Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPropper 16-01-08IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: Fanshawe College (“the College”) and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (“the Union”) Classification Grievance of Christine Propper ARBITRATOR: Mary Lou Tims APPEARANCES: FOR THE COLLEGE: Julie McQuire – Employee Relations Consultant Wanda Jacobs – Manager, Career and Employment Services Kasia Magier – Human Resources Consultant FOR THE UNION: Ron Kelly – Classification Steward Christine Propper – Grievor A Hearing was held in London on December 10, 2015. AWARD The grievor, Ms. Christine Propper, holds the position of Customer Service Representative (“CSR”), Career and Employment Services (“CES”), at Fanshawe College. Her position reports to Ms. Wanda Jacobs, Manager, CES. Ms. Propper’s February 24, 2015 grievance challenges the content of the Position Description Form (“the PDF”) and alleges that her position was improperly classified at Payband E. It seeks reclassification to Payband G. In accordance with the collective agreement, pre-hearing Briefs were filed by the parties. In addition, I heard the evidence of the grievor and Ms. Jacobs at the hearing a nd the submissions of the parties’ representatives. By way of background, the CES office is located in a rented facility in Simcoe shared with partner agencies including Service Canada and the Norfolk Association for Community Living. At all relevant times, CES staffing included the Manager, a Job Developer, four Employment Consultants, a Workshop Facilitator, and two Customer Service Representatives. The parties described that CES, in partnership with Employment Ontario, delivers a number of services and programs to aid Norfolk County unemployed find work. The College described as follows the CSR position held by the grievor: (T)he focus of this position is to provide client and support services to Career and Employment Services. This includes both telephone and in person reception, information and referral support to partner agency clients as well as to Career and Employment Services clients. The incumbent supports the Career and Employment Services team by providing secretarial, clerical, payroll and accounting services, and by coordinating the summer placement project. The PDF sets out the following “concise description of the overall purpose” of the CSR position: Under the supervision of the Manager, the incumbent provides customer and support services including secretarial, clerical, payroll, purchasing and accounting services to the Career and Employment Services Department (CES). The incumbent also coordinates the summer placement project and provides reception, information, and referral support to partner agencies housed in the Employment Centre. 2 The PDF describes as follows “the significant duties and responsibilities associated with the position” as well as the “approximate % of time annually” committed to the performance of such duties: Provides Customer and Support Services to the Career and Employment Services Department by: 50% . . .  Providing reception services by dealing with a variety of people in person, via the telephone and online  Serving as first point of contact for inquiries or complaints regarding employment services; attempting to respond to/resolve issues; passing non-routine matters to appropriate staff or manager  Ensuring a response is provided to inquiries and/or applications within Ministry timelines  Providing reception, information, and referral support to partner agencies housed within the Employment Centre . . . . . .  Assisting clients to complete initial paperwork  Redirecting clients to appropriate services in the community . . .  Scheduling clients into workshops . . .  Facilitating the student placement process by providing support to students on placement in the CCES department when required . . .  Assisting clients and staff with use of computers including accessing search engines for job search  Providing basic computer trouble-shooting and problem solving assistance. . . . . . Supports departmental contractual obligations t o funders such as MTCU by:  Entering and maintaining information in databases provided by funder  Gathering, compiling and maintaining statistical information  Maintaining departmental profile on websites including those of the funders  Creating queries within databases in order to extract information necessary for planning and decision making . . .  Delivering prepared information sessions on all government funded programs/services to Service Canada clients 3 . . .  Works with manager on budget and planning of expenditures. Monitors the expenditures to ensure expenditures are within allocated budget . . . Provides accounting, purchasing and (part-time) payroll services for department…. 30% Coordinates Summer Jobs Services Program by: 15%  Receiving, assessing eligibility, and responding to employer and client applications and inquiries  Determining funding levels for placements using decision-making model approved by Manager . . .  Sending approval packages to employers  Answering inquiries from clients and employers  Monitoring receipt of paperwork required to be able to initiate payment within deadlines  Matching students with jobs along with Job Developer . . . Provides backup support to other areas . . . 5% Performs other related duties as assigned The rating of the following six factors is in dispute here: Analysis and Problem Solving, Planning/Coordinating, Guiding/Advising Others, Independence of Action, Communication and Physical Effort. ANALYSIS AND PROBLEM SOLVING: The College rated Analysis and Problem Solving at level 2, regular and recurring and level 3, occasional. The Union seeks a rating of level 3, regular and recurring. The Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (“the Manual”) states that “this factor measures the level of complexity involved in analyzing situations, information or problems of varying levels of difficulty; and in developing options, solutions or other actions.” The Manual provides the following definitions: 2. Situations and problems are easily identifiable. Analysis or problem solving is straightforward. Solutions may require modification of existing alternatives or past practices. 4 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 state as follows: At level 2, the work performed is still quite structur ed, 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 past practice cannot be applied. . . . 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 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 . . . does not necessarily mean that level 3 would apply. For example, if dealing with a question regarding a “hold” on a student record, the incumbent might have to check several screens on the student record system to see if it is a financial hold, or an academic hold, and might even have to contact the academic or finance department for an answer. However, these are procedural steps that should be followed one by one until the problem is identified and solved. 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 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 addressed a number of examples that it suggested reflect regular and recurring level 3 analysis and problem solving. The evidence established that the grievor assists Ms. Jacobs in the monthly review of the departmental budget. Ms. Jacobs testified that the grievor brings her any items not posted on the system so that she “knows where we are at.” She confirmed as well that the grievor is asked to source costing information. The Union noted that Ms. Propper has been assigned a “special class” level of access by the College’s Financial 5 Services department which allows her to “look things up.” The evidence further established that the grievor spends between one and three hours daily assisting clients who come into the office, in addition to responding to telephone and online inquiries. In doing so, she asks questions to determine what CES services and/or community based services should be recommended, and where more assistance is needed, an Employment Consultant is asked to meet with the client. The Union also described the grievor’s role in responding to inquiries from the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (“the Ministry”) about information recorded on the Ministry’s web based database. The evidence established that the grievor enters information onto the database. If a Ministry representative calls the CES office with questions about information posted, the grievor sometimes answers such questions, but is expected to refer the question to Ms. Jacobs if the matter is complicated. In my view, to the extent that such examples reflect analytical and problem solving roles, these fit well within the level 2 factor definition. Situations and problems are “easily identifiable,” and analysis and problem solving is “straightforward”, although “solutions may require modification of ex isting alternatives or past practices.” It is the grievor’s responsibility for the coordination of the Summer Job Services (“SJS”) program, however, that the Union emphasized in seeking a higher rating of this factor. The Duties and Responsibilities section of the PDF states that the grievor determines “funding levels for placement using (the) decision-making model approved by (the) Manager.” The PDF includes as an example of regular and recurring Planning/Coordinating the coordination of the SJS project “to ensure all program requirements are met within the required timelines.” Included in the PDF as an occasional example of Analysis and Problem Solving is the grievor’s responsibility to respond to “employer claims for more stipends than originall y approved for.” The College noted that this relates to the SJS program and that it was on the basis of this example that it awarded an occasional level 3 rating. The PDF states that upon receiving such requests from employers, the grievor defines the sit uation or problem by reviewing the “overall project allocated budget vs actuals paid out to determine whether there are dollars available to approve additional claim amount.” According to the PDF, the analysis undertaken to determine a solution involves review of the “signed agreement to identify 6 agreed conditions,” and of the “overall project allocated budget and actual expenditures to identify available funds.” The PDF is clear that the incumbent in the position “speaks to” the Manager about possible additional payments. The College acknowledged that the CSR “needs to collect additional information” in responding to employer claims for additional stipends, although it stated that “there is no requirement to seek information from areas or resources that are not normally used in the role.” According to the PDF, “sources . . . available to assist the incumbent (in) finding solution(s)” include signed agreements, guidelines, management system reports, consultation with the Manager and past practices. Ms. Propper described her responsibility for determining funding levels for SJS program placements, both at the front end and throughout the period during which the program operates. There is no dispute that the grievor performs such role within a number of clea rly defined parameters. The Ministry determines the available budget and identifies targets for the number of job placements and workshop participants to be achieved. Ms. Jacobs approves final numbers. The scope of the program is defined by the Ministry. Eligibility requirements for employers and students are set by the Ministry. It is the Ministry that determines that the stipends available through the program are $2 per hour , and that positions can be funded for a maximum of forty hours per week, for a maximum of sixteen weeks. A decision making model developed by Ms. Jacobs is used by the grievor in determining funding levels, and it is understood, by way of example, that more hours will be allocated to the higher skilled trades positions. The parties agreed that eligible applicant employers are “sorted” into defined “sectors” by the grievor, and that the number of positions approved per employer and the number of hours approved per position is uniform and consistent for all employers within a sector. Within such detailed framework, however, it is the grievor’s responsibility to undertake the analytical exercise of determining the precise number of positions and the number of hours per position to be funded for each employer within each sector. As noted by Ms. Jacobs, despite significant constraints surrounding questions of eligibility and funding, these do not “dictate how much we specifically give to each type of employer.” The results of the grievor’s analysis and her “problem solution” are subject to her manager’s approval, both at the front 7 end of the program when initial funding decisions are made, and throughout the program, when changes are made. Ms. Jacobs acknowledged, however, that given the quality of the grievor’s work, she has not found it necessary to change what has been presented to her for approval. The grievor testified that she starts with a “blank template” in the context described above to determine funding levels for applicant employers. She described that this is more than an arithmetical exercise and requires analysis of budget, targets, the decision-making model, and program guidelines in determining initial funding levels to be forwarded to her Manager for approval. The grievor described that she “looks at hours and numb ers and positions,” works with the numbers within the given constraints, and determines caps to be applied with respect to hours and positions within each sector. Notably, such exercise is not a one-time endeavour engaged in prior to the startup of the SJS program. Rather, funding levels are addressed and considered “many times throughout the program” in response to changed circumstances. Approved employers may, in some instances, not submit the required documentation, may not hire despite having been approved for funding to do so, or may not hire the full number of positions for which funding was awarded. The grievor described the resulting need to “constantly” analyze the budget and to re-allocate available dollars. Both parties acknowledged the importance of responsibly maximizing appropriate use of available Ministry funds. The grievor’s evidence was that she allocates funds that become available in any number of circumstances during the course of the program, by approving an employer on a waiting list, by approving positions beyond the initial numbers approved, or by allocating funds evenly over each employer sector. The College recognized that the grievor’s role in addressing employer requests for additional stipends in the SJS program involves occasional level 3 Analysis and Problem Solving, requiring further inquiry in order to define situations and problems, and problem solving through the collection and analysis of “additional information .” In my view, the position also engages in that sort of analysis and problem solving when determining funding levels at the outset of the SJS program and then “constantly” throughout its duration. Specifically, the evidence established a need for further inquiry in precisely defining identifiable situations and 8 problems, and for gathering and analyzing additional information including program requirements and guidelines, budget approvals, allocated budget, and past practice in problem solving. While the College accepted that an occasional level 3 rating is appropriate here in recognition of the position’s responsibility for addressing employer requests for additional stipends in the SJS program, it noted that there is no need for the CSR to collect and analyze additional information from “areas or resources which are not normally used by the position.” Although the Manual definition of level 3 Analysis and Problem Solving states that some information required for problem solving “may be obtained from” sources not normally used by the position, and while the Notes to Raters state that level 3 contemplates that “there will be times when the position will need to seek additional information from a source it is unfamiliar with,” I conclude that the level 3 factor definition is the best fit here in capturing the analytical function required of the CSR in determining funding levels for the SJS program. As contemplated in the Notes to Raters, problems encountered are “readily identifiable but the position must be able to identify when additional information is needed to clearly understand the problem. . . .” Further, in solving problems associated with the determination of funding levels both before and during the operation of the program, “the position will need to gather,” consider and analyze “more information.” The analytical role played by the CSR in determining funding levels is not fairly characterized as “straightforward.” Rather, the evidence established an analytical exercise better described as requiring the “gathering (of) information” and the “analyzing (of) each new piece of information in relation to the other pieces.” The grievor testified that she “constantly” engages in this sort of analytical exercise not only at the outset of the SJS program, but over the duration of the program each year. I find that this factor should be rated at level 3, regular and recurring, and I so order. PLANNING/COORDINATING: The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring and level 3, occasional. The Union submits that it should be rated at level 3, regular and recurring. 9 The Manual states that this factor measures “the organizational and/or project management skills required to bring together and integrate activities and resources needed to complete tasks or organize events.” It provides the following definitions: 2. Plan/coordinate activities and resources to complete own work and achieve overlapping deadlines. 3. Plan/coordinate activities, information or material to enable completion of tasks and events, which affect the work schedule of other employees. “Affect,” according to the Manual, means “to produce a material influence upon or alteration in.” The Notes to Raters state 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 PDF includes as an example of occasional Planning/Coordinating coordination of staff coverage for promotional events. The College noted that it was on the basis of this responsibility that it awarded an occasional level 3 rating. The Union acknowledged that the grievor coordinates staff coverage for promotional events only occasionally. It suggested, however, that when such responsibility is viewed together with other planning and coordinating roles required of her position, a level 3 regular and recurring rating should be awarded. The grievor testified in this regard that for three months in 2012, department staff was asked to send her “any items they needed assistance with,” so that she could prioritize such requests for assistance for an employee affected by a bumping process. The Union acknowledged, however, that this was a unique “one off” situation with no suggestion that it 10 formed part of the position’s regular duties and responsibilities on even an occasional basis. It is not an appropriate basis for rating this factor. The grievor stated also that she is sometimes asked to arrange staff coverage. She referred to e-mail exchanges between Ms. Jacobs and herself addressing the need to cover lunch periods in the Resource area on specific dates. Such administrative scheduling tasks do not, in my view, reflect level 3 “organizational and/or project management skills.” In support of its claim for a higher regular and recurring rating, the Union also relied upon the grievor’s work with the Social Service Worker Placement Student in the CES office. The parties agreed that a Social Service Worker placement is offered to a student in the second year of the Social Service Worker program at the College. The student placement is in effect for the academic year, with the student typically spending three days per week in the office. The parties agreed that the student spends some time observing experienced staff perform their work, and some time performing tasks. The evidence established that staff members are asked to identify appropriate opportunities for the student to observe their work, and that a schedule is compiled and posted accordingly. The evidence also established, however, that Ms. Propper “gathers tasks” from other employees who indicate to her the priority of their work. The grievor then prioritizes and assigns such work to the student, and sometimes assigns tasks with which she requires assistance. While I accept that there may at times be competing claims for priority among the tasks to be completed by the student, the grievor’s role here is essentially one of communicating tasks assigned by others. This example does not, in my view, demonstrate the planning and coordinating of activities to enable task completion affecting the work schedule of others. Having considered what the parties agreed is an occasional level 3 Planning/Coordinating role in coordinating staff coverage for promotional events in the context of the evidence in its entirety, I am unable to conclude that the grievor engages in level 3 Planning/Coordinating on a regular and recurring basis. The College’s rating of this factor at level 2, regular and recurring and level 3, occasional is confirmed. 11 GUIDING/ADVISING OTHERS: The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. The Union submits that it should be rated at level 3, regular and recurring, and level 4, occasional. The Manual states that this factor “refers to any assigned responsibility to guide or advise others. . . in the area of the position’s expertise. . . . This is beyond being helpful and providing ad hoc advice. It must be an assigned responsibility and must assist or enable others to be able to complete their own tasks.” The Manual provides the following 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. Other relevant definitions included in the Manual are as follows: Guide - demonstrates correct processes/procedures for the purpose of assisting others with skill development and/or task completion Advise - has the authority to recommend or provide knowledgeable direction regarding a decision or course of action 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 While the Notes to Raters do not address level 2 Guiding/Advising, they distinguish between levels 3 and 4 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. 12 The Union argued that the grievor offers level 3 guidance and advice to the Social Service Worker placement student. The PDF describes the grievor’s role in this regard as follows: With input from the Employment Consultants, guides SSW Placement student with assigned tasks to ensure tasks are competed correctly and in a timely manner. Compiles information from the Employment Consultants and includes own assessment of student for progress reports. Reviews with student and answers any questions. Provides progress report to Placement Officer who reviews and provides the student with feedback and recommendation for a course of action if improvement is required. The grievor described the sort of guidance that she typically provides placement students. She testified that she “shows” students “how to talk to clients to draw out information.” She explained that she tells a student making a follow up call to a client to ask if the client is working, and if he is not doing so, if he is receiving training or in school. She tells the student to ask the client if he would be interested in returning to the CES service, and to provide her telephone number to the client so that she can provide further assistance. The grievor testified that she also “teaches” students how to write a client note after such a call. The Union suggested that the grievor’s role in student evaluations also reflects level 3 Guiding/Advising. Ms. Propper described that twice each term, she compiles and records the comments of other staff and adds her own observations to a student evaluation. She discusses the completed document with the student before submitting it to the Program Placement Officer for follow up. The Union also relied upon what it characterized as a “training” role in support of its claim for a level 3, regular and recurring rating. The grievor’s evidence was that she “trains” new staff in the office. A document entitled “Training for Customer Service Representative – Resource Information Centre” records that the grievor is the “trainer” with respect to basic orientation information including such matters as office opening and closing procedures, and photocopier and phone procedures, as well as the review and signing of confidentiality and Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy policies and program targets and information. 13 The Union argued as well that the grievor “trains on higher level functions” and that this reflects occasional level 4 Guiding/Advising. The grievor described in this regard that she “trains” new staff on computer systems such as the Case Management System (“CAMS”) and tracking systems. In addition, she described that she “troubleshoots” with existing staff. Having considered all of the evidence, I conclude that the College’s rating of this factor should be confirmed. When the grievor assists placement students with tasks such as telephoning clients and noting such calls, she demonstrates correct processes or procedures so as to assist students with task completion. This is properly reflected in a level 2 rating. I have carefully considered the grievor’s role in the evaluation of p lacement students, a task performed twice per semester. The grievor was assigned the task of completing the formal evaluation form. While this in part entails compiling the comments of others, the grievor also contributes her own observations to the evaluation. It is the grievor who then sits down and reviews the evaluation with the student. The evidence established, however, that her role in doing so is a limited one. There is no suggestion that she plays an advisory role, or more specifically, that she has “the authority to recommend or provide knowledgeable direction regarding a decision or course of action” as contemplated by the level 3 factor definition. Rather, the PDF states and the evidence supports that the completed evaluation is forwarded to the program Placement Officer, and that it is that individual who is expected to offer advice and recommendations to the student where appropriate. The grievor also testified, and a document entitled Training for Customer Service Representative reflects, that she participates in what can be fairly characterized as the orientation of new staff to the CES office. She ensures that privacy policy training modules are completed and signed off, she gives a tour of the office, addresses matters such as openi ng and closing procedures, photocopier, fax and phone procedures, supplies, staff meetings, and the “basics” of the programs offered through the office. I am not convinced that such responsibility reflects anything beyond level 2 Guiding/Advising. The evidence also established that the grievor assists new staff with the CAMS system and tracking systems, a role which the Union suggested warrants an occasional level 4 rating. Ms. Jacobs described that new staff completes computer training modules on CAMS and that 14 newly hired employees are expected to possess the requisite skills for the ir jobs. While the grievor assists new staff members in computer use, and specifically use of applicable software, I conclude from the evidence that she demonstrates correct processes and procedures for the purpose of assisting others with task completion in doing so. The grievor also assists existing staff in troubleshooting related to such programs, but I am not convinced that this involves guiding and advising beyond level 2. There was no evidence of a requirement for “ongoing involvement” in the progress of others as contemplated by the level 4 definition, and nor was there evidence of authority to “recommend or provide knowledgeable direction regarding a decision or course of action” as contemplated at level 3. Having considered all of the evidence, I conclude that a level 2, regular and recurring rating captures the position’s responsibility to guide and advise others, and that no higher occasional rating is warranted. I confirm the College’s rating of this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. 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. The Manual states that “this factor measures the level of independence or autonomy in the position.” It notes that the following elements are to be considered:  the types of decisions that the position makes  what aspects of the tasks are decided by the position on its own or what is decided by, or in consultation with, someone else, such as the supervisor  the rules, procedures, past practice and guidelines that are available to provide guidance and direction The Manual defines level 2 and 3 Independence of Action as follows: 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. 15 A “guideline,” according to the Manual, is “a statement of policy or principle by which to determine a course of action.” The Notes to Raters distinguish between levels 2 and 3 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. The Union argued that the higher rating sought here is warranted on the basis of the CSR’s role in determining funding levels in the SJS program. In so arguing, the Union did not contest the College’s submission that “position duties are completed according to established procedures” as contemplated by the level 2 factor definition. It asked me to find, however, that there are no “specific guidelines” upon which SJS funding decisions are made. On that basis, it argued that a level 3 regular and recurring rating is the best fit here. The PDF reflects, and the Union accepted, that SJS funding determinations are always subject to management approval. The Union argued, however, that “this does not take away from the fact” that it is the grievor’s responsibility to “set them in place.” While Ms. Jacobs acknowledged limited latitude in the College’s determination of how funds are to be specifically allocated to employers within the SJS program, the College was clear that the funding formulations prepared by the grievor for her manager ’s approval are made in accordance with what it regards as a number of specific guidelines. It emphasized that funding determinations within the SJS program are largely dictated by the Ministry’s budget ary allocation, Ministry targets, Ministry eligibility criteria, Ministry determinations of maximum stipend, maximum number of hours funded per position, and maximum number of weeks funded per position, and that the College is required to allocate the budget made available to it within such defined and “specific” guidelines. The College noted that the grievor and Ms . Jacobs have worked together “for years,” and that Ms. Jacobs has confidence in the grievor’s work. If this gives the appearance of latitude in decisions undertaken by the grievor’s position, 16 the College impressed upon me that funding decisions associated with the Ministry’s SJS program are made and are required to be made “following specific guidelines” within the meaning of the level 2 factor definition. Based on the evidence before me and the parties’ submissions, I am not persuaded that the higher factor rating sought by the Union is warranted here. As addressed in the Analysis and Problem Solving section of this decision, I recognize and accept that the grievor engages in an analytical and problem solving role in determining SJS funding levels for her manager’s approval, and specifically in determining caps on number of positions and number of hours per position to be funded per employer. While Ms. Jacobs recognized that applicable program guidelines and requirements leave to the College some limited latitude in its specific allocation of the funding made available to it, the evidence, including that of the grievor, established that there are a number of specific guidelines that significantly guide her analysis and decision making. I am not convinced by the Union on the basis argued before me that the CSR determines SJS funding levels “following general guidelines to determine how tasks should be completed” and am not satisfied that a level 3 rating would be the better fit. The College’s rating of this factor at level 2, regular and recurring is therefore confirmed. COMMUNICATION: The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. The Union seeks a rating at level 3, regular and recurring. Relevant definitions found in the Manual are set out 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. Explain – provide details or examples to help others better understand the information Interpret – explain or tell the meaning of; translates; convey the meaning of something The Notes to Raters distinguish as follows between levels 2 and 3: 17 “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 describes that the CSR provides information on CES services and other community employment services, explains changes to forms and systems, and delivers information sessions with respect to programs and services. The Union relied on these and additional examples of communication addressed through its evidence. The evidence established that the grievor provides support daily to the Resource Centre. She testified that she “trains” clients with respect to the use of various software programs such as Winway Resume, website use, online assessment tools and online applications. She explained that she also assists clients with resume and/or cover letter creat ion, and offers “interview tips” to clients, such as suggestions with respect to appropriate dress. Ms. Jacobs gave evidence that the CES offers clients “user friendly programs.” She described that Winway, for example, provides a user friendly template for resume creation. She acknowledged that the grievor assists clients with software and online tools, insofar as she helps users open programs or access sites. She explained that if an individual is unable to use a computer, the Winway template is provided in paper form. Ms. Jacobs stated that technical staff is called if technical difficulties arise. 18 The grievor testified as well that she explains to clients registering for services what the Employment Ontario Information System is, and addresses authorization for disclosure of personal information. The grievor explains that CES needs client consent before speaking to a prospective employer. The grievor described what the Union characterized as an occasional “training” role in relation to new staff and placement students. As addressed above, the grievor noted that she assists staff on programs such as CAMS. The College suggested that the grievor provides nothing more than “basic technical or administrative information,” and that there is no requirement for her to explain “theory underlying the program or technical computer jargon.” The evidence established as well that the grievor gives presentations to Service Canada clients and to other community agencies. The grievor goes through a power point with which she is provided, and “talks to clients and expands on . . . programs and services.” Ms. Jacobs noted that CES hosts “in depth information sessions” each Friday, and that the grievor is expected to invite those wanting more information to attend such sessions. The Union argued that communication as reflected through these examples is at level 3. It addressed the Notes to Raters, and suggested that the examples relied upon by the grievor demonstrate a need for the grievor to explain matters by interpreting policy or theory in such a way that it is fully understood. The College disputed this, and argued that there is no requirement for the grievor to interpret policy and theory or to explain and interpret information to secure understanding. Level 2 Communication involves the exchange of information that requires “explanation and/or interpretation,” while level 3, Communication involves “explaining and/or interpreting information to secure understanding.” “Explain,” however, is defined as providing details or examples “to help others better understand the information.” The Notes to Raters are of assistance in differentiating between a level 2 and 3 rating. They describe that “explanation” and “interpretation” at level 2 refer to the explanation or clarification of information or data, noting that at level 2, the position exchanges “basic technical or administrative information as the normal course of the job.” In contrast, the Notes to Raters state that “explain” and “interpret” at level 3 refer to “the need to explain matters by inter preting policy or theory in 19 such a way that it is fully understood by others.” The evidence demonstrate d no requirement for the grievor’s position to explain matters through the interpretation of policy or theory. Rather, the examples relied upon by the Union reflect the exchange of basic technical or administrative information. I find that level 2, regular and recurring is a good fit for this factor, and I confirm the College’s rating. PHYSICAL EFFORT: The College rated this factor at level 1, regular and recurring. The Union argues that a level 2, occasional rating should also be awarded. The Manual defines level 2 Physical Effort as follows: The position requires moderate physical effort. “Moderate” is defined in part in the Manual as “pushing, pulling or lifting heavier objects (5 – 20 kg or 11 – 44 lbs). The primary example relied upon by the Union relates to the position’s role in the movement and storage of closed files. The parties agreed that such task in its entirety occupies “a couple of days” each year. The evidence established that at the end of each fiscal year, the grievor removes closed files from office filing cabinets, and packs them into boxes which are placed on a cart. She pushes the cart from the office to a storag e area where she stacks the closed files on shelves. The grievor testified that the fully packed boxes weigh approximately 20 lbs. each and that she moves fifteen to twenty boxes each year. She also removes from the storage area files that are seven years old, loads them on the cart and wheels the cart to a shredding area where those files are unloaded. The grievor also testified that cases of paper are delivered to the office twice monthly. There was no dispute that those boxes weigh more than 11 lbs. each, and the grievor stated that approximately four boxes are delivered each time. Ms. Propper indicated that she is typically in the office area at the time of such deliveries and requests that boxes be appropriately placed. She estimated, however, that approximately three or four times each year, she is not present when paper is delivered, and that she needs to then move the boxes 20 upon her return. She suggested that this involves moving them “maybe ten feet” and takes “a couple of minutes” each time. The evidence also addressed the grievor’s involvement in special events. Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Propper agreed that the grievor generally attends two such events each year, and possibly a third every second year. The grievor described that she typically brin gs a tote box or two to such events containing necessary materials such as a table cloth, brochures, program materials, pens and paper. She testified that a filled tote box weighs 24 lbs.. Ms. Propper stated that she puts a tote on a cart, wheels the car t to the car, unloads the tote into the car, and then, upon arrival at the event venue, unloads the tote from the car, and wheels the cart inside. Further, the grievor described that she spends a “few minutes” each month putting supplies away in the storage room or tidying up the area, sometimes involving lifting heavier objects as defined. The Union acknowledged that some of the tasks described by the grievor are properly viewed as “negligible” if considered in isolation. The Union’s representative, however, suggested that when viewed cumulatively, I should conclude that this position requires moderate physical effort at least 5% of the time. He submits that an occasional level 2 rating is warranted on this basis. The College disputed that the CSR position held by the grievor “requires” moderate physical effort occasionally. Ms. Jacobs noted that it is open to the grievor to ask for assistance, and she suggested that assistance is sometimes given. Ms. Jacobs commented as well that it is open to the grievor to lighten loads that she pushes or lifts. She suggested, for example, that when attending events, required materials can be packed in such a way that no individual tote weighs 11 lbs. or more. Most fundamentally, however, the College submits th at the grievor has not described “significant skills or responsibilities” associated with the position, and that the tasks described occupy minimal time. The College argued on these bases that the occasional rating sought by the Union is not warranted her e. The Manual offers the following guidance: The term “occasional” can be considered in a few different time frames. It can be defined as once or twice a month or three or four times per year. It is important to 21 remember that this term is to be considered when identifying significant skills or responsibilities associated with activities that occur for a short period of time, on a few occasions or sporadically throughout the year. Ultimately, the primary focus is to determine whether the skill, responsibility or activity is of note and as such needs to be reflected in the evaluation. For example, if a description or example in the PDF applies to a skill that is used 5% of the time and is deemed to be a notable element of the position, it should be captur ed at the “occasional” level. However, if a skill is used about 5% of the time and it is not a significant differentiating element, it would not be helpful to assign the “occasional” level to the work being described. No matter how often the activity occurs, however, the skill or responsibility must be important and without it the position duties could not be performed. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that a level 2, occasional rating is warranted here. The Manual is clear that one is to consider “significant skills or responsibilities” or those “of note” in determining if an occasional factor rating is warranted. I agree with the College that activities such as the movement of cases of paper a few feet a few times each year do not reflect skills or responsibilities that are “important” without which “position duties could not be performed.” Further, even if I consider each of the examples relied upon by the Union, the evide nce does not support the Union’s submission that moderate physical effort is required 5% of the time. The most significant task relied upon by the Union is the lifting and movement of closed files. That entire task, including the lifting and pushing components, takes a “couple of days” each year. The PDF form notes that “1 week a year is 2%.” The evidence, even when viewed in the manner most favourable to the Union, does not establish an occasional requirement for moderate physical effort in this position. The College’s rating of the factor is therefore confirmed. CONCLUSION: For the reasons set out above, the grievance is allowed in part. The College’s rating of Planning/Coordinating, Guiding/Advising Others, Independence of Action, Communication and Physical Effort is confirmed, while the rating of Analysis and Problem Solving is raised to level 3, regular and recurring. 22 This results in a change in the point rating from 380 to 403, which falls within Payband F. In accordance with the parties’ collective agreement, payment of the difference between Payband E and F is payable to the grievor by the College retroactive to the date of the presentation of the grievance. I retain jurisdiction to assist the parties with the implementation of this decision. DATED at TORONTO this 8th day of January, 2016 “M. Tims” _______________________________________ Mary Lou Tims, Arbitrator Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification College: rail W/� Incumbent.& d iyk Lre upervisor. 4da VuC425 Current Payband: Payband Requested by Grievor. _(? 1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form: ❑ The parties agreed on the contents d(The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific details are attached. 2. The attached Written Submission is from: • . ne Union ilThe College Factor Afai ient ; ' .._ Union kbtraor EMMMEM -, Regular/ (kpslonal Regula/ OxaSional Regular/ Ikcasional Ra urdng Recurring R=rnng Level Points Level Points Levef Points Level Pants Level Po n5 Level Po nes 1A Educdm ©MNW®MNW©M�� ia. Educdm 3 3 2 Experience 'S 3.sdwkv b 3C, - 8 ®OMEN EMMMEM mmom©®©0m®��i ©MNW®MNW©M�� aturp e . /Wv q/ /S" �o Gri D- ate o -College Representative Union � Re sentative Date % / /� ��—� /71- [ • y :; _J Gtr- a Arbitrator Date of Hearing Date of Award NJ-zl Date 61 Quick Arbitration Manual For Stewards March 2013