HomeMy WebLinkAboutDame 88-00-00 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
between
FANSHAWE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
Classification Grievance of Janet Dame
Sole Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: D. Busehe, Assistant Director,
Human Resources
For the Union: John Ford, Grievance Offieer
Hearing: Ramada Inn, London
November 29, 1988
2
AWARD
INTRODUCTION
This case deals with a classification grievance of Janet Dame whose position title is Divisional
Assistant and who reports to the Chairperson of the Management Studies Division.
She is currently classified as a Secretary C, Pay Band 7 and seeks a reclassification retroactive to
June 1, 1986 to the position of Support Services Officer, Pay Band 11.
The parties are agreed as to the content of the Position Description.
There are 5 job factors in dispute. The respective evaluations by the College and Union of these
factors are as follows:
College Union
1. Job Difficulty C3 E5
2. Guidance Received C3 D4
3. Communications B3 D4
4. Knowledge (Skill) 3 5
5. Working Conditions
Manual Effort A5 B4
FACTS
The agreed upon position description form indicates that 41% of the grievor's time is spent on SWF
Cycle Data Base Maintenance. The grievor testified extensively as to the duties which she performs in this
regard.
The SWF is the Standard Work Load Form which records information respecting a number of factors
which the College and the Union representing the Academic Staff have negotiated into their collective
agreement concerning the calculation of the work load. That collective agreement contains a formula
according to which various activities, eg. contact time, preparation time, evaluation time, committee
assignments, etc. are assigned certain weights for the purpose of calculating the workload. The amount of
3
time that may be allotted various according to various other factors, such as, the method of evaluation, the
number of students in the course, whether or not the course has been taught before etc. The target workload
for each faculty member is 44 hours per week. Where that target is exceeded the College is obliged to pay
overtime.
It is the responsibility of the grievor to collect the information necessary for the calculation of
the workload, to make the appropriate entries of that information into the computer, (which in turn does the
appropriate calculation) and to monitor any changes that might be necessary in the workload as and when they
arise.
The process begins with the assignment of teaching responsibilities to faculty members by Mr.
Cleary, the Chairperson of the Division. He communicates those assignments to the grievor who then begins
the process of gathering the information necessary to complete the SWF. This information may be obtained
from course outlines, from the hiring guide, from talking to the instructors etc. She prepares a rough
draft of a SWF for each instructor. Where, as a result of that process, the target of 44 hours per week is
reached there is generally no problem. However, if the target is exceeded, it becomes necessary to consider
changes in the assignments, eg. switching an instructor to a section with fewer students, which will achieve
the appropriate target. In this regard she consults with Mr. Clearly and advises him on alternative
scenarios that might be attempted in order to achieve the desired target. As noted, where it is not possible
to achieve that target, overtime will become payable.
The process by which the SWF is calculated is done largely by entering the relevant data, which the
grievor has collected from various sources, into the computer. The computer is programmed to carry out the
necessary calculation.
Once the SWF is calculated it may become necessary for the grievor to discuss the calculation with
faculty members. Faculty members may have questions concerning how or why a particular factor was weighted
in a particular way or questions as to how, generally, the workload is calculated. This involves the
grievor in explaining to faculty members how the provisions of the collective agreement operate. If there
are disputes concerning the calculation of the workload, which cannot be resolved following an explanation
of the process by the grievor, they are referred to Mr. Cleary.
4
The process of calculating the SWF occurs for each of the three academic terms. In addition to the
initial calculation there is need to review and, if necessary, revise the SWF, after the ~count date~, which
occurs approximately 6 weeks into the term when the Registrar's Office has confirmed figures concerning the
numbers of students who actually registered in a particular course or section. Where that number was higher
than had been expected at the time that the SWF was originally prepared, it becomes necessary to revise the
SWF.
If, as a result of a change in the SWF, overtime becomes payable the grievor is required to
calculate the overtime rate and to prepare a payment authorization for the signature of Mr. Cleary.
A further need for revision to a SWF may occur where the Workload Monitoring Group, which reviews
the SWFs against the timetable, discovers some discrepancy. A list outlining any discrepancies will be sent
to the grievor who is responsible for checking the discrepancies and effecting any reconciliation that may
be necessary.
A second area of activity (10%) performed by the grievor concerns *exam week* activity. Three times
a year the grievor is required to prepare an examination week timetable. In this regard she obtains from
the Physical Resources information as to the rooms that will be available for examinations and from faculty
members information concerning the course, the number of students in the course, and the faculty member's
preference for the time and location of the examination. In the majority of cases faculty members do not
specify a preferred time and location and leave the determination of that to the grievor.
In selecting the appropriate place and time for the examination the grievor takes into account the
marking time required (eg. scheduling examinations which require a lot of marking earlier in the week) and
preparation time for students (eg. scheduling examinations sufficiently far apart that students will have
adequate time to prepare).
Once all the information has been gathered together the grievor prepares a timetable for all of the
faculty members and for the students. This timetable must be available 2 weeks prior to the examinations.
A third are of activity (10%) concerns human resources/ account and purchasing liaison. In this
respect the grievor initiates payroll documents for support staff and faculty and monitors the payroll and
5
calculates and processes overtime payments for faculty and acts as liaison between payroll and Human
Resources when discrepancies arise.
A related activity (5%) involves the grievor in monitoring divisional accounting and purchasing
systems in which capacity she processes appropriate purchase orders for equipment and supplies, reconciles
monthly distribution journals and makes recommendations to the chairperson concerning budget transfers where
some of the accounts are running low. Purchasing for the division is routed through the grievor for advice
or for passing an item on to Mr. Cleary for approval. She has signing authority for all divisional supply
accounts.
In connection with these duties she is called upon to give advice to faculty or co ordinators on
buying supplies and to explain to new staff how the accounting and purchasing is carried on at the College.
In carrying out these functions there are available to the grievor various written guidelines.
However, because of her experience in the position, she no longer finds it necessary to refer to them unless
there has been some change.
Approximately 10% of the grievor's time is allocated to duties as Individual Administrative
Assistant to the Chairperson in which capacity she provides administrative support to the chairperson
including confidential correspondence, and faculty and support staff evaluations. She stated, and Mr.
Cleary did not disagree, that she is asked by him to give advice on the hiring and firing of staff including
faculty members. She also is invited by Mr. Cleary to advise on various ways in which operating costs in the
department can be reduced.
Other duties include orientation of new faculty in which regard the grievor participates in (and on
one occasion when Mr. Cleary was absent, ran) meetings where new faculty are welcomed and oriented to the
various procedures of the College respecting examinations, grading, office procedures etc.; preparing the
documentation for the review of a program, attendance at program review meetings and the taking of minutes
and the preparation of a report on the review meeting; and program maintenance functions, viz, initiation of
course authorization forms, updating of the curriculum on the computer.
Her working relationship with Mr. Cleary was described by Mr. Cleary as involving a ~participative~
approach. While he has responsibility in the end he leaves it to the grievor to carry out her duties. She
6
stated that she prioritizes her own work and does not review her how she establishes those priorities with
Mr. Clearly. Mr. Cleary did not disagree with that account. She is aware of the deadlines that she has to
meet and works to that kind of self imposed timetable. On occasion she has taken work home with to do at
night in order to meet a particular deadline.
As far as guidelines are concerned it was the grievor's opinion that, considering the number of
changes in the curriculum, in the faculty and in the co ordinators, she had to adapt her practices and
procedures. However she admitted that her basic method of carrying out her duties did not change. The same
steps were followed, for example, in preparing and monitoring the SWFs. However, what did change was the
information that would need to be taken into consideration in completing her tasks.
DECISION
In argument, the spokesperson for the College invited me to conduct an analysis of the guide
charts for the Secretary Job Family and the Support Services Job Family and to compare the respective lists
of typical duties found therein with those of the grievor. It was submitted that if that process were
undertaken it would be evident that the vast majority of the grievor's typical duties fell within the
Secretary Job Family and, more particularly, within the classification of Secretary B.
I am not persuaded that this is an appropriate way to proceed where the claim is essentially that
the position is atypical. It is clear from the Classification Manual that where such is the case the
appropriate manner of proceeding is to assess the position against the various job factors outlined in the
Core Point Rating Plan. Consequently, I intend to proceed with such an examination.
1. Job Difficulty.
As indicated above the parties are in disagreement over both the factors of complexity and judgment.
On the factor of judgment the College has rated the position at level 3, viz, ~moderate degree of
judgment...problem solving requires the identification and breakdown of facts and components of the problem
situation.~ The Union claims level 5, viz, %ignificant~ judgment...problem solving involving interpreting
complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used.~
I do not regard either of these as appropriate. It is stating the obvious to say that the points of
definition between judgment which is ~moderate~, ~considerable~ or %ignificant~ are not easy to discover.
There are a number of respects in which the grievor is called upon to exercise judgment which I would regard
as %ignificant~. These include the advice that she gives to Mr. Cleary on alternative means by which the
SWFs can be calculated in order to achieve the desired target of 44 hours per week, her role in explaining
to faculty members (who may not be entirely content with the SWF) the manner by which the SWF was
calculated, the advice she gives on matters relating to the administration of the budget and advice on
matters of hiring and firing of new faculty. I do not regard the fact that Mr. Cleary is ultimately
responsible for these decisions to be material since it is clear that he values very highly the advice given
to him.
8
While this conclusion would support a finding that the factor of judgment should be rated at level
5, as the Union claims, I am not satisfied that the problem solving required is of a nature which requires
the grievor to ~interpret complex data~ or to ~refine work methods and techniques to be used~. She admitted
that the methods by which she carried out her duties remained essentially the same although, in particular
cases, there may be some changes in the information that had to be gathered in order to complete the task.
Moreover, I have difficulty in characterizing the data that she deals with as ~complex~ in nature. With
respect to the major part of her duties, viz, the preparation and monitoring of SWFs. it is essentially
information concerning student numbers, methods of evaluation etc. This information is readily obtainable
and the process of entering it into the computer itself is relatively straightforward. Similarly, the data
or information which she processes concerning examination week or the budgets is not ~complex~ in nature.
I would therefore conclude that the appropriate rating for this factor is level 4, viz,
~considerable~ judgment where problem solving involves handling a ~variety of conventional problems or
situations with established analytical techniques.~ On the factor of complexity the College has rated
the position at level C, viz, performance of various complex tasks that include both routine and non routine
aspects requiring different and unrelated processes and methods. The Union claims level E, viz, performance
of non routine and relatively unusual tasks that may require the application of specialized processes or
methods.
The point of differentiation between level C and those above it is the exclusion of routine
functions in levels g and above. Thus, for the Union to succeed on this factor it must establish that the
duties which the grievor performs are not routine in nature. I am not persuaded that this has been
established. In this regard it must be kept in mind that merely because the precise manner by which a
particular task is carried out may vary from term to term or year to year does not make the performance of
that task non routine. If, in general, the basic nature of the task does not vary and if it is typically
performed at regular periods throughout the year it qualifies, in my opinion, as a routine function. Thus,
when one examines the preparation and monitoring of SWF s, the grievor's major activity, it becomes clear
that this is performed regularly 3 times a year and the process by which it is performed is the same each
time. What varies is the information that needs to be collected in order to perform the task. I am not
9
persuaded that this variation has the effect of converting what is a routine, regularly performed function,
into one which is non routine. Were it otherwise any slight variation in the manner by which a particular
job is performed would justify a higher rating, a result which would lead to any number of claims of
atypicality.
Consequently, I conclude that for the factor of ~ob Difficulty, the appropriate rating is C4.
2. Guidance Received.
Again the parties are in disagreement both on the factors of Guidelines Available and Nature of
Review. For Guidelines Available the College has rated the position at level C, viz, work performed in
accordance with general procedures and past practices..unfamiliar situations reviewed with supervisor.~ The
Union claims, level D, viz, work performed in accordance with procedures and practices which may be adapted
and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems...supervisor available to assist in resolving
problems.
While, for the reasons set out above, I have some difficulty in concluding that the grievor is
required to ~adapt~ or ~modify~ the practices and procedures she follows as would be required for level D I
have equal difficulty in concluding that her relationship with her supervisor is such that ~unfamiliar
problems are reviewed~ with him, as suggested by level C. It appears clear that there is very little, if
any, review of unfamiliar problems with Mr. Cleary. However, I am not permitted to choose a rating
somewhere between level C and level D. In view of the fact that the factor definition for this factor
states that it is ~used to measure the requirement of resourcefulness, creativity, and initiative~, I am
persuaded that the fact that the grievor works largely on her own without review by her supervisor should be
accorded paramount importance. Consequently, I conclude that she should be rated at level D for Guidelines
Available.
Similar factors enter into my determination of the proper rating for the factor of Nature of Review.
The College proposes a rating of 3, viz, intermittent checking of the grievor's work for quality. The
Union proposes level 4, viz, general review for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to
10
established deadlines. The evidence is quite clear and beyond doubt that there is no checking of the
grievor's work for quality. Consequently, I agree with the rating proposed by the Union.
Therefore, I conclude that the factor of Guidance Received should be rated at D4.
3. Communications
Both the purpose of contacts and the level of contacts are in dispute. For the factor of purpose
the College rated the position at level B, viz, providing detailed explanation to ensure understanding on
matters such as how information was collected or how a figure was calculated. The Union seeks level D, viz,
problem identification and solution with respect to matters of considerable importance requiring tact,
diplomacy and persuasion.
Clearly there is no basis in the evidence for supporting the Union's claim. The only circumstances
in which the contacts which the grievor has might require her to exercise tact, diplomacy and persuasion are
in respect of dealing with faculty members who have questions concerning the calculation of their SWF.
However, in that respect, the grievor is not required to ~justify~ the calculation; she merely explains how
it was arrived at. If faculty members remain dissatisfied they are referred to Mr. Cleary. Similarly, any
students who have complaints about faculty members are referred directly to Mr. Cleary. The grievor plays
no role in ~resolving~ those disputes.
Level B, as proposed by the College, adequately captures the role of the grievor in respect of her
work on the SWF s. However, it does not capture those of the grievor's duties which involve her in
orienting new faculty, in explaining how the purchasing and accounting procedures work etc. Those duties
appear to be more closely reflected by level C, viz, providing guidance, instruction or technical advice or
for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures or policy. It may be noted that
the grievor's role in explaining to faculty members how the SWF was calculated also fits comfortably into
level C. Consequently, I would conclude that level C more accurately describes the bulk of the grievor's
duties than does level B.
With respect to the level of contacts the College proposes level 3, viz, primarily with employees at
comparable or lower levels within the College or with individuals below middle management levels outside the
11
College. The Union proposes level 4, viz, primarily with employees at senior management levels within the
College and outside the College.
I agree with the rating proposed by the College. There is simply no evidence at all to establish
that the primary eontaets of the grievor are with employees at senior management levels. Her primary
eontaets are with Mr. Cleary and with faeulty neither of whom would qualify as senior management. Her
eontaets with the Dean are infrequent.
4. Knowledge: Skill
The College proposes that this faetor be rated at level 3, viz, ability to apply specialized
teehnieal or elerieal skills based on a sound knowledge of established proeedures .... may be required to
operate moderately eomplex eomputer. The union proposes level 5, viz, ability to organize eomplex
statistieal information and to understand and apply elementary prineiples of a seienee ..may operate very
eomplex ...eomputer equipment.
In support of the elaim for level 5 the Union argued that the grievor had to use eertain
mathematical skills in reviewing the SWF s after the eount date and that this met the requirement that she
~understand and apply the elementary principles of a science~. I cannot agree. The checking of the SWF s
following the eount date involved a simple matter of eomparing student registration numbers and eorreeting
any ehanges. It is diffieult to eoneeive of that task as involving the exereise of mathematieal skills to
any signifieant degree.
Nor ean it be said that the grievor was involved in the %rganization of eomplex statistieal
information~ or the operation of a ~very eomplex~ eomputer. The work she performed on the eomputer was
essentially data entry, work which, it may be noted, is among the typical duties of the Typist Steno and
Seeretary elassifieations.
It is my eonelusion that the appropriate rating for this faetor should be that proposed by the
College, viz, level 3.
5. Working Conditions: Manual Effort
12
Both the factors of Manual Effort and Prevalence are in dispute. The College has rated the position
at AS, viz minimum manual effort more than 60% of the time. The Union seeks B4, viz, light manual effort 31
to 60% of the time.
The Union rests its claim for level B on two tasks that the grievor performs. Once a week she
carries printed material weighing 15 pounds from the printer back to desk, a journey of 5 minutes walk.
Once every 2 weeks she carries office supplies, which she described as ~quite heavy~ from the book store to
her office, a 3 minute walk.
Level B speaks of ~prolonged~ walking, climbing stairs, and/or handling light weight materials. The
facts scarcely support the argument that the carrying of this material, one for 5 minutes per week, the
other for 3 minutes every 2 weeks, constitutes ~prolonged~ activity.
Moreover, for similar reasons the facts do not support the Union's claim as the prevalence of this
activity. Level 4 requires that it be engaged in on a ~frequent~ basis, 31 to 60% of the time. The facts
simply do not support the claim.
Consequently, I conclude that rating proposed by the College is appropriate.
13
SUMMARY
The following are my conclusions concerning the proper rating for the various factors in dispute.
1. Job Difficulty C4 144 points
2. Guidance Received D4 150 points
3. Communications C3 84 points
4. Skill 3 34 points
5. Manual Effort A5 3 points
This results in a further 93 points being added to the grievor's point total bringing her to 546
points. That point total places her in Pay Band 8.
Accordingly, the grievor should be reclassified as Secretary Atypical, Pay Band 8.
The grievance is allowed and the College is directed to reclassify the grievor and compensate her
for any monies and benefits owing retroactive to June 1, 1986.
In the grievance the Union claims that the grievor also be awarded interest. It was argued by the
College that I have no jurisdiction to award interest. I find no limit on my jurisdiction to award
interest. Moreover, I see no reason why interest should not be awarded. By improperly classifying the
grievor the College has deprived her of monies which ought to have been paid to her over the period in
question. If she is to be ~made whole~ for that loss it is quite reasonable to order the College to pay
interest.
I remain seised of jurisdiction in the event that the parties are unable to agree on the appropriate
compensation including questions which may arise as to the appropriate rate of interest that should be
applied to the monies owing.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this day of , 1988
14
G. J. Brandt, Sole Arbitrator