Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRissler 15-01-13IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION between ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION and ALGONQUIN COLLEGE CIasssification Grievance (#2013-0416-0031): Tim Rissler For the Union: Cindy Chapman (Steward, Local 416) Serge Leroux (Chief Steward, Local 416) Tim Rissler, (Grievor - Technician, Building Trades) For the College: Leah -Anne Brown (Manager, Organizational Effectiveness) Christopher Hahn (Acting Dean, Perth Campus) Shaun Bair (Acting Chair, Construction, Trades and Building Systems) Before: Louis M Tenace. Arbitrator Heard in Ottawa, Ontario on January 6, 2015 AWARD The grievor, Mr. Tim Rissler, is employed by Algonquin College as a Carpenter Apprentice Tech Academic. The Position Summary as set out in the Position Description Form (PDF) reads as follows: For the Construction Trades and Building Systems department, the incumbent is responsible for providing support and technical assistance as required for the Cabinetmaking and Furniture Technician, Building Construction Technician and related programming such as the apprenticeship (carpenter, cabinetmaker), continuing education, and General Arts and Sciences Pre -Trades. The bulk of the grievor's duties relate to tools and equipment. He is responsible for preparing purchasing requests for supplies and tools and equipment as well as for actually purchasing supplies and equipment from time -to -time on his own as required for various student projects. In this regard he has a personal budget ceiling of $15,000. per month. He is also responsible for the maintenance and repair of all the equipment as well as for explaining and demonstrating the safe use of equipment to faculty and students. The grievor is currently classified at Payband Level H and seeks re-classification to Payband level.I alleging that his current level does not properly reflect his duties as set forth in his (PDF) He seeks retroactivity to September 24, 2013, the date upon which he submitted his grievance. Mr. Rissler submits that eight of the eleven factors on his PDF have been improperly evaluated. Although there had been disagreement on the content of the PDF, at the hearing the Union acknowledged that this was no longer the case. The grievance concerns the College's rating of the eight factors in dispute. These factors and ratings are set out below: IA - Education Union Rating (Level 4, 48 points) College (Level 3, 35 points) The dispute is whether the position requires a 2 -year or a 3 -year diploma or equivalent. The Union submits that the incumbent of this position requires a trades certificate; the College submits that a 2 -year diploma or equivalent together with 5 years' experience in cabinetmaking and/or carpentry is all that is required and that the College does not require a carpenter or a cabinetmaker. There is an additional requirement for fork-lift operator certification which the grievor possesses. The Union also submitted that appropriate trades certification for plumber, electrician, etc. was required for various other programmes. The basic College position is that this is not a trades position; it is one of knowing how to use and maintain various pieces of equipment and to demonstrate the safe use of such equipment as required. After hearing the parties on this factor, it seems to me that the Union position is quite sustainable. It is difficult to accept that it would be an easy task for the College to find a person without trades certification having the proper experience and qualifications required to perform all the duties of this position, particularly given the variety of equipment involved as well as the high importance of its safe operation in a school setting. While the College has asserted that it does not require a certified carpenter or a cabinetmaker to perform the duties of the position, it seems to me that such qualification is almost a necessity, given the duties outlined in the PDF and as they were amplified during the course of the hearing. One is hard pressed to imagine how else the appropriate knowledge and skills would be obtained. I agree with the Union position and the rating for this factor should be Level 4, 48 points. 3. Analysis and Problem Solving Union Rating (Level 3, 78 points - Regular and Recurring) (Level 4, 9 points - Occasional) College Rating (Level 2, 46 points) The main argument advanced by the Union related to the fact that the incumbent performs repairs to faulty equipment and that safety was a major consideration of this position. One could not simply call in a contractor or a repair facility every time there was an equipment malfunction; neither was it always possible to do so. This would involve unacceptable and costly delays to the various programmes as very few of these companies were located in Ottawa. The College submitted that most of the work involved routine maintenance and there was nothing exceptional requiring significant analysis or problem -solving skills. Moreover, whenever anything significant required repairs, outside assistance was called in. The Notes to Raters for this factor states as follows: 2. Situations and problems are easily identifiable. Analysis or problem solving is straightforward. Solutions may require modification of existing alternatives or past practices. It was clear from the evidence presented that, for the most part, the work involved did not change much from one year to the next and that analysis and problem solving was straightforward and that past practice plays an important part in how the duties are performed. I believe that this factor is properly rated at Level 2, 46 points. 4. PlanninglCoordinating Union Rating (Level 4, 80 points) College Rating (Level 2, 32 points) The College submitted that the incumbent of this position is impacted by someone else's planning and coordinating such as changes that might be initiated by a faculty member. The incumbent does not initiate anything on his/her own that will cause others to modify their priorities, activities or projects. The various programmes are mostly the same year after year. The Union submitted that the programme has many shops going on at the same time and that the decisions of the incumbent do impact others. The College would not want to simply cancel classes when something goes amiss, such as a shortage of material or the improper material. While 1 do not agree that the incumbent's activities typically involve the modification of the priorities of others, it seems clear that the incumbent's activities do involve other matters, particularly with respect to the planning and coordinating of requisite materials to enable others, such as students and contractors, to complete their tasks. As is indicated in the PDF, the Coordinator or Faculty member makes changes to course projects following which the incumbent would be responsible for any changes to the procurement of material. In my view, the duties are a good fit with Level 3 as described in the Notes to Raters. This factor should be rated at Level 3, 56 points. 5. Guiding/Advising Others Union Rating (Level 4, 41 points) College Rating (Level 3, 29 points) Based on the language of the PDF, it is clear that the incumbent does not have any involvement or responsibility to guide/advise others "with ongoing involvement in their progress". The incumbent explains procedures and processes so that others can complete their tasks safely but there is no formal supervisory requirement or performance evaluation or ongoing involvement in their progress. There is no question that the incumbent.does contribute to their skill development by showing them the proper and safe procedures to follow with respect to the various equipment they must use. But this does not appear to be of an ongoing nature, except in the instance where someone is using a machine in an improper or unsafe manner. Notwithstanding, the incumbent has no responsibility for how those advised complete their tasks. Given these considerations aid based on the Notes to Raters, I believe the "best fit" for this position is Level 3, 29 points. 6. Independence of Action Although there was initially a difference between the parties with respect to this factor, during the course of the hearing the Union modified its position and accepted the rating as determined by the College. Therefore, the rating for this factor remains at Level 3, 78 points. 7. Service Delivery Union Rating (Level 3, 51 points) College Rating (Level 2, 29 points) The College submitted that this is a support function; there is no formalized training done by the incumbent. Training is done by Faculty or Instructors. The incumbent demonstrates the proper and safe use of equipment in a formal setting and does not instruct or train; the operative word being "demonstrates". The process is straight forward and repetitive. While the Union submitted that the incumbent had to understand the client's needs and had to tailor the work accordingly, it is clear from what is contained in the PDF that the incumbent does not "tailor" work as explained in the Notes to Raters, i.e. "to modify or adapt with special attention in order to customize it to a specific requirement". In this context, the incumbent selects the best method of delivering the service set out for the position. The rating for this factor remains at Level 2, 29 points. 8, Communication Union Rating (Level 4, 110 points - Regular and Recurring) (Level 5, 9 points - Occasional) College Rating (Level 3, 78 points) The PDF describes this factor in terms of exchanging, explaining and interpreting routine information, imparting technical information and advice to faculty, vendors, student employees, etc. There is no mention of activities or frequency related to "training" or "instructing" to gain the co-operation or agreement of others. The PDF does, however, contain the following examples related to "Imparting technical information and advice" to Faculty/Chair and Student employees: Providing advice to faculty on new equipment that would he appropriate for use in programs and courses(monthly); demonstrating proper/safe processes and procedures on uuse of ivoochvorking tools(daily); incurnhent demonstrates/instructs proper safe shop processes, procedures and operation of tools and equiprnent(dally). In my opinion, this does merit an "Occasional" rating of 9 points. I note that the "Occasional " rating of 9 points is common at all areas of Levels 2 to 5 of the Notes to Raters for this factor. The rating for this factor is amended as follows: Level 3, 78 points - Regular and Recurring; Level 4, 9 points - Occasional 10. AudioNisual Effort Union Rating (Level 2, 35 points) College Rating (Level 2, 20 points) The difference between the parties on this factor relates to the extent to which focus may be interrupted as well as the periods of concentration, i.e. regular and recurring -'short as opposed to regular and recurring - long. The PDF describes three activities related to this factor. One is the preparation of lab materials which occurs on a daily basis; the duration may be up to 2 hours; the second refers to the ordering of materials and equipment which occurs on a daily basis; the duration is less than 30 minutes per day; the last relates to repairs to tools and equipment which occurs on a daily basis; the duration may be up to 2 hours. In each of these three cases, the PDF indicates that concentration can usually be maintained. During the course of the hearing, the grievor showed clearly that he was extremely concerned with the safety aspect of his position and that when there was some form of equipment failure, he had to rest assured that everything was accomplished safely. This required considerable concentration and it was sometimes difficult to retain focus. I do not question the grievor's views about the need to be extremely watchful concerning the safety requirements of this position. Nevertheless, based on the duties outlined in the PDF and the evidence during the course of the hearing, I believe that the grievor has no particular difficulty maintaining focus while performing his various duties. Having due regard to the PDF, the Notes to Raters and the evidence offered. I am satisfied that this factor is properly rated at Level 2, 20 points. In summary, the total points for this position are now 590, which situates the position at Payband I. The grievance is granted to this extent. Signed and dated at Ottawa, Ontario, this 13th day of January, 2015. Louis M Tenace (Arbitrator)