Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJohnson 93-00-00IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION between CONESTOGA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY (hereinafter referred to as the College) and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 238 (hereinafter referred to as the Union) C]assification Grievance of Sherry Johnston Sole Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt Appearances: For the College: Delores Smith, Human Resources Officer Betty Martin, Registrar For the Union: Ann Wallace, Local 238 President Jack Baker, Local Vice- President Sherry Johnston, Grievor Hearing: Conestoga College November 29, 1993 AWARD The grievor, Sherry Johnston, occupies the position of Admissions/Records Clerk, Atypical Clerk General, Payband 6. She works in the Registrars Office under the supervision of Ms. Betty Martin, the College Registrar. In this grievance she seeks a reclassification to Support Services Officer A, Payband 8. The parties disagree as to the contents of certain parts of the Position Description Form. The union disputes the statement that, under Guidance Received, the incumbent is provided with instruction and deadlines by the Lead Hand. Further, the union claims that under the Training/Experience/Skill factor, the PDF insufficiently acknowledges the necessity for some computer training. Finally, the union disputes the statement that the working conditions are "those found in any typical Academic institution." Rather, it is claimed that the environment in which the grievor worked both prior and subsequent to May of 1992, when the Registrar's Office moved to newer premises, is one which exposes her to noise and hold and cold conditions. The Position Summary provides as follows: Establishes and maintains student files for all Certificate part-time programs across the College, all full time Certificate programs and all Apprenticeship programs at Doon Campus. This function involves records keeping and all admissions processes. Is also responsible for the completeness and maintenance of student records for all students registered in all Certificate programs across the College. The principal Duties and Responsibilities of the position are divided between Admissions (30%), Records (30%) and preparation and/or generation of student transcript requests 20%). Responsibility for Admissions is limited to applications for admission to Continuing Education programs and to the full time Certificate programs. Although there is some responsibility to keep records of students who attend the College as a part of their completion of a required Apprenticeship program, the grievor does not process applications for admission to those programs. Applications for admission to the Continuing Education and Certificate Programs are reviewed by the grievor to determine whether or not they are complete and contain the information that is requested. In the case of most of the programs this involves checking to see that the applicant has a high school diploma, has enclosed a questionnaire, and in some cases, has obtained a certificate of competence. In a few cases it may also be necessary to check to see whether or not the applicant has satisfactorily a-hieved Grade 12 standing in certain prescribed subjects. If the application is incomplete in some respect the grievor sends a computer generated standard form letter to the applicant indicating the respects in which it is incomplete and requesting the applicant to provide the necessary information. If the application is complete a computer generated form letter acknowledging that fact is sent to the applicant. When an applicant for admission has been accepted by the appropriate department concemed the grievor sends a computer generated letter of acceptance. Duties in connection with the maintenance of records require the grievor to generate mark sheets for completion by the faculty and to enter those marks into the computerized records kept for students and courses. She aiso checks to see that students have completed their program requirements, prepares student achievement reports and is responsible for the input of data for graduating students and for the production of convocation lists, the President's Honour List. The grievor has some responsibility for billing students for the tuition fee in their program as well as for extra courses that may be taken. Where students are unable to pay their fees in full at the start of the year payment arrangements may be made either through aSAP (where a student is in receipt of aSAP money) or by special arrangement approved by the Registrar. Where such special arrangements have been made and approved the grievor is required to pr-epare the necessary documentation and to follow up on the students' compliance with the arrangement. In a few other instances the griever's supervisor may authorize a reduction in the fees, in which event she is required to make the appropriate adjustment to the records. Where cheques are retumed NSF she sends a computer generated standard form letter to the student requesting payment either by cash or certified cheque. Where a student requests the preparation of a transcript the griever is required to access the student records for the purpose of obtaining the necessary information. In some instances that information is available on the computer data base. However, for students taking Continuing Education courses (which courses may have been taken over a number efyears dating back to a time when records were kept manually), it is often necessary to obtain the necessary information from 3 ring periods located in a different work area. When entering or accessing data at the computer the griever is not required to be familiar with such software systems as Wordperfect or dBase. She uses College designed inhouse software installed on the mainframe to select (from a menu) the appropriate program (ie. Certificate, Apprenticeship or Continuing Education) to be accessed. Once the desired College program is selected she then accesses either the file for the individual student or individual course (in Continuing Education) courses) and enters or retrieves the desired data. Her current work area is located in new premises into which the Registrar's department moved in May of 1992. From personal observation I conclude that this is an area that is quiet and, at least on the day of my attendance, heated to a comfortable degree. The workspace, though not completely enclosed, is nevertheless quite spacious. In order to access binders containing manually produced records the griever must walk a distance of approximately 100 feet to a room where 3 ring binders are stored on shelves reaching to a maximum height of 6 feet. Prior to moving to these premises she worked in a different and older area efthe College which had peefly functioning heating and air conditioning systems resulting in some discomfort in both winter and summer. In winter it was common for personnel to wear coats and/or gloves if conditions were too cold. However, they were allowed to go home if they so chose. Moreover, noise in the area was generated from human conversation from a number of people congregated in a relatively small area as well as from a printer that could be heard throughout the building. In carrying out her duties the griever has access to a number of different kinds of written guidelines. These include the College Calendar, a Student Procedures Guide, Ministry Guidelines, Program Fact sheets and Fee Schedules, Office Routines, and a Convocation Schedule. - There is substantial controversy over whether, in addition to these guidelines, the griever also receives some "instruction and deadlines" from her Lead Hand, Mr. Paul Matresky. The griever stated that, although she had worked together with Mr. Matresky and some computer programmers in the installation of a new computerized system for Certificate records, that was on an "equal basis". In her opinion he did none of the things which the job evaluation plan speaks of as being the duties of the Lead Hand, viz, allocating daily work assigmuents and establishing priorities, laying out work or work sequences and checking work or keeping the supervisor informed of progress; explaining office routines and work procedures, recommending changes to work methods or reporting on attendance. Although she was prepared to admit that he provided her with the fee schedule (and possibly a convocation schedule) she took issue with the suggestion that he conveyed program changes to her, that he she was required to report her absences to him rather than to her supervisor, and that he gave her updates on the activity plan. Ms. Betty Martin, the Registrar, stated that, while Mr. Matresky did not perform all efthe duties set down for a Lead Hand, he did keep the griever informed of work progress in the area and, although permitted to approve of time off, was nevertheless requested to ensure that time off reported be reported to her through him. As for the computerization of the Certificate records it was her view that Mr. Matresky did not participate with the gr,iever on an "equal basis" but rather that he had coordinated the activity and played an integral pan in its implementation. The expedited process makes it exceptionally difficult for me to make any findings of fact cenceming the dispute around the functions efthe Lead Hand. The griever does not to take issue with the status of Mr Matresky as a Lead Hand. However, it is claimed that, whatever his instructions from Ms. Martin may have been, he did not, as a matter of fact, act as a Lead Hand in relation to her. In the absence of evidence from the Mr. Matresky himself (which evidence cannot be called under the expedited process) it is difficult for me to resolve this conflict. The situation would be one which would call for a recommendation that this dispute in its entirely be referred to a full Board of Arbitration under the collective agreement. Indeed, it was the position of the Union in this case that I should do precisely that. However, for reasons which will become apparent in due course, I believe that I am competent to determine the case on an expedited basis. It should be noted however that were it otherwise I believe I would have had little choice but to refer it to a full Board as I could not, given the limits of the expedited process, have been confident as to the tree factual base supporting the grievor's claims. In my opinion the grievance should be dismissed. It is useful, as a first step in this process, to consider the particular position and the duties and responsibilities that attach thereto in the context of the job family definitions (set out in the Job Evaluation Guide Charts) of both its current family and that which is sought. The Job Family definition for Support Services O-ricer descrioes the family as covering positions of employees who "perform administrative duties that are functional/project oriented rather than task oriented and involve conceptualizing, facilitating and project managing. The corresponding definition for the Clerk General family refers to positions of who employees who are "involved in clerical or business machine operating either manually or electronically entirely, or in combination with incidental typing or stenographic duties." Viewed generally I have little doubt that the position falls more closely in the Clerk General family than it does in the Support Services Officer Family. The vast majority of duties and responsibilities of the position require involve the incumbent in the management or manipulation of data either manually or by computer. There is no meaningful sense in which it can be said that the work is either project or task oriented. Secondly, an examination of the typical duties and responsibilities of the Clerk C, as set out in the Job Evaluation Gu-ide Charts, reveals a number of similarities with the duties performed by the grievor. In particular, I note the following: "completes and analyzes documents relating to student admission and registration", "maintains and verifies various records". These two bear a close relationship to the Admissions and Records responsibilities of the grievor. By way of contrast the typical duties of the Support Services officer A include: "co-piles data and statistics for department reports", "develops and recommends policies and procedures for administration of unit", provides data to decision makers allowing them to determine the best course of action", "responds to needs of service users by coordinating administrative details of projects". None of the duties performed by the grievor can be said to resemble any of these typical duties of the Support Services Officer. Strictly speaking it would be unnecessary to enter into any further analysis of the various job evaluation factors in terms of the Core Point Rating Plan. The Job Evaluation Guide states (Section 1, page 2) that "the Job Evaluation Guide Charts provide a stable, reliable and consistent narrative standard by which most positions can be quickly and effectively classified" and that "a relatively small number of unique or atypical positions may not be covered by the Job Evaluation Guide Charts [which] positions are evaluated by the Core Point Rating Plan." Section 2 provides as follows: 2) To evaluate a particular position it is necessary to determine the Job Family to which it appropriately belongs. 3) In some cases the duties and responsibilities of a position will not clearly fall within a single Job Family Definition. In these instances the "principles of core theory" should apply. Quite simply, the predominant or central duties of the position should determine the Job Family. 4) Having determined the appropriate Job Family, the duties and responsibilities of the position being evaluated are compared to the Classification levels described in the relevant Job Evaluation Guide Charts... Considering the normal activities of the position, it is matched with the guide chart level which most accurately describes the actual content and responsibilities of the position. In most cases a reasonably close approximation to a classification level described int he Guide chart will be possible. 6) A relatively small number of truly atypical positions that encompass duties and responsibilities which are not adequately covered by the existing Job Family Definitions and the Job Evaluation Guide Charts are evaluated by the Core Point Rating Plan... It is clear from this that the Core Point Rating Plan is intended to be used only where a satisfactory result cannot be obtained through an examination of the Job Family definitions and the Typical Duties and Responsibilities as set out in the Job Evaluation Guide Charts. Since, as stated above, the position appears to fit much more comfortably within the Clerk family than the Support Services Officer family, the grievance should be dismissed. Nevertheless, since both the College and the Union addressed the grievance in terms of the Core Point Rating Plan I intend to deal with the different factors and levels thereunder. 1. Job Difficulty Both the factors of Complexity and Judgment are in dispute. In order for the union to succeed in its claim to level D for Complexity it must establish that the work involves the performance of "varied non-routine relatively complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated processes and methods". Although it is true that the grievor must operate with a number (37) of different programs within the broader Certificate, Apprenticeship and Continuing Education Programs, the procedure that she follows with each is much the same. It involves a review of the application for admission for completeness and the generation of certain standard form letters depending on the results of that review. That process is the same in all cases. Similarly, as far as maintenance of records is concemed, the process to be followed is essentially the same for all of the courses and programs. In order to justify a rating at this level it is necessary to show that none of the work is routine. In my opinion a good portion of it, once leamed, is routine in nature. Consequently, it is my conclusion that this factor is properly rated at level C by the College. In order to succeed in its claim that the Judgment factor should be rated at level 4 the union must establish that the problem solving involves handling a "variety of conventional problems with established analytical techniques". The kinds of problems that the grievor typically encounters involve complaints or questions from students conceming course or program completion or admission. In those instances she is expected to consult the records to verify the reason for the action complained of and inform the student of those reasons. Where a student remains dissatisfied he/she is referred to the co-ordinator. Similarly, "problems" presented to the grievor by faculty members or a coordinator typically involve a request for information conceming a students application form or record. They are dealt with by providing the information requested. In my opinion nothing of what is done to deal with these problems can be said to involve the use of an "analytical technique". Level 3, viz, "identification and breakdown of the facts" more closely resembles the problem solving done by the grievor. Consequently, it is my conclusion that this factor is correctly rated at level 3 by the College. 2. Guidance Received The dispute concems the element of Guidelines Available. In particular the grievor disputes the claim by the College that she is subject, in various respects, to direction by the Lead Hand. In my opinion it is unnecessary to deal with the conflict in the evidence conceming that issue since, even if the evidence of the grievor were to be accepted in full, it would not satisfy the requirements of level D, viz, "work performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems". There is no evidence from the grievor that would indicate that she has ever "adapted or mo-dified" a practice to deal with a situation. Of course, each file may present some slight variation from other files but the essential process applied to that file remains the same. Ms. Martin stated in evidence that the grievor is not permitted to adapt or modify her work procedures. That statement was not challenged by the union. Consequently, I conclude that this factor is properly rated at level C. 3. Communications Both the purpose of communications and the level of communications is in dispute. The PDF states that the grievor has daily communication with students and weekly communication with program managers, chairs, faculty, and campus clerical staff. The Job Evaluation Manual (Section VII, page 8) provides in the Notes to Raters for this factor that "only those contacts that occupy a significant portion of time and are a regular and integral part of the job should be taken into consideration." Further, it is provided that contacts with students should be rated at degree 2 and with teaching staff at degree 3. Thus, since the vast majority of the contacts are with students, this factor must be rated at level 2. No submissions were made by the union or the grievor either in th-e written briefs or at the hearing with respect to the appropriate rating for the purpose factor. On the evidence there is no basis for finding that contacts are for a purpose set out in level C, viz "providing guidance, instmction..for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedure or policy". The narrative for level B much more closely captures the purpose of contacts in this position, viz, "provide detailed explanation to ensure understanding on matters such as how information was collected or how a figure was calculated". The contacts involve largely student requests for information conceming admission or program or course completion, essentially inquiries seeking information of a factual nature, information which the grievor provides. Consequently, this factor is properly evaluated at B2. 4. Training/Experience/Skill Both the Experience and Training factors are in dispute. The umon and grievor claim that the requirement of some ability to; access and to enter and retrieve data from the computer justifies a minimum entry level of "up to 5 years" of practical experience (D) and training at a level "normally acquired through attainment of secondary school graduation and completion of additional job related training courses or equivalent." (4). In my opinion the claim for an increase in the rating for training to level 4 is justified. A graduate of a secondary school would possess the those keyboarding skills that may be necessary to operate the computer. However, the kind of computer use in which the grievor is involved does not require simply keyboarding skills but also some ability to access a software program and work within it. Admittedly, she is not expected to understand or to work with complicated software applications like Wordperfect, database or Lotus 1,2,3. Rather, she uses a program that is installed on the mainframe and which is accessed by a relatively straightforward process of program selection and student and course identification by name. Training for this work is provided by the College. Level 4 for Training is a level that sits between secondary school graduation and a 2 year Community College diploma. In my opinion it captures the kind of situation present in this case, viz, where, in order to become competent to carry out a particular task it becomes necessary for the incumbent to take a "job related training course" (in this case offered by the College itself) which falls short of the more in depth kind of course (in for example Wordperfect or dBase) that would be obtained at a Community College. However, I see no basis for the claim that, as a minimum entry level requirement, it is necessary to have up to 5 years of practical experience on the job. - Consequently, I would rate this factor at C4. 5. Working Conditions A. Manual Effort Both Manual Effort and Prevalence are disputed. The union claims that the work involves light manual effort and physical exertion, eg. prolonged standing, sitting etc. handling light weight materials on a "frequent" basis, i.e. 31% and 60% of the time. The College claims that the position involves minimal manual effort in a variety of normal positions, eg. intermittent, sitting, standing. . ordinary office tasks." The claim that the position "frequently" requires "prolonged" sitting cannot be sustained. While there may be weeks when the grievor spends virtually all of the time at her computer inputting data those situations are not normal and cannot be given undue weight. Rather, typically she is interrupted from her work at the computer to attend to some kind of request that may require her to go to a counter or to a filing cabinet to access some record. These interruptions, though brief, are sufficient to displace the claim that the sitting is "prolonged". Nor can it be said that the grievor is engaged in handling light weight materials on a "frequent" basis. Her claim in this regard is based on the fact that when she is requested to prepare a transcript she may be required to access manually produced re-cords kept in 3 ring binders located in a storage room away from her work area. Even assuming that the need to lift these binders from the shelves constitutes handling "lightweight materials" it cannot be said that she is engaged in this work on a "frequent basis". The PDF describes transcript preparation as comprising 20% of her time. However, not all of that time requires access to the records stored in the 3 ring binders. Some of it may be accessed 18 from the computer and would occasion no lifting at all. In my opinion the better description of the duties in this regard are as "ordinary office tasks in a variety of normal positions with intermittent sitting and standing on a continuous basis". Consequently, I would rate this factor at A5. B. Work Environment The grievor alleges that this should be rated at B5, viz, "slightly disagreeable conditions involving exposure to somewhat noisy, not or cold conditions." on a "continuous" basis. Insofar as this claim is advanced with respect to the grievor's current working conditions, which she has had since May of 1992, this claim is completely without foundation. My own observation of the area, on a day which was not represented to me to be anything other than a normal day, is that it is quiet and kept at a comfortable room temperature. However, the claim is also made with respect to the conditions that existed in prior to the May 1992 move. Whether this claim should be entertained depends on the resolution of an issue conceming the date of the grievance. Evidently, the grievor filed a complaint on August 13, 1991 seeking reclassification to Clerk D-Atypical, payband 8. She met at various times with College officials to discuss the matter and revise the PDF in a manner that was mutually acceptable to her and the College. However, that process did not produce agreement and the grievor ultimately filed the grievance that has been referred to arbitration. That grievance (although incorrectly dated April 27, 1991) was filed on April 27, 1992 and claims relief retroactive to August of 1991, the date of her original complaint. As noted above the grievance does not seek reclassification to Clerk DAtypical tas was claimed in the August 1991 complaint). Rather it seeks re-classification to Support Services Officer A. The union stated that it changed its opinion as to the appropriate classification to seek after some changes in the PDF had been accomplished. The College takes the position that, in view of the fact that the union changed its claim to that of Support Services Officer A, it abandoned its earlier claim for re-classification to Clerk DAtypical and that consequently any relief awarded should run only fr,om the date of the grievance referred to arbitration, viz, April 27, 1992. The reason why it is necessary to address this issue is that if the College position is to be accepted no relief should be awarded for this factor since! as indicated above, there is no foundation for the union's claim in respect of the premises which have been occupied since May of 1992, virtually the same time as the grievance was filed. However, if it is found that any relief to which the grievor is entitled dates back to August of 1991 when her original complaint was filed, then consideration must be given to the working conditions at the older premises. Article 18 deals generally with Complaints/Grievances. Article 18.1.4 defines a grievance as a "complaint in writing arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention of this Agreement." Article 18.2.1 provides that "if the grievor fails to act within the time limits set out at any complaint or grievance, the grievance will be considered abandoned." Article 18.4.1. provides that an employee who claims that his/her job is improperly classified ..may present a complaint in writing to the College official designated responsible for classification complaints. Further, it is provided that the written complaint must specify at least the job family and payband claimed by the employee. Article 18.4.2 describes the complaint process according to which classification complaints may be pr-ocessed through various steps in a timely fashion and referred ultimately to arbitration. No claim is made by the College that the grievor or the union did not comply with the time limit provisions of the agreement. Rather, it is claimed that the union, by changing the relief requested, as abandoned the earlier -omplaint and essentially filed a second and new complaint. The collective agreement is silent on the what impact, if any, should attach to a decision by the union to change the relief requested in an earlier request. It is my opinion that the collective agreement should be interpreted liberally in this regard and that a party that seeks to claim that a complaint has been abandoned should establish clearly that this is the effect. The evidence, which is uncontradicted by the College, is that the grievor and her union continued to discuss the substance of her August 1991 complaint right up to and following the April 1992 grievance. As noted, the content of the PDF remains a matter of dispute to this day. There is, therefore, little basis in fact for claiming that the complaint has been abandone4 The specific relief claimed is abandoned but the College must be taken to have known that the grievor remained dissatisfied with her classification and was seeking to have that changed through official process. Further, it would appear to be undesirable as a matter of policy to conclude that a grievance or complaint had been abandoned simply because the relief sought had been changed. Ideally, over the course of discussions of a complaint, the parties come to a better understanding of the position and it is not surprising that one or the other may change its views. To attach the sanction of abandonment to such a change would -orce a party to stick unrelemingly to its original position for fear that any change would be viewed as an abandonment. Consequently, I propose to consider the complaim that is before me as running from August of 1991. The evidence with respect to the working conditions from August of 1991 to May of 1992 persuades me that the union's claim that this factor should be rated at B5 is a sound claim. That environment was noisy and exposed those in it to both heat in the summer and cold in wimer. Consequently, I would rate this factor at B5 as claimed at least for the period up to May of 1992. In summary I rate the factors as follows: Job Difficulty C3 122 Guidance Received C4 124 Communications B2 48 Knowledge: Training/Experience C4 78 Skill B3 34 Working conditions: Manual effort A5 3 Visual Strain B4 10 Environment B5 13 Total Points 432 Pay Band 6 Since, in the result, the grievor remains in Payband 6, the grievance should be dismissed. Dated at LONDON, Om. this - day of- --, 1993 G. J. Brandt