HomeMy WebLinkAboutRoss-Wright 90-00-00 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
between
FANSHAWE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 109
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Grievance of Rita Ross Wright
Sole Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Peter Myers, Director, Human Resources
Len Uonteyn, Chairperson,
Language and Communication Division
Judy Mill, Personnel Assistant.
For the Union: Charles Titus, Spokesperson
Jean Crawford, Observer
Rita Ross Wright, Grievor
Hearing:
London, Ont.
May 22, 1990.
2
AWARD
1. Introduction
This is a classification grievance of Mrs. Rita Ross Wright dated August 9. 1989. The grievor is
employed as a clerk/receptionist in the Languages and Communications Division, which provides language and
communications services to other departments in the college. At the time of her grievance she was
classified as a Typist Steno B. During the course of the administration of the grievance certain changes
were made which raised her to a Typist Steno C, Pay Band 4. The grievance seeks reclassification to
Secretary A, Pay Band 5.
The College and the Union respectively are in disagreement over 3 of the job factors. The following
table sets out the respective ratings of the College and the Union concerning these factors.
College Union
6uidance Received B2 60 pts. C3 104 pts.
Communications A3 35 pts. B2 48 pts.
Knowledge: Skill 2 21 pts. 3 34 pts.
2. Duties and Responsibilities
The parties are agreed as to the contents of the Position Description. The Position Summary states
that the incumbent as divisional receptionist, handles initial enquiries from students and College staff,
provides word processing and typing services for divisional faculty, handles requests for printing, copying
and filing for divisional faculty and shares bookkeeping and accounting responsibilities with divisional
secretary.
Her principal duties and responsibilities are divided between acting as divisional receptionist (in
which capacity she answers the telephone or attends to people who seek information by attending at the
division), and providing word processing, typing, clerical etc. duties to divisional faculty.
Most of the phone calls which she has to handle are from other instructors, either within or without
the Division, attempting to contact other instructors within the Division. If they are available she
3
directs the call to them; if they are not she takes a message and puts in on their desk for them to return
the call.
Some of the calls are from students seeking an appointment with the instructor. The grievor does
not make the appointment. Rather she ascertains generally the times that instructors are available to meet
with students, informs students of those times, and takes a telephone number for the instructor to call to
arrange the appointment.
Some of the calls are for her supervisor, Mr. Len Monteyn, the Chairperson of the Division. These
may come from irate students, from divisional faculty, or from persons outside the division, eD.
chairpersons of other departments who may wish to see Mr. Monteyn or who require some information from him.
However, primary responsibility for these calls rests upon Ms. Brenda Cavanagh, who is the Divisional
Secretary and is classified as an SSO A. The grievor only performs these duties when Ms. Cavanagh is absent
from her desk. They involve her essentially in informing Mr. Monteyn of the request. The grievor does not
schedule appointments for Mr. Monteyn.
The grievor's receptionist duties also require to attend to the requests of persons who appear at
her desk seeking assistance. These include students, (dropping off assignments which need to be stamp dated
and signed by the grievor) or wishing to make an appointment to see Mr. Monteyn; instructors wanting to see
other divisional faculty or Mr. Monteyn; or the chairpersons of other divisions or departments wanting to
see Mr. Monteyn.
The other main aspect of her duties involves her in word processing functions. She does general
typing of tests, program outlines, letters etc. for divisional faculty. She also does some typing for Mr.
Monteyn, particularly where Ms. Cavanagh is otherwise pre occupied with SWF s and timetabling duties. The
typing work which she does for the divisional faculty is checked only by them. The work which she does for
Mr. Monteyn is proof read and signed by him.
This work is done at an IBM compatible personal computer with the aid of Wordperfect 5.0. Her
personal computer is also linked into the VAX system, the College mainframe computer. She is required to
access VAX when inputting various data respecting, eg. students grades, timetable, curriculum development.
4
The process is one of accessing the appropriate menu by hitting the designated keys and then inputting the
relevant data.
3. Decision
a) 6uidance Received
Both the factors of 6uidelines Available and Nature of Review are in dispute. Under 6uidelines
Available the Union seeks level C, viz, ~work performed in accordance with general procedures unfamiliar
situations reviewed with supervisor~. The Union relies on the provision of the PDF which states that the
grievor works on her own. However, that of itself is not conclusive for level B, viz, ~work performed in
accordance with established practices matters not covered by procedures are referred to supervisor~, also
contemplates an employee who works largely on her own, referring to manuals as and when necessary and only
consulting with a supervisor as and when needed.
The grievor stated that there were manuals, eg. College Policies and Procedures Manual, Software
manuals, College Calendars etc. that were available at her desk and which could be consulted if necessary.
She stated that she did not have to consult them. However, care must be taken to evaluate the position and
not the grievor herself who, after 3 years in the position, can be assumed to have acquired sufficient
knowledge to permit her to work without the aid of manuals. Thus, the incumbent in the position works with
the aid of ~established procedures~.
The grievor stated that if she were confronted with a ~problem~ which was unfamiliar she would
consult with Mr. Monteyn. That might suggest that she should be classified at level C which speaks of
~unfamiliar situations~ being ~reviewed with supervisor~. However, level 2 also contemplates a ~referral~
to the supervisor with regard to ~matters not covered by the procedures~. I see the essential difference
between these two to lie in the difference between ~referral~ and ~review~ with the supervisor. I take
~referral~ to the supervisor to involve essentially a transfer of the issue to the supervisor for
disposition whereas ~review~ appears to involve greater decision making on the behalf of the incumbent. As
I understand the matter the grievor does not seek any ~review~ of any decision which she has made. Rather
she simply ~refers~ the matter to Mr. Monteyn. Consequently, level B is the appropriate level for
6uidelines Available.
5
With respect to Nature of Review I am equally of the view that the evaluation given by the College
is appropriate, viz, level 2, ~work assignments are regularly reviewed on completion by supervisor for
completeness and accuracy~.
First I would note that the work which she does which is
~reviewable~ is largely the word processing services which she performs. Of that a significant majority is
done for divisional faculty rather than by a supervisor. Consequently, the only work which is reviewed by
Mr. Monteyn is the typing and word processing work which the griever does for him when Ms. Cavanagh is
otherwise engaged or absent. That work is proof read by Mr. Monteyn.
That kind of review is, in my opinion, a review for ~completeness and accuracy~. The griever is
required either to copy from Mr. Monteyn's handwritten copy or to transcribe from his dictaphone. What he
checks is whether or not she has accurately typed what was required and whether or not the work assigned was
completed by her. I do not see this as involving a checking for quality, such as might occur, if the
griever herself was responsible for creating some written work requiring review.
It also seems to me that this work is checked ~regularly~. Admittedly she may not always be required to do
typing work for Mr. Monteyn. However, whenever she is so required her work is always checked by him. In
that respect the checking is ~regular~.
Therefore, I conclude that the proper weighting for the factor of Guidelines Received is B2.
b) Communications:
Both the purpose and the level of contacts are in dispute. With respect to the level of contacts I
am at a loss to understand why the Union is claiming that this should be evaluated at level 2, viz,
~contacts primarily with employees at comparable or lower levels~. The evidence establishes quite clearly
that the griever's contacts are primarily with either divisional faculty or faculty from other divisions or
departments. Consequently, I evaluate the level of contacts at level 2.
As for the purpose of the contacts I am satisfied that the purpose is not, as the Union maintains,
to ~provide detailed explanations to ensure understanding~. Her contacts are essentially of the sort in
which she either furnishes or obtains information, eg. with respect to course enrolment or grade reporting,
6
status of accounts, or with respect to the availability of divisional faculty or the chairperson. For
example, she stated that she will, on occasion, be contacted by the accounting division inquiring as to
whether or not an account had been paid. Her response to such inquiries is to check the purchase order and
ascertain the status of the account. I see that as essentially the generation of information of a factual
data in response to a request. I do not see that as offering a detailed ~explanation to ensure
understanding~. Similarly, her telephone work appears to me to involve essentially passing messages on to
divisional faculty or the chairperson.
Consequently, I conclude that the factor of Communications should be assessed at level A3.
c) Knowledge: Skill
The issue here concerns the appropriate weighting to be given to the fact that the griever is
required to be familiar with word processing software and to be able to access the VAX system. The Union
argues that this work requires that the griever have ~specialized technical or clerical skills~ and that she
have the ability to operate ~moderately complex computer...or office equipment~.
I cannot agree. It is clear that the personal computer has taken the place of the typewriter as the
basic piece of office equipment used for the purpose of reducing handwritten or oral communication to
printed matter. In that sense, it has become
~standard~ office equipment. It may be noted that the first reference to a computer in the knowledge skill
matrix is to a ~moderately complex~ computer. No specific reference is made anywhere to a ~simple~
computer. In my opinion this affords some support for the conclusion that the matrix contemplates that
~simple~ computer operations, such as those involved in straightforward applications of word processing
software, already included in ~standard office equipment~.
It may also be noted that the positions which are weighted at level 3 include Computer Operator A
and Programmer A. Clearly, the level of ~computer literacy~ required of those positions far surpasses that
required of the position held by the griever.
Consequently, I conclude that the factor of Knowledge: Skill should be evaluated at level 2.
7
Thus, in summary, on the basis of the application of the Core Point Rating Plan I confirm the
evaluation of this position as falling properly within Pay Band 4.
This validity of this conclusion may be double checked by a brief examination of the extent to which
the duties performed by the grievor fall within the typical duties performed by a Secretary A, the
classification sought by the grievor.
There is no evidence that the grievor is ever involved in iniating and composing copy, or in
arranging appointments. Although some reference was made to her involvement, with Mr. Monteyn and Ms.
Cavanagh, in the establishment of the new division in August of 1987, it would appear that this work was
done only once, is not an ongoing responsibility, and in any event was done largely by Ms. Cavanagh.
Consequently, I am unable to see it as constituting the ~establishment of an office system~ or the
~development of record keeping procedures~, duties of a Secretary A.
The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this day of 1990
G. J. Brandt, Sole Arbitrator