HomeMy WebLinkAboutTodorov Group 14-11-11IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 557
(FOR SUPPORT STAFF)
(hereinafter called the "Union")
-and-
COLLEGE COMPENSATION and APPOINTMENTS COUNCIL
(FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS and TECHNOLOGY)
In the form of GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE
(hereinafter called the "College")
-and-
GRIEVANCE OF ALEXANDER TODOROV, MARIA LEE AND GAO RAN (JERRY) SUN
OPSEU File No. 2013-0557-0001
(hereinafter the "Grievors" or the "Incumbents")
ARBITRATOR:
REPRESENTING THE COLLEGE:
REPRESENTING THE UNION:
Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb.
Daniel Michaluk, Counsel
Janet Shang -Au, Manager, Systems
Development and Support
Krista Christou, Acting Manager
Employment Services/Senior HR Consultant
Christine Legault, Local 557 Steward
Daniel Ramos, Local 557
Alexander Todorov, Grievor
Maria Lee, Grievor
Gao Ban (Jerry) Sun, Gricvor
A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT TORONTO, ONTARIO
ON 4 NOVEMBER 2014.
AWARD
Alexander Todorov, Maria Lee and Gao Sian (Jerry) Sun (the "Grievors") are
Systems Analysts ("SAs") at the Casa Loma Campus of George Brown College.
The College and the Union are in agreement that the June 2013 Position
Description Form ("PDF") is the operative agreed upon PDF. There is a
disagreement on the point scoring for the SA position. There are three (3) factors
under the Job Evaluation Manual (the "Manual") in dispute.
The College evaluated the position and rated it at 711 points, placing the position
within Payband K. The Grievors and the Union submit that the position ought to
be evaluated at 798 points placing it in the higher rated Payband L. The Grievors
seek to have their position evaluated at the higher Payband. They seek the
increased evaluation to be retroactive to the most recent classification date with
interest at today's rates on retroactive pay.
The Duties of the Position
The Incumbents form a fraction of the College's Systems Development and
Support Team (the "Team") contained within the information Technology Services
Department (the ".ITS Department"). The Team as a whole is responsible for the
development and maintenance of software used by the College to manage student
registration and the administration of finances and human resources. As a member
of the Team, the Incumbents analyze business requirements created by other
members of the Team and script how they may be met through application of
technology. They write "technical specifications" which are statements directed at
Programmer Analysts who are also members of the Team and do the program
writing. The Team also includes Database Administrators and Quality Assurance
Analysts. Most of the work of the Team is done on a project basis.
Factors in Dispute
Each of the factors in dispute is dealt with below under separate headings.
N
7. Service Delivery: Ratings: College Level 3 + 4 / Union Level 4
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 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 fulfil the service
requirement.
Evidence
Business Analysts create high level statements called business requirements and
capture the user needs in a non-technical manner. The SAs take the business
requirements and turn them into technical details from which the Program Analysts
can work to write the software application.
The business analysis arises from client needs. What the SAs do is change the
business requirements through a complex analysis into how to make the software
work. Their work then goes to the Programmer for the development of the
software. In the process of doing their analysis SAs need to determine impacts on
existing College programs and processes, contemplate changes to them or other
solutions to integrate the overall functionality of the planned system. A common
part of the analytical work will be "extensibility". That is, building a system that
might be scalable or augmented in the future. Every project they design is required
to be extensible or easy to build upon. This is best practice in software
development. It is not usually a forward planning process, as the control over the
extensibility is the user or clients requirements, which are immediate and not
futuristic.
C
(i) Union
The Union submits from the PDF that the Incumbents, "Anticipate the future
demand of application functionality and proactively deliver service in order to
design a scalable product ..." The Incumbents must provide a solution or an array
of alternative solutions that produce optimal results. Subsequent to analyzing
alternative integration and configuration options (i.e., temporary fix, work -around
or permanent fix) a joint decision is made. The Grievors must understand and then
explain the impact of the different options. Further, the Union submits that the
Incumbents must instruct others on how they will resolve the issue(s) using the
technology at their disposal. The Union emphasizes that SAs are instrumental in
the implementation of Student Information System modules; as they design
corresponding web applications and provide on-going improvements based on user
needs.
(ii) Co. liee
The College contends that most of the Grievors' work is project based; the mandate
of their work is to develop solutions that satisfy current business needs. The
College submits that any feasibility assessment and analysis required to identify
applications that occasionally need to be created is recognized by granting the
occasional Level 4 rating which properly acknowledges responsibilities it feels are
not an integral part of the Grievors' work. The College claims that only a very
small component of the SAs position involves anticipating customer needs or what
a user "might want".
Findin s
I find that there is some aspect of foresight and planning in the design of the
systems but the primary activity is extensibility. To the extent that there is
thinking required as to future needs, it is only in some projects. The best examples
of which were the development of E ticket software for convocation purposes and
the reduction of letters generated in connection with some academic software.
That aspect of the functions in the PDF is not regular and recurring but does arise
on occasion. Therefore, I conclude that the service is a tailored one as referred to
in Level 3 but with occasion on which future needs are required to be considered.
Based on those facts, I have determined that the occasional rating of Level 4 is
4
appropriate. For all of the foregoing reasons, I find the rating by the College is
correct. The Union has not established that the work is at Level 4 in the Service
Delivery factor. In so holding, I note that the parties have rated the position at the
highest level in the two related factors of Analysis and Problem Solving, and
Guiding and Advising Others. Aspects of what the Union submits on the rating of
this factor are more appropriately taken account of in those factors and not in the
present one.
S. Communication. Ratings: College Level 3 / Union Level 4
This factor measures the communication skills required by the position, both
verbal and written and includes: ...
(i) Union
The Union submits that the communication exchanges provided by the SAs, via
letters, reports and proposals, are more than trading of routine information but
requires "gaining co-operation". It is proposed by the Union that the
communication and interpersonal skills needed by the Incumbents to gain co-
operation and negotiate with others is of an extremely high level. The Union
submits that SAs play a significant role in identifying which staff should be
assigned to projects or tasks. The Incumbents endeavor to ensure the best
solution(s) is chosen with the least impact on functionality of existing or newly
purchased systems which often results in persuading others to change their original
approach to meeting their needs while maintaining the integrity of the student
information. By example, the implementation of the Ministry of Education
Electronic Data Interface and the OCAS module for Banner.
(ii) College
The College submits that the primary role of the Incumbents is to advise other
members of the Team about technical requirements of a particular project. To
perform this task it is necessary to explain how they will implement their
resolution to the issue. The College submits that explaining does not fall into the
category of "instruct or train" others.
W
Findings
At the core of the SA position is the provision of technical analysis, guidance and
instruction on how to achieve what the business users are asking for. As testified
to by Maria Lee ("Maria"), there are cases in point such as the example of the letter
codes. That whole functionality could have been delivered using the original set
ups and codes. But in Maria's analysis she identified that there could be a new
way of doing things that would benefit the users a great deal and give better
integration. In order to achieve this change past practice by the academic users
needed to be discarded and that took a lot of convincing of the users to reduce the
number of letter codes. The SAs do not negotiate but on occasion they have to
gain co-operation of users or agreement to proceed in a certain fashion. While this
is not a regular and recurring aspect of the SAs work it does occur with sufficient
frequency to justify the rating of an occasional Level 4. Therefore, I find and order
that the core point rating for the SA position be changed to reflect this finding of
an occasional -Level 4.
9. Physical Effort: Ratings: College Level I / Union Level 2
This factor measures the degree and frequency of physical effort required by the
position but does not include stiffness and strain from poor posture or work habits.
(i) Union
The Union submits the Grievors are obligated to sit for extended periods of time
while engaging in complicated detailed work that does not allow them to break
away from their stations. It is submitted that given the degree of concentration
required for the SAs work activities it is "unlikely that the incumbents are free to
get up thereby reducing the strain of sitting for long periods of time while engaged
in complicated detailed work".
(ii)Com
The College maintains that SAs can easily adjust their working positions to
minimize physical stress without disrupting their work flow because it is a desk
job. Put quite simply, the College argues there are no restrictions on the
0
Incumbents. The College asserts that SAs should stand, stretch, move and change
their char- configuration to lessen potential physical strain.
Findinks
As the Arbitrator I am to consider and recognize the actual amount of time and the
number of activities performed that constitute physical effort. I find that the
breaking of concentration is taken account of elsewhere in the Manual and that the
College rating is correct at Level I at light physical effort. There is no change to
the rating by the College because the Union did not establish its case.
CONCLUSION
Following a thorough review and subject to the foregoing reasons, I find that the
position ought to have a rating adjustment to 720 points because of the change in
the points for the Communications factor. The change in the total points does not
change the placement of the position in the Paybands. The position is confirmed as
being correctly determined by the College to be in Payband K on the Schedule in
the Manual.
The parties are hereby directed to take the necessary steps in order to implement
this decision.
DATED at London, Ontario this I Ith day of November, 2014.
/// fwte�
Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb.
Arbitrator
7
OPSE � Omtarra n Service
V V Employeeses Union
SEFPDSyndicat des employds da to
fonction publiqua de I'Ontado
Arbitration Data Sheet
College: George Brown College
Incumbents;
Maria Lee GaoBan Sur)Alexander7odorov
Supervisor: 3anet5han -Au
Current Payband;
K
Payband Requested by Grlevort L
1.
Concerning the Attached Position Description farm:
Regular
The parties agree on the contents
The Union disagrees w#th the contents and the spedf[cdetalls
are attached.
2,
The attached Written Submission is from:
'
Ocwstonal
I x fThe Union
The college
Factor
Management
Union
Arbitrator
Regular
Recurring
Occastonal
Regular Recurring 6ccastonal
Regular Recurring
Ocwstonal
Level
Volnts
Level
Points
Level Paints Level Paints
Level Points
Level Paints
I.A. Education
4
48
4 48
1e. Education
1
3
2. Experience
6
86
6 86
3. AnalysisandProblemsolving
5
142
5 142
4, Planaing/Coordlnating
3
56
4
7
3 56 4 7
S. Gulding/Advtsing Others -
5
53
5 53
6. Independence of Actlon
4
114
4 110
7. service Dellvery
3
51
4
6}�-
& Communication
3
78
9. Physical Effort
1
5
L0. Audio/Visual Effort
3
So
3 so
11. Working Environment
1
7
' 2
9
1- 7 2 9
Subtotals
(a)
6a9
(b)
22
7
(a) 1� (b) 16
(a) Q
{b) Q
Total Points(a)+(b)
711
4 711'
Resulting Payband
K
L
Signatures:
Dated-mmm-yyyy)
iapresentative Date (d-mmm-yyyy)
Gd Date d-mmm-yyyy)
LI.Rept a alive Date (d•mmm-yyyy)
N 2 �1
ArbtiratoFIssIgnAme (/ r Date of Hearing Date of Award
(d•mmm•yyyy) (d-mmm-yyyy)
Expedited Arbitration — OPSEU # 2013-0557-0001- OPSEU, Local 557 v George Brown College Page 14
N