HomeMy WebLinkAboutWilliamson 93-00-00 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
between
CENTENNIAL COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 559
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievance
Sheila Williamson
Sole Arbitrator: G. J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Linda Carson, Mgr. Employee Recruitment
Donna Campbell, Director, Staff Dev.
For the Union: Carol Graham, Local President Sheila Williamson, Grievor
Hearing:
Centennial College
November 18, 1993
AWARD
The grievor is a Support Staff Training Coordinator working
in the Staff Development Office under the supervision of the
Director, Ms. Donna Campbell. She is currently classified as a
Support Service Officers A, Payband 8. In this grievance she
alleges that she is improperly classified and seeks re-
classification to Support Services Officer Atypical, Payband 9.
Only one factor, purpose of Communications, is in dispute.
The College rating is level C:
providing guidance, instruction..for the purpose of
explaining various matters by interpreting procedures or
policy."
The union rating is level D: "
problem identification and solution with respect to matters
of considerable importance, requiring tact, diplomacy and
persuasion."
The Position Summary on the PDF (whose contents the parties
agree upon) describes the position as follows:
Develops and coordinates professional development training
projects offered to support staff both internally for the
college and externally through the Central Region Human
Resources Development Group. Assists the Director of Staff
Development and the Staff Development Consultant on faculty
and management projects. Performs a wide variety of
department administrative functions in response to client
groups at all levels both internal and external to the
college. Maintains computer management for all project
records and staff professional development records.
Responsible for producing all correspondence related to
support staff professional development, as well as all
computer generated information on workshop confirmations and
related professional development for all college personnel.
Maintains and monitors department budget accounts.
Generally speaking the position can be broken down into two
broad categories of duties. Approximately 60% of her duties
relate to the initiation, coordination and implementation of
various programs, projects and workshops designed to answer some
identified need of support staff, faculty, or administrative
staff. Of these the majority (45%) involve projects and programs
for support staff for which she is fully responsible.
The other 40% of her duties concern Administration of the
Staff Development Department generally and the audit of the
departmental budget. The particular factor in dispute in this
case does not relate to any of the duties performed in connection
with this aspect of her job.
The aspect of her job that the grievor primarily relies on
in support of her claim is that relating to the development and
implementation of various professional development workshops or
programs for support staff. At the time of the grievance
responsibility for similar programs for faculty and staff was
that of Mr. Leo Spindel and Ms. Campbell respectively and the
grievor's involvement was essentially one of providing assistance
to them.
The grievor is responsible for initiating these workshops.
In some cases she does so in response to an informal expression
of concern from other support staff (something which she
estimated may occur informally between 6-10 times a year and 3-4
times a year through a more formal communication); in other cases
she identifies the need herself through, for example, a survey
seeking input from support staff, and responds to it.
The workshops and programs for support staff are offered
between 3 and 4 times a year during a "PD Week", a term that does
not necessarily correspond to the calendar week but which could,
for example, include a program running for 2 hours a night one
night a week for 5 weeks. Other programs or workshops may be
more concentrated, occupying for example a full day or more. It
is essentially the grievor's responsibility to identify those
needs of support staff that may require attention and to design
and arrange for a program that will address those needs. An
example cited was one in which support staff members from two
departments had approached her about problems they were having
when dealing with difficult situations involving students and
wanted some assistance in improving their skills in relating to
those situations. Other examples were cited from workshops that
were run in the most recent year. One was a workshop on time
management; another was a workshop designed to assist staff
working on the Info desk to handle various requests for
information and the sorts of problems that stem from working as a
"front line receptionist" in a busy area. On average
approximately 15 such workshops are held in each of the three or
4 "PD weeks" of the year.
The grievor is responsible for arranging for "presenters" to
attend at each of the workshops that are run for support staff.
Generally, these presenters are other members of the College
staff and the services they provide are considered to be a part
of their normal duties for which they are paid an established fee
or honorarium that is not subject to any negotiation. However,
on occasion, it may be necessary to invite a presenter from
outside the College. In the year immediately preceding the
grievance that was necessary on 5 occasions. In that situation
the grievor is responsible for negotiating the fee to be paid to
the outside presenter having regard to the budget that she is
allowed for the particular project in question.
The particular aspect of her duties which the grievor relies
on as indicating that she is engaged in "problem identification
and solution..requiring tact, diplomacy, and persuasion" are
those in which she must address various complaints from support
staff and, more frequently, from faculty concerning specific
programs or workshops offered. It was her evidence that
complaints of various sorts arise in every PD week. In addition
to generalized complaints concerning the failure of the College
to provide a workshop on a particular subject that may be thought
necessary by some there are also complaints relating to the
conduct of workshops that are held. These complaints may relate
to denial of entry into a workshop either because of disputed
selection criteria or because of missing a registration deadline
as a result of late or insufficient notice of the workshop.
Complaints may also charge that the content of the workshop does
not reflect what was advertised in the brochure or they may
relate more specifically to the quality of the presenters or to
the specific program offered.
As the grievor's name is on the advertising for these
workshops she is the "point person", the one to whom all
complaints are addressed whether the workshop is one that she has
designed (i.e. a support staff workshop) or a workshop conceived
and planned by either Ms. Campbell or Mr. Spindel. In dealing
with these complaints she attempts to understand the source of
the concern and to defuse any possible confrontation tactfully.
It is my conclusion that the grievance should be dismissed.
I note at the outset that the Guidelines set out in the Job
Evaluation Guide Chart describes the purpose of communications
for both the Support Services Officer A and Support Services
Officer B in the same terms, viz, providing guidance, instruction
..for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting
procedures or College policy". It is the Support Services
Officer C who is described as communicating for the purpose of
"problem identification and solution". Thus, the grievor, who is
classified as a Support Services Officer A, has a significant
burden to establish that she is entitled, in effect, to leap over
one entire classification in the context of this particular
factor.
I have little doubt that the position requires good
communication skills. However, I do not see the grievor involved
in problem identification and solution of the type that is
captured by level D. If one examines the benchmark positions
that have been given this rating, viz, Nurse and Programmer
Analyst, it becomes clear that the kind of problem identification
and solution that is contemplated is much more specific than that
the grievor is engaged in. What she does is essentially
determine, in very general terms, whether or not there is some
need among the support staff for a program that will assist them
in their professional development - and - once having identified
and labelled that need - to organize a workshop that addresses
it.
Nor can I agree that the requirement to address various
complaints that may be made in connection with whether or how
these needs are addressed involves the grievor in "problem
solution" as envisaged by level D. One cannot automatically
describe a complaint about service as a "problem". Were that the
case employees in virtually ever department that offers some
service to other parts of the College would be engaged in
"problem solving". To cite an extreme example the custodian
responsible for ensuring that the parking lots are kept clear of
snow in the winter no doubt faces a barrage of complaints about
the service if the lots are not kept open. Yet no one would
claim that complaints to that employee from other faculty, staff
or students, over the quality of the snow clearance required the
employee to engage in "problem solution". To be fair, the union
in this case, does not make that suggestion either. I merely
cite the example to demonstrate the difficulties associated with
the generalized claim that handling complaints about service
involves problem solving.
The type of communication in which the grievor is involved
falls quite comfortably within the C range. When she is involved
in identifying the need for a program she is essentially
providing "guidance and instruction" as to what is available or
what might be made available. When she is addressing complaints
she is required to "explain" the program that has been offered or
the policies concerning registration for the program. Ideally,
when that explanation is given it will satisfy the concerns of
the complainant. However, for the reasons set out above, I
cannot see that as providing a "solution to a problem".
In the result the grievance is dismissed.
Before leaving this matter I wish simply to record my own
appreciation for the success that these parties have enjoyed in
narrowing the issues in dispute through negotiation. It is, I
believe, a view shared by many that this job evaluation plan is
an exceptionally difficult one to interpret. In general it is
best that disagreements be resolved through negotiation by the
parties. However, that is even more important in these cases
since resort to an arbitrated solution to the problem leaves the
matter to a third party who, at best, is left with a set of very
imprecise standards by which to be guided. It has been my good
fortune that, in the last two cases that I have heard between
this College and this local, the issues in dispute have been
reduced to those on which the parties are in fundamental, but
honest, disagreement. The process for these parties has not, I
am pleased to note, exhibited the extravagantly high or
extravagantly low ratings that the job evaluation scheme appears
to tolerate. For that these parties deserve congratulation.
Dated at LONDON, ONT. this day of , 1993
G. J. Brandt, Arbitrator