Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBennett 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 SERVICES EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 559 (hereinafter referred to as the Union) Classification Grievances: Allen Bennett Robert Sinclair Sole Arbitrator: G. J. Brandt Appearances: For the College: Ms. Hazel Carson Mrs. Annetta Protain For the Union: Robert Sinclair Allen Bennett Hearing: Centennial College September 22, 1993 AWARD The grievors, Robert Sinclair and Allen Bennett, are both A/V Technicians, who report to the Director, Ashtonbee and Warden Resources Centres. In this grievance they claim that they are incorrectly classified as Technician B, Payband 7 and that they should be reclassified as Technician B, Atypical, Payband 8. The ratings of the various job factors by the parties is as follows: College Union Job Difficulty C3 122 C4 144 Guidance Received C3 104 C4 124 Communications C3 84 C3 84 Knowledge: Training/Experience C5 91 C5 91 Skill 4 47 4 47 Working Conditions: Manual Effort C3 15 C3 15 Visual B4 10 B4 10 Environment C3 15 C3 15 Total Points 488 530 Payband 7 8 The Position Description, on whose contents, the parties agree, summarizes the position as follows: Provides A/V software and equipment to faculty and students. Ensures good condition and security of A/V equipment, software and facilities. Performs routine Resource Centre duties, when necessary. Works on projects as assigned. Ensures application of procedures. Identifies current and potential equipment problems. The grievors work in the Media Centre in which are housed some 1200 videotapes and a number of Video Cassette Recorders from which videotapes can be played back to TV monitors that are located in the classrooms and the library. In addition the Media Centre also houses overhead projectors, 16 mm film projectors and camcorders. The principal users of the service provided by the Media Centre are instructors and students. Typically instructors book some software, eg, videotape, film, slide, or transparency that they want to use in conjunction with the teaching of their courses. If the software that is wanted is not available the grievors obtain it, if possible, through an interloan service that operates between the various campuses in the College system. Approximately 15,000 playbacks per year are sent directly to the classrooms or the library from the media centre. In some instances the instructors will take the hardware housed in the media centre and the software to the classrooms and show it themselves. Or they may play the software on equipment that is, by and large, permanently located in the classrooms. Statistics indicated approximately 1200 some instances in the year in which a piece of equipment or some software was taken by the instructor to the classroom. The grievors also provide some reference service to instructors. Thus, an instructor may seek the advice of the grievors as to what kind of "package" of hardware and software can be put together that will permit them to achieve their objective. Although the grievors are expected to carry out routine cleaning and maintenance of hardware and software, technical problems of various sorts arise on a daily basis requiring the grievors to troubleshoot and identify the problem and determine what, if anything, they can do about. Where the tape is being played back from the media centre it may be that the problem can be solved at source. However, if not, or if a piece of equipment has been taken to the classroom by the instructor for use there, the grievors may need to go to the classroom itself to look into the problem. Statistics indicate that this is done at least once a day. It may also be necessary to attend to a problem in the Resource Centre (Library) which is physically located immediately next to the media centre. Where the problem requires repair of any significance the grievors prepare a work order which is sent to the Equipment Maintenance Technician who decides on how the repairs are to be done. A part of the maintenance function includes cleaning and monitoring the condition of video tapes. Where, through repeated playbacks, it becomes necessary to replace or reduplicate the tapes, it is the grievors who are expected to secure the requisite copyright clearance to have the tape copies from the master tape. The grievors also have some responsibility for demonstrating to students how the equipment is used. Thus, where as part of a course requirement, a student is required to make a videotape with the use of a camcorder, the grievors provide the technical support for that from the Media Centre. Or they may be asked to give a presentation to a class on the use of certain AV equipment. The grievors are also responsible for some record keeping. In addition to keeping accurate records of what software has been booked etc, they are required to maintain records of repair orders, local inventory records and general statistical data respecting use of the service. They also are responsible for providing a central updating service of the inventory of software at all of the Colleges. Thus, any new software that is acquired is added to the system inventory. Conversely, where material is no longer in large demand or where copyright on the material may have lapsed, it is withdrawn from the system and the records amended accordingly. The grievors report directly to Ms. Mary Lou Brennan, the Director of the Resource Centre. She is located at a different campus of the College and, as a person trained in library science, is not familiar with technical matters. She is, however, able to draw on the advice of an Audio Services Support Officer and the Equipment Maintenance Technician (both bargaining unit positions) on technical questions. Except for the annual performance review the work done by the grievors is not checked by Ms. Brennan or by any other member of supervision. Thus, there is no member of management who checks to ensure that set ups are done in a timely fashion or that the equipment is kept in good working order. The principal "check" on the grievors' work is done by the users. If they do not do their job properly a complaint which will ultimately reach the desk of Ms. Brennan will be filed and she will have to attend to it. However, beyond this there is little direct checking of the grievors' work. As is evident from the outline of the respective ratings attached by the parties to the position there are two factors in dispute: the judgment element in the Job Difficulty Factor and the nature of review element in the Guidance Received factor. The union claims that the judgment required of the job should be rated at level 4, viz, "considerable" judgment where problem solving involves "handling a variety of conventional problems using established analytic techniques" while the College rates it at level 3, viz "moderate" judgment requiring the "identification and breakdown of the facts and components of the problem situation". The dispute over the Nature of Review factor is between level 3, "work assignments checked intermittently and/or periodically for quality" and level 4, "general form of review for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines." I shall deal first with the Guidance Received factor. It is clear on the evidence that the grievors' work assignments are not checked for quality at any time by a member of supervision. The evidence cannot support the evaluation placed on this factor by the College. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the PDF, on which the parties are agreed, specifically states in section D 3 that "work assignments are subject to a general form of review and projects are reviewed by discussion and on completion". The College spokesperson frankly acknowledged that the inclusion of this language in the PDF create a problem for the College as far as the defence of its position is concerned. In my view that problem is an insuperable one. The expedited process for resolving these grievances essentially requires the arbitrator to apply the Job Evaluation System to the PDF. The process recognizes and accepts that the parties may not be able to agree on the language that should be in the PDF in which case those issues need to be resolved at arbitration. However, where there is agreement on that language (as there is in this case) it is not appropriate for me to go behind that agreement and ignore it. It was argued that the kind of supervision that now occurs in the Colleges no longer corresponds to that which is contemplated by the Core Point Rating plan, viz, "over the shoulder" close checking of an employees' work. It is suggested that such a style of management has become inappropriate where employees are skilled and experienced in the work that they do. However, outdated the job evaluation plan may have become (and I make no comment on that), that is not a factor which I am entitled to take into consideration. I must accept the plan as it is and apply it to the evidence. When that is done in the case of the Guidance Received factor in this case there can be little question that the grievors must succeed. Accordingly I would rate the position at level D4 for Guidance Received. I turn next to the Judgment element in the Job Difficulty factor. The grievors argue that, in view of the technical nature of the job, there is a lot of problem solving that takes them beyond merely "identification and breakdown of facts and components" In this regard reference is made to the PDF wherein it is stated that the incumbent "communicates problems and recommends solutions" It is further submitted that when the incumbents put together packages of software and hardware for instructors and when they organize and conduct demonstrations for students in the classroom there is an "evaluative" process occurring that requires the exercise of considerable judgment. Further, since they receive no specific guidance from their supervisor on technical matters, they are expected to provide the necessary technical support at their own initiative and judgment. Finally, it is suggested that, in measuring whether or not the judgment required is "considerable", reference should be made not only to the level of judgment required but also to the scope of the exercise of judgment, viz, the range of different job functions performed by the incumbents that require the exercise of judgment. In my opinion the rating applied to this factor by the College, viz, level 3, should be sustained. There is no question that the grievors are required to exercise judgment in a number of different aspects of their job. I do not, however, believe that it would be correct to determine whether or not that judgment is "moderate" or "considerable" by reference to the number of different jobs in which judgment is required. In my view the different levels of judgment that separate out different levels of classification are meant to describe qualitative rather than quantitative differences. Although the frequency with which a particular level of judgment is required will be an element in determining the right classification, it is not the case that, for example, "moderate" judgment, exercised frequently enough, will become converted to "considerable" or "significant" judgment. Nor do I think it is appropriate to take into account the fact that the grievors are not directly supervised by a supervisor. To do so would be to engage in some double counting since the nature and extent of supervision is already counted in the Guidance Received Factor. Whether or not a particular task requires "moderate" or "considerable" judgment is to be judged on its own irrespective of how closely or how frequently the incumbent is supervised. If it requires "considerable" judgment and must be performed without supervision that element gets taken into consideration when the Guidance Received factor is applied. In assessing the appropriate classification of a position it is appropriate to begin with the Classification Guide Charts with a view to determining whether there is anything about the particular position in question that warrants considering it to be atypical and subject to further assessment under the Core Point Rating Plan. The Classification Guide Charts for the Technician B position list the typical duties as follows: Provides technical support in maintaining and operating equipment. Demonstrates correct techniques for the use of materials and equipment. Sets up and perform a wide range of experiments. Maintains equipment records and undertakes trouble shooting and repair work. Checks student activity. The PDF and the evidence introduced at the hearing respecting the duties performed by the grievors falls clearly within these classification guidelines. Nothing in that evidence suggested that the duties performed by the grievors were so different from the ones there listed that their positions were atypical. Nevertheless, even if the Core Point Rating Plan is applied, I am of the opinion that the proper rating for this factor is at level 3. In my opinion the problem solving associated with the major portion of the duties performed by the incumbents involves essentially the identification and breakdown of facts and components. Thus, where a piece of equipment malfunctions the incumbents check it out to see what is the problem (i.e. "identify and breakdown components) and attend to it if they can. They "identify" whether or not a piece of equipment needs repairing and make out the requisite work order for the Equipment Maintenance Technician. I am not persuaded that there is anything in the handling of technical problems that involves the grievors in using "established analytical techniques" to solve problem. Admittedly they solve problems but there is little "analysis" involved in what is required to be done. A large part of the job involves the playback of videotapes to the classroom and the library. To perform this job the grievors are required to identify the tape that is required and place it in the appropriate VCR for playback at the appropriate time. In many instances the tapes are selected by the instructors themselves and the grievors' function is a relatively straightforward one, that is, to play it at the correct time. In other instances, the grievors have some more creative role to play in recommending suitable packages of hardware and software that will accomplish the objective. While this would involve some greater exercise of judgment I am not persuaded that the frequency with which this kind of situation arises is such as to permit it to have controlling effect. Moreover, familiarity with the resources available is also, to some extent, counted in job knowledge factor. The bulk of the remaining duties of the grievors are essentially clerical in nature and do not warrant a rating of the judgment factor at anything higher than the "moderate" level. Consequently, the proper rating for the Judgment factor is level 3. In summary the appropriate rating of the job is as follows: Job Difficulty C3 122 Guidance Received C4 124 Communications C3 84 Knowledge: Training/Experience C5 91 Skill 4 47 Working Conditions: Manual Effort C3 15 Visual B4 10 Environment C3 15 Total Points 508 Payband 7 In the result the grievance is dismissed. Dated at LONDON, Ont. this day of 1993. G. J. Brandt, Arbitrator