Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCooper 95-11-1695A642 COOPER VS FANSHAWE IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: FANSHAWE COLLEGE - and - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF RICK COOPER JANE H. DEVLIN SOLE ARBITRATOR APPEARANCES FOR THE COLLEGE: SHEILA WILSON DEBBIE LAEVENS APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION: LOUISE WATT RICK COOPER OPSEU FILE NO.: S95A642 HEARING DATE: November 3, 1995 The Griever, Rick Cooper, is currently classified as a Caretaker A at pay band 2 and seeks reclassification as a Caretaker Atypical at pay band 5. Although the parties agree on the duties and responsibilities set out in the PDF, they disagree about the approximate amount of time spent on particular job functions. The primary area of disagreement appears to relate to the amount of time spent by the Griever assisting with fumiture moving. In my view, however, even on the Griever's description of his job duties, this function would not account for 48% of his time as proposed by the Union. Moreover, time spent on cleaning entrance mats in the winter months necessarily varies with weather conditions and given that the percentage of time is clearly expressed to be approximate, 1 am not prepared to alter the time for this duty proposed by the College. Nevertheless, based upon the evidence, I cannot conclude that the Grievor spends 7% of his time or, in other words, approximately one-half hour per day, unlocking classrooms and inside doors and hoisting the flag. While there was some dispute as to whether the Griever ever unlocks doors, it is apparent that he performs the duties referred to only in the absence of other caretaking staff. In the result, I agree with the Union that these duties more accurately account for 3% of his time. The remaining 4%, therefore, shall be allocated to cleaning and refuse removal in the daycare centre as it is apparent that the Griever presently spends considerably more than one-half hour per day carrying out these duties. However, if the College determines that no more than one-half hour is required to perform this work, then the remaining 4% shall be included in one efthe Griever's ether jeb duties and I shall remain seized if there is any issue in this regard. I am not prepared to alter any efthe other percentages eftime reflected on the PDF. The factors in dispute are as follows: Factors College Rating Union Rating Complexity 1 2 Judgement 1 2 Physical Demand 3 4 Sensory Demand 1 4 Strain from Work Pressures/ Demands/Deadlines 1 4 Responsibility for Decisions/ Actions 1 2 Work Environment 3 4 The Grievor cames out his j ob duties in the area of the main campus where he is involved in moving fumiture and equipment; picking up, delivering and replenishing supplies and putting away stock in the caretaking storeroom. As well, he performs cleaning duties in various areas, including the computer laboratory and the daycare centre, and removes refuse. Although the Griever also testified that he changes light bulbs and unclogs toilets in the daycare centre, Debbie Laevens, the Manager of Caretaking Services, testified that these duties are the responsibility of the maintenance staff and the plumber, respectively. In any event, although some of the Griever's work is regularly scheduled or camed out pursuant to work orders, he is also required to respond to emergencies or other priority situations involving duties such as the clean-up of spills or the removal of broken glass. In the winter months, the Griever also cleans entrance mats and assists with snow removal. As well, in the absence of other caretaking staff, he performs duties such as hoisting the flag. It was the position of the College that the Grievor's job duties are accurately described and evaluated in the guide chart for the classification of Caretaker A and that, as a result, there is no necessity for core point rating. It was the position of the Union, however, that in a number of respects, the Grievor's job is atypical and, accordingly, must be core point rated. I tum, then, to the factors in dispute. 1. Ceml~lexitv As indicated previously, the Grievor's job entails the performance of routine cleaning and porter duties. In my view, these duties do not involve related steps, processes or methods which are characteristic efjebs at level 2. Instead, the Griever's duties involve routine tasks which are both straight forward and repetitive in nature. Moreover, although there may be interruptions in the Griever's regularly scheduled duties, in my view, these are more appropriately considered under the factor of Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines. Accordingly, in the factor of complexity, I find that the Griever's position is properly rated at level 1. 2. Judgement The evidence indicates that the Grievor receives regular work assignments from either the Lead Hand or Ms. Laevens and that he is generally provided with specific and detailed instmctiens regarding the work to be done. Although in some cases, the Griever is given more than one work order at a time, Ms. Laevens testified that this would only occur with minor tasks such as dusting, removing stains or delivering boxes. Moreover, although the Griever is paged by the control centre to respond to emergencies or other priority situations, these calls are also radioed to Ms. Laevens who provides instructions or clarification, where appropriate. In these circumstances, therefore, I find that there is little room for the exercise of independent judgement and that there is no need for analysis in problem solving. Accordingly, in this factor, a rating at level I is also appropriate. 3. Physical Demand This factor measures the demand on physical energy required to complete tasks. In particular, consideration is given to the type, duration and frequency of physical effort as well as the strain resulting from rapid and repetitive fine muscle movements or the use of later muscle groups and the lack of flexibility of movement. There is no doubt that the Grievor's job is a physically demanding one involving, as it does, moving fumiture and equipment. Nevertheless, these duties also appear on the guide chart for the classification of Caretaker A and, accordingly, in this respect, it cannot be said that the Griever's job is atypical. Moreover, although the Griever testified that he has in the past moved full filing cabinets, Ms. Laevens testified that a memorandum has been issued to staff indicating that filing cabinets will not be moved unless the drawers have been emptied. She also testified that she has personally attended when fumiture was being moved and repeated this advice. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the Grievor is required to move other heavy items and, where appropriate, he is assisted by another staff member. Given me frequency with which he performs this work, however, I find that heavy physical effort is required on an occasional rather than recumng basis as defined in the job evaluation manual and, accordingly, a rating at level 3 is appropriate. 4. Sensorv Demand This factor measures the demand on mental energy while performing tasks and, in my view, there is nothing in the evidence which would support any departure from the rating for Caretaker A. In this factor, therefore, the rating shall remain at level 1. 5. Strain form Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines The PDF indicates that the Grievor may be involved in more than one project or assignment at a given time and that meeting deadlines may be difficult depending on the frequency with which he is paged to respond to emergencies or other priority situations. In these circumstances, I find that a rating beyond level 1 is warranted as at that level, the work pace is consistent and predictable and interruptions and workflow fluctuations are infrequent. Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that a rating at level 4 is appropriate as proposed by the Union and, instead, 1 find that the position is properly rated at level 2. Although this is beyond the rating for Caretaker A, there is not in the guide chart to indicate that incumbents are generally subject to interruptions or fluctuations in work flow similar to those experienced by the Grievor. In this respect, therefore, I find that his position is atypical. 6. Responsibility for Decisions and Actions This factor measures the impact on intemal and public relations, the responsibility for information management, equipment, assets and records and the consequences of decisions and/or actions. As with a number of other factors, I can find nothing in the oral or documentary evidence to support any departure from the rating for Caretaker A. Accordingly, in this factor, the rating shall remain unchanged at level 1. 7. Work Environment The evidence indicates that in carrying out his job, the Grievor is exposed to noise, dust, dirt and variations in temperature. He may also be exposed to poor weather conditions when unloading tracks, disposing of refuse and making deliveries between buildings. Nevertheless, it would appear that incumbents of the Caretaker A classification are exposed to similar elements and I can see no basis for departing from the rating for that classification. Accordingly, a rating at level 3 is appropriate. In summary, then, in respect of the factors ill dispute, I fin(1 that the Grievor's position is properly rated as follows: Complexity 1 Judgement 1 Physical Demand 3 Sensory Demand 1 Strain from Work Pressures/ Demands/Deadlines 2 Responsibility for Decisions/ Actions 1 Work Environment 3 Based upon this rating, the total points for the Grievor's position increase from 181 to 192. However, this does not result in an increase in pay band and accordingly, apart from any remaining issue as to the percentage of time allocated to a particular job function, the grievance is dismissed. DATED AT TORONTO, this 16th day of November, 1995. Jane Devlin Sole Arbitrator *SEE ORIGINAL FOR ATTACHMENT A (ARBITRATION DATA SHEET)*