Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTadros 88-10-27 '.' . ~' -/" (, , Y I i '\ / ('~,--r'" ~ ./ '" <...^- -,' ,~~ ~ IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: 7/' 1/1 /- ; U ~! v r V:- ~ ' " FAMILY SERVICES OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH, INCORPORATED (hereinafter called the "Employer") - and - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 216 (hereinafter called the "Union") GRIEVANCE OF DOREEN TADROS (hereinafter called the "Grievor") BOARD OF ARBITRATION: Richard H. McLaren Edward Seymour, Union Nominee Ted Tompkins, Employer Nominee COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD: Rick Baldwin COUNSEL FOR THE UNION: Mitch Bevan A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT HAMILTON, ONTARIO ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1988. AWARD In mid 1985 the Employer with the concurrence and participation of the Union commenced the introduction a new job evaluation system. The process was completed in mid 1986. The job evaluation programme is governed by Article 25 of the Collective Agreement. In Article 25.07 the parties precluded the filing of grievances and arbitration for the duration of the Collective Agreement for a number of Position Levels set forth in Appendix "A" of the Collective Agreement. The parties do so out of a desire; stated in the Article, for a smooth and orderly interpretation of the Job Evaluation Programme. The parties then by way of a letter of understanding found at page 30 of the Collective AgÍ'eement permitted a review consistent with the provisions of Article 25.08 of certain Position Classifications listed in the letter of understanding. The only one which has preceeded to arbitration relates to the Position Classification of Billing Statistical Clerk. The employee occupying the position of Billing Statistical Clerk, Ms. Doreen Tadros, grieves that the job evaluation programme has resulted in a position level which is too low for the responsibilities and duties entailed in the Position Classification.(See Exhibit 1) At the time of the hearing the parties agreed that this grievance was properly before the Board of Arbitration and that the Board had the necessary jurisdiction to deal with the grievance and to make a final and finding disposition of the dispute. There were no preliminary objections on the part of either party at the commencement of the hearing. <~ . 'f '.- . -2- Ms. Doreen Tadros testifies that she has been a Statistical Billing Clerk since commencing her employment with the Employer in 1979. The job evaluation system implemented by the parties resulted in her achieving a score of 590 points. A point score in the job evaluation programme of between 540 and 615 results in the position being classified at level or cluster 3 for the purposes of wage determination. The next level upwards in the wage scale is level 4. In order to be paid at that level a job must be within a point score of 615 to 690 using the universal job evaluation plan prepared by Currie, Coopers and Lybrand and filed as Exhibit 3 in the proceedings. The job evaluation plan contains 10 factors. The score using the plan and the score which the Grievor and the Union subnúts ought to be the correct score under the job evaluation are set out below: FAMILY SERVICES HAMILTON-WENTWORTH FACTOR O.P.S.E.U. 1. Knowlegde gained by formal education and previous training. 20 points 40 points 2. Knowledge gained by experience. 100 150 3. Complexity of decisions and ingenuity required. 150 220 4. Supervisory training, management and advisory responsibilty. 10 30 5. Type of supervision received and limiting factors. 95 130 -3- 6. Consequence of error and budget responsibilities. 90 90 7. Confidentiality 40 50 8. Contacts 30 45 9. Physical skills and efforts. 35 35 10. Working conditions. 20 20 TOTAL 590 Points 810 points The Union called as its only witness Ms. Doreen Tadros. She testified as to all of the seven factors which were in dispute between the Employer and the Union. The Board took some time to deliberate upon her evidence following her direct examination. In reviewing the information supplied in the job evaluation plan, the job description and applying the testimony of the Grievor to the plan as it was understood by the Board resulted in the Board indicating to the parties that it believed the evaluation by the Employer was correct in .respect of all of the disputed factors save factor 2 and factor 3. The parties took the opportunity to discuss the possibility of settlement of the matter having received some preliminary view as to the application of the facts by the Board. The parties were unable to settle their differences. The matter proceeded through to a complete hearing and argument. However, the parties did use the information supplied by the Board to limit the hearing proceedings in this matter. Counsel for the parties agreed to amend the ranking of factor 3 from 150 to 165, thereby increasing the total points for the Grievor by 15. It was further agreed by Counsel on behalf of the parties that the arbitration hearing would not proceed in respect of the other factors which had been initially in dispute being factors 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8. ". NOTE: (A) (F) (G) (H) -8- instruction and guidance on the job. Experience in this factor is measured in time periods. The selection of the time period should reflect the amount of time required for an incumbent to learn to perfonn the job adequately, given the education specified and evaluated in the previous factor. Always assume that the incumbent starts with the education level already evaluated in factor 1, and possesses nonnal intelligence. (B) Given that education, consider the length of training courses provided "in house" then the length of time it takes on average, qualified incwnbent to learn the job. (C) If a "promotional ladder" is used, consider the shortest time required in each job to learn that job adequately. Consider also that there are no obstacles to promotion and that an average qualified incwnbent is promoted from one job to another as soon as the previous job is learned. (D) When experience and education can be substituted, one for the other, consider the nonnal situation with an average incumbent, and distribute the combined years on the basis of the best practical division of time. (E) The experience factor measures the time required to learn a job. It does not reflect hiring or promotion standards required by an organization. Often, organizations set a policy of hiring persons with no less than a minimum level of education and experience. This is an internal policy and does not reflect the amount of time required to learn the job. Consider all the orientation and internal training time required for the employee to gain sufficient experience to understand the organization as well as to perfonn the job adequately. Do not consider experience required to complete certificate courses. If evaluating jobs requiring full-time employment in an occupation while courses are being taken i.e., a job requiring an R.I.A. should not have experience evaluated as the length of time working in an account environment, prior to course completion. This is evaluated under the education factor. Generally only the most senior executive, professional and scientific research positions require experience of periods over 10 years. -9- (I) For progressively more senior positions, generally more experience is required since the knowledge required in order to perform the responsibilities of the job is generally acquired through experience gained in several previous positions of increasing responsibility. Rates should again refer to note (c) concerning promotional ladders. Also filed with the job evaluation programme was the the job description or the job title of Billing Statistical Clerk. (See Exhibit 5) It was submitted on behalf of the Union and the Grievor that the Grievor's initial feeling was that it was at least a ten month period that was necessary to have gained sufficient knowledge to do the job. If that had been accepted by the committee it would have resulted in an additional 25 points. That increase in the evaluation together with the revised point score as a result of the agreement of the' Counsel would have resulted in a point score which would move the Grievor to the next point level. It was also submitted that many of the tasks encountered infrequently in the job require a lengthier time cycle than if they were to occur on a more frequent repetitive basis. TIlat together with the specialized tasks associated with the Receptionist, Statistical job and Research Assistant resulted in justification of timeframe for learning the job of nine months to one year. It was submitted on behalf of the Employer that the nine month timeframe was sufficient for an individual to learn the particular job. When it was contrasted with other jobs and their ratings on factor 2 it was also sufficient and indicated that there was a relative ranking which was appropriate. The time frame for a point total of 100 in the job evaluation process at level 4 is a six to nine month period to learn the job. The timeframe for the next level is from nine " " -10- months to one year for a point score of 125. An individual who is rated at nine months to learn the job under the rules of the job evaluation programme may be either at level 4 or level 5 as level 5 timeframe includes the nine month period. The Employer in its argument submits that nine months is appropriate and the Union in its argument submits that it is something more than nine months, although the Grievor in originally evaluating herself several years ago placed it only at the ten month level. There is an overlap between the degree level 4 at six to nine months and degree level 5 at 9 months - 1 year to learn the job. It appears to the Board that it is somewhat discretionary as to which level an employee whose job is thought to take nine months to gain sufficient knowledge from experience to be able to do the job is to be placed. There being an overlap in the job evaluation system. The judgement required to be made in any particular case and in respect of this factor is highly subjective. The employee in this particular instance is obviously a very dedicated and capable individual who willingly takes on all aspects of the job. It would appear from her testimony that she does them to a high degree of proficiency, dedication and accuracy. The Board is mindful of the fact that it is the position by way of a job description which is to be rated and not the individual. Nevertheless. the evidence with respect to a job where there is only one person filling the position comes from the individual. That also makes the determination and the evaluation somewhat subjective because of the inability to contrast and compare the work of others within the classification. -11- The repetitive cycle to some of the work might not occur within a nine month framework. However. it was the view of the witnesses for the Employer that if those aspects that come up infrequently in the job were to occur within the nine month period then nine months would be sufficient to enable the individual to learn the position. The Board notes that in respect of factor 2 for the Receptionist who has been evaluated at cluster number 4 the rating is 125 and in respect of the Family Violence Clerical Assistant the rating for Factor 2 is 100. This last rating being the same as that for the Billing Statistical Clerk. The Billing Statistical Clerk does some of the work of the Receptionist has additional duties with respect to the statistical analysis and the research assistant position as well as having the FPTP clerical assistant work with her on a part time basis. These added features of the job may not be entirely reflected in a score of 100 points for factor 2. When that information is viewed together with the viva voce evidence and in recognition of the subjective nature of the process and the fact that the nine month timeframe overlaps between the degree levels it is the finding of this Board that the appropriate point score for factor number 2 is at degree level 5 which is 125 points. On the foregoing finding of fact and application of the job evaluation programme to the facts there is an increase in the point score by 25 points. The parties had agreed at the hearing following discussions with the Board that the point level for factor 3 ought to be raised by 15 points to 165. The total point score as a result of this arbitration proceeding therefore becomes 40 points. The job point total changes to 630. The threshold level to move to the next category is 615. Therefore, it is ordered that as a result of this arbitration proceeding the position of Billing Statistical Clerk is to be classified at level 4 and not at level 3 as originally determined by the parties. It is so ordered by this award. f I -12- The Board will remain seized of this matter for a period of 30 days from the date herein to make any further determinations which may be necessary as a result of its order. After the 30 day time period the Board will no longer remain seized of this matter unless either party has obtained the written consent of the Chairman for the Board to remain seized in respect of any issues which may be outstanding between the parties as a result of the determinations of this Board by this award. -i! DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS 1. 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988. / ,J/) , ' ilvL/~t¡ )7/ ""RichardH. McLaren, Chairman of the Board &' / ~ /~- .' . ~~/ ~L~ I I -/dissent Ted Tomkins, Em oyer Nominee .-_t d r?~. /~¿~ I concur/'ti Edward Seymour, Union Nominee 7858L ~~ ~, , MANUFACTURING CONSULTING SERVICES INc. September 16, 1'388 My. Richard H. McLaren Richard H. McLaren Ltd F'. O. Bo:.-; 3'3 Postal Station B 1100 - 383 Richmond Street, LONDON, Ontario N6A 4V3 Dear Mr. McLaren: r ~: FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES OF HAMILTON WENTWORTH & O.P.3.E.U. U38A624 Ið~8Q§_§8Is~è~Çs_ð8êII8ðIIQ~____------- As per my discussion with you and Mr. E. Seymour, I am writing this letter to state and clarify my position on the subject matter, more specifically ths Tadros Grievance Arbitration. C:all i ng upon my e:.-;per i enc e wi th and I::nowl edge 0 f .jclb evaluation systems, together with putting all emotiuns ~cide and analyzing the matter at hand in an objective manner, then one must consider the following factors:- job evaluation provides a degree of objectivity in measuring and determining the relative worth of different positions (jobs) although the process still contains some subjective judgement. the basis foy proper evaluation of any position (job) is a properly documented job description. (Exhibit 5) Article 25.09 (a) through (c) of the Collective Labour Agreement (Exhibit 2) specifically deals with re-assignment of positions (jobs) as well as temporary assignment of additional job duties for a period of three (3) months. Having reviewed the pertinent information sub~itted by both parties, as well as my notes of the evidence submitted, I conclude that:-- the grievor, grievors counsel, nor the unlon president, upon filing the grievance questioned the validity or content of the .job description for this particular position 43 AUDUBON STREET SOUTH, HAMilTON, ONTARIO l8) 1)6 Bus, (416) Sì8-S161 Res. (416) 560-5841 " .' , \ I , TADF.:OS 13PIEVANCE 6E§IIBðIIQ~_i£Qoi~~l F'age #2 (job). Therefore, the job duties and responsibilites were concisely compiled for Exhibit 5. (This being' the case then it becomes evident the position (Job) is basically of a repetitive clerical nature). In the grievor's testimony and under cross) examination, it was determined that the time necessary to learn the basics of the position (job) was six (6) months. The grievor further stated in her testimony, there are occasions when one must perform ~utie5 not specifically spÐlled out in the positions (job) job description. (under those circumstances, one has recourse to claim further compensation under Article 25.0'3 (a) t~lYough (c) of the Collective Labour Agreement. Had the grievor's position been evaluated with the stated si>-; (6) month learning period, then,.the point score would have been seventy-five (75). This position was evaluated for- a nine ('3) month learning curve, which amounts to a fifty (50%) percent greater time frame. This was as stated in Mr. McLean and Mr. J. Vedell testimony fo'(. future strengthening of the repetiveness learning, knowledge of the organizational structuring, thereby permitting one to gain greater insight and awareness for/of the centers operation. We (the board) concluded that the positions poi~ts fo~ Complexity ,~f ~ecisi~ns and ingenuity required was, 1nadequate and we recommend that they be ,=hanged accordingly. I was under the i mp'reSS1 '='n thi s was ag'reed to between the parties and 1t is my belief this in itsel f addressed the basis for the grievance. Further tCI my analysis, it 1S my belief that the Job Evaluation System employed identified differences in point scoring required, was administered fairly and without prejudice and concerned itself to analysis and measurement of positions (job) duties and not individuals. , I I I TADROS GRIEVANCE ðßêIIBðIIQ~_i£20i~Q2 Page #3 In conclusion, it is my belief the grievor did not prove she was incclrrectly measured nor improperly evaluated, therefore, I would dismiss the grievance. Trusting this del:ision, 'I i'"emain, in f I:,r ma t i I:,n will be helpful in preparing a Sinl:erely yours, ---1 ¡(~L /~ Théodore R. Tompkins TRT/kjp AMEn Manufacturing Consulting Services Inc., cc: Mr. E. Seymclur Solidarity Consulting P. O. Bo~/; 5'35, Stn "A"", Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3K7