HomeMy WebLinkAboutBayley 90-00-00 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
between
ALGONQUIN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 416
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievance of Suzanne Bayley
Sole Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Janet Ross, Supervisor, Recruitment
and Classification
Gladys MeRae, Manager, Personnel Services
Georges Germain, Chairperson, Marketing
Economics, School of Business
For the Union: Howard Law, Grievance Officer
Frank Piccione, Local 416
Suzanne Bayley, Grievor
Hearing:
Algonquin College
April 23, 1990.
AWARD
Introduction
The grievor, Suzanne Bayley, who at the time of her grievance on February 10, 1989, was classified
as a Secretary B, claimed reclassification as Secretary Atypical Payband 8. One of the issues which the
Union intended to raise in the grievance concerned the appropriate weight which should be given to the fact
that the grievor is required to be bi lingual. It intended to argue that some weight should be given to it
under the factor of Knowledge: Training.
In its brief the College argued that the College System and the classification system used does not
provide for additional financial remuneration for bilingual positions. In view of these considerations it
was decided that this was an issue whose nature was such that it could not be satisfactorily resolved by the
expedited arbitration procedure. Consequently, it is recommended that a panel of arbitrators be struck to
consider and resolve this issue.
In view of this decision the Union advised that it was withdrawing any claim based on the job factor
of Knowledge:Training. That withdrawal is, of course, without prejudice to its right to raise the issue of
bi lingual skills before a reconstituted panel should it so desire. As a result of this withdrawal the
claim of the union is modified to a claim that the grievor be reclassified to Secretary Atypical Payband 7.
The remaining factors in dispute and the classifications assigned to them by the College and Union
respectively are as follows.
College Union
1. Job Difficulty
Judgment 3 4
2. Guidelines Received
Guidelines Available C D
3. Working Conditions
Visual Strain B D
Duties and Responsibilities and Working Conditions
The PDF Position Summary describes the position as providing ~secretarial and administrative
services to the Chairman and 19 teachers and one technologist and to at least 18 contract teachers~. Duties
and responsibilities include the typing of reports and memoranda for the Chairman; the preparation of exams,
course outlines etc. for the faculty and contract teachers; acting as receptionist for faculty and contract
teachers, answering telephone inquiries concerning departmental policies and procedures for staff, students,
and visitors; aeting as receptionist for the Chairman by providing information and scheduling appointments;
and serving a liaison function with marketing advisors, employers, publishers and between faculty and
students. Other duties include co ordination of meetings, payroll administration, control and ordering of
supplies, and arranging room changes with the timetabling office.
Both the grievor and her Chairman, Mr. Georges Germain, described the area where she works as an
information centre, a ~very busy corner~ of the building. In her capacity as secretary the grievor is
required to provide information on a wide variety of subjects to various people. For example, she may be
asked to explain College guidelines and procedures regarding typing and printing to both faculty and
contract teachers who may be unfamiliar with the procedures. She may deal with inquiries from contract
teachers concerned about how their time has been credited and their pay calculated. She may have telephone
calls from parents inquiring about children's grades.
The secretarial duties which are performed for the Chairman require the grievor to type his letters
4
and minutes of meetings etc., to answer his phone and take messages, to open his mail and, in certain
respects, to answer it. For example, both the timetabling departments and the bookstore request information
from the Chairman respecting examinations and books required by faculty. The grievor, on her own initiative
and without either instruetion or review from the Chairman, aequires that information and reports it to the
timetabling department and bookstore respectively.
Exeept for signing his own letters Mr. 6ermain does not eheek the grievor's typewritten work. Sueh
work as she does for faeulty and eontraet teachers is checked by them. She works largely on her own.
However, she has recourse to two manuals; the College Policies and Procedures Manual and the Management
6uidelines for the School of Business. She stated that she uses these manuals, on average, once a month.
The grievor spends her full working day at a video display terminal. She is, however, frequently
interrupted by phone calls or by faculty, contract teachers, or students seeking information or assistance
on one matter or another. When an interruption oeeurs she is required to attend to it after whieh she may
return to her work at the word proeessor.
On oeeasion she may have to leave her work area eompletely. This oeeurs when, on a thriee daily
basis, she sorts the mail. It also occurs when she is required, for example, to photocopy some material
requested, to repair the photoeopy maehine, or to deliver an important message to a student in elass. She
estimated that over the course of a day she would be absent for her work station, on various tasks, for
approximately an hour to an hour and a half a day.
Decision
Job Difficulty: Judgment
1 find that the appropriate level for the factor of Judgment is that proposed by the Union, viz,
level 4.
I note first that the PDF itself states that ~every duty the secretary performs requires a high
degree of judgment and discretion, especially in dealing with students, faculty, external and internal
organizations.~ It also states that the secretary handles a ~lot of confidential material~ and ~requires a
high degree of public relations skills and good humour to aet as a buffer between the Chairman, the faeulty,
5
the students and the public.~
In my opinion considerable weight should be given to the PDF particularly where it contains agreed
upon statements reflecting on the job factors set out in the job evaluation plan. Thus, where the PDF
describes the level of judgment required as of a ~high degree~ it would require compelling evidence to
justify an evaluation of the level of judgment required as ~moderate~ as the College claims. Moreover, as I
understand the duties, they do involve the handling of a ~variety of conventional problems, questions or
situations with established analytical techniques~ as the manual requires. Nor, in my opinion, is there any
evidence to support the claim advanced by the College that the duties performed by the grievor did not
require this level of judgment for a ~significant~ portion of her daily activity.
Consequently, I would rate this factor at level 4.
Guidance Received
Guidelines Available
The evidence is clear that, except in rare cases, the grievor is not required to review unfamiliar
situations with her supervisor. She works essentially on her own. It may be noted that this is completely
consistent with and to be expected where someone is required to exercise a high degree of judgment and a
high degree of public relations skills. Such attributes describe an employee who works on her own and who
deals with problems as they arise, having recourse only to her supervisor on an infrequent basis. In my
opinion it would be more accurate to describe the relationship between the grievor and her supervisor as one
in which the supervisor was ~available to assist with problems~, that is, the kind of review contemplated by
level D.
While it is true that there are manuals available to assist the grievor, they are not referred to
frequently. Indeed, for the most part, the solution to problems is accomplished more by ingenuity than by
reference to manuals. Again it may be noted that the PDF states that the secretary ~needs a high degree of
ingenuity and self motivation to accomplish a variety of on going and non routine assignments.~ I find it
difficult, in the face of statements of this kind, to support the claim of the College that this factor
should be weighted at level C.
Working Conditions
Visual Strain
The College advances 2 arguments in support of its position that the position is correctly evaluated
at level B for Visual strain, viz, ~moderate concentration, focus on small areas or objects for short
periods up to 1 hour at a time.~
It is argued that, considering that Article 12.4.3 of the collective agreement states that employees
using VDT terminals should receive a 10 minute break away from their machine every hour, the grievor is
entitled to and should take that relief and should not be able to, in effect, waive that benefit where the
effect would be to raise her classification.
I do not believe that it is appropriate to reach any conclusion concerning this argument in the
expedited forum. If the argument were to succeed it would call into question the propriety of the
classification of a number of positions, eg. data entry positions, some of which are benchmark positions.
Presumably, if the argument is sound, there would be no employees who would be required to concentrate on
small objects for periods in excess of 1 hour. That would, in effect, render inapplicable all of the levels
above level B for Visual Strain. I am reluctant to make any decision with such implications through the
expedited process.
Moreover, there are other far ranging implications in the argument which suggest that, if it is to
be addressed, it should be done before a full panel unrestricted by the constraints imposed on the expedited
process. The argument requires a consideration of the relationship between the job evaluation scheme and
the other provisions of the collective agreement. Although the issue put before me is restricted to the
significance of the negotiated 10 minute break there may well be other substantive provisions of the
collective agreement which could have a bearing on the meaning and interpretation of the job evaluation
plan. Again I am reluctant to open up that broader question without the benefit of a fuller presentation
of evidence and argument.
The second argument of the College is that, given the frequent interruptions experienced by the
grievor, she was not required to focus on small areas or objects for periods greater than 1 hour.
7
The Union claims that the factors should not be interpreted as requiring concentration continuously
for the period of time stated in the guidelines (viz, up to 1 hour, between 1 and 2 hours, greater than 2
hours). It was submitted that, on that basis, very few jobs would rise above the lowest level since there
are always interruptions. Yet the manual clearly contemplates that some jobs will be classified at the
higher levels.
The Union argued that the better approach is to assess the nature of the interruptions and to ask
whether or not they are ~momentary~ in nature or whether they are %ignifieant~.
I agree with this approach to the interpretation of the Visual Strain factor. However, I am unable
to agree that in this case the griever should be rated at the level claimed by the Union, viz, level D.
One should not lose sight of the faet that this faetors seeks to measure visual strain. The griever
stated that she is interrupted every 5 lOminutes. While some of those interruptions may only take her away
from the screen momentarily they occur with such frequency that, overall, the level of strain must be
reduced. Moreover, some of the interruptions take her away from the work station completely and can last,
in the griever's estimation, for as long as 3 minutes.
In view of these considerations I would agree with the rating of the College for these factors.
Summary
The conclusions which I have reached respecting the factors in dispute are as follows:
Job Difficulty: C4 144
Guidance Received D3 129
Working Conditions
Visual Strain B5 13
In the result the griever has 478 points on the Core Point Rating plan and falls within Payband 7.
Consequently, the grievanee is allowed and the College is direeted to reelassify the griever as
Seeretary Atypieal Pay Band 7 and to eompensate her aeeordingly.
I remain seised of jurisdietion in the event that the parties are unable to agree upon the
8
appropriate compensation that is payable as a result of this award.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this day of , 1990.
G. J. Brandt, Arbitrator