Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDuffy 95-12-2895A888 SHERIDAN VS DUFFY IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION PROCEEDING UNDER ARTICLE 18.4.3.4 OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN: ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE FORM OF SHERIDAN COLLEGE (hereinafter called the "College") - and- ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (FOR SUPPORT STAFF EMPLOYEES) (hereinafter called the "Umon") GRIEVANCE OF RITA DUFFY OPSEU FILE NO. 95A888 (hereinafter called the "Ghevor") EXPEDITED ARBITRATOR: Richard H. McLaren, C. Arb. APPEARING FOR THE COLLEGE: Rosalie E. Spargo Carolyn Teo Kelly Karius APPEARING FOR THE UNION: Norma Pennington-Drabble Jay Jackson A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT OAKVILLE, ONTARIO, ON DECEMBER 20, 1995. AWARD Ms. Rita Duffy is classified as a Reproduction Operator B at payband 6. She has been employed in her current position in the printing department for the past seven years. She commenced her employment with the College in 1981. Ms. Duffy seeks an evaluation of her position and, on her behalf, the Union asserts that it ought to be classified as a Reproduction Equipment Operator Atypical at payband 10. The parties have agreed on the Position Description Form (PDF). The agreed upon form was finalized in June of 1995 and is an extensive 14 page document. The Arbitration Data Sheet for the support staff classification filed with the Arbitrator by the parties and revised by them at the heating set out their respective positions. The corrected table is reproduced below: FACTORS MANAGEMENT UNION Level Points Level Points 1. Training/Technical Skills 3 52 4 71 2. Experience 3 32 4 45 3. Complexity 3 41 4 58 4. Judgement 3 48 4 66 5. Motor Skills C3 25 D3 37 6. Physical Demand 3 28 3 28 7. Sensory Demand 3 28 3 28 8. Strain from Work 4 39 4 39 Pressures/Demands/Deadlines 9. Independent Action 3 33 5 60 10. Communications/Contacts 1 16 3 88 11. Responsibility for Decisions 3 44 5 80 and Actions 12. Work Environment 3 55 3 55 PAYBAND/TOTAL POINTS 6 441 10 655 Reproduction JOB CLASSIFICATION Equipment Operator B Atypical The parties only agree on four of the twelve job factors. They are also a considerable distance apart in that the College rates the job at payband 6 and the Union is asserting that it ought to be rated at payband 10. In the event that the Union is successful in any reclassification as a result of this Award the retroactivity provisions of the Collective Agreement found at Article 18.4.1 and 18.4.1.1 apply to the grievance dated March 23, 1995. Under the rules for these expedited arbitrations, the Arbitrator is required to issue the decision within fourteen days following the hearing, which would be January 4, 1996. By mutual agreement of the parties at the hearing, recognizing that the upcoming holiday period would considerably reduce the time available for developing this decision agreed that the deadline for this particular Award would be one week later, January 11, 1996. The position which is to be classified is within the Creative and Printing Services Department, which is located at the Trafalgar Campus of the College. The department is responsible for producing photocopying and offset printing services for the college community. The Grievor reports directly to the manager of the department, Kelly Karius. Both were present and discussed the job with the Arbitrator during the course of the heating. The PDF reveals that the core duties of the job comprise operating three industry standard xerox photocopying machines; finishing reproduction work by performing binding services; and, trouble shooting and maintaining the equipment used in the reproduction process. These core duties comprise 65% of the person's time, with a further 25% of the time being involved in coordinating the centralized college-wide photocopying services for all high- volume administrative and academic materials. These activities, when added together, comprise 90% of the job with the remaining 10% relating to the supervision and training of casual staff to assist in the work during peak production times, which are primarily in the period from May through September, but can arise at other times on occasion. Within the department aside from the photocopying activities there are also off-set press operators who use a different technology involving printing presses. In the print section of the department there are two type of presses, which are used to produce more difficult jobs involving both single and multiple colour and the application of colour separation techniques. The position being evaluated here is the photocopying one and has nothing to do with the operation or maintenance of off-set presses. CLASSIFICATION/POINT SYSTEM/CORE POINT RATING PLAN FACTORS 1. FACTOR 1: TRAINING/TECHNICAL SKILLS COLLEGE LEVEL 3, UNION LEVEL 4 The Union asserts that the training/technical skills factor ought to be at level 4. The description for that level is: Required skills normally acquired through attainment of secondary school graduation and completion of additional job related training courses, or one year Community College diploma, or equivalent. Job duties require the ability to apply specialized skills. The College submits that level 3 is appropriate, that description reads: Required skills normally acquired through attainment of secondary school graduation, or equivalent. Job duties require the ability to apply advanced reading, writing, and arithmetic skills. Both levels require the attainment of secondary school graduation. There is no dispute that this is a minimal level of training and technical skill required. The difference between the parties centres on the fact that this particular individual has some further additional qualifications, as well as some on the j ob training. Ms. Duffy, prior to her employment with the College obtained a Bookbinding Certificate following a two-year apprenticeship while she lived in Vancouver and worked for the Evergreen Press. Such certificates are issued by the Graphic Arts Trade Union, and are recognized in the industry. Thus, she has bookbinding qualifications. The PDF indicates that 10% of the duties involve performing bindery servTices in which it would be common for her to operate equipment such as a manual cerlex binder; manual shrink wrapper; guillotine cutter; automated folding machines; manual saddle stitcher; and manual drill presses. The Griever also trained in 1977 in Toronto with Canada Line Type for one week leaming how to set up folding machines. There is no doubt that this griever's personal qualifications assist her in the job. They make her the effective, efficient and excellent employee which she clearly is, and with which everyone at the hearing agreed. The issue for the Arbitrator to decide is whether this is ajeb required skill or one which this employee has which assists her in being a very good employee, but is not a necessary qualification for the position. The binder function is a small aspect of the job comprising 10% of the duties, and the newest Xerox equipment performs a type of binding, which will change some of the demand for the manual binding which has in the past been the primary method of binding. The PDF does not indicate that there is any requirement of such types of either experience or qualifications. This factor is meant to represent the minimum requirements in order to fulfil the position. The Arbitrator finds that the Griever's qualifications, while no doubt assisting her in performing the job, do not represent minimum levels required to do the job. There is always a difficulty in these proceedings in sorting out the difference between what the particular individual has in the way of qualifications and experience and what the position itself requires irrespective of the individual who is occupying it. Her qualifications are not a requirement for this job. The PDF refers to two forms of Xerox customer training, one of which is called a Customer Training Program, the other of which is called a Diagnostic Training Program. In addition to these training programs when new equipment is provided by this company, a familiarization period involving a one day on sight instruction is conducted. Any on the job training of a familiarization nature is not within this factor and ought not to be considered. The Griever has taken two courses, one of which was a one week course offered by the Xerox company in Virginia. These courses enable the person to perform and use the machines more effectively and particularly to trouble shoot the machines. This is an advantage to both the Xerox company in less frequent serdce calls and serdce demands, and obviously to the College in ability to effect minor repairs and adjustments without the interv-entien of the Xerox technical staff and the accompanying downtime for the equipment. Once again it becomes a question of whether this is part of the minimum level requirements of the job. While it is on the job training, it would appear that it is part of the minimum level requirements of the j ob and is indicated in the PDF as being so. The issue that the Arbitrator must decide is whether that training is sufficient to translate into level 4, where it is required that beyond the secondary school graduation there be completion of additional "job related courses" or one year community college diploma or equivalent. The Arbitrator is of the view that the job duties do not require the ability to apply specialized skill and that part of the definition for level 4 does not apply in these circumstances. The Xerox company course clearly do not equate to a one year community college diploma or an equivalent. Therefore, for these training programs to have any application it has to be because of the definition referring to the completion of "additional job related training courses". The Griever took the course in 1988 which is near the commencement of her doing this job seven years ago. The training is clearly of a benefit to the College and is job related. A one week course of this nature ought to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the definition. The Arbitrator concludes that such courses do fall within the minimum level of independent training to fulfil the requirements of the position and therefore that it ought to be rated at level 4. 2. FACTOR 2: EXPERIENCE - COLLEGE LEVEL 3, UNION LEVEL 4 The Union asserts that the experience factor ought to be at level 4. The description for that level is: More than three years and up to five years of practical experience. The College submits that level 3 is appropriate, that description reads: More than one year and up to three years of practical experience. The PDF rates Experience as being a minimum of two years experience coordinating and operating high-volume photocopying equipment together with related experience in customer relations. The range is one year and up to three years of practical experience. PDF has been agreed upon as requiring a minimum of two years of such experience. There is no reason to rate the position at level 4, which requires more than three years and up to five years practical experience. The rating of the College is accepted. 3. FACTOR 3: COMPLEXITY - COLLEGE LEVEL 3~ UNION LEVEL 4 The Union asserts that the complexity factor ought to be at level 4. The description for that level is: Job duties require the performance of varied, non-routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods. The College submits that level 3 is appropriate, that description reads: Job duties require the performance of various routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods. The difference between these two definitions appears to centre primarily on the fact that the fourth level involves non-routine complex tasks as contrasted with routine complex tasks. The Grievor has a great deal of practical experience at this job and within this kind of counter customer service/reproduction position. She also has a very pleasant and delightful personality, both of which combine to enable her to handle virtually all of the jobs and issues which arise out of her work, without much in the way of supervision. Thus she is able to handle a wide variety of activities. The factor is intended to measure the "amount and nature of analysis, problem-solving and reasoning required to perform job-related duties. It is intended to measure the conceptual demands of the job. This job is a technical one as is submitted by the College and not one which involves conceptualization of problems in order to analyze them and solve them. It does require a high degree of personality and diplomacy in describing priorities to different customers. It also requires a reasonable degree of knowledge in order to analyze a particular request. This does involve as the Union submits thinking processes as to the appropriateness of the job request. However the Arbitrator is of the view that the processes which are involved here in solving problems that arise in the course of the j ob are not of a non-routine nature. There are a wide variety of routine situations which arise. They are not non- routine. In reaching that conclusion, while the Union submits that there are a number of key word phrases in the PDF which coincide with the definition, that is not sufficient for the factor to be determined in favour of the Grievor. I must look at the overall job and the broad definitions of the factor as well as the specific definitions at a particular level in trying to determine what is the appropriate rating. The Arbitrator confirms the rating of the College at level 3. 4. FACTOR 4: JUDGEMENT - COLLEGE LEVEL 3, UNION LEVEL 4 The Union asserts that the judgement factor ought to be at level 4. The description for that level is: Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with established analytical techniques. The College submits that level 3 is appropriate, that description reads: Job duties require some moderate degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves the identification and breakdown of the facts and components of the problem situation. The difference between these two levels is the degree of judgement. Is it moderate or considerable? This position requires a considerable range of choices as to which job should be given which priority as well as making the customer service decisions and machine maintenance decisions. Each of these activities involves more than moderate degrees of judgement from time to time. The particular individual is a very independent person and therefore a good deal of judgement is exercised by her. The PDF also describes the degree of judgement as being considerable in assessing and adjusting priorities for the day and from time to time because of the high volume and particular rush demand jobs, as well as the critical deadline nature of the position. The definition also suggests that the problem solving is different between the two levels. The problem solving involves handling at the level 4 a variety of conventional problems with established analytical techniques. TNs individual does handle a variety of problems using established techniques. Many times it is more than just breaking down facts or the components of the problem. She has gone ahead and made arrangements where she can do adjustments to the machine beyond trouble shooting by contacting particular Xerox technicians and correcting difficulties which would otherwise require a service call. This demonstrates the level of problem solving which is being applied not only to the maintenance function, but also to other aspects of the job. The PDF confirms the considerable degree of judgement and problem solving and the Arbitrator finds that the rating of the Union is the correct one. 5. FACTOR 5: MOTOR SKILLS - COLLEGE LEVEL C3, UNION LEVEL D3 For this factor both parties agree that the prevalence is at the third level, but they disagree as to the motor skill application. The Union asserts that the motor skill application is at level D. The description for that level is: Complex fine motor movement, involving significant dexterity, co-ordination and precision, is required. Speed is a major consideration. The College submits that the motor skill is at level C, which reads: Complex fine motor movement, involving considerable dexterity, coordination and precision, is required. Speed is a secondary consideration. The Union submits that speed is a major consideration in this position. While the work has a considerable volume to it and the machines nm at high speeds, there is constant pressure for production. Speed is not a major consideration. The machines set the speed at which they nm and that is not regulated by the individual. The motor skill in the trouble shooting and maintenance of the machines is considerable, but it is a relatively small proportion of the job, being 10% of the duties according to the PDF. All of the reproduction operators, whether they be A, B, or C, are rated at the C3 level. There appears to be no reason for an adjustment. The Arbitrator confirms the rating of the College. FACTOR 9: INDEPENDENT ACTION- COLLEGE LEVEL 3, UNION LEVEL 5 The Union asserts that the independent action factor ought to be at level 5. The description for that level is: Job duties are performed in accordance with general instructions and policies involving changing conditions and problems. There is significant freedom to act independently. The College submits that level 3 is appropriate, that description reads: Job duties are performed in accordance with general procedures and past practices under periodic supervTision, with occasional periods of Supervisor input or verification. There is moderate freedom to act independently. The competence of this particular individual leaves her very independent in the course of carrying out her job duties. That relates to her experience, background and years in the job, together with her personality. One has to draw a distinction between this very competent and excellent employee, and the independent action required for the position. The independent action for the position requires no more than the level 3 description, in that the person is always operating within general procedures and past practices. In fact the practical experience and established procedures together with past practices serv-e as a guideline for typical work assignments. Even at the level 3 recognition of this particular individual's contributions to the job, the rating would be that of a Reproduction Equipment Operator C. It would be entirely inappropriate to rate this position at the highest level. The rating of the College is confirmed. 7. FACTOR 10: COMMUNICATION/CONTACTS- COLLEGE LEVEL 1 UNION LEVEL 3 The Union asserts that the communication/contacts factor ought to be at level 3. The description for that level is: Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures, policy, or theory. There may be need to promote participation and understanding and to secure co-operation in order to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive nature. Regular involvement with confidential information which has moderate disclosure implications. The College submits mat level I is appropriate, that description reads: Job duties require communication of a routine nature for the purpose of fumishing, exchanging, or discussing factual data or information. Personal courtesy and normal working/social relationships are required. The individual who occupies this position is very skilled at heading off conflict with customers and dealing with all of the customer serdce aspects of this job. She performs her communication functions superbly and no doubt in her view that justifies a higher rating. She most certainly provides technical advice, but it is not of a detailed or specialized nature. The advice is really based on past experience with respect to what might be the best quality reproduction choices, type of paper or its colour, and other such advice which is of a technical nature. It is not detailed or specialized in nature to a degree which would justify being rated at level 3. There is also photocopying of confidential information. The mere existence of confidential information does not place the job at level 3. She is not receiving confidential information in the course of her job with which she then has to do other things. She is merely photocopying confidential information and her obligation is not disclose it. That is not what is contemplated by the reference to confidential information found in the discussion and definition of level 3 on Communications/Contacts. The Arbitrator confirms the rating of the College. 8. FACTOR 11: RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS AND ACTIONS- COLLEGE LEVEL 3, UNION LEVEL 5 The Union asserts that the responsibility for decisions and actions factor is at the highest level of 5. The description for that level is: Decisions and/or actions have significant impact on the organization. Errors are difficult to detect and result in a significant waste of resources and continuing influence on operational effectiveness. The College submits that level 3 is appropriate, that description reads: Decisions and/or actions have moderate impact on the organization. Errors are usually detected by verification and review and may result in disruption of the workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited waste of resources. The manual suggests that this factor measures the impact on intemal and public relations. There is no question that the job product which this individual produces has an impact on intemal and general public relations of the College. The quality of the job presents a visual image which can cause others to make assessments as to the degree of professional activity which goes on within the College. At issue before the Arbitrator is whether that places this job at the highest level for this particular factor. To do so the actions would have to have significant impact on the organization and errors which would be difficult to detect can result in a significant waste of resources. This individual performing her job duties does not have a significant impact on the organization. If there is down time in the photo reproduction area, it does have impacts, but her day to day actions do not have a public relations aspect to them. She does have responsibility for troubleshooting the equipment, but that is only 10% of her job efforts. The errors that can be readily seen by visual examination of the photocopying. When errors occur they no doubt do cause some wasting of resources. Every job is reviewed after it is completed and there is an opportunity for it to be redone if it has been done incorrectly, which limits the possibility of there being much impact on the organization other than having to redo the job. There is no doubt that the quality of the job has an impact of the College's academic programs, but it can be caught when errors occur before it has any detrimental impacts by a proper review within the department before the job is delivered to whoever is to receive it. The Arbitrator confirms the rating of the College. CONCLUSION This case has presented difficulty in that the person who performs the job is clearly a very superior employee who does her job with dedication and a high degree of effectiveness. She does not require close supervision and is able to deal with many problems which might otherwise have to be dealt with by her supervisor, were it not for her mix of personality, practical experience and desire to perform the job well. As a result of my modification of two of the factors, the payband changes by one level. Therefore, it is found that the Grievor ought to be classified as a Reproduction Equipment Operator Atypical at payband 7. The parties are ordered to apply this classification to this position and to pay the Grievor within three weeks of the date of this Award the monies owed to her under the retroactive provisions of the Collective Agreement with respect to this re-classification. The Arbitrator will remain seized of the matter of determining the compensation owing to the Grievor in the event that there is a dispute. Either party may request the Arbitrator to reconvene the heating for the purposes of setting the retroactive compensation in the event that the parties are unable to agree. Either party may cause the heating to be reconvened by a written notice to the Arbitrator to settle the compensation owing, which is received by him within 45 days of the date of this Award. The Arbitration data sheet for the classification as rated by me is attached to this Award. I want to thank the representatives of the parties for the excellent job they did in presenting their positions. The Grievor's discussion of her job assisted me greatly in making these determinations. The comments from the supervisor were also very helpful and balanced in their assessment of the job and the contribution of this particular individual to the printing department. I appreciated the thoughtful and courteous manner in which everyone camed out their roles in this proceeding. I want to compliment the presenters Norma Pennington-Drabble and Rosalie E. Spargo for an excellent job. Your hard work and skilful presentations made my job as the decision maker much easier. I commend you for doing an excellent job. DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS 28th DAY OF DECEMBER, 1995. Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb. SEE ORIGINAL FOR ARBITRATION DATA SHEET SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION