HomeMy WebLinkAboutLee 99-04-23 In the matter if an arbitration
St. Lawrence College of Applied Arts and Technology
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 418
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification ghevance of Vema Lee
Sole Arbitrator: Gregory J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Ms. Pennie Carr-Harris, Director Human Resources
Ms. Margaret Smith, Director, School of Health Sciences
For the Union: Mr. John Molleson, Steward, Local 4 18
Ms. Vema Lee, Grievor
Hearing:
Kingston, Ont.
April 15,1999
2
AWARD
1. Introduction and Background
The grievor is classified as a Typist Steno B, Payband 4 in the School of Health
Sciences. She seeks reclassification to the position of Typist Steno C, Payband 5.
The parties are agreed that the appropriate Position Description Form is one dated
December 1994. There is further agreement as the contents of the form. However, the
parties disagree as to the appropriate rating for 3 of the job factors: Experience,
Independent Action. and Responsibility for Decisions/Actions. Following Core Point
Rating the parties amved at the following ratings for each of the job factors.
College Union
Level Points Level Points
Job Factor
I .Training/Technical Skills 3 52 3 52
2.Experience 2 20 3 32
3.Complexity 2 25 2 25
4.Judgment 2 3o 2 3o
5.Motor Skills D4 40 D4 40
6.Physical Demand 3 28 3 28
7.Sensory Demand 3 28 3 28
8.Strain from Work Pressures 3 28 2 28
9.Independent Action 2 19 3 33
10 Communications/Contacts I 16 I 16
I I Responsibility for Decisions 2 26 3 44
12 Work Environment 1 !0 1 10
Pavband/Total Points 4 322 5 366
Job Classification: Typist Steno B C
The PDF summarizes the position as providing "typing and clerical services to the
3
School of Health Sciences on Kingston Campus" and "to provide information about the
School of Health Sciences to both intemal employees and extemal people in the
community." The core duties (75%) as set out in the Duties and Responsibilities Section
of the PDF are:
Typing of program materials as requested by professors. Maintain files of printed
modules, original masters from a variety of programs, and other program materials.
Typing duties include: letters, memos, reports, minutes of meetings, charts, schedules,
surveys, pamphlets, tests, manuals, models, etc. This includes preparing requisition
forms for materials going to print, photocopy and overhead reproduction.
The grievor receives the work she is expected to do from members of the faculty
who record in a log book precisely what it is that is to be done (eg. preparation of a
course outline, a module, a handout for students, a test, correspondence, etc.) and the
deadline by which the work is required. Although some of the work, eg. correspondence
and minutes of meetings, may involve "original" typing, much of the other work requires
the grievor to access existing files at her computer and make corrections as instructed by
the faculty member. Moreover, efforts by the College to comply with IS0 standards
dictates that work is produced according to standardized forms which essentially involve
inserting required information as to such things as the name of the course, the course
description (which must comply with what appears in the calendar), the course number,
the pre-requisites or co-requisites for the course. However, where there are curriculum
changes or changes in the course outline or in a test, it is the grievor's responsibility to
make those changes.
2. The Disputed Factors
As indicated the parties disagree as to the appropriate rating for 3 of the factors. I
tum to the evidence and submissions in respect of each of these factors.
a) Experience
The College has rated this factor at level 2, viz, more than 6 months and up to one
year of practical experience; The union maintains that the'appropriate level should be
level 3, viz, more than one year and up to three years of practical experience.
The PDF states that the minimum practical experience necessary to fulfil the
requirements of the position is "at least one year of relevant work experience (two years
desirable).
In my view the dispute conceming this factor must be resolved in favour of the
union and the gfievor. The determination of the appropriate rating for this factor is
always difficult and the most reliable guide to what is appropriate is what is provided in
the PDF insofar as it represents a consensus reached by persons closely connected to the
position and what it entails. However, it is not immediately obvious from reading this
PDF and comparing it to the Job Evaluation Plan as to what the parties have agreed to.
The interpretive question which arises is whether the phrase "at leasf' one year connotes
one year but nothing more (as the College maintains) or "more than one year" (as the
Union maintains). Although arguments can be made for either position I am persuaded
that the position advanced by the union is to be preferred.
In my view the term "at least" contemplates a minimum levd and does not fit
comfortably into level 2 which refers to a range of experience between 6 months and "up
to" one year. Rather, it suggests on its face that something than one year is what is really
required. That conclusion is further supported by the parenthetical reference at the end
of thc PDF for this factor stating that two years is desirable.
C"'.
The College argues that this reference to two years of experience should be
considered only as setting out what would be an "asset" but does not impose a
"requirement." While I would agree that the language suggests something less than a
requirement, the phrase is useful in determining the proper meaning of the term "at least"
one year. 'tis' indicated it lends support to the view that what is intended by that phrase is
"more than one year".
Consequently, I conclude that the appropriate rating for this factor is level 3, 32
points.
b) Independent Action.
The College has rated this factor at level 2, viz,
Job duties are performed in accordance with established practices under regular
supervision, with the Supervisor monitoring progress. There is limited freedom to
act independently.
The Union has rated it at level 3, viz,
Job duties are performed in accordance with general procedures and past practices
under periodic supervision, with occasional periods of Supervisor input or
verification. There is moderate freedom to act independently.
Both the gfievor and her supervisor, Ms. Margaret Smith, gave evidence with
respect to the nature and extent to which her work was checked or reviewed. The grievor
stated that generally the faculty do not check her work; that the deadlines are such that
the work needs to be sent to the printer for reproduction in time for distribution to the
students at the start of each term before faculty have an opportunity to check the work for
accuracy. Similarly, faculty members do not check handouts that are prepared for
distribution to students in class.
6
As for the extent to which she is supervised by Ms. Smith the gfievor produced in
evidence the pages of a personal log which she kept (on the instructions of the union and
in preparation for this case) of the interactions which she had with Ms. Smith over a
period from September 1998 to March 1999 - representing the bulk of the academic year.
That document indicated that. while Ms. Smith's name appeared on 57 working days (out
of a total of 134.5 working days), there was only one instance in which there is a record
of her having had actual contact with the gfievor for the purpose of questioning her as to
how she was proceeding on a particular task. Most of those references involved the
transfer of information or a request of another person conceming Ms. Smith or Ms.
Smith requesting that a particular task be camed out but did not, save for the one
exception, involve any interaction between Ms. Smith and the grievor conceming her
work or her activities.
In her evidence the gricvor stated that the only time that Ms. Smith checked her
work was when she was required to review the cover sheet of the course outlines to
determine whether or not it contains the correct information with respect to code
numbers, course pre or co-requisites, course delivery schedule - as required under the
I$O guidelines.
Ms. Smith confirmed that she checks the cover page of the course outlines to
make sure that it is complete and has the correct information; that if anything is not
complete or if there is any problem she asks the grievor to send the course outline back to
the faculty member for correction. (The grievor agreed that this did in fact occur). Ms.
Smith agreed that she did not check the grievor's work closely for accuracy. She was
prepared to assume that. as the gfievor was a good typist, few errors would occur and, in
any event, they would be picked up by the faculty member who had requested the work.
However, it was her view that she did "monitor the flow and volume" of the
grievor's work. Her office is located only a few feet from where the grievor works and
she regularly reviews the log book · a loose leaf binder which sits on a counter at the
grievor's desk - for the purpose of checking the volume of her work load to determine
how workrshould be priofized and-whether or notshe has sufficient resources to
complete the work in time to meet the deadlines for distribution of materials to students.
As she did not keep a detailed log of the nature and frequency of her contacts with the
grievor (and was in that respect unable either to confirm or dispute the data provided by
the grievor) she nevertheless maintained that she had discussions from time to time with
the gfievor over such issues as whether or not she needed any assistance with priorizing,
whether she had all the hardware that she needed and whether or not the requests from
faculty members were reasonable. (The gfievor agreed that such conversations had
occurred o particularly over the question of whether or not she had been given sufficient
notice to complete the work in time to meet deadlines.)
Ms. Smith also recalled conversations with the gfievor conceming the
organization of her files, the organization of her work so that all material was kept on
one disk, and with respect to how she (Ms. Smith) like files organized for easy access
either by her, by faculty or by other support staff She also recalled a discussion
clarifying the grievor's role with respect to what kind of task faculty members could ask
her to do (eg. hunting for information conceming a student.)
What is at issue with respect to this factor is the nature of the supervision provided
by Ms. Smith and the extent to which the gfievor performs her duties within a context
which is largely pre-determined with relatively little need for her to vary her procedures.
In understanding what is meant by "regular" as opposed to "periodic" supervision it is of
some use to examine the full range of factor definitions for the factor of Independent
8
Action. When that is done it becomes clear that, for the purposes of the job evaluation
plan, "regular" supervision does not require the supervisor to be involved directly with
the employee on a day to day basis since that is precisely what is contemplated by level 1.
Thus, the relative infrequency of direct contact between Ms. Smith and the grievor, does
not in and of itself render her supervision only "periodic" or "occasional" in nature.
It is also important to examine the nature and extent of supervision in the context
of the nature of the work that is required to be done. Thus, where there are established
work practices in place with relatively little variation in the particular tasks that are done,
it stands to reason that the nature and extent of the supervision required would be
reduced. It is for that reason that, in its definition of the different factor levels for this
job factor, there is reference to both the nature of the supervision and the extent to which
tasks are performed under "specific and detailed instmction$"(lcvel 1), "established,
practices and procedures" (level 2), or "general procedures and past practices" (level 3).
In the section dealing with Independent Action the PDF describes the kid of
instructions provided as "established protocols for routine tasks" and "'more detailed
instructions provided for non-routine tasks". Similarly, the procedures or policies that
are available as guidelines are described as "established practices of the School of
Health Sciences". Thus, in this respect the PDF itself mirrors closely the language used
in the Job Evaluation Plan suggesting that it is level 2 that is appropriate for this factor.
Moreover, the evidence indicates that as a matter of fact, many of the tasks which
the grievor performs involve the relatively routine execution of familiar tasks, eg. the
accessing of existing documents from her computer data base and typing in revised
information as requested. Similarly, although it may be that she is not given sufficient
notice to complete the tasks by the deadline, the deadlines themselves remain constant
from term to term and year to year. Thus, for example, she can always expect that in the
spring of the year she will be getting instructions to prepare materials which need to be
ready for distribution to students in the fall. Nor does it appear from the evidence that
there is much room for the grievor herself to take much initiative and act independently.
if, for example, a faculty member provides her with erroneous information concerning
course content, information that does not match the calendar description of the course,
the gfievor is not entitled to make any changes but must simply send it back to the faculty
member. Similarly, if she discovers an error in a test that has been submitted to her for
reproduction, she is not entitled to change anything on the test but must simply inform
faculty member if available- or tells students of the error.
Given the nature of the tasks done by the gricvor and the absence of any need to
provide close and detailed supervision, I am satisfied that the supervision provided by
Ms. Smith, in the context of this PDF, can be said to be "regular". It involves a general
overseeing of the gricvor's work with a view to ensuring that it is properly priorized and
that she has the necessary support to ensure that it gets done within the deadlines. In this
regard I agree with Ms. Smith's characterization of her role as one of "monitoring" the
grievor in the performance of her duties. That is significant since level 2 also describes
the supervisor's role as one of "monitoring progress".
Accordingly, for the reasons given, I would rate this fact at level 2, 19 points.
c) Responsibility for Decisions and Actions
The union seeks level 3, viz,
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.
10
The College has rated this factor at level 2, viz
Decisions anddor actions have limited impact on the organization. Errors are
detected easily and quickly and may result in minor embarrassment, confusion, or
expense for correction.
The PDF describes the impact of the incumbent's decisions as follows:
Significant impact on professors and students where print materials or other
information is required for teaching/learning. ..incorrect information to extemal
contacts affects the College's public image.
The provisions of the PDF dealing with the process of error detection and the effect on
the organization where errors are not discovered and corrected state:
Self verification. Minimal proofreading by professors. Effect of errors is
accuracy of information to professors and students; minimal impact on the
organization.
The kinds of errors that would be made by the grievor are essentially
typographical errors in the material that she prepares for reproduction or errors in failing
to recognize that material given to her is faulty or defective in some way. She spoke of
one example of an error in a course code in a course outline which was signed by Ms.
Smith and later detected by another support staff member but which nevertheless went
through and was printed. However, she did not know what had happened beyond that.
More commonly, undetected errors would require that the page or pages in question be
reprinted and given to students by the faculty member for insertion in the materials.
Errors can also occur in the production of a test, eg. errors in the "stem" or the
"distractors" of a multiple choice question. While it is possible that a student might
attempt to rely on this as the basis for an appeal, it appears that there is little risk that this
could be successful since the College has a system in place for validating all tests which
will identify and "spit out" any questions that contain an error o and discard the students
11
answers to those questions. Ms. Smith stated that, although there had been student
appeals based on a claim that an examination was not fair, she was not aware of any case
in which a student had appealed a grade based on a typographical error on the paper.
Included among the errors that might have an impact outside the College are
documents sent to Community Agencies and Hospitals respecting the placement of
students to various programs in the community, errors in which the time and/or location
of the placement might be incorrectly stated. Where that happens the agency in question
would typically alert the faculty member and the matter would be resolved informally.
Although the grievor does not make a lot of typing errors situations could arise
where errors of some consequence are made in the carrying out of instructions frolI1 the
faculty member. While those instructions may on occasion be as simple as instructing
the grievor to access last years test and print it up (in which event there would be very
little likelihood of error) in others the instructions from the faculty member may not be
quite as simple to carry out. such as when the gricvor is asked to organize information
into a chart of a graph of some sort.
The PDF is somewhat confusing as a guide to how properly to rate this factor. On
the one had it states that the incumbent's decisions have a "significant" impact on
professors and students" and that the release of incorrect information outside the College
"affects the College's public image". On the other hand it describes the effect of errors
as having a "minimal impact" on organization. Thus, in one and the same PDF the
parties have used terms found in both level I ("minimal" impact) and level 5
("significant" impact). Obviously, there is no basis for rating this factor at either level I
or level 5 notwithstanding the suggestion in the PDF that either one might be a
candidate. Perhaps it is in recognition of that reality that the parties have chosen a
middle ground, viz, levels 2 and 3 respectively.
In its brief the union did not base its argument on impact. Rather it based its
argument on the manner by which errors are detected and dealt with. In particular it is
noted that (as reflected in the PDF) very little proofreading of the gfievor's work is done
by faculty members before work is sent to the printer. Moreover, apart from checking to
see that cover page information on course outlines is accurate, Ms. Smith does not
closely check the grievor's work for accuracy. Thus, it is suggested that in these
circumstances the more appropriate factor level is level 3 in which "errors are usually
detected by verification and review" and that this is done after the material has been
printed and the error has been discovered.
Were it the that the to be detected of kind it
only
typographical
case
errors
were
a
might be possible to say that they are "easily and quickly" detected and would result in
only minor confusion or expense for correction. Thus, level 2 would appear not to give
proper credit for this factor. Indeed, the fact that errors may not be discovered until after
the fact (that is, until after the material has gone to print) would suggest that level 4
would be approphate - although the difficulty that would face the union if that is what
was being claimed would lie in establishing that the errors resulted in a "considerable
interruption and delay in work output and waste of resources." Nothing persuades me
that such is the case. However, it cannot be denied that the need to re-print material
already phnted results in some "duplication of effort and/or limited waste of resources."
In other words the rectification of a hitherto undetected error is not without some
consequence to the College.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3, 44 points.
3. Summary and Conclusions
For the reasons set out above I rate the job evaluation factors as follows:
Job Factor Level Points
1 .Training/Technical Skills 3 52
2.Experience 3 32
3 .Complexity 2 25
4..Iudgment 2 30
5.Motor Skills D4 40
6.Physical Demand 3 28
7.Sensory Demand 3 28
8.Strain from Work Pressures 3 28
9.independent Action 2 19
10 Communications/Contacts 1 16
11 Responsibility for Decisions3 44
'12 Work Environment 1 10
Total Points 352
This total moves the ghevor into the point range established for paybaxtd 5.
Accordingly, the ghevance is allowed and the College is directed to reclassify the
gfievor as a Typist Steno C, payband 5 effective the date of the grievance and to
compensate her accordingly.
I remain seised of jurisdiction to resolve any issues arising out of the
implementation and/or interpretation of this award.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. th2"'~'~day of, 1999
ARBITRATION DATA SHEET · SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION
CoUege: ,(:~'~'/~,.,/~,T_RJP.~" I n c u m bent: tJ,~'~A/AI ~,~'~'- S u p er vis or :_ ~ ~E ~~.
Present Classification: ~~ ,~-~ ~ and Present Paybgnd: ~
JO~ Family and Payband~Requested by Grievor: ~. ~ ~z~ ~ .~ _
i. Position Description Form A~ached
2. ~ The parries agree on the contents of the a~ached Position Description Form
OR
The Union disagrees with the contents m the affached Position Descri~ion Fo~. The specific details of this
disagreement are as follows:
{use reverse s~de ~f necessary)
AWARD
FACTORS ~a~AGF.~Em' UmO~ A~mTRATOR
~ 2. Exaerience '~ ~ ~ ~' ~
. 3. Com~lexky ~ ' ~ '~ ~ · ~ ~
4. Judgemen~ ~ ~ ~ ~O '. ~ ~
5. ~o~o~Sk~,s ~H ~O O~ ~0 . ~Y ~o
7. SensorX Demand Z~ ~ ~ ' ~
8. S,rainfromWorkPressures/Demands/Deadli~es .~ &~ ~l,,~ ~ ~
9. Indeaendem Action _ ~ ~ ~' ~ I
10. Commvnicafions/Conrac~s ) ~ G ,~[ 1 ~ ~ / /~
. 11. Resoonsibili~y for Decisions/Actions ~ ~., ~ q ~ ~ ~
~ 2. Wo,k ~.v~onm~-t_ L I D I . I ~ / / O
] A~ACHED WRI~EN SUBMISSIONS: ~e Union ~ ~e College
.FOR MANAGEM~ ,/.
9~12-09 b:ea~a~ec.=c~