HomeMy WebLinkAboutMacBean 15-01-27
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
Fanshawe College
(“the College”)
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(“the Union”)
Classification Grievance of Bonnie MacBean #2013-0109-0009
ARBITRATOR: Mary Lou Tims
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE COLLEGE: Julie McQuire – Employee Relations Consultant
Robert Kitchen – Senior Manager,
Student Academic Success Services
Julia Boffa – Human Resources Consultant
FOR THE UNION: Ron Kelly – Chief Steward Classification
Dana Copeland – Union Representative
Bonnie MacBean - Grievor
A Hearing was held in London on December 2, 2014.
AWARD
The grievor, Ms. Bonnie MacBean, holds the position of Peer Tutor Coordinator
at Fanshawe College. Her grievance, dated October 29, 2013, alleges that her position
has been improperly classified at Payband E and seeks reclassification at Payband G.
The parties filed a Position Description Form (“PDF”) dated April 14, 2014. The
Union advised that there is some disagreement between the parties regarding its content.
In addition, the rating of the following seven factors is in dispute:
- Analysis and Problem Solving
- Planning/Coordinating
- Guiding/Advising Others
- Independence of Action
- Service Delivery
- Communication
- Audio/Visual Effort
The parties filed pre-hearing Briefs in accordance with article 18.4.3.4 of the
collective agreement. At the hearing, I heard the submissions of the parties‟
representatives, and evidence given by the grievor, by Ms. Dana Copeland, Union
Representative, and by Mr. Robert Kitchen, Senior Manager, Student Academic Success
Services.
The College‟s Brief describes that Student Academic Success Services “provides
Fanshawe learners with a range of student services to support their engagement and assist
them in moving towards program completion.” The Learning Centre is one of three
areas that reports to Mr. Kitchen. The Peer Tutor Coordinator works in the Learning
Centre, and Ms. MacBean reports directly to Mr. Kitchen.
The parties filed various brochures and other documentation pertaining to the Peer
Tutoring Program at the College. Peer tutoring is described therein as “students helping
students” by providing “one-on-one assistance for students having difficulties in a
specific course.” The materials referred to by the parties describe that “typically, the
tutor and client meet once a week and together . . . address difficulties the student client
has encountered.” The evidence establishes that full-time, part-time, continuing
education, apprentice, weekend, online and ESL students are all eligible for peer tutoring.
The grievor confirmed that requests for tutoring services are never denied, although there
2
may be limits on the number of tutoring contracts that can be purchased at one time.
Included within a diverse group of students who seek tutoring are some with learning or
physical disabilities, some International students, some First Nations students, and some
students who are varsity athletes. Students seeking tutoring assistance can purchase for
$20 a contract that provides for five, one-hour tutoring sessions.
To be accepted as a peer tutor, one must be a registered College student or recent
alumnus, have a grade of B or better in the courses in issue, and have a reference from a
professor. In addition, in order to become a peer tutor, one must complete an online
training course and achieve within two attempts a mark of 80% or better on an online
quiz. Both the online course and the quiz are designed by the Peer Tutor Coordinator.
After fulfilling the applicable requirements, a prospective tutor meets with the grievor for
an interview. The grievor was clear, however, that once a prospective tutor satisfies the
criteria set out above, he/she is hired unless there are “red flags” raised at the interview,
such as “inappropriate comments” made by the tutor. She suggested that this happens
one or two per cent of the time, and that she puts any such applications “on hold.” The
Union described in its Brief that the grievor reviews hiring information, specific College
policies and procedures, and CAAT pension plan options when meeting with new or
prospective tutors.
It is the responsibility of the Peer Tutor Coordinator to match students requesting
tutoring with a peer tutor. What is involved in performing this function was somewhat
contentious, although a number of points were undisputed. The grievor does not meet
with the student client when initially matching him or her to a tutor. She noted, however,
that there is a section for comments on the application for tutoring services, and that a
student may provide any information that he or she considers relevant. The Union stated
in its Brief that students applying for tutoring are generally contacted within twenty-four
hours and informed of the peer tutor assigned, or specifics of the tutoring request are
discussed. Typically, a student seeking tutoring is “matched” with someone who is in or
has been in the same course in which assistance is required. The grievor described that,
in some instances, knowledge of a particular computer program, the ability to
communicate in a language other than English, or availability during certain times may
be considerations as well.
3
The grievor gave evidence that as of the time of this hearing, there had been more
than 250 peer tutors and more than 650 students requesting tutoring for the term, and a
total of 1268 tutoring requests for 2014.
The College described the grievor as a “highly regarded” and “excellent”
employee, and emphasized that the dispute between the parties here relates only to the
rating of the position she holds.
The PDF summarizes the “overall purpose” of the Peer Tutor Coordinator
position as follows:
Under the broad supervision of the Senior Manager, Student Academic
Success Services, the incumbent is responsible for planning, coordinating
and administering the Peer Tutor program for a diverse student population.
The College, in its Brief, described that the position “is responsible for making the
services known to potential peer tutors and students requiring tutoring, matching students
with tutors based upon programs/courses, grades and transcripts, administering a self-
directed on-line peer tutor training course and quiz and completing payroll paperwork
and submitting hours through the system for payment to the tutors.”
The PDF sets out “the significant duties and responsibilities associated with the
position” as follows:
Plans, coordinates and administers the peer tutor program by:
- Primary contact for all peer tutoring inquiries/services both internally and
externally.
- Promotes service internally by liaising with academic areas and staff to create
awareness of the program and to ensure enough tutors are available
- Creates and/or works with Reputation and Brand Management staff to ensures
(sic) Peer Tutoring materials are on hand including brochures, posters,
banners and documents
- Recruits potential peer tutors based upon the tutor‟s academic record and
faculty recommendations
- Schedules and meets with potential peer tutors to complete interview/hiring
procedures
- Facilitates the completion of Peer Tutor preparation for employment
requirements – e.g. FOL self-directed peer tutor training course and quiz
4
- Advises students about applicable policies and procedures and ensures that
Peer Tutors are in compliance with mandatory College training
- Matches students with tutors based upon program/course, grade and
transcripts
- Responsible for re-matching students when scheduling conflicts prevent
service delivery
- Addresses student concerns related to quality tutoring and follows up to
ensure quality service has been provided
- Ensures manager and/or faculty are aware of any tutoring irregularities such as
tutors completing assignment for students
- Communicates any new procedures to Peer Tutors and students as required
- Invoices external clients and college departments (WSIB, C&AS, Athletics) as
appropriate for tutoring services. Monitors monthly expenditures to ensure
costs remain within approved limits and follows up to ensure appropriate
revenue collection occurs in a timely basis from areas utilizing the service
- Creates and maintains database to track tutoring services statistics. Creates
peer tutoring reports as required.
- Administer the payroll process for Peer Tutors by creating hire letters,
payment authorizations and submits hours for payment through the LFACs
authorization system
- Ensures hiring of student Peer Tutors and documentation is in compliance
with relevant College policies and processes
- Provides reference support to graduate Peer Tutors via letter or phone to
employers
- Provides information to International Peer Tutors on how to obtain a
temporary SIN for payroll purposes
- Seeks solutions to improve quality of service by developing assessment
protocols for peer tutoring programs to obtain participant feedback. Evaluates
student survey and KPI results related to quality of services to identify areas
for improvement.
5
ANALYSIS AND PROBLEM SOLVING:
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. The Union accepts
that level 2 is the appropriate regular and recurring rating, but seeks a level 3, occasional
rating as well.
The Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (“the Manual”) provides the following
factor definitions:
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 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 Notes to Raters must also be considered and state in part as follows:
At level 2, the work performed is quite structured, as the incumbent
performs it in the customary or usual way. It is very evident when
problems arise. However, the position has some freedom in determining
how the problem could be resolved if normal practice cannot be applied.
For example, if a position was to post certain information on a daily basis
and, for a reason never previously experienced by the incumbent, the
information was not available, then the individual in the position would
need to determine if a solution to another similar situation could be
applied in this circumstance.
At level 3, the types of problems that are encountered are readily
identifiable but the position must be able to identify when additional
information is needed to clearly understand the problem or situation. In
order to develop an appropriate solution, the position will need to gather
more information. In many circumstances, this additional information or
clarification will be readily available, but there will be times when the
position will need to seek the additional information from a source it is
unfamiliar with.
Level 2 versus level 3 – wording in a PDF that suggests there is a need to
get additional information, such as problems that require the incumbent to
look at several sources of information or ask questions of other
departments, does not necessarily mean that level 3 would apply. . . .
There may be some judgement (level 2) in deciding which step to try first,
but the analysis, if any, is quite straightforward (level 2). For level 3, the
6
incumbent would be gathering information, analyzing each new piece of
information in relation to the other pieces, and possibly exploring new or
unusual directions to seek more information based on the results of the
investigation or analysis.
The Union relied upon a number of examples to support its position that a level 3
occasional rating should be ordered.
The PDF addresses the position‟s responsibility for obtaining required
documentation regarding the funding of tutoring services. While students are generally
required to pay a $20 fee for such services, there are exceptions to this. First Nations
students, varsity athletes, students with disabilities, and students funded by various
outside agencies, may be eligible for funding and may so indicate on their online
application. It is then the grievor‟s responsibility to determine and document who
assumes responsibility for funding the student‟s tutoring fees, how much funding is
offered, and whether there are restrictions as to the courses for which tutoring will be
funded.
A second occasional example described in the PDF addresses the role of the Peer
Tutor Coordinator when complaints are received. The grievor elaborated on this and
offered as specific examples complaints that a student demanded too much time from the
tutor, or that a student misunderstood the role of the tutor and expected the tutor to
complete the student‟s work assignments. The grievor testified that she meets with the
individuals involved in such circumstances, assists in “putting together a plan” and
reinforces expectations.
The grievor described during the hearing a number of other examples which the
Union argued reflect occasional level 3 Analysis and Problem Solving. She stated that
tutors were not in the past typically assigned to students until students completed at least
a full semester. With an increase in one year College programs, however, waiting for a
full semester may be too late to provide assistance. The grievor described, therefore, that
tutoring is therefore in some circumstances made available after mid-term academic
results are known.
Similarly, the grievor described that an effort has been made to assist students in
online courses, through Skype and other computer programs.
7
The Union and the grievor emphasized that the grievor receives communications
from and initiates contacts with outside agencies and colleagues elsewhere in the College.
She noted, for example, that she may, in appropriate circumstances, contact a Counsellor
working with a student, to ensure that “everyone is on the same page.” She recalled a
situation in which a student believed that he was having difficulty with a course, and she
came to understand that he had problems “showing up.” She testified that she spoke to an
Access Counsellor on a given occasion to seek his or her views as to the optimal time to
schedule tutoring sessions for a particular student. The Union emphasized that students
do not present with “labels” and that it is for the grievor to determine where they should
be directed for further assistance they may require. The Union suggested that the
grievor‟s participation in the College‟s 2014 workshop entitled “Mental Health First Aid
Responders” should be viewed in such context.
The grievor described her contact with Service Canada and her development of a
template letter to assist International students working as tutors to obtain temporary social
insurance numbers.
She provides employment references for students who have worked as tutors.
The grievor testified that she matches tutors and students. She acknowledged
that she does not meet with students seeking tutors when making an initial match, but
may do so later if circumstances so require. The Union denied, however, that even the
initial matching process involves putting “plug „a‟” into “plug „b‟” and suggested that
there may be “underlying problems” that require that the grievor “go outside the normal
job.” The grievor‟s evidence was that initial matches “work” only ten per cent of the
time, and that there is “usually” a need for ongoing support where it becomes clear that
there is a “problem” beyond the need for academic support. She acknowledged that she
does not take part in tutoring sessions themselves.
The College argued that this factor has been properly rated. In its submission, it is
evident when a problem arises in the course of the grievor‟s duties. Although past
practice may at times be modified to address a problem, the College asserted that the
required analysis and problem solving are “straightforward.” In the College‟s
submission, the mandate of the Peer Tutor Coordinator position is limited to the Peer
Tutoring program. There are, in its view, “clear boundaries” to the position which
contemplate that the grievor hires tutors, matches them to students and in certain
8
circumstances, re-matches students and tutors. Other College resources are available that
offer support and assistance to students beyond the scope of tutoring. The College noted
in particular that Student Success Advisors “track students” experiencing academic
difficulty. While it acknowledged that the grievor may inform students of other resources
that may be useful to them, it suggested that this is quite distinct from having the
responsibility for addressing and solving problems outside the defined and limited scope
of the Peer Tutoring program.
The College acknowledged that the grievor communicates with Counsellors,
Access Counsellors, WSIB representatives and others. It disputed that these are properly
characterized as “resources not normally used by the position,” suggesting that they are in
fact “standard contacts” with which the Peer Tutor Coordinator interacts.
Having considered the evidence in its entirety, I am unable to conclude that
occasional level 3 Analysis and Problem Solving has been demonstrated. While there is
no doubt that the situations and problems encountered by the position are diverse, they
are, in my view, “easily identifiable” and do not “require further inquiry in order to define
them precisely.” I accept that students who avail themselves of tutoring services might, in
some instances, have issues beyond academic challenges. I acknowledge the grievor‟s
evidence that she not only matches tutors and students in accordance with program
criteria, but offers some assistance to them in addressing difficulties that may arise during
the course of the tutoring process. The evidence establishes as well that the grievor, in
administering the Peer Tutor program, addresses matters such as funding arrangements as
they relate to any given student. The evidence does not, in my view, however,
demonstrate that the “situations and problems” encountered by the grievor within the
mandate of the program for which she has responsibility are anything but “easily
identifiable.”
Similarly, while the evidence clearly establishes a problem solving role played by
the Peer Tutor Coordinator, the examples relied upon reflect a need for “straightforward”
analysis, sometimes requiring the modification of past practices as the grievor might
determine appropriate. This was clearly reflected in the examples relied upon by the
Union. Further, although the evidence establishes that the grievor interacts with
colleagues elsewhere in the College and with representatives of external agencies, I am
9
not satisfied that problem solving requires “the analysis and collection of information”
which may be obtained “from areas or resources . . . not normally used by the position.”
The level 2, regular and recurring rating assigned to this factor is confirmed and
the Union‟s request that a level 3 occasional rating also be ordered is denied.
PLANNING/COORDINATING:
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring, and the Union seeks
a rating of level 3, regular and recurring.
The Manual defines level 2 Planning/Coordinating as follows:
Plan/coordinate activities and resources to complete own work and
achieve overlapping deadlines.
Level 3 Planning/Coordinating is defined as follows:
Plan/coordinate activities, information or material to enable completion of
tasks and events, which affect the work schedule of other employees.
“Affect” is defined in the Manual as “to produce a material influence upon or
alteration in,” and “other employees” include “full-time, part-time, students, contractors.”
Again, the Notes to Raters are 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, upgrading
hardware or software).
The Union relied upon a number of examples in support of its claim that a level 3
rating should be assigned to this factor.
The grievor described and the PDF reflects that she plans, coordinates and makes
presentations to classes and to Faculty regarding Peer Tutoring services, approximately
six times each term.
10
A second regular and recurring example of Planning/Coordinating addressed in
the PDF pertains to the position‟s role in training and supporting tutors through Fanshawe
Online (“FOL”) and one on one meetings. The Union emphasized in its Brief that the
grievor facilitates and manages the content of the online training course and pre-hiring
quiz administered to prospective tutors. It noted that hiring of tutors must be handled
promptly and efficiently as delays in the process impact upon the success of students
requiring tutoring assistance. The Union takes the position that tutors are “other
employees” within the meaning of the level 3 factor definition.
The PDF describes as an example of occasional Planning/Coordinating the
development of “communications concerning changes in activities or procedures.” The
Union addressed during the hearing the Peer Tutor Coordinator‟s role in designing and
editing College materials promoting and advertising the program. It emphasized that the
grievor works with Marketing, Reputation and Brand Management staff to ensure that up
to date materials are available on a timely basis. Further, the Union described the
grievor‟s contribution to survey design, and her communication with Research and
Development, including a need to confer about the optimal time to send out surveys for
completion. The Union and the grievor addressed as well the role of the Peer Tutor
Coordinator in working with Information Services staff to ensure that software
implementation is timely. The grievor described that she works with Learning Systems
Services with respect to the online system for purchasing tutoring contracts, and noted
that changes must be made approximately three times each year. She gave evidence
regarding her role in adding the College‟s Woodstock campus to the online system.
The grievor also gave evidence that varsity team members are exempt from
paying the usual fees for tutoring, and that she must therefore request that the names of
team members be submitted.
The grievor described that she is engaged in the ongoing recruitment of new
tutors, and emphasized the need to ensure that hiring of tutors is not delayed so that the
academic success of students requiring tutors is not jeopardized.
A further example relied upon by the Union was the position‟s role in organizing
group sessions where a number of students are “struggling” with the same material.
The Union particularly focussed on the fact that the Peer Tutor Coordinator
schedules four to seven appointments each day with tutors, either for purposes of
11
interviewing them or for following up on payroll matters. While the grievor
acknowledged that students are not to miss class to meet with her, she was clear that she
indicates to them that they must meet with her within some defined timeframe. In the
Union‟s submission, such meeting requests clearly reflect level 3 Planning/Coordinating.
The Union noted as well that the grievor contacts Payroll and requests that
Records of Employment be issued when required.
The College advanced two principal arguments in disputing the Union‟s claim
that a level 3 rating should be awarded.
First, the College took the position that student tutors are not “other employees”
within the meaning of the level 3 factor definition.
Second, the College argued that the Peer Tutor Coordinator plans and prioritizes
its own activities “within the parameters set by established practice and deadlines” and
that coordination is “typically focussed on completion of assigned activities wit hin
established deadlines.” The College disputed that the position plans and coordinates so
as to enable completion of tasks or events which “affect the work schedule” of other
employees. It emphasized the definition of “affect” set out in the Manual, an d argued
that the Peer Tutor Coordinator does not plan or coordinate in a way that “produces a
material influence upon or alteration in” the work schedule of others or influences or
determines the work priorities of others.
The College noted that the Peer Tutor Coordinator has no involvement in the
scheduling of tutoring sessions, and that this is something arranged by a tutor and student.
Mr. Kitchen acknowledged that he and the grievor confer with staff in IT
Services, Reputation and Brand Management and other areas where surveys are to be sent
to students and tutors, promotional materials are required, and online changes are to be
implemented. He suggested that the Peer Tutor Coordinator approaches such matters by
working around key dates in what he characterized as the “annual cycle.” He agreed that
there would be communication about desired time lines and “back and forth” discussion,
but suggested that the Peer Tutor Coordinator does not exercise a planning or
coordinating role which materially influences the work priorities of others. Mr. Kitchen
described that the grievor collaborates with others, but does not plan or coordinate in a
way that “affects” work schedules. He noted that the Peer Tutor program continues to
operate even if a desired deadline for advertising materials, for example, is not met.
12
Similarly, while the College acknowledged the grievor‟s concern that matching of tutors
and students is time sensitive, it emphasized that the planning and coordinating role of the
position pertains to her own work activities, and does not “affect” the work schedule of
“other employees.”
The parties disagreed whether or not peer tutors are “other employees” within the
meaning of the level 3 factor definition. Even if I assume that they are in fact properly so
regarded, a matter which I need not decide here, I am not satisfied that the Peer Tutor
Coordinator plans or coordinates activities to enable task completion which “affects” the
work schedules of “other employees.”
The evidence demonstrates that the grievor plans and prioritizes her own work
activities. There is no doubt that she seeks to efficiently recruit and process the hiring of
Peer Tutors, and that she administers the program in a manner “focussed on completion
of assigned activities within established deadlines or procedures.” The evidence is clear
as well that there is a need for the grievor to confer with others when performing certain
tasks and that she works somewhat collaboratively, communicating desired time lines in
some instances.
Planning/Coordinating is properly rated at level 3, however, where it enables task
completion which “produces a material influence” upon the work schedule of other
employees. While the Union established that the Peer Tutor Coordinator conveys to
others a desire to meet during a certain timeframe or a desire that work be completed by a
defined point, the evidence does not demonstrate that she plans and coordinates in a way
that so “affects” the work schedules of others.
The College‟s rating of this factor at level 2, regular and recurring is confirmed.
GUIDING/ADVISING OTHERS:
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. The Union seeks a
rating of level 4, regular and recurring.
The Manual sets out the following factor definitions:
2. Guide others so they can complete specific tasks.
3. Advise others to enable them to perform their day-to-day activities.
4. Guide/advise others with ongoing involvement in their progress.
The Manual defines “guide” as “demonstrates correct processes/procedures for
the purpose of assisting others with skill development and/or task completion.”
13
“Advise” is defined as “has the authority to recommend, or provide
knowledgeable direction regarding a decision or course of action.”
The Manual states that “ongoing involvement” is “intended to reflect a
requirement to be involved for the duration of the process or skill development, in which
the position is an active participant.”
The Notes to Raters are of assistance, stating in part as follows:
Level 3 – this may be a position with a particular area of expertise (e.g.
accounting), which uses that expertise to assist others in completing their
tasks. Involvement is generally of an advisory nature and the position is
not responsible for how those advised subsequently complete their tasks.
Level 4 – this may be a position that, while not responsible for formal
supervision, is assigned to assist less experienced staff and is expected to
actively contribute to their ongoing skill development.
The Union relied upon a number of examples in support of its submission that this
factor should be rated at level 4. It referred to communications between the grievor and
representatives of other Colleges seeking information regarding the Peer Tutor program.
The grievor described as well assistance she has provided to staff at area campuses. She
also gave evidence that she delegates work to a part-time receptionist in the office, and
that she provided information to a program coordinator. Such examples, in my view, do
not demonstrate Guiding and Advising beyond that contemplated by the level 2 rating
assigned by the College.
The Union and the grievor also argued, however, that the Peer Tutor Coordinator
not only hires peer tutors and matches them with students, but that she has ongoing
involvement in the progress of the student and tutor for the duration of the tutoring
activity. The grievor stated as follows in the Union‟s Brief: “I am responsible for
advising students to ensure their tutoring arrangements are working out as intended. I
allocate specific tasks of how to deal with various situations peer tutors may encounter
and recommend a course of action.” The grievor testified that students and tutors visit
her office numerous times each day to confer with her and to seek her guidance. She
suggested that only ten per cent of the tutor and student matches “go smoothly” and that
in the other ninety per cent of cases, the tutor and/or the student experience issues about
which she is consulted. The grievor described that her ongoing contacts with students
and tutors can be short, addressing matters such as a tutor‟s failure to attend a scheduled
14
tutoring session, or can be more time consuming and involved. She testified that she has
developed work plans with students and tutors who have identified concerns to her, and
has assisted tutors in planning how to most effectively work with a disabled student who
requires a particular computer program or an interpreter during the tutoring session.
The College acknowledged that the Peer Tutor Coordinator plays a “customer
service role,” and provides the support necessary to achieve success in the program. It
suggested, however, that the position plays a more limited role than that suggested by the
Union. Mr. Kitchen questioned the grievor‟s suggestion that only ten per cent of tutoring
matches work well, suggesting that this struck him as “odd.” In its Brief, the College
stated that “this position has an assigned requirement to explain information to students,
faculty and other stakeholders to provide access to and utilization of peer tutoring
services.” It argued that “there is no assigned requirement for this position to assist
others in the performance of their day to day activities and no requirement to be involved
for the duration of the process for skill development.” The College emphasized that the
Coordinator does not attend tutoring sessions, and argued that she is not “an active
participant in the relationship between tutor and student.” It suggested that the Peer Tutor
program is structured in such a way that there is “no feedback mechanism” built into the
service. The College asserted that if there is a problem, the Peer Tutor Coordinator
simply rematches the student with another tutor. According to its Brief, the position has
“no interaction other than the initial match, processing of payment timesheets . . . , or re-
matching tutor to student in the event of a problem.” Mr. Kitchen‟s evidence was that the
scope of the position‟s role in guiding and advising is simply to determine whether or not
a new match should be made. He suggested that there is “not a lot of nuanced advising.”
I have considered the parties‟ evidence pertaining to the grievor‟s interaction with
students and tutors engaged in the Peer Tutor program. Despite the College‟s suggestion
that “the scope of the inquiry” made by the grievor is limited to a determination of
whether a new match is or is not required in any given case, I note that the Duties and
Responsibilities section of the PDF references the need to address student concerns
regarding “quality tutoring.” Included as a regular and recurring example of Planning and
Coordinating, is the position‟s role in providing “ongoing support to tutors through . . .
one-to-one meetings.” The Guiding/Advising section of the PDF includes as a regular
and recurring example orienting and guiding Peer Tutor student staff.
15
In my view, the evidence demonstrates that the Peer Tutor Coordinator does more
than “guide others so they can complete specific tasks” as contemplated by the level 2
rating assigned by the College. That said, I agree with the College that there is no
evidence of a requirement that the position “be involved for the duration” of the tutoring
process in which she is “an active participant.” Indeed, it is clear that the grievor plays
no active role in the tutoring of students. I am satisfied, however, that the evidence,
viewed in light of the PDF, demonstrates that the Peer Tutor Coordinator has the
authority to provide and does in fact provide “knowledgeable direction” regarding a
“course of action” to enable tutors to perform their “day to day” tutoring activities.
While I am not convinced therefore that this factor should be rated at level 4 as
requested by the Union, I accept that it is not properly rated at level 2. In my view, level
3, regular and recurring, is the appropriate rating for this factor. I order that the rating be
amended accordingly.
INDEPENDENCE OF ACTION:
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. The Union seeks a
rating of level 3, regular and recurring and level 4, occasional.
The Manual provides the following factor definitions:
2. Position duties are completed according to established procedures.
Decisions are made following specific guidelines. Changes may be made
to work routine(s).
3. Position duties are completed according to general processes.
Decisions are made following general guidelines to determine how tasks
should be completed.
4. Position duties are completed according to specific goals or objectives.
Decisions are made using industry practices and/or departmental policies.
The Manual also defines the following terms:
Procedure – a sequence of steps to perform a task or activity.
Guideline – a statement of policy or principle by which to determine a
course of action.
Process – a series of activities, changes or functions to achieve a result.
16
Industry Practice – technical or theoretical method and/or process
generally agreed upon and used by practitioners to maintain standards and
quality across a range of organizations and settings.
Policies – broad guidelines for directing action to ensure proper and
acceptable operations in working toward the mission.
The Notes to Raters are of assistance and state as follows:
Level 2 – duties are completed based upon pre-determined steps.
Guidelines are available to assist, when needed. The position only has the
autonomy to decide the order or sequence that tasks or duties should be
performed.
Level 3 – specific results or objectives that must be accomplished are pre-
determined by others. The position has the ability to select the process(es)
to achieve the end result, usually with the assistance of general guidelines.
The position has the autonomy to make decisions within these parameters.
. . .
Level 4 – the only parameters or constraints that are in place to guide the
position‟s decision-making are “industry practices” for the occupation
and/or departmental policies. The position has the autonomy to act within
these boundaries and would only need to consult with the supervisor (or
others) on issues that were outside these parameters.
The PDF states that the position “proceeds independently for most duties,” with
tutoring contracts, service procedures, tutoring protocols, College policies, Ministry
guidelines, legislative requirements, and past practice available to guide it. It notes that
“day to day decisions in relation to the operation of Peer Tutoring Services” are decided
by the Peer Tutor Coordinator, while plans for change, policy issues, financial matters,
amendments to procedures, unusual problems, “non-standard situations,” and “issues
falling outside documented guidelines or procedures” are decided “in consultation wi th
the Supervisor.”
The parties addressed a number of specific aspects of the position‟s
responsibilities, both in their Briefs and when testifying at the hearing.
There is no dispute that the grievor can waive, and has in fact waived, the $20
tutoring fee when satisfied that it would cause financial difficulty for a student requesting
tutoring. The College agreed that this is so, acknowledging that student success is more
17
important than the collection of such fee. The grievor gave evidence that she has also at
times suggested to students potential sources of funding assistance.
The evidence established that it is College policy not to issue refunds of nominal
sums such as the fees for tutoring contracts, as the costs associated with processing such
refunds may exceed the amounts in issue. The grievor noted in the Union‟s Brief that she
has “stayed within the parameters established” in circumstances when pressure was
exerted to issue a refund, although the College accepted that she has, in “rare” case s
issued a refund despite College policy.
The grievor testified as well that she has prepared a template document available
for the use of International students who require temporary social insurance numbers
from Service Canada.
The grievor noted that, in a particular case, she abided by the advice of the
Children‟s Aid Society that a student should not be assigned a female tutor. She referred
to the fact that she has access to student records, and that she initiated an annual survey
which peer tutors and students are asked to complete. She stated that survey results are
reviewed with the goal of improving the service offered. The grievor testified as well
that over the course of the years she has held the position, she has developed the practices
followed in fulfilling the position‟s mandate.
In the Union‟s submission, the Peer Tutor Coordinator works “entirely
independently with no need to carry out any consultations” and makes “independent
decisions to best manage unforeseen situations as they arise.”
Despite such position, there is no dispute between the parties that there are
“significant constraints” that apply to the hiring of peer tutors and the matching of tutors
and students. While Mr. Kitchen acknowledged that the position is not “micromana ged,”
he suggested that it operates within “clear boundaries” and that “the lack of consultation
does not mean that there is a lot of choice in parameters.”
The College argued in its Brief that “decision making . . . is limited to daily
operations following established processes and the sequence of tasks to be performed.” It
asserted that “issues falling outside of established processes are made in consultation”
with others. It elaborated on this as follows:
(T)he peer tutoring service is a prescribed service with established
procedures, tutoring protocols, self-administered peer tutoring tests, tutor
18
contracts and funding limitations. The position has the autonomy to
decide the order and sequence of the tasks that should be performed in the
daily operation but does not have the autonomy to select the processes to
achieve the end result as suggested by a level 3 rating. Nor are decisions
being made by the incumbent . . . based on “industry practices” or
department policies….
I am not satisfied that either of the higher ratings sought by the Union is
warranted. There is no doubt, as acknowledged by Mr. Kitchen, that the grievor performs
much of her day to day work with little need for consultation with her manager. It is also
clear, however, that there are significant constraints on the performance of her duties and
on the decisions she makes. The hiring of tutors, the acceptance of students who seek
tutoring, the matching of tutors and students, and the administration of the program on
matters such as funding are all key functions performed within clearly defined
parameters. While I accept that the grievor confronts a variety of circumstances and
issues in performing her day to day work, and while I note that she is not
“micromanaged” by her manager in doing so, position duties are nonetheless clearly
“completed according to established procedures” with decisions made “following specific
guidelines.” While the Peer Tutor Coordinator has the “autonomy to decide the order or
sequence that tasks or duties should be performed,” I am not convinced that position
duties are completed according to “general processes” or “specific goals or objectives.”
Similarly, the evidence viewed in its entirety does not demonstrate that the Peer Tutor
Coordinator makes decisions “following general guidelines” or “using industry practices
and/or departmental policies.”
The College‟s rating of this factor at level 2, regular and recurring, is confirmed
and the Union‟s claim for a level 3 regular and recurring rating and a level 4 occasional
rating is denied.
SERVICE DELIVERY:
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. The Union seeks a
rating of level 3, regular and recurring and level 4, occasional.
The relevant factor definitions contained in the Manual are set out as follows:
2. Provide service according to specifications by selecting the best
method of delivering service.
19
3. Tailor service based on developing a full understanding of the
customer‟s needs.
4. Anticipate customer requirements and pro-actively deliver service.
The Manual also defines the following terms:
Tailor – to modify or adapt with special attention in order to customize it
to a specific requirement.
Anticipate – given advance thought, discussion or treatment to events,
trends, consequences or problems; to foresee and deal with in advance
Proactive – to act before a condition or event arises
The Notes to Raters offer the following guidance in rating this factor:
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 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.
Level 4 means that the position designs services for others by obtaining a
full understanding of their current and future needs. This information is
considered in a wider context, which is necessary in order for the position
to be able to structure service(s) that meet both the current stated needs
and emerging needs. The position may envision services(s) before the
customer is aware of the need.
The PDF sets out four examples of service delivery. One of these addresses the
grievor‟s role in assisting International students in obtaining temporary social insurance
numbers. Another example describes the position‟s responsibility for internally
marketing and promoting the tutoring program. Neither of these examples, in my view,
supports the higher ratings sought by the Union.
The more fundamental dispute with respect to this factor pertains to the position‟s
role in responding to requests for tutoring services or applications from students wishing
20
to work as tutors. The Union emphasized that every student requiring tutoring is
different. It suggested that the Peer Tutor Coordinator matches students and tutors
according to the specific needs of an individual student and thereby customizes service
based on a thorough understanding of particular student circumstances.
The College argued that the service delivered by the Peer Tutor Coordinator is the
provision of tutoring services within the parameters of the Peer Tutor program. It
emphasized that the grievor does not tutor and is not in fact present during tutoring
sessions. It noted that when and where within the College tutoring sessions take place are
matters determined by the tutor and the student, and not by the Coordinator. The College
suggested that the matching of a student and a tutor is based upon established criteria, and
does not require or allow for the “understanding of the customer‟s situation” as
contemplated by level 3 Service Delivery.
There is no dispute that the grievor, when matching a tutor to a student, considers
the subject area in which tutoring is required, and if applicable, language issues and
availability. The College‟s position is that she thereby selects the best method of
providing tutoring services. In the College‟s submission, there is no ability to change the
options available for service delivery, no ability to customize the service, and no
requirement to develop a full understanding of customer needs.
To the extent that the Union asserts that the grievor “tailors” service by ensuring
that the tutor assigned is in or has taken the course in which assistance is required, is
available during the hours required, or may be able to communicate in a language other
than English where that is necessary, I agree with the College that this does not reflect
“customizing” service as contemplated by the level 3 factor definition but rather, reflects
regular and recurring level 2 service delivery “by determining which option would best
suit the needs of the customer.”
The grievor gave evidence, however, and the Union‟s Brief describes that the Peer
Tutor Coordinator, in certain instances, goes beyond determining the best “option” for the
customer and in fact “substantially” modifies what is delivered so that it suits particular
customer circumstances. The grievor described situations in which she has done so.
The Union‟s Brief addressed a situation in which a disabled student with
challenges communicating requested tutoring. The Union described that the grievor
addressed the student‟s particular circumstances with a prospective tutor to the extent that
21
she was able to do so while respecting the student‟s privacy. The initial matching of that
tutor with the student did not prove to be successful. The grievor then made further
arrangements to place a different tutor with the student, and met with the tutor to address
how he or she would be most effective. She was then involved in facilitating the initial
meetings between the new tutor and student and in fact attended the first meeting to assist
in making introductions.
The evidence also established that the grievor arranged for tutoring sessions to be
conducted in the First Nations Centre, given her assessment that some First Nations
students would be more comfortable in such setting.
The Union‟s Brief addressed as well that rather than simply matching tutors and
students on a one on one basis, she has in certain circumstances determined that group
sessions or drop-in sessions may be useful, and has made necessary arrangements
accordingly. The Union described that drop-in sessions have been organized and offered
for First Nations students as well as for International students in the Information Security
Management program, where the latter group was “struggling with the ability to ask for
help.”
The evidence establishes as well that the grievor learned through discussions with
a program coordinator that International students in the Autism Spectrum Program who
were “generally very good students” required a weekly clarification of tasks to be
performed during their placements, as opposed to course specific tutoring. This was
arranged.
The grievor testified during the hearing that she has also arranged for group
tutoring sessions where there have been “a lot of requests” for assistance relating to the
same area. She suggested that this has proven to be a “good idea” in certain
circumstances.
While tutors and students are, as a general rule, responsible for planning when and
where in the College to conduct tutoring sessions, the grievor described that she has
arranged for tutoring to take place via Skype where an online learning student could not
be available to meet in person at the College.
The evidence establishes that the Peer Tutor Coordinator does, in certain
circumstances, “tailor service based on a full understanding of the customer‟s needs.”
22
While the Union has not established that this is the case on a regular and recurring basis,
it has, in my view, demonstrated that this is an occasional role.
The Union suggested as well that the Peer Tutor Coordinator “anticipates”
customer requirements at level 4 on an occasional basis. The grievor addressed the fact
that she used to train peer tutors in person, but later instituted online training because of
time constraints. Mr. Kitchen noted that this meant that a power point presentation that
the grievor delivered in person in the past was made available online.
The grievor gave evidence of her contributions to discussions regarding changes
to cash handling functions in the office. Mr. Kitchen acknowledged that a question was
raised, and that he made a decision that front line staff would not handle cash.
The grievor suggested as well that her role in conducting surveys of tutors and
student users of the Peer Tutor program, and her follow up with t hose engaged in
tutoring, reflects the “anticipation” of customer requirements.
I am not satisfied on the basis of such evidence that the Peer Tutor Coordinator
“anticipates customer requirements” and “pro-actively delivers service” as contemplated
by the level 4 factor definition. I conclude, however, that the position does on an
occasional basis “tailor service” within the meaning of the level 3 factor definition.
I therefore confirm the College‟s rating of level 2, regular and recurring but find
that a level 3 occasional rating is also warranted. I order that the rating of this factor be
amended accordingly.
COMMUNICATION:
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. The Union seeks a
rating of level 3, regular and recurring.
The Manual defines levels 2 and 3 Communication as follows:
2. Communication involves the exchange of information that requires
explanation and/or interpretation.
3. Communication involves explaining and/or interpreting information to
secure understanding. May involve communicating technical information
and advice.
The Notes to Raters offer the following guidance:
To clarify the differences between levels 2 and 3:
23
“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. This level may also include exchanges that are of a more
complex technical nature, where all the parties to the communication are
technically competent. That is, for those people the communication is
relatively basic as they share a vocabulary and understanding of the
concepts.
“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 position must consider the communication
level/skill of the audience and be sensitive to their abilities and/or
limitations. At this level, if the exchange is of a technical nature, then
usually the audience is not fully conversant or knowledgeable about the
subject matter. Unlike communicating with people who share an
understanding of the concepts, in this situation the material has to be
presented using words or examples that make the information
understandable for non-experts or people who are not familiar with the
intricacies of the information.
The PDF states that the position “provides routine information about the peer
tutoring services,” “explains tutoring procedures” and “provides orientation and training.”
The grievor described in the Union‟s Brief that she is required in the course of her
duties to communicate in writing and verbally, and that she makes formal presentations
regarding the Peer Tutoring program.
She testified in these proceedings that her position is required to communicate
“technical information.” She offered two examples of such “technical” communication.
First, she described that where a disabled student was to use a computer program during
tutoring sessions, she advised the tutor that the student could not use his or her hands, and
that it would be necessary to follow the computer screen. In another instance, she
recalled telling a tutor that where an interpreter would assist a student, the tutor was to
look at the student and not at the interpreter when speaking.
The Union suggested as well that the grievor has to explain “a lot of information”
to tutors regarding accommodation and cultural issues to ensure that the tutor has “full
knowledge of the situation.”
The grievor testified that she addresses College policies during interviews with
tutors. She referred to “employment letters” provided to tutors which in turn reference
24
the Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities, Accommodation for Employees with
Disabilities, Customer Service and Integrated Accessibility Standards Training, Board of
Governors and College Administrative policies, and the CAAT pension plan. She was
asked to specifically describe the nature of her communication with tutors regarding
College policies. She explained that she impresses upon tutors the need to respect the
confidentiality of student information and the importance of not making assumptions
regarding disabilities. She testified that beyond that, she did not “go into detail.”
The College took the position that the communication required of the Peer Tutor
Coordinator is properly rated at level 2. It suggested that the position communicates
basic information, and that there is no need to interpret, and no technical information to
be addressed.
The College stated as follows in its Brief:
This position is required to promote the peer tutoring services within the
College and does so through presentations. The incumbent is also
required to review/explain the tutoring procedures to both the student
being tutored and the tutor. This position is not required to interpret
policy or theory or communicate technical information or advice in either
of these instances.
The Union has not, in my view, established that a level 3 rating is warranted here.
The evidence does not establish a need to explain matters by interpreting policy or theory,
and nor does it demonstrate a need to communicate technical information and advice.
The evidence describes communication which I find is well captured in the level 2 rating
assigned to this factor.
The College‟s rating of this factor at level 2, regular and recurring, is therefore
confirmed.
AUDIO/VISUAL EFFORT:
The College rated this factor at level 2, focus maintained. While there was some
initial lack of clarity as to the Union‟s position regarding the rating of this factor, it
advised during the hearing that it takes the position that this factor should be rated at level
2, focus interrupted.
The Manual sets out the following definitions:
Focus Maintained – concentration can be maintained for most of the time.
25
Focus Interrupted – the task must be achieved in smaller units. There is a
need to refocus on the task at hand or switch thought processes.
The Notes to Raters provide in part:
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.
For example, if an individual has no other assigned tasks or duties while
tending to customer requests, then those requests cannot be seen as
disruptions.
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 provides as examples of “activities that require a higher than usual need
for focus and concentration” monthly preparation of reports, daily matching of students
with tutors, and daily peer tutor training and payroll.
The grievor‟s work station is located in a cubicle in the Learning Centre, a busy
office environment. She and the Union described that her work is interrupted by e-mails,
phone calls, and by approximately twenty “drop in” visitors each day.
The parties agreed that e-mails can be “put on hold” when the grievor is otherwise
occupied. The Union did not disagree with the College‟s suggestion that phone calls can
also be temporarily held when the grievor is occupied with a task requiring full focus and
concentration.
There is no dispute that the grievor does not occupy a “front line” position, and
that drop in visitors are received by a receptionist who works in the office from 9:30 a.m.
to 3:30 p.m. Monday to Thursday. The College noted that it is open to the grievor during
those hours to request that the receptionist not send unscheduled visitors to see her if she
is engaged in a task requiring her undivided attention. The grievor pointed out that this
would not completely eliminate such interruptions, however, as visitors who enter the
office to initially see another staff member sometimes then wander to her work area to
speak with her as well.
26
Finally, the College noted that the office is closed to students on Friday
afternoons.
The grievor described the impact of interruptions when engaged in preparing
reports, matching students and tutors, or preparing payroll. W hen working on matching
students with tutors, she testified that it may be necessary to backtrack if interrupted
while reviewing the database, and that she might thereby lose a “couple of minutes.” If
interrupted while preparing reports or invoicing, it might take five to ten minutes to re-
add numbers.
The grievor noted that, in preparing payroll, she could have up to ten contracts to
process for a single tutor. The College pointed out, however, that it does not take
anything close to two hours to prepare the payroll for any individual tutor, and that the
task is one that lends itself well to completion in small segments.
The parties disagreed whether the disruptions experienced by the grievor when
students “drop in” to speak with her should be regarded as an integral responsibility and
primary aspect of the job, as addressed in the Notes to Raters.
The evidence before me does not, in my view, establish that a focus interrupted
rating is warranted here. It is clear, that the Peer Tutor Coordinator has the ability to
largely control interruptions to her work, by postponing reading e -mails, placing phones
on hold, and asking the receptionist not to send “drop in” visitors to see her during
specific periods. In addition, the office is closed to students on Friday afternoons,
providing an opportunity to work with reduced interruptions. Further, to the extent that
the grievor is interrupted, her evidence does not establish a need for “considerable time”
backtracking, as addressed by the Notes to Raters.
The Union has not established that “focus maintained,” meaning “concentration
can be maintained for most of the time” is not an appropriate rating.
The College‟s rating of this factor at level 2, focus maintained, is confirmed.
CONCLUSION:
For all of the above reasons, the grievance is allowed in part insofar as I order that
the rating of Guiding/Advising Others and Service Delivery is to be amended as set out
herein. Such amendments will increase the total point rating for the position to 367. The
27
position therefore remains within Payband E, and to the extent that the grievance seeks
reclassification to Payband G, it is therefore denied.
DATED at TORONTO this 27th day of January, 2015
"M. Tims"
________________________________
Mary Lou Tims, Arbitrator
Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification
College: Incumbent: Supervisor: Current Payband: Payband Requested by Grievor:
1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form:
❑ The parties agreed on the contents
[,] The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific details are attached,
2. The attached Written Submission is from: ❑ The College QThe Union
- - ,�y e. - _ Ne:melS r
p11Z:.r:p�rii:3¢:i,i::r._;=:iu.
Ir�r �. �:.tt._i��nrua_x.,nc.n....
�r,ii�..fIay+i1e1[i,urs�qlnn-a`rlcuHu.:L.
s�J•:tI•1rcnuon
•�, u:l•=:.. �..e�i2e�....j
e . nJ'c. :;nr:i_`r.;i:.ss�
!;�T r_r.h,-y-rC:9`!•::wtn��
alta
"?:___ '�'XT :.,m_..a:,
'i<� i•.ai�-chE� �rsyir i; c:; ,:c: �aiii i:ecacnrn :E;.,� ;;..:-v!i?iir <r.ki.`
31 .ta
?iq^ ..:l�-a. -ar
.r� -
Regular/
Rt.L., eu_.1
Regular
�.:��P�.i
-_u
:'
Occasional
g.�
Occasional
Occasional
ccasionalOccasionalrJ
Recurring
Recurring Recurring
.--•,
IaS"hs i.'sc.cn'�ce_ '°YL��c,.il(F`Y
�u
W. �_n�uer5i�r c:r�wcucr. ii�xx,t l;c .�•'
'
ll 7;! � ± e� r'W:.: = � :
Level
Points
Level Points
Leve!
Points Level Points
Level
Points
Level Paints
1A. Education
i 3
35
3f
1�
35
3,
3
1B. Education
1
3
Z Experience
4
54
4
54
`Y
3. Analysis and Problem Solving
21
46
-
2
46 3 9
`-y %
-
4. Planning/ Coordinating
2
32
3
56
a
�'
5. Guiding/ Advising Others
2-9
17
4
41
oZ c1
6. Independence of Action
2
46
31
78 4 9
®�
7. Service Delivery
2
29
3
51 4 6
�a
8. Communication
2
46
3
78 1�1
(o
9, Physical Effort
1
51
1
/
10. Audio/ Visual Effort
21
20
35
U
11. Working Environment
1;
73
9
1
7
1
-
_
Subtotals
(a)
340
(b) 9
(a)
489 (b) 24
(a) &5i )-
(b)
Total Points (a) + (b)
349
513
G
(o
jResulting Payband
E
Signatures:
` Date)
(Grievor) (Arbitrator)
(Date) ��% (� I ate of Hearing}
(Union Repr entation) I
'c' �- (Date) �^ (Date of Award) aj /S
(College Representative)