HomeMy WebLinkAboutBaker 15-06-18
IN THE MATTER OF A
CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE
BETWEEN:
OPSEU LOCAL 561
-and-
SENECA COLLEGE
Regarding the Classification of
Student and Administrative Support Clerk,
School of Information
and Communications Technology (ICT)
OPSEU Grievance # 2014-0561-0006
Brenda Baker, Incumbent
BEFORE : Kathleen G. O’Neil, Single Arbitrator
For the Union: Janice Hagan, President, OPSEU Local 561
Brenda Baker, Grievor
For the College: Daniel J. Michaluk, Counsel
A Hearing was held in Markham, Ontario on April 16, 2015
1
DECISION
This decision deals with a classification grievance claiming that the position entitled Student and
Administrative Support Clerk, in the School of Information and Communications Technology (ICT),
currently held by Brenda Baker, is incorrectly classified at Payband G and asking that it be
reclassified upward to pay band H. The employer maintains that the job is properly classified.
This grievance arises under the parties agreed classification system, set out in the CAAT Support
Staff Job Evaluation Manual (referred to below simply as “the Manual”), a negotiated document
which came into effect March 1, 2007.
The Manual details a job evaluation system aimed at providing an objective basis for the placement
of a very large variety of jobs across the college system on the common salary grid in the collective
agreement. To this end, the Manual provides a multi-factorial method of point-rating the job duties,
which are formally set out in the Position Description Form (referred to below as the PDF). It is
important to underline that it is the basic requirements of the job that are evaluated in this system,
and not the performance, qualifications or worth of incumbents, even if they perform at a level or
possess skills that surpass the requirements of the job. My role as an arbitrator in dealing with this
grievance is limited by the collective agreement to determining whether the PDF accurately reflects
the assigned job content and to determining whether the job is properly evaluated pursuant to the
Manual. The exercise is somewhat technical, and the outcome does not depend on the value of
any incumbent’s work to the College community in terms of personal effort or in the sense of how
much his or her contribution to the College’s work is appreciated by colleagues and those who rely
on the incumbent’s work.
The parties prepared briefs and made thorough presentations at the hearing, all of which I have
carefully considered, even if not explicitly mentioned below, in the interests of keeping the decision
to a tolerable length.
Overview of the Position
The position in dispute, Student and Administrative Support Clerk, in the School of Information
and Communications Technology (ICT), at Seneca’s York University Campus, provides student
advisement to over 1900 programming and information technology administration students, in four
2
diploma, two degree and two post-graduate certificate programs, as well as information and advice
about these programs to potential students. The subject matter of the programs is technical,
involving areas such as computer programming, networking and technical support. In addition,
the incumbent provides administrative support for the faculty, program coordinators, co-operative
education coordinators and the Academic Chair of the School. The PDF estimates that the
position’s duties advising students and supporting faculty take up 65% of the time, while the
administrative support duties take up the remaining 35%.
Ms. Baker provides first line contact for academic advice. She may refer students to others who
provide further advice including academic program coordinators and other faculty members as
well as Mary-Lynn Manton, the School’s Co-Chair, and Ms. Baker’s supervisor. A primary
objective of Ms. Baker’s position is to limit the burden on program coordinators and faculty. There
are two other office workers in the School of ICT, the positions of Secretary/Administrative Support
and the Clerk, Faculty & Administrative Support/Reception. The employees in these positions look
after student questions, referrals and administrative support that are more routine than the issues
dealt by the incumbent in the position in dispute.
The PDF
The Position Description Form or PDF is not in need of a ruling in this matter. The union had earlier
requested changes in its wording related to the two issues in dispute, Experience and Service
Delivery. Nonetheless, it has not requested a ruling on the wording of the PDF specifically, as it
acknowledges that its dispute with the employer is more about the point rating for the factors dealt
with below. It would prefer that the qualification section would read: “[Five years clerical and office
experience, including at least] three years of progressively responsible experience in assessing
student needs with respect to employment.....,” but no issue is taken with the rest of the wording
under “Experience”.
In the part of the PDF which focuses on Service Delivery, the union is of the view that the first
example captures the work that Ms. Baker does in terms of problem solving and advising. However,
the Union feels it is too generic to allow a meaningful rating. While the union had suggested another
example, the current wording was acceptable in the end, as long as the points are captured
correctly.
3
Factors in Dispute
The two factors in dispute are Experience and Service Delivery, dealt with in turn below.
1. Experience
The Manual describes the Experience factor as follows:
This factor measures the typical number of years of experience, in addition to the
necessary education level, required to perform the responsibilities of the position.
Experience refers to the time required to understand how to apply the knowledge
described under “Education” to the duties of the position. It refers to the minimum time
required in prior positions to learn the techniques, methods and practices necessary to
perform this job. This experience may be less than the experience possessed by the
incumbent, as it refers only to the time needed to gain the necessary skills.
Notes to Raters:
1. Do not consider any experience that is part of a certification process or field time
required for membership in a professional organization, designation or requirements for
a license.
2. This factor does not measure the actual experience of the incumbent.
The parties’ positions are as follows:
College Rating: Level 4, Minimum of 3 Years’ Experience
Union Rating: Level 5, Minimum of 5 Years’ Experience
[There is no intermediate level for 4 years’ experience.]
The union’s position is that the factor description language measures more than the number of
years required in merely the last progression, most relevant experience or most advanced type
of experience required. This is true to the facts of this case, in the union’s submission, in that, in
order to have the experience requested by the college in the PDF - three years “of progressively
responsible experience, in assessing student needs with respect to employment, career
development and/or education in an adult learner environment” - an incumbent would first need
at least two years of other experience. This includes experience with office and computer
applications, customer service, as well as the typical administrative skills such as time
management and multi-tasking, preferably in an education environment. In this regard, the union’s
brief asks: how would a graduate with no work experience know how to assess other traditional,
international and mature students, including internationally trained professionals, with regard to
their employment or academic success?
4
The union submits that the path to Student Advisement positions at Seneca typically includes as
a first step, at least two years of office and microcomputer application work, completed outside
of, or in part-time positions at the college. Following that, the first full-time job would be an entry
level service area position, typically in Registration, or as a program assistant or secretary.
Following that experience, in the union’s view, incumbents tend to work either as program
schedulers or support services officers, which would be the first position which could be
described as “assessing student needs” as required by the College. However, the union argues
that even if one accepts that an incumbent in entry level college positions, such as program
secretary, clerk or registration clerk, could gain experience in student assessment within three
years in progressive positions where such experience existed, that incumbent would still need
two years of office experience before that entry level position.
In its brief, the union writes as follows in regards to what the incumbent needs in order to do the
job:
In order to advise students and resolve time tabling issues, the incumbent requires a
strong understanding of the programs within the school; admissions and promotion
requirements; mandatory courses, prerequisites and professional options; the nature
of certificate, diploma, degree and post-diploma/degree pathways; the labour market
related to these programs; as well as the policies and procedures related to advance
standing and prior learning assessment, student admissions, registration, scheduling,
wi thdrawal, deferral, promotion, suspension, conduct, academic behaviour and
typical barriers to student retention. The program specific knowledge may be
developed within the three years required, as a program assistant or school secretary,
especially where the incumbent is involved in taking minutes for program advisory
committees, where partners from industry work with program coordinators and chairs
to make changes to curriculum based on emerging skills required of graduates to be
successful within that industry. The information is not overly transferable: hence the
employer requests a diploma in a technology related field, rather than business or
office administration. The incumbent should be able to understand enough about a
program to advise students. Other procedures and policies around withdrawals and
admissions can be learned working in Admissions or Registration, or in positions
within an academic school that works closely with Admissions and Registration
advisors. However, an incumbent needs two years of office, clerical or customer
service experience before being hired into either of these typical pathway roles.
The union notes as well that the PDF asks for excellent communication (written and verbal),
time management, organization, interpersonal skills, in addition to the ability to motivate, set
priorities, resolve conflicts, initiate one’s own learning, with superior problem-solving,
initiative, and adaptability. The union submits that these skills are essential, especially as the
incumbent spends most of her time advising students with problems, rather than the general
population of students. The students that Ms. Baker deals with often have accommodation
requirements or other special needs, and may be upset, angry, panicking and/or desperate,
5
in need of being calmed down. Given the relatively large number of students in the ICT
school, accommodation issues are a frequent issue. In the union’s submission, the excellent
problem solving and communication skills required are consistent with a more senior service
officer, with at least five years’ experience.
While the union fully acknowledges that one is to rate the position rather than the incumbent,
the union notes that Ms. Baker more than meets these requirements, and brings a
background which is very typical of other student advisors in terms of the length and
combination of experience prior to hiring. The path she followed includes over 28 years in
the College. She worked in the College Finance department as a clerk for three years,
developing effective computer skills and experience. She was then Secretary to the Dean
and Chair of Computer Studies, for eight years, followed by computing jobs where she
learned the practices and processes related to assessing student and academic program
needs. These positions included database and administrative support for the School of
Health Sciences clinical placements, for two years, and five years within the Co-operative
Education department. Following this, she worked one and a half years as a research
assistant on a student success project funded by the provincial government, tracking the
retention of first semester accounting students, and then two and a half years as a research
assistant in Seneca’s Institutional Research department, where she became more familiar
with student retention issues and trends.
For its part, the employer argues that the three year minimum experience requirement is all
that is necessary to perform the job, which is what the factor is aimed at measuring. Noting
that the educational requirement for the job is at least a two-year post-secondary diploma in
a technology-related field of study, the college maintains that the three years of progressively
responsible experience in assessing student needs is required to ensure that new hires are
mature and professional, have reasonable knowledge of the post-secondary education
environment and have well developed skills such as communication, time management,
problem-solving and planning.
The employer is convinced that these requirements are likely to be obtained in three years
of relevant and progressively responsible work, and that any experience gained in a further
two years would be far less significant than the experience gained in the first three years.
The employer submits that the Support Clerk is not expected to give in-depth advice because
the position is a clerical or supportive position rather than a position responsible for giving
academic advice. The employer’s brief stresses that this is an important distinction to the
6
College, and that the College does not expect the Support Clerk to:
a) address the vocational implications of program or course choices except in the most
general terms, in particular given the technical nature of program and course subject
matter;
b) be aware of and give students input based on knowledge of current
labour/employment market trends relevant to the School’s programming;
c) be aware of and give students input based on knowledge of professional certifications
and their relevance to industry;
d) mediate or facilitate conflicts with faculty by encouraging positive dialogue; and
e) engage with students and faculty in the academic and non-academic discipline
process.
In short, the College expects the Support Clerk to bring “calendar level knowledge” to bear on the
advisory process and, where the advice requires deeper knowledge, to refer students to academic
staff. The employer characterizes the advice the College expects the Support Clerk to give as
tending to be form-driven and focused on administration.
The employer submits that the union’s position, which would require adding two years’ office
experience to the three years of “student-facing” experience required in the PDF, is inconsistent
with the terms of the Manual. This is because, in the employer’s view, the definition of experience
in the manual limits its focus to relevant experience. It is the employer’s position that this is
reinforced by the further elaboration in the factor description that refers to the minimum time
required in prior positions to learn the techniques, methods and practices necessary to perform this
job. The factor description is structured to measure the time required to understand how to apply
the knowledge acquired by way of formal education to the duties of the position. The employer
argues that this reflects a choice not to measure all work experience after graduation, such as
whatever experience might be required to get the job that enables a person to understand how to
apply the knowledge described under the Education factor.
The employer does not disagree about the importance of the word “typical”, but maintains that the
union’s approach misses the focus of the factor description language on time to learn, a word which
is linked to skills development or knowledge development as opposed to other kinds of experience,
linked always to what is relevant to the job in question. In the PDF, adult -learning is the focus of
the requirement. The employer disagrees with the union about the assertion that a successful
applicant would already have to be familiar with all the details of the schools’ programs, submitting
that such knowledge could be gained in detail after being hired.
7
The employer sees the union’s proposal as expanding what is currently being asked. Counsel
argues that jobs which the union describes as “entry level” such as program secretary, clerk or
registration clerk are all jobs with contact with learners which would qualify as jobs with relevant
experience, as long as the experience was progressive, which I take to mean incrementally more
responsible for duties relevant to the position in question. In this respect, the college disputes the
union’s premise that two years’ experience is universally necessary to hiring into a relevant job at
the College. As examples of entry-level positions with a one-year experience requirement that
could qualify, the employer mentions bookstore clerk or placement clerk, jobs from which an
employee could progress in the way the college is seeking.
***
With the parties’ submissions in mind, I turn to the experience requirements specified in the PDF,
to consider what the appropriate rating level is when the factor description language is applied to
it. In this particular PDF, the experience requirement has several elements to it, only one of which
is expressed in years. The wording particular to this job in the section of the PDF reserved for
experience is as follows:
Three years of progressively responsible experience in assessing student needs with
respect to employment, career development and/or education in an adult learner
environment.
A demonstrated understanding of post-secondary education and the principles of adult
learning are required, gained through education or experience. Demonstrated
understanding of the college system is preferred.
Must have demonstrated the following skills and abilities: excellent communication (written
& verbal), time management, organization, interpersonal. Must have the ability to motivate,
ability to set priorities, conflict resolution, self -direction with ability to initiate own learning,
superior problem-solving, initiative, adaptability, ability to respond to student and/or School
needs effectively and in an appropriately timed manner. Must have the ability to transfer
program planning and advisement skills across a variety of programs.
Demonstrated ability to effectively use MS Office software (Word, Excel, PowerPoint,
Outlook) and various database systems.
The factor description language invites raters to estimate the “typical” number of years of
experience, in addition to the necessary education level, required to perform the responsibilities of
the position. This is not something for which precision is available, especially as individual paths
to acquisition of any particular set of job skills vary considerably, according to many variables, such
as where and when they were gained, and how quickly a specific person learns and transfers
8
knowledge from one situation to another. In addition, the parties appear to agree that the job in
dispute is somewhat unique.
The level of education specified in the PDF is a two-year post-secondary diploma in a technology-
related field of study, or equivalent. The question to be answered here is how much time is required
to learn how to apply the knowledge gained in the education phase to the duties of the position.
The factor description guides raters to consider the minimum time required in prior positions to
learn the techniques, methods and practices necessary to perform the job. Neither party disputed
that the factor language is aimed at relevant experience. However the parties disagree on what is
appropriately counted as a minimum level of experience.
The union highlights that the wording of the part of the experience requirement that is linked with a
number of years, i.e., the first paragraph of the quotation set out above, represents the highest level
of experience required in order to do the job. Indeed it is very specific, calling not just for experience
in generic assessment of, or exposure to, students, but “progressively responsible” time, assessing
student needs, again not generically, but very specifically “with respect to employment, career
development and/or education”, and not just anywhere, but specifically “in an adult learner
environment.” The union’s approach in essence asserts that the three years of assessment
experience is not the real minimum required. There are a number of other skills listed in the
following paragraphs, for which additional time is necessary, particularly in light of the fact that an
applicant would typically not be able to get into a job with such specific assessment duties without
time in more generally relevant employment, which both parties referred to as “entry-level”
positions. It is the union’s position that the factor description language calls for the inclusion of the
time necessary to acquire all the necessary experience, not just the most advanced level.
The employer’s approach, by contrast, is to focus on the most relevant experience, as specified in
the first portion of the PDF entry above, and the fact that the factor description language is centred
on what experience is necessary to do the particular position in dispute – the techniques, methods
and practices necessary to perform this job. Further, it is the employer’s position that the union is
attempting to expand both what the PDF requires and what the factor description measures beyond
what is most relevant to the specific position. In essence, the employer invites acceptance of the
three years specified in the PDF as a minimum level of experience, especially in light of the fact
that the employer would accept “student-facing” experience in entry-level jobs, such as the
bookstore, as a starting point of the required progressive experience. This presumably involves
including all the other skills listed within the three years of experience assessing student needs.
9
Reviewing the other elements of the experienced required, one finds in the second paragraph what
I will call adult education experience, expressed as a demonstrated understanding of post-
secondary education and the principles of adult learning, preferably related to the college system.
In the third paragraph there is a detailed list of what I will call interpersonal and workload
management skills, including capacity for excellent communication, time management, motivation
of others, resolution of conflicts, and ability to transfer program planning and advisement skills
across a variety of programs. Last, but presumably not least, one finds the technical skills essential
to a modern office such as demonstrated ability to effectively use office software and database
systems.
The wording of the factor description language invites a separation, for rating purposes, of
knowledge gained in the education component from what is counted by the experience factor. The
union submitted, without contradiction, that the office practices required for the job in dispute would
not be part of a technology diploma. Further, there was no suggestion that one would typically
learn prerequisites such as the principles of adult learning or skills related to assessing students
for employment and educational needs, motivation of others, resolution of conflicts, program
planning or advisement skills in a program leading to a two year technology diploma. One would
at least be familiar with the adult educational environment from such a program, and might have
absorbed some of the other things for individual purposes, but would have to acquire the remaining
skills in other periods of time.
Part of the employer’s case was the assertion that, in practice, the college would consider a job
such as a retail clerk in a college bookstore to qualify as a starting point for the progressively
responsible experience in assessment of students in relation to career, employment or education
in an adult learner environment. If it were the case that there was no other “student-facing”
experience available in the applicant pool for a particular position, one can imagine that this would
be acceptable. Nonetheless, the evidence indicates that this is not the kind of experience typically
required in practice to be hired into a position such as the job in dispute. Further, there is no
evidence that it actually entails the kind of assessment of students the PDF states as a pre-
requisite. However, it could be part of the experience necessary to acquire the further detailed
requirements of the PDF related to more generic office and workload management skills.
In this case, the specific nature of the requirements of the PDF leads me to conclude that the most
accurate rating of what the employer formally requires is achieved by counting all of the experience
required, rather than the most advanced portion of it, i.e. the three years of very specific experience
related to the assessment of students in relation to career, employment or education in an adult
learning environment. The factor description language directs raters to count the minimum time
10
required in prior positions to learn the techniques, methods and practices necessary to perform the
job. I have listened carefully to what the employer submitted the position is not expected to do,
and what the employer might accept as “student-facing” progressive experience if called upon to
do so. As well, I accept that, in order to allow for the possibility of external hiring, the program
knowledge specific to Seneca and the ICT School should be taken to be able to be learned on the
job. However, in the PDF, the employer nonetheless requires extensive skill and experience
beyond what would typically be learned in the three years of employment required where the
employee has already been entrusted with assessing student needs, or after hire. The ordinary
sense of the words used there does not communicate that the pre-requisites of experience related
to adult education, conflict resolution, ability to transfer program planning across programs and
demonstrated ability to effectively use office software and databases was somehow intended to be
obtained during those three years. Further, and more importantly in the end, the evidence
persuades me that it is not typical for the cumulative experience required to be trusted to perform
a job such as the one in dispute, advising students on how to re-arrange their schedules, education
and careers, to be gained in less than five years of post-education experience. As the typical
number of years of experience required to perform the responsibilities of the position is what the
factor description is aimed at, I find level 5 to be the better fit, based on the evidence before me.
In the result, for the reasons set out above, the rating for experience should be raised to Level 5.
Service Delivery
This factor looks at the service relationship that is an assigned requirement of the position. It
considers the required manner in which the position delivers service to customers and not the
incumbent's interpersonal relationship with those customers. The level of service looks at more
than the normal anticipation of what customers want and supplying it efficiently. It considers how
the request for service is received, for example directly from the customer, through the Supervisor
or workgroup or project leader, or by applying guidelines and processes. It then looks at the degree
to which the position is required to design and fulfil the service requirement.
The College has rated this factor at Level 2, while the union argues for Level 3.
Those levels are described as follows in the Manual:
2. provide service according to specifications by selecting the best method of delivering
the service.
3. Tailor service based on developing a full understanding of the customer's needs.
11
The Notes to Raters provides the following clarification of the differences between Levels
2, 3 and 4, the latter included for comparison’s sake:
Level 2 - service is provided by determining which option would best suit the needs of
the customer. The incumbent must know all of the options available and be able to
explain them to the customer. The incumbent selects or recommends the best option
based on the customer's need. There is no, or limited, ability for the incumbent to
change the options. For example, positions working in the Financial Aid area would
need to fully understand the various student loan programs that are available and based
on a student's unique situation select or recommend the program that would best
address the student's financial situation. The incumbent does not have the ability to
change the funding programs, which are established by an external agency.
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 service(s) before the customer is aware of the need.
In speaking of tailoring, the Manual’s definition governs, as follows:
To modify or adapt with special attention in order to customize it to a specific
requirement.
The Union argues that the majority of the incumbent’s duties require tailoring to student needs, and
thus should be rated as Level 3 for this factor. The union brief describes how the duties of the
position in regards to advising students are typically delivered. A student may make an appointment
inside Ms. Baker’s office, during which the incumbent must listen to the individual’s story, problem
or situation, ask questions to gain a full understanding of their needs, and then tailor advice or a
customized timetable to assist them in resolving their individual concerns. This includes students
with special needs or situations. In the union’s view, it is only the non- routine students who require
the incumbent’s advice and assistance. Most students either have set timetables without the option
of changes, such as in first semester, or choose their own using automated scheduling applications.
Examples highlighted by the union in its brief include students who need specialized English
upgrading courses which conflict with their professional courses, those who need to repeat a
course, and fit it into their next semester offerings where it conflicts with other mandatory courses,
and others who need to avoid classes at certain times of the day due to medical or family reasons.
It is only after developing a full understanding of those needs that the incumbent is in a position to
advise the student about possible solutions such as deferring courses without jeopardizing
12
necessary prerequisites or co-op eligibility requirements, attending Continuing Education evening
course offerings, or finding a way to switch sections in a number of courses, with an individualized
domino effect, in order to customize a timetable that works for that particular student. The Union
submits that this is a service that is best rated at level 3.
The incumbent has the ability to move students up on waiting lists for certain courses where
accommodation is required, or where a student’s night class was canceled or graduation would be
unreasonably delayed. In addition, the grievor is able to add students to a class that is full by over-
riding the maximum number of students, while maintaining balance and classroom restrictions such
as number of computers in a lab. The incumbent can also transfer, add or drop students in courses
after the deadlines, in order to resolve a problem such as a tuition billing issue or grading issue,
which prevented the student from registering normally and on time. The union submits that while
first-semester student time tables are practically set in stone, the incumbent can make changes,
based on the imperative inherent in the student’s story, at her discretion. She also has to make
decisions about whether or not students are eligible to be re-af filiated to a specific program, or
whether they have to reapply for entrance in the program through the Ontario College Application
Service. This decision is based on their past course enrolments, performance, whether or not they
still need to complete courses to graduate and changes to curriculum since they last attended
college. These actions qualify as the ability to “substantially modify what is delivered”, in the union’s
view, and therefore warrant a Level 3 rating.
Further, the incumbent also advises students relating to advanced standing requirements, the
college’s informal and formal appeal processes, fee invoicing, academic or personal problems, or
accommodation needs. Examples given in the union’s brief include: A student floundering in key
courses, wondering about dropping out, another with a personal crisis affecting attendance or study
plan, those with a complaint about a teacher or a grade. In each case, the student explains the
situation, while Ms. Baker listens attentively and then asks questions in order to fully understand
the situation. In the union’s submission, she then provides tailored advice regarding solutions,
explanation and/or processes. She frequently must calm, encourage or motivate the student,
seeing on average three to four anxious or upset students, daily, during peak periods. In the union’s
submission she may be required to gently and sensitively lead a student into taking responsibility
for an academic issue or disappointing grade, in order to prevent an appeal that will be time
consuming for the Chair and a committee of coordinators and faculty brought in to hear it. She may
also be required to liaise between the student and the program coordinators, explaining the
student’s situation, where exceptions or strategies need to be authorized at that level. She must
fully understand both the student’s problem and the coordinator’s concerns in order to tailor this
service effectively.
13
Reviewing the examples on the PDF in the section reserved for Service Delivery, the Union
estimates that at least 70% of the duties of the position in dispute require developing a full
understanding of individual needs and tailoring the service provided. The union calculates this as
including most to all of the tasks involved in the first box of “Duties and Responsibilities” : advising
potential students about programs, subject alternatives, admission requirements, and other matters
related to academic policy and procedures (50%); half of those in the second box: liaising with
program coordinators and co-op coordinators, especially around individual students’ issues (5%):
half of those in the third box, including responding to requests for specific data from program
coordinators or the Academic Chair (12.5%) and half of the remaining duties (2.5%).
The Union also observes that College programs across the province are rigorously audited for
retention and graduation rates, affecting both funding and program viability, so that it is essential
that the incumbent advise students with a full understanding and appreciation of their individual
needs, to help remove barriers and keep them in school and on track for successful learning.
By contrast, the employer finds level 2 a better fit, as the incumbent helps students by following a
well-defined service process with well-defined options. For instance, the incumbent assists
students to choose between programs and courses, and understand requirements for those
choices, which are defined and cannot be changed, such as entry requirements, course
prerequisites, costs, dates for adding or dropping courses, and academic appeal procedures and
requirements. The College asserts that the position is very analogous to the example of the
Financial Aid officer in the notes to raters at level 2, where a full knowledge of the options is
required, but there is limited ability to change them. The employer maintains that what is required
of the incumbent is “calendar level knowledge” which fits well with this example at level 2.
As to the personal problems presented by students, the employer acknowledges that empathy is
one of Ms. Baker’s many strong points. Nonetheless, it is the employer’s position that the
incumbent’s job is to identify one of the well-defined solutions at the incumbent’s disposal to deal
with them. These include advising the student to speak to the professor, access tutoring, or help
with study skills, academic development, personal counselling or a learning disability assessment,
changing sections to resolve a scheduling conflict, dropping a course before the deadline so it will
not affect the student’s grade point average, complete a grade change form, or go to the financial
aid office for funding assistance.
The union accepts that what is required is calendar level knowledge, but is of the view that that is
a complex level of knowledge that requires customization in how it is presented and applied to the
14
individual student’s situation. The students who seek the incumbent’s advice have not been able
to synthesize the information in the calendar to solve their own situation. Like the program
coordinators and other academic personnel who advise students, the calendar is the basis of the
advice; there is not some secret source of information, in the union’s view. However, the union
emphasizes that there is a lot more to the job than handing out forms and referring students on to
speak to faculty or program coordinators. The incumbent is responsible to gather information,
make decisions, and deal with the student in an individualized way, which the union sees as “totally
tailoring”.
***
To start, I note that the general instructions in the Manual acknowledge that more than one level of
a factor may fit a particular job. Evaluators are instructed to read each of the factor level definitions
until one appears to capture the elements of the job set out in the PDF. Then, one is to consider
the next level up and determine which is the “best fit”, based on the entire factor definition. It is very
common for there to be reasonable differences of opinion as to which is the best fit when there are
aspects of the job which are captured by more than one level.
The factor description language for levels 2 to 4 is set out above. Those descriptions express
distinctions in the range of autonomy and responsibility in individualizing or customizing the service
the position provides. Level 2 positions select or makes recommendations from pre-determined
options according to specifications, at level 3 an incumbent tailors the service or its delivery to the
customer’s particular circumstances. This is to be understood as less than designing services,
which attracts the next higher level 4. So, in my view, level 3 does not require thinking up or
structuring new services. Accordingly, the level 3 wording “Substantially modify what is delivered”
or “customize the way the service is delivered” presumes more limited options than level 4. Further
informing the distinctions is the important wording “according to specifications” at level 2 as
opposed to “based on developing a full understanding of the customer’s needs” at Level 3.
As discussed at the hearing, the dispute here boils down to a difference of interpretation of the
meaning of the word “tailor” used in the Level 3 factor definition. Tailor is defined in the Manual, as
set out above as “to modify or adapt with special attention in order to customize it to a specific
requirement”. Further direction is given in the Notes to Raters, where we are told that tailoring
involves asking questions to develop a thorough understanding of the customer’s situation. Then,
based on this understanding, the position is “able to customize the way the service is delivered OR
substantially modify what is delivered so that it suits the customer’s particular circumstances.” I
hav e highlighted the “or” in that passage, because it is important to the difference of opinion in this
case. The employer emphasized throughout that what is delivered is not subject to change by the
15
incumbent. For example, the incumbent is not able to change the course or program requirements.
She must know what is available, and explain that to the students. However, even if the incumbent
does not substantially modify the programs, or what is delivered, she is entitled to Level 3 if she
must question the client to obtain a full understanding, and then use that to customize how the
service is delivered.
The section of the PDF regarding service delivery indicates that requests for service are received
from several sources - student requests for guidance, complaints from staff, faculty and students,
and requests for in-house event planning. As to how the service is carried out, the PDF states that
the “incumbent must ask relevant questions to determine the nature of the student problem and
provide guidance to lead the student to a viable solution”, with frequency indicated as daily. Items
with a weekly frequency are maintaining the schedule by identifying and replacing courses and
dealing with complaints by troubleshooting and solving the problem. On a monthly basis, the
incumbent is required to deal with requests for event planning. Portions of the Duties and
Responsibilities section of the PDF provide additional detail, such as that the incumbent is a
member of the professional staff, exercising a high degree of independent judgment and initiative,
required to advise students concerning programs and alternative means available for addressing
student needs and goals. She is to provide immediate support and direction to students
experiencing difficulty with the transition to college, including personal and financial issues. The
incumbent is to follow established procedures and guidelines and help to establish new ones. She
investigates and assesses student status with respect to transfer between programs and schools.
Examples in other areas of the PDF indicate that the incumbent works day to day on her own
initiative, following general objectives, that there is always room for judgement in things like the
degree of help given to students, and that special circumstances are always possible given unique
student requirements driven by their background and personal issues. The PDF further states that
the incumbent is regularly confronted with immediate problems concerning curriculum
requirements, which require independent, often creative, solutions.
This is a case where details of the job straddle the levels requested by each part. Level 2 is a
sufficient description of certain parts of the job, including advising of program requirements, giving
out forms for course changes, or advising that someone else must be consulted about a decision
on advanced standing, as those functions are mainly selecting the best among limited options to
meet the customer’s need. Obviously, in a finite world, options are never unlimited, but Level 2
describes a situation much closer to the zero end of the spectrum than the PDF and oral evidence
describe. Someone who has the authority to determine how much help to give a student, arrange
for moving up in a wait list, or re-arranging schedules based on personal needs of the students has
16
a larger ability to change options than the example in the Notes to Raters for Level 2 of
recommending one of externally defined student loan programs, which there is no power to change.
Further, the specifications of those financial aid programs are the main driver of these choices. By
contrast, the incumbent in the position in dispute has a wider range of topics and problems on which
she advises, involving more variables to deal with, and discretion as to how to deal with any
particular problem.
As well, the uncontradicted evidence is persuasive that the incumbent must ask questions to
develop an understanding of the customer’s situation on a regular basis, which corresponds to the
elaboration of Level 3 in the Notes to Raters. Finding a solution may or may not require customizing
in any given case, but the incumbent is relied on at all times to be able to customize in the sense
of modifying or adapting to the specific requirements of the student’s circumstances when needed.
I also accept that the range of problems and discussions involved in the incumbent’s work calls for
tailoring of the conversation itself to the needs of the student and the situation, an important part of
the service provided, which qualifies as part of the “special attention” included in the Manual’s
definition of tailoring. For instance, when a student complains of a grade, she interviews the student
in detail, and then has the discretion to refer them on to an appeal, and/or help them understand
why they might decide not to do that, and explore dealing with the consequences in other ways. I
find that these duties go significantly farther than the Level 2 duty to provide service according to
pre-set options and specifications.
Overall, I am persuaded that the incumbent meets the requirements of the notes to raters at Level
3 in that she is regularly required to customize how the service is delivered, especially when she is
faced with students who need immediate help due to personal problems, or those who require
ongoing help to navigate their way through the College program. I find that this part of the job is
not fully captured at Level 2. In the end, I find Level 3 for the factor Service Delivery to be a better
fit for the incumbent’s position as more fully capturing the entire range of the duties of the position.
Therefore, the rating for Service Delivery should be raised to Level 3.
***
To summarize, for the reasons set out above, the grievance is allowed.
The rating for the factor Experience should be raised to level 5, and Service Delivery should be
raised to Level 3, regular and recurring.
17
This brings the point rating from 496 to 533, and from Payband G to H. The arbitration data sheet
is attached.
I will remain seized to deal with any problems in implementation of t he above decision, which the
parties are unable to resolve themselves.
Dated at Toronto this 18th day of June, 2015
______________________________________
Kathleen G. O’Neil, Arbitrator
18