HomeMy WebLinkAboutHagen 14-12-03
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
Conestoga College
(“the College”)
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(“the Union”)
Classification Grievance of Jarret Hagen – Grievance # 2013-0238-0003
ARBITRATOR: Mary Lou Tims
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE COLLEGE: Shelley Schenk, Associate Director Human Resources
John Gilmour, Manager IT Services
Ernie Falkiner, Director IT Services
FOR THE UNION: Sherry Johnston, President, Local 238
Ann Marie Blyde, Vice-President, Local 238
Jarret Hagen, grievor
Hearing held in Kitchener on November 13, 2014.
DECISION
The grievor, Mr. Jarret Hagen, holds the position of Technologist in IT Services at
Conestoga College. His grievance dated January 31, 2013 alleges that his position has
been improperly rated at Payband H and seeks reclassification at Payband I.
The parties agree on the content of the Position Description Form (“the PDF”),
but the rating of Planning/Coordinating, Service Delivery and Audio/Visual Effort is in
dispute.
The parties both filed pre-hearing Briefs in accordance with article 18.4.3.4 of the
collective agreement. In addition, at the hearing I heard submissions from the parties’
representatives and evidence given by the grievor, his supervisor, Mr. John Gilmour,
Manager IT Services, and Mr. Ernie Falkiner, Director, IT Services.
The PDF offers the following summary of the “overall purpose” of the
Technologist position:
The incumbent provides maintenance and installation of hardware and
software for microcomputers and associated peripherals including the
installation and troubleshooting of both copper and fibre optic
network/security cabling. The incumbent also provides advanced
hardware and software technical support to the user community
(Conestoga employees and students). The incumbent also maintains and
services the associated security systems and loss prevention applications
for these microcomputers. Normal hours of work are 13:00 to 21:00
Monday – Thursday and 10:00 to 18:00 Friday.
Duties and Responsibilities of the position are set out in the PDF as follows:
Approximate % of time annually
- Provides technical support for the user community. 25%
- Diagnoses faults and repairs microcomputers, data terminals, printers,
video display units and the connecting cables and interfaces 20%
- Imaging of computers/laptops and software deployment to end
users 15%
- Installs microcomputers, communications equipment and associated
peripherals 15%
- Maintains existing computer security system/implementations and
researches emerging technologies 10%
- Installs cabling and equipment for local area networks, phones and
electronic security 5%
- Evaluates equipment and emerging technologies for future deployment
as requested and reports findings 5%
- Other duties as assigned 5%
2
The College noted in its Brief that a “tiered service model is used within IT
Services,” with level 1 being the Help Desk, level 2 being the grievor’s position along
with others in “somewhat similar roles,” and level 3 being employees at higher paybands,
including a Technical Support Specialist.
Planning/Coordinating:
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring, and the Union seeks
a level 3 rating. The Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (“the Manual”) states:
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 Manual defines Levels 2 and 3 Planning/Coordinating as follows:
Level 2 – Plan/coordinate activities and resources to complete own work
and achieve overlapping deadlines.
Level 3 – Plan/coordinate activities, information or material to enable
completion of tasks and events, which affect the work schedule of other
employees.
“Affect” is defined as “to produce a material influence upon or alteration in.” The
Manual states that “other employees” include “full-time, part-time, students, contractors.”
The Notes to Raters are also of assistance and state in part as follows:
Level 2 – the position plans and prioritizes its own activities. Planning
and coordinating are typically focussed on completion of assigned
activities within established deadlines or procedures (e.g. scheduling,
coordination of data for reports, setting-up of new software in a
department to meet specific business needs). The position may coordinate
or make arrangements for an event by coordinating the calendars of others.
Level 3 – the position decides the order and selects or adapts methods for
many work assignments. Typically, the planning and coordination at this
level, which affects the work schedule of others, are requests for
materials/information by specific deadlines in order for the position to
plan events or activities (e.g. conferences, research projects, upgradin g
hardware or software).
3
The PDF sets out three examples of regular and recurring Planning/Coordinating.
The first addresses the reimaging of a lab. The PDF notes the need for the incumbent to
coordinate with others an appropriate window of time in which to place a new image on
the computer, noting that access to an affected room may be required. Deadlines for such
tasks are assigned, according to the PDF, by the team lead, supervisor or “other
stakeholder.” The PDF states that the incumbent may determine if changes to the activity
are required.
The second example in the PDF relates to upgrading a computer. It describes the
need for the incumbent to communicate with users regarding saving files, “special
programs” to be installed and hardware requirements. The incumbent must “verify time
window to do deployment.” While the PDF states that the deadline is assigned by the
team lead, ticket, e-mail or supervisor, it notes that the incumbent may determine if
changes are required, referring by way of example to changes in software licensing.
The third example addressed in the PDF speaks to the installation of new
software or hardware. Again, the PDF notes the need for the incumbent to “schedule
time to install and test software,” and states that he may determine that a change to the
activity is required, referring again by way of example, to changes in software licensing.
The Union elaborated on these examples in its Brief. It noted that the incumbent
prioritizes and manages “many open projects at one time.” It emphasized the need to
plan and coordinate with affected individuals any of the functions addressed in the PDF.
It stated that before shutting down a lab for reimaging, for example, the grievor looks for
a suitable location to which affected students can be moved and contacts the Scheduling
Officer for that purpose. The Union also described in its Brief that before upgrading a
computer or laptop, the incumbent schedules with the program coordinator “time
available” for “ removal of laptop assets” and for acquiring faculty laptops for upgrading
as well. The Union addressed in its Brief the need for the incumbent to provide updates
to the program coordinator to advise if “issues arise.” Similarly, the Union’s Brief speaks
to the need for the incumbent to “determine/develop plan to provide speedy resolution of
issues” associated with installation of new hardware or software, scheduling “an agreed
upon solution in a timely manner.”
The College emphasized in its Brief that the incumbent is assigned work through
his supervisor or through a formal ticket system, and that he plans his own work and
4
“prioritizes tasks based on the scope of his position and with the understanding that issues
directly affecting students or academic activity are the first priority of the College.” The
College accepted that the incumbent is “expected to make arrangements with the user . . .
to determine the best time to complete the work,” noting that there are “standard steps to
follow” with many work assignments. The College suggested that the incumbent “works
on one assignment at a time usually completing one task before moving onto another but
occasionally will come back later or the next day to finish up something.”
During the hearing, the Union emphasized that the incumbent’s role in planning
and coordinating the shutdown of a lab and the relocation of an affected class directly
impacts on both faculty and students as classes might otherwise have to be cancelled.
The grievor also spoke to his role in responding to a May 21, 2013 “time sensitive”
request for assistance by the Manager of Test Logistics for IELTS. While the College
emphasized that this was an assigned task involving largely predetermined functions, the
grievor described what he characterized as a planning and coordinating role which he
asserted directly affected the work schedule of others. The grievor described that he
receives work assignments through a ticketing system and through the College’s Help
Desk. He explained that he is required to “triage” requests, and use his discretion to
decide where to start. He described that it is for him in most instances to then determine
deadlines by which tasks will be completed and that he does so through planning and
coordinating with affected individuals. The grievor noted that he plans and coordinates
work associated with employee computers aware that affected employees are often not
able to simply move to another computer and are dependent upon his assistance to be able
to perform their own work. The Union emphasized that the grievor works from 1:00 to
9:00 p.m., and that he is the one IT employee in the College from 4:30 or 5:00 p.m..
Mr. Falkiner agreed that most of the grievor’s work assignments are received
through the ticketing system. While he noted that the Technologist “tries to do first in
first out,” he accepted that it is open to the grievor to assess what priority should be given
to specific requests for service. Mr. Falkiner acknowledged that the grievor assists in
attempting to relocate an affected class, but characterized this as a “courtesy” shown
users when responding to a ticket in the system. The College emphasized as well, that
although the incumbent may determine what priority will be given to certain service
requests, such determination is made in accordance with College standards and priorities.
5
Much of the evidence before me focussed on the planning and coordinating of
activities by the Technologist so as to complete his own work. There is no doubt that the
grievor “plans and prioritizes” his own work activities insofar as he accepts a request for
service, prioritizes among work requests, and then coordinates the work required to
respond to the requests for service.
The key difference between levels 2 and 3 lies in a determination of wheth er the
planning and coordination functions associated with the position are focussed on the
completion of the incumbent’s own work or whether they enable the completion of tasks
which affect the work schedule of other employees.
I note that the Union relied in part upon examples which it suggests demonstrate
that the work schedules of students are affected by the planning and coordination
undertaken by the Technologist. The parties did not address whether non-employee
students are properly encompassed in the definition of “other employees” set out in the
factor definition and this is not a matter that I need address given my decision with
respect to this factor.
The essence of the Union’s position as it relates to this factor is that the order in
which the grievor chooses to respond to requests for service, the actual service he
provides, the coordination of timing for him to do his work, and the relocation of classes
required at times “affect the work schedule of others.” As noted by the grievor, an
employee dependent upon a functioning laptop may not be able to perform his own duties
until the grievor responds to a service call. Similarly, where a lab is to be reimaged, a
class that is normally held in the lab might be cancelled but for the fact that the grievor
finds a room to which it can relocate.
While the level 2 factor definition read in isolation might be construed as
suggesting that such rating applies only to planning and coordinating activities within the
scope of completing one’s own work, the Notes to Raters relating to level 2 are clear that
it may also encompass coordination of the calendars of others.
One can readily appreciate that the service offered by the grievor, whether it be
reimaging a lab, upgrading a computer, or installing new hardware or software impacts
on those who rely on the equipment in issue in the course of performing their duties.
This factor, however, of course addresses specifically the planning and coordination of
activities to enable task completion which affects work schedules of other employees.
6
The Notes to Raters are clear that level 3 planning and coordinating “typically” involves
requests for materials or information by specific deadlines, thereby “affecting” the work
schedules of “other employees” as defined. Such planning and coordinating is not
evident in the examples addressed in these proceedings.
Rather, the evidence before me describes a role well captured by the level 2
definition, as described in the Notes to Raters.
The level 2 rating of this factor is confirmed.
Service Delivery:
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 Manual defines levels 2 and 3 Service Delivery as follows:
Level 2 – Provide service according to specifications by selecting the best
method of delivering service.
Level 3 – Tailor service based on developing a full understanding of the
customer’s needs.
“Tailor” is defined as “to modify or adapt with special attention in order to
customize it to a specific requirement.”
The Notes to Raters are also instructive, and state 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. . . .
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 PDF reflects that the incumbent receives daily service requests from
customers regarding malfunctioning computers. It states that the incumbent must “ask
questions” and utilize “knowledge” in responding to such requests. The PDF also sets out
that the position receives on a weekly basis new computer requests, requiring the
7
incumbent to “ask questions to fully understand the request,” and to offer
“suggestions/options… that are cost efficient and meet needs of user.”
The College was asked to describe the basis upon which it assigned an occasional
level 3 rating for this factor. In response to my questions, it explained that the grievor
normally follows “set procedures” in responding to service requests and installs “standard
software” for customers. Mr. Falkiner described that there are standard images fo r
computers in different settings. He contrasted this, however, with situations in which the
incumbent needs to suggest software not normally installed on a computer in a given
area. The College agreed that in those situations, the grievor “configures so mething
different” for the customer. It noted that even then, however, the grievor would be
expected as a general rule to use options and resources already existing in the College.
The College accepted that this latter role reflects level 3 Service Deliv ery, but argued that
it arises only occasionally.
The Union emphasized that the grievor consistently and regularly responds to
customer requests for service by asking questions to develop an understanding of the
customer’s requirements. The grievor suggested that “everyone’s computer is different”
and that there are “a hundred ways to skin a cat.” He did not dispute that he often installs
software that is already available in the College, but suggested that what he configures for
a given computer is determined by the individual client requirements which he must first
understand. The grievor noted as well that sometimes the customer requests “something
off standard,” that may require that he engage in online research and call manufacturers
and vendors.
The Union pointed out that the parties have agreed that Analysis and Problem
Solving is properly rated at level 3. It noted that the level 3 definition for that factor
contemplates that solutions to problems “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 Position Summary section of the PDF notes that the incumbent provides
“advanced hardware and software technical s upport to the user community.” The
Analysis and Problem Solving section of the PDF, referred to by the Union, includes as a
regular and recurring example the position’s role in new computer deployment, noting
that the analytical task is in part “based on answers from users,” that the Technologist
8
installs “base image from servers” and modifies “desired image to client’s requirements
or needs,” procuring “additional authorization/licensing where needed.” Further, as
addressed above, the Planning/Coordinating section of the PDF contains as a regular and
recurring example the position’s role in upgrading a computer or in responding to a new
laptop request. The PDF notes that the Technologist communicates with the user, and
asks “if they have special programs that are needed to be installed.”
The issue between the parties here is whether the position delivers service at level
3 on a regular and recurring basis, or only occasionally in responding to service requests
received largely through the ticket system.
Having considered the basis articulated by the College here for the assignment of
an occasional level 3 rating, the PDF and the parties’ evidence, I am of the view that the
“tailoring of service” required in the position and acknowledged by the College is not
only occasional in nature. Rather, I accept that the Technologist is required on a regular
and recurring basis to “ask questions to develop an understanding of the customer’s
situation,” and with that understanding, to then “customize” for the individual customer
seeking service what is delivered so that “it suits the customer’s particular
circumstances.”
I am of the view that this factor should be rated at level 3, regular and recurring.
Audio/Visual Effort:
The College rated this factor at level 2, Focus Maintained, and the Union seeks a
rating of level 2, Focus Interrupted.
Level 2 Audio/Visual Effort is defined in the Manual as “regular and recurring
long periods of concentration; or occasional extended periods of concentration.” “Focus
Maintained” is defined as “concentration can be maintained for most of the time,” while
“Focus Interrupted” means that “the task must be achieved in smaller units. There is a
need to refocus on the tasks at hand or switch thought processes.”
The Notes to Raters must also be considered, and state in part as follows:
5. In determining what constitutes an interruption or disruption, you must
first decide whether the “disruption” (eg. customer requests) is an integral
or primary responsibility of the position (e.g. customer service,
registration/counter staff, help desk, information desk). Then consider
whether these activities are the primary or secondary aspect of the job. . . .
9
6. Consider the impact of the disruption on the work being done. For
example, can the incumbent in the position pick up where he/she left off or
has the interruption caused a disruption in the thinking process and
considerable time is spent backtracking to determine and pick up where
he/she left off.
The PDF sets out as examples of activities that require a hi gher than usual need
for focus and concentration the resolution of hardware or software problems, computer
imaging or software installation. In each instance, the PDF notes that concentration or
focus can usually be maintained throughout the duration of the activity.
In the Union’s Brief, however, it referred to the position’s responsibility to rebuild
images, download images, install software, remove viruses, and retrieve data from a hard
drive. The Union suggested that all such tasks are frequently inte rrupted by the need to
attend to emergency calls.
The Union made reference in its Brief to PDF’s of other positions at the College
but did not pursue this at the hearing after being given the opportunity to address a
November 13, 2013 memorandum from the Joint Classification Committee stating in part
as follows:
The expedited process for hearing classification grievances is restricted to having
an Arbitrator determine whether the grievor’s PDF accurately reflects assigned
job content and whether the job in dispute is properly evaluated. There is no
provision in the Classification Grievances Article for additional material in the
arbitration brief, other than that which is specifically related to the position in
dispute. Arbitrators cannot review other positions’ PDFs or arbitration awards
related to other positions as part of the expedited process.
The College argued in its Brief that given the nature of the grievor’s work, he
“should not be interrupted to the extent that he needs to refocus on his original task.” It
noted that many of the grievor’s assigned tasks are “routine in nature” and do not require
a higher than usual level of concentration or focus. The College commented that if
computer imaging or software installations are taking more than an hour of the
Technologist’s time, another solution should generally be considered. The College noted
as well that written instructions are available regarding re-imaging and installing of
software.
I have considered the grievor’s evidence in the hearing and some helpful
exchange between the parties with respect to the rating of this factor. A number of points
10
should be noted. The grievor estimated that he is interrupted when performing his duties
and required to attend to emergency calls approximately ten times per week. The College
was not in a position to refute that, although it questioned that the grievor would be
interrupted during the earlier portion of his shift while other IT staff members are also on
duty. The grievor noted, in any event, that he is the only IT staff member on duty in the
evenings.
The grievor acknowledged, however, that when interrupted, it is not always
necessary to refocus on the task at hand when he returns to it, recognizing that this of
course depends upon the nature of the task being performed at the time of interruption.
He suggested that there is a need to refocus approximately half the time that his work is
interrupted by an emergency call, estimating that this would be approximately five times
per week.
An example described by the grievor involved virus removal, work that he
described as “extremely sensitive.” He noted that this could take up to three hours to
complete, and that significant backtracking was required if interrupted. The College did
not dispute that this is a task that requires focus, but Mr. Falkiner suggested that one
would likely replace the computer if the virus could not be addressed within thirty
minutes. The grievor agreed.
In some cases where the grievor finds it necessary to “refocus” after an
interruption, he accepted that a resulting need to backtrack is minimal. The grievor
suggested, by way of example, that interruptions while he is reimaging a computer
require that he “retrace” his steps when returning to such task. Mr. Falkiner was clear,
however, that step by step instructions are readily available so that one can merely note
where one left off, and carry on. The grievor acknowledged that the “retracing” required
in these circumstances is in fact minimal and only a “minor setback.”
Mr. Falkiner further suggested that if one notes where one leaves off when
interrupted, given the step by step instructions, one can simply carry on without difficulty
upon returning to the disrupted task. The grievor did not disagree, but stated that he
“retraces,” but that “that’s just me.”
In some instances in which the grievor described a need to refocus after an
interruption, the evidence was clear that it is in fact possible to maintain concentration.
The grievor described, by way of example, that he was interrupted during software
11
installation, and that a faculty memory logged onto the computer when he stepped away
from it. Because of such intervention by the faculty member, significant backtracking on
the grievor’s part was then required when he returned to the computer in question. Mr.
Gilmour pointed out that the grievor needs to simply leave a note on the computer in such
circumstances advising that work is in progress so that others will not use it in his
absence, and the grievor offered no reason why he could not take such step to ensure that
his work would not be disrupted.
The Union has not, in my view, established that focus is interrupted here so as to
warrant the higher rating sought. Based on the grievor’s description of the nature and
frequency of interruptions he experiences and of the impact of any disruption on the work
being done, it is clear that concentration can in fact be maintained “for most of the time,”
as contemplated by the Manual’s definition of “Focus Maintained.” I note as well that
there was little evidence of a need for “considerable time . . . backtracking,” even where
interrupted.
The rating of level 2, Focus Maintained, is confirmed.
Conclusion:
For the reasons set out herein, the College’s rating of Planning/Coordinating and
Audio/Visual Effort is confirmed. I order that the rating of Service Delivery be amended
to level 3, regular and recurring. While the total points for the grievor’s position are
therefore increased from 543 to 559, this does not result in a change in payband for the
position. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
DATED at TORONTO this 3rd day of December, 2014.
“M. Tims”
____________________________________
Mary Lou Tims, Arbitrator
College:
Current Payband.
Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification
Incumbent:
Supervisor_
Payband Requested by Grievor:
1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form:
RThe parties agreed on the contents ❑ The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific
details are attached.
2. The attached Written Submission is from: o' The Union 0 --the College
I "D
Factor.
Management
Union
Arbitrator
Regular/ Recurring Occasional
Regular/ Recurring Occasional
Regular/ Recurring
Occasional
Level Points Level Points
Level Points Level
Points
Level
Points
Level
Points
1 A. Education
F`
"
..._iNO�
1B. Education
2. Experience
3. Analysis and Problem Solving
4. Planning/Coordinating
5. Guiding/Advising Others
f
3
6. Independence of Action
_/y
7. Service Delivery
8. Communication
9. Physical Effort
10. AudioNisual Effort
m
si
11. Working Environment
�.
Subtotals (a) �, (b) (a) (b)
(b).
Total Points (a) + (b)
Resulting Payband_
Signatures: /!
rV- (5
(Gr' or) (Date) �` (College epresentative)
(Union Re sentative) (Date)
dil, �—(, /14 L
(Date)
L/ ' 13 L/ Dc y
(Arbitrator's Signature) (Date of Hearing) (Date of Award)