HomeMy WebLinkAboutKuca 88-00-00 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
between
GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 557
Classification Grievance of Laura Kuca
Sole Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Anne Lillepold, Human Resources
For the Union: Mary Anne Kuntz, Grievance Officer
Hearing:
George Brown College
November 28, 1988
AWARD
INTRODUCTION
The grievor, Laura Kuca, is a Programmer/Analyst in the Integrated Business Systems Department. She
claims in her grievance, dated December 2, 1987, that she has been improperly classified as a Programmer
Analyst C and seeks reclassification as a Systems Analyst. The Union claims that the grievor should be
reclassified as a result of the fact that, from August of 1986 continuing through to December of 1987, she
was consistently assigned projects which, in the Union's submission, typically belong to the job family of
Systems Analyst.
During the time that she was performing these duties she competed unsuccessfully for a vacancy in
the Systems Analyst position. Following her grievance the College hired 2more Systems Analysts and some of
the projects on which the grievor had been working were assigned to these employees. The Union claims that
these facts support the conclusion that the grievor was, during the time in question, performing duties more
appropriately classified as those of a Systems Analyst.
The items in dispute and the respective College and Union ratings of these items are as follows:
College Union
Job Difficulty E6 F6
Guidance Received E4 E5
Communications E3 E4
Knowledge
Training E6 F7
Working Conditions
Visual Strain C3 B3
FACTS
In support of her claim for reclassification the grievor relied primarily on work that she performed
on two projects. One of these was described as the Design and Development of the College Library System.
She worked on this from September 1, 1986 until March 25, 1987. The other was described as a Feasibility
3
Study of the Inventory Control System on which she worked from March 26, 1987 to September 15, 1987. Other
projects worked on and which the Union claims to be projects involving the performance of the duties of a
Systems Analyst were: Design Test Procedure for Migration of Inventory Control and Equipment Maintenance
Systems (July 22/87 to August 25/87), Requirements Definition for New Eden Student Records System (October
26/87 to December 7/87.
During the period in question the grievor also worked on other tasks which were admittedly of the
sort which fell within the duties of a Programmer Analyst C. However, these duties only occupied her for
approximately 10 15% of her time.
The library project was assigned to the grievor by her supervisor, Dr. Michael Stone who apparently
was responding to a request from the Department of Library and Audio Visual Services asking that a system be
put in place which would integrate an automated library system, which the College had purchased, with two
other systems which were already in existence. These two systems were an employee information system and a
student information system which kept track of borrowers. The grievor's assignment was, in her words, to
~design a system which exchanged information between the automated library system and the other two
systems.~
Initially this project was assigned to a Systems Analyst, Mr. 6. Ewing. When he was re assigned to
another project it was given to the grievor. However, the progress reports on this project indicate that
Mr. Ewing continued to be involved in various meetings associated with the completion of the project.
She created a rough draft of a project plan which set out in outline form a number of phases
(analysis and information gathering, design, programming, testing, implementation, and audit phase) and
designed the initial system. Next she did a data flow design which represented the design of the system
showing the inputs and outputs. After this phase was completed the project moved into the next phase where
the programs were written. However, the grievor did not write these programs. Rather, they were written by
other programmer/analysts although the grievor provided them with some guidance with the program logic and
testing.
The Feasibility Study of the Inventory Control System involved the grievor in an analysis of the
current inventory control system, a definition of the problems in the system, a determination of alternative
4
solutions based on a cost benefits analysis and a recommendation of a solution. In this regard she prepared
a historical background of the project, a Feasibility Study Project Plan (which consisted of some 4
handwritten pages outlining the various phases or steps that would have to be undertaken) and participated
in some walkthroughs of the Feasibility Study Project Plan.
0nly the first two steps of the Project Plan were completed and ultimately this project was put on
hold and the grievor removed from it. Subsequently it was assigned to one of the Systems Analyst that was
hired sometime during the summer of 1987 although apparently still remains on hold.
The project concerning the New Eden Students Record System was also initially given to the grievor
and subsequently re assigned to a Systems Analyst. It is not clear what specifically the grievor did in
connection with this project.
The grievor's supervisor at the time that this project was done was Dr. Michael Stone. However, as
Dr. Stone is no longer employed at the College, Mr. John Henderson, the grievor's current supervisor, gave
evidence on behalf of the College concerning this project. He had knowledge of these events as he was a
programmer/analyst working in the same department as the grievor at the time.
It was his view that the function of ~analysis~ is one which is performed over a wide scope of
activities and takes place on a number of levels; that all 3 grades of Programmer/Analyst perform ~analysis~
as does the Systems Analyst. What distinguishes them is the level of analysis involved and the fact that
the Programmer Analysts tend, typically, to engage in more specific kinds of analysis while the Systems
Analysts are involved in broader projects with elements of planning, design and the creation of whole
systems.
He stated that none of the projects on which the grievor worked, and upon which the Union relies,
had elements which took the duties outside those of a Programmer Analyst. Specifically, with reference to
the library project, he saw this as taking ~the simplest kind of information~ from one program, the
automated library system that had been purchased, and integrating it into two other existing systems. He
agreed that some ~analysis~ was required but that it was analysis of a comparatively simple and
straightforward kind, not of the level which would be expected of a Systems Analyst.
The review and supervision of the grievor's work occurred largely through weekly meetings of the
5
Department, attended by Dr. Stone, the Systems Analyst and the 6 Programmer Analysts. At these meetings Dr.
Stone would request members of the department to report on the projects on which they were working. In
addition to the weekly meetings guidance was provided through the ~walkthrough~ of a project at its various
phases. Mr. Henderson described the ~walkthrough~ as a ~peer review~ process wherein the person who is
responsible for a project or a phase in a project seeks input from others involved in the project. The
~walkthroughs~ are normally attended by the Systems Analyst who identifies problems which have not been
resolved and brings them to the attention of Dr. Stone. Dr. Stone did not attend the ~walkthroughs~.
While working on these projects the grievor's primary contacts, other than with the Systems Analyst
or Dr. Stone, were with the Director of the department that was requesting the service from the Integrated
Business Systems Department. Thus, on the Library project, her contact was Rita Edwards, the Director of the
Library and Audio Visual Systems Department. It is agreed that Directors of Departments are regarded as
~middle management~ personnel. Her external contacts were with one Yvonne Schlosser at DOBIS, the supplier
of the automated library system, with vendors, and with personnel in computer services departments of other
community colleges. The grievor was unable to say whether or not these people occupied senior management
positions.
DECISION
1. Job Difficulty
The dispute centres around the factor of complexity. The Union claims level F ~..problem solving
requires adapting analytical techniques and development of new information on the problem condition.~ The
College has classified the grievor at level E ~...tasks that may require the application of specialized
processes or methods.~
I find it difficult to consider the duties performed by the grievor as involving her in the
~adaptation~ of analytical techniques~ or the ~development of new information~. Essentially she was engaged
in a process of ~analysis~ of information. That was certainly true with respect to the Feasibility Study of
the Inventory Control System. With respect to the Library Project she was engaged to a greater extent in
some ~design~ functions. However, I am unable to conclude that, in this respect, she was engaged in any
~adaptation~ of analytical techniques. Rather she was essentially ~applying~ an analytical ~method~ or
6
~process~ to the task before her. Moreover, with both projects, there was no ~development of new
information on the problem condition~. On the Library Project she was required to design a system which
would integrate the information on existing systems. Similarly, her work on the Inventory Control Project
involved primarily an analysis of the existing system with recommendations for change.
This conclusion can be supported by reference to the 6uide Charts the Systems Analyst family and the
Programmer/Analyst family. What they indicate is that Systems Analysts are engaged in tasks which are much
broader in scope than those of a Programmer/Analyst. The job family for Systems Analyst is described as
covering positions of employees who develop or revise %ystems~ for the College and prepare %ystems~
proposals, provide technical direction to assigned staff on a project basis and ~assume responsibility for
all phases of a project~.
It cannot be said that the grievor, in the carrying out of her work on the Library Project and the
Inventory Control Project, fell within that description. In each case the tasks were relatively specific
and did not place her in a position of responsibility for all phases of the project. Nor could it be said
that, to the extent that she assisted other programmer/analysts with the programming of the design of the
Library Project, she provided ~technical direction~ to staff
It is equally difficult to conclude that the grievor's duties brought her within the typical duties
of a Systems Analyst as set out in the 6uide charts, viz, ~designs and develops computer systems...plans and
co ordinates projects to implement systems...provides liaison with user departments to ensure effective
utilization of systems.., etc. ~ Common to these duties is the notion that the duties involve entire
~systems~ rather than specific projects within a system.
Conversely, it is relatively easy to fit the duties performed by the grievor on these projects
within those set down in the guide charts for Programmer/Analyst, viz, ~analyses effectiveness of existing
systems~ (Feasibility project)..~analyses problems in terms of applications, systems and programming
requirements~...~develops codes and tests programs to meet requirements~...~implements small systems or
subsystems~....~determines input/output and systems requirements~
2. 6uidanee received.
7
The issue under this factor is whether or not the nature of review is a ~general form of review for
achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines~ or whether work is reviewed only
for ~achievements of broad objectives, effectiveness of results and to ensure integration with the work of
others.~
For the reasons set out above with respect to the lob Difficulty factor I do not consider that, in
the context in which we are speaking, the objectives to be met by the grievor in the performance of her
duties to be ~broad~ objectives as required by level 5. While there is a sense in which it can be said the
investigation of an inventory control system involves a broad objective, it is, in the context of the
overall systems planning of which this project was a part, a ~specific~ objective.
Moreover, the evidence indicates that the process of review, through the weekly meetings and the
~walkthroughs~, exposed the grievor to a level and degree of review, either by the Systems Analyst or by Dr.
Stone, which was specifically oriented to the particular task on which she was engaged and the stage at
which she was at in that task. Thus, there was a degree of specificity to the review which renders it
impossible to consider it as falling under level 5 as claimed by the Union.
3. Communications
The issue here raises a question concerning the proper approach to be taken where the evidence and
the Position Description Form is inconsistent with the manner by which this position is ~benchmarked~ in the
Core Point Rating Matrix. That Matrix indicates that both the System Analyst and the Programmer/Analyst C
are benchmark jobs for level E4, which the Union claims as appropriate. That level requires that contacts
be primarily with employees at senior management levels within the Colleges and outside the Colleges.
It is clear both from the Position Description Form and from the evidence that the contacts which
the grievor had, both within and outside the College, were, at best, with middle management personnel. That
would signify that she should be classified at level E3, as the College submits.
The Union maintains that, whether or not the position is classified as a Programmer/Analyst C or as
a System Analyst, in either case the Core Point Rating Matrix indicates that, for this factor, E4 is the
appropriate rating.
8
The short answer to this claim is that, in respect of this factor, this position at George Brown
College is atypical. Consequently, it becomes necessary to assess the proper rating having regard to the
core point rating plan. As indicated, when that is done it becomes clear that the rating assigned by the
College for this factor is the appropriate rating.
4. Knowledge: Training and Experience.
The Union claims that this position should be rated at level F7, viz, ~skills normally acquired
through attainment of a four year university degree or equivalent~ and ~more than eight years of practical
experience~. The College has rated the position at level E6, viz, ~skills acquired through attainment of a
three year community college diploma or equivalent~ and ~up to eight years of practical experience~.
In support of this rating the Union argues that the grievor is entitled to this rating since she has
been assigned tasks performed by the Systems Analyst, which is one of the jobs %enchmarked~ for the F7
rating. It was argued that if the grievor did not have the requisite competence and experience to perform
the tasks assigned the College would not have so assigned her to perform these tasks.
There are a number of responses to this argument. First, it appears to be an argument based on the
qualities and competence of the grievor and not one based on what is required of the position. Care must be
taken to keep these two quite separate ~evaluations~ distinct. Secondly, since I have concluded above that
the tasks assigned to the grievor were not of the order of breadth and complexity comparable to those
assigned typically to a Systems Analyst, the argument fails on that account.
The Union also submitted that regard should be had for the fact that, since the grievor was a
graduate of the program at George Brown College and had worked at the College since her graduation, she was
uniquely prepared to respond to the various user needs of the College. This too appears to be an argument
based on the unique qualifications of the incumbent and bears little relation to the question of the
training and experience required for the position.
I am satisfied that the rating assigned by the College for this factor is correct.
5. Working Conditions: Visual Strain
9
The College rated the position at C3, viz,~considerable~ visual concentration required, while the
Union rated it at B3, viz, ~moderate~ concentration required.
It is evident that each of the parties rated the Visual Strain factor in a way which would accord
with the position taken on the other, and more heavily weighted factors. Thus, it was in the interest of
the College to regard the grievor as spending a relatively large proportion of her time engaged in
programming at the computer terminal. Similarly, it was in the interest of the Union to claim that visual
strain was only moderate since the grievor was, in the Union's submission, engaged more actively in ~systems
analysis~, away from the computer terminal.
Although I have concluded that the grievor was not performing functions that permit her to be
classified as a Systems Analyst, the evidence does not persuade me that, for the period in question, she was
experiencing visual strain to a degree which would justify the rating normally appropriate for
Programmer/Analyst C. The duties which she was performing involved her in activities away from the computer
terminal. However, that fact, in and of itself, does not lead to the conclusion that those duties were the
duties of a Systems Analyst. For the reasons set out above they lacked the necessary features which would
justify regarding them as such.
Thus, I conclude that the factor of Visual Strain should be rated at B3.
In summary, it is my conclusion that with the exception of the factor of Visual Strain, the rating
of the College should be preferred in respect of all other factors in dispute.
In the result the grievor's core point rating should decrease by 8 points to a level of 777 points.
Consequently, the grievor remains in pay band 12 and the grievance is dismissed.
10
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this day of , 1988
G.J. Brandt, Sole Arbitrator