personnel, I am not satisfied that she communicates “technical information and
advice.” Similarly, while she may refer students to website links, this also does not in my view
constitute communication of “technical information.”
The Notes to Raters are of assistance in distinguishing between levels 2 and 3
Communication. They provide in part as follows:
“Explain” and “interpretation” in level 2 refers to the fact that it is information or data
which 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….
“Explain” and “interpretation” in level 3 refers to the need to explain matters by
interpreting policy or theory in such a way that it is fully understood by others….
The Receptionist clearly, in my view, exchanges basic administrative information as
contemplated by the level 2 definition and there is no evidence before me that reflects level 3
Communication. While the Union suggested in its Brief that the grievor may refer students to
policies or directives, there was no evidence that she is required to “explain matters by
interpreting policy or theory. . . .”
The level 2 rating for this factor is therefore confirmed.
PHYSICAL EFFORT:
The College rated this factor at level 1 while the Union seeks a rating of level 2.
The Manual defines level 1 as follows:
The position requires light physical effort.
10
“Light” is in turn defined as follows:
-pushing, pulling or lifting lighter objects (less than 5 kg or 11 lbs)
-able to adjust working position to minimize physical stress
Level 2 Physical Effort is defined in the Manual in the following manner:
The position requires moderate physical effort.
“Moderate” is defined in part as follows:
-pushing, pulling or lifting heavier objects (5 – 20 kg or 11 – 44 lbs)
. . .
-restricted ability to adjust working position for longer periods of time (over 30
minutes)…
The PDF reflects that the Receptionist sits at reception for periods of more than two
hours at a time, with the ability to reduce strain, and lifts light mail packages, weighing up to 5
kgs..
The Union seeks a level 2 rating on two bases.
It argued that the Receptionist has “restricted ability” to adjust her position “for hours”
while seated at reception.
There was no dispute, however, that the grievor gets up from her desk to photocopy, to
print, to greet visitors, to find another employee wanted at the front desk, and to deal with mail.
There was also no dispute that the grievor can otherwise get up from her desk, particularly when
speaking with visitors to the office. The grievor acknowledged that she can do so, but suggested
that this would not always be “logical.”
In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that “restricted ability to adjust working
position for longer periods of time (over 30 minutes)” as contemplated by the level 2 factor
definition has been demonstrated.
The Union also seeks a level 2 rating on the basis that the Receptionist lifts “heavier
objects” weighing between 5 and 20 kgs.. I note that the Union’s Brief referenced lifting of
items weighing less than 5 kgs., but I understand this to be an error.
There was some dispute between the parties not only with respect to the weight of certain
deliveries to the office, but also as to the frequency with which such deliveries are made. The
grievor testified that she receives deliveries from Grand and Toy one to three times each week,
two to three boxes at a time, with boxes weighing between 11 and 15 lbs.. She described that
11
Shipping and Receiving delivers the shipments to the office and leaves them on the counter, and
that she moves them before unloading the contents.
Mr. Hinds gave evidence, however, that he instructed the grievor “long before the
grievance was filed” not to handle boxes which are to be moved by Shipping and Receiving
staff. The grievor acknowledged that such a discussion took place, although she could not recall
when, suggesting that it may have been six months to a year ago.
I also heard evidence that books are delivered to the grievor’s office, particularly in the
early weeks of the semester. While the grievor recalled that she unpacked such boxes in the past,
she acknowledged that Shipping has for some time delivered the boxes directly to the intended
recipient.
On the evidence before me, I am unable to conclude that a level 2 rating is warranted for
Physical Effort.
The level 1 rating is therefore confirmed.
AUDIO/VISUAL EFFORT:
The College rated this factor at level 2, Focus Maintained, while the Union sought a
rating of level 2, Focus Interrupted.
During the course of the hearing, the Union advised that it amended its position with
respect to this factor, and accepted that it is appropriately rated at level 2, Focus Maintained.
Accordingly, the level 2, Focus Maintained rating is confirmed.
WORKING ENVIRONMENT:
The College rated this factor at level 1 regular and recurring and level 2 occasional. The
Union seeks a rating of level 2, regular and recurring.
The Manual defines level 1 Working Environment as “acceptable working conditions.”
Level 2 is defined in part as follows:
Working conditions involve:
. . .
- smelly, dirty or noisy environment(s)
. . .
- verbal abuse
- working in isolated or crowded situations
. . .
12
“Verbal abuse” is in turn defined as “derogatory or threatening comments,” and
“abusive” is defined as “verbal abuse; is more than dealing with someone who is angry or upset.”
The PDF reflects that the Receptionist has “acceptable working conditions,” and
“infrequently” deals with “abusive people” described as “angry/frustrated students or potential
students.” The Union suggested through proposed revisions to the PDF that the position deals
with “abusive people” on a weekly basis and “abusive people who pose a threat of physical
harm” infrequently.
The Union took the position that the higher rating sought is justified on the bases that the
office in which the grievor works is noisy, that she works outside of regular office hours and is
then isolated, and that she deals with verbal abuse as defined in the Manual.
I have no difficulty in concluding that the Receptionist’s work environment is not
properly characterized as “noisy” within the meaning of the level 2 factor definition, despite the
fact that the grievor hears background voices, computers and phones while she works. The
evidence established that although the office is located in a busy hallway, there are “two big
doors” that can be shut to minimize or eliminate noise.
I am also not convinced that the Receptionist works in an “isolated” setting as
contemplated by the factor definition. I recognize that the evidence establishes that the grievor
works from 10:30 a.m. until 7 p.m., and that from 4:45 p.m. she is the only employee scheduled
to be at work in the office. The evidence also establishes, however, that other staff members are
sometimes in the office with her after 4:45 p.m., that there is heavy pedestrian traffic in the
hallway passing the office, and that the office is located beside the Security Desk which is
staffed during the hours in question.
To the extent that the Union suggested at least in its Brief that the Receptionist deals
infrequently with individuals who “pose a threat of physical harm,” the grievor was clear that
although she fears that she could be exposed to threats of physical harm, there have been no such
incidents during the four years in which she has held this position. The Notes to Raters are clear
that this factor is intended to reflect “working conditions that are real and not a condition that
might occur.”
The grievor described as well that she deals with abusive adult students who are
frustrated and angry, and who yell at her and target her as the focus of their anger at the College.
She suggested that this can and has happened several times in a week, although she
13
acknowledged that it would more regularly occur approximately once per week. The grievor
testified that this takes place both in person and by telephone, and she believed it was more likely
to occur late in the day when she was alone in the office. She explained that this is when
students come into the College to attend evening classes.
The grievor did not contest Mr. Hinds’ suggestion that he had not been made aware of
this, and she explained that she simply dealt with these situations and was generally able to
eventually diffuse them by speaking with the angry student.
The College noted that “verbal abuse” is not synonymous with “anger.” Mr. Hinds
questioned as well the alleged frequency with which the grievor experiences verbal abuse as
Receptionist. The College commented in its Brief that the Receptionist deals with
“angry/frustrated students” on an occasional basis only.
I am satisfied based on the grievor’s evidence that the Receptionist does encounter
“verbal abuse” in the performance of her duties, as opposed to mere anger and upset. I am also
satisfied on the basis of the grievor’s testimony that this can take place several times per week,
although more regularly occurs approximately once per week.
I find on this basis that the rating of this factor should therefore be amended to level 2,
regular and recurring, and I so order.
CONCLUSION:
As noted herein, the parties reached agreement during the course of these proceedings
with respect to the rating of Planning/Coordinating, Guiding/Advising Others, Independence of
Action, and Audio/Visual Effort.
For the reasons set out above, I dismiss the grievance as it pertains to the rating of
Analysis and Problem Solving, Service Delivery, Communication and Physical Effort.
Also for the reasons set out above, I uphold the grievance as it pertains to the rating of
Working Environment. The position, however, remains within Payband C with the revised
points.
DATED at TORONTO this 20th day of October, 2014.
“M. Tims”
__________________________________________
Mary Lou Tims, Arbitrator
Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification
College: Leah -Anne Brown
Current Payband- C
Incumbent: Freda Keshavjee Supervisor- Lindsay Hinds
Payband Requested by Grievor:
1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form:
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: 0 The Union 0 The College
Factor
Management
Union
Arbitrator
Regular/ Recurring
Occasional
Regular/ RecuJ4
ccasional
Regular/ Recurring
Occasional
Level
Points
Level Points
Level
Pol
Points
Level
Points
Level Points
IA. Education
2
22
2
.
16. Education
1
3
1
j
2. Experience
2
24
2
y
3.Analysis and Problem
Solving
1
14
4110
4. Planning/Coordinating
2
32
2
32
}
5. Guiding/Advising Others
2
17
2
17
/
6. Independence of Action
2
46
2
46,
7. Service Delivery
1
7
3
51
7
8. Communication
2
46
3
78
N
9. Physical Effort
1
5
2
26
10. Audio/Visual Effort
2
20
2
20
a L�
11, Working Environment
1
7
2 9
2
39
Subtotals
(a)
243
(b) 9
(a)
468
(b) 0
(a)
0
(b) 0
Total Points (a) + (b)
252
468
7 c/ 0
Resulting Payband
C
G
C
Signatures:
(Grievor)
(Union Representative)
(Arbitrator's Signature)
41
(Date) (College Repre ntative) (Date)
(Date) cQQ 'C'
5(-.a � - 3 P I N 0 (- 4 H
(Date of Hearing) (Date of Award)