HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 98-12-14In the matter of an arbitration
between C't~ ('- S '~
t... f[,I
SENECA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 561
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Group Classification Grievance: Security Guards
Sole Arbitrator: Gregory J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Jane Wilson, Personnel Officer
Les Huggins, Security Manager
For the Union: Janice Hagan, President, Local 561
Rod B~mister, Griever
Joe Clement, Griever, Local steward
A1 Stelnick, Griever
Hearing:
Seneca College, Woodbine Campus
December 2, 1998
2
AWARD
1. Introduction and Background
This is a Group Grievance of 9 employees ('R.. Bemister, J. Clemente, R. Hams, D.
Kapel, A. Valentine, D. MacFarlane, R. Bolton, W. Young and A. Stelnick) all of whom
were at the time of the grievance classified as Security Guard, ?ayband 4 and employed at
the Ncwnham Campus of the College. In their ghevance (dated February 25, 1998) they
claimed that they were improperly classified and that they should be re-classified as
Security Guard Atypical, ?ayband 7. Following a Step 1 Meeting on March 18, 1998 the
College advised the union of a change in its rating of certain job evaluation factors, which
changes resulted in a reclassification of the ghevors to Security Guard Atypical, pal/band
:5 retroactive to Febrta7 25, 1998.
The Arbitration Data Sheet indicates the following Core Point Ratings.
F actor College Uni on
Level Points Level Points
1. Training/Technical Skills 3 52 4 71
2. Experience 3 32 3 32
3. Complexity 2 25 3 41
4. Judgement 3 48 3 48
5. Motor Skills B 2 10 B3 13
6. Physical Demand 2 16 3 28
7. Sensory Demand 2 16 3 28
8. Strain/Work Pressures/Demands 2 16 4 3 9
9. Independent Action 2 19 2 19
lO.CommunicatiorffContacts 1 16 2 52
11 .Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 3 44 3 44
12.Work Environment 3 55 3 55
PAYBAND/TOTAL PO1NTS PB 5 349 PB7 470
JOB CLASSIFICATION Sec. Gd.Atypical Sec. Guard Atypical
#
3
The PDF - which is the same for all of the grievors and whose contents are agreed
to by the union, summarizes the position as follows:
The incumbent provides security for the building, grounds, property and persons on
or in relation.,to,.CollcgcLpropcrty.
The incumbent responds to medical and personal security emergencies, maintains
detailed noteboook and shift reports of daily activities, types reports following
established procedures and monitors/reports building safety/security deficiencies
and provides electronic video surveillance and monitors alarms; also answers
general inquiries and provides related assistance to the College community.
The incumbent also investigates a variety of incidents including theft, damage,
disturbances, accidents, harassment, assault and trespass; performs personal escorts,
cash transfers and provides direction and instruction on security related matters, in
accordance with College and department guidelines.
The Duties and Responsibilities are broken down as follows:
Designated patrols of buildings and grounds as per procedures. 45%
Notebook, "SPECIAL A~TTENTION NOTES", log, report entries, filing
and work requests. 10%
Responding to document incidents such as First Aid, ftre and security alarms, disruptive
students, smoking violations/complaints. Assaults, harassment,theft,vandalism,auto
accidents, trespassers and unauthorized entry. 10%
Investigates incidents and complete incident reports 4%
Control lot access and traffic flow. Enforce parking regulations 15%
Cash transfers/deposits/verification. 4 %
Open/close College and requests to open rooms/offices 4%
Key control and monitor plant monitors and report readings to Physical Plant Staff 3%
'"", Act as liaison with Police, Fire Ambulance Departments and Traffic Support Services 2%
Seneca College has a number of campuses. However, the only campus with full
time security guards and a security offi¢¢ is Newnham campus. Security matters at the
other campuses are handled by part time contract officers. The gricvors all work at the
Ncwnham campus in 3 shifts providing security service on a 24 hour a day basis. On
each shift a security guard will be given phmary responsibility for conducting Clock
Rounds (i.e. a formal patrol) of one of the 3 buildings at the College - as well as general
responsibility to answer to calls anywhere on campus while not on formal patrol. One out
of every 4 shifts is worked as a base officer where the guard remains in the security office
answering the telephone, responding to inquiries in the office, monitoring the camera
surveillance system and completing the daily activity log - a record of the incidents
occurring during a patrolling officer's shift.
As the PDF indicates 45% of the time isformal patrols of of the
spent
on
one
college buildings; 5 during a day shift and 6 on ~fl;eraoon$ and night shifts. The patrols
consist of walking a certain route making sure that there are no safety or security
problems, Checking in at various patrol points (through touching a "wand" to a magnetic
strip). It was estimated that each round took on average between 20 and 30 minutes to
complete (up to an hour maximum) depending on the extent to which the guard is
interrupted by some event or incident · such as a request to open a locked door, a request
for directions, the need to break up a fight etc. During those periods of the shffi when
they are not on a formal patrol the guards "informally" patrol the campus and respond to
calls that may come into the office to, for example, go and open a classroom or attend to
someone in need of first aid. In addition this time is used to type out incident reports
from handwritten notes taken by them of incidents (eg. request for first aid, responding to
a fire alarm, dealing with a fight or threatened violence between students) occurring
while they were out on either a formal or an informal patrol and which required some
documenting. In some instances the completion of the incident report involves little more
than the filling in of a form. In others, it requires the writing of the narrative of the events
in question.
Another duty performed between formal patrols relates to the parking lot. The
guards replenish the ticket supply for parking lot attendants on a daily basis, collect cash
from the parking booths periodically, count the cash and take it to the cash office. In
addition, of course, they enforce the parking lot regulations through issuing tickets. They
are also responsible for issuing parking passes to employees and students.
Incidental duties include taking cash from the book store to the cash office,
monthly checking of fire extinguishers, burglar alarms, emergency phones; responding to
requests for assistance from one of the other campuses by radioing the contract officer at
that campus to attend, and giving directions to visitors
2. Evaluation of Factors
As indicated in the Arbitration Data Sheet there are 7 job evaluation factors in
dispute: Training/Technical Skills; Complexity; Motor Skills; Physical Demand; Sensory
Demand, Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/ Deadlines; Communications/Contacts.
It is agreed by the College that, while the duties of the ghevors are consistent with those
set out in the Classification Guide Chart for a Security Guard, it is nevertheless
appropriate to core point rate the position with respect to the factors in dispute.
i) Training/Technical
The PDF requires the incumbent of this position to have a minimum of Secondary
School Graduation (or equivalent) First Aid, CPR, and basic knowledge of security office
"'%. 6
and patrol procedures. In addition the incumbent is expected to have a
"working knowledge of Federal and Provincial Laws, including the Young
Offenders Act, Trespass to Property Act, Powers of Citizens Arrest, City of
North York by-laws including No Smoking and Parking and a variety of
College policies dealing with Personal 'Safety and Well-Being on campus
and their use and application in the college environment.
Further, the incumbent "must successfully complete requirements withirl the current
tag/tow program as offered by Traffic Support Services, through the local Police
Department and maintain appropriate status to enforce local parking by-laws on Seneca
Private Property."
Acquiring status to enforce parking laws is accomplished through becoming
registered to do so following the completion of a one day course. Certification to
administer First Aid is obtained following completion of a 3 day course and refresher
every 3 years. Certification to administer CPR is obtained following a 2 day course in the
first year and a further refresher 1 day course every year and a half thereafter. Security
office and patrol procedures as well as College policies relating to Personal Safety and
Well Being are set out in a College Manual. incumbents are not required to take any
formal course that would give them a "working knowledge" of various federal, provincial,
and local by-laws although the text of some of those laws (eg. Trespass to Property Act,
Smoking by-law) is set out in the College manual. The College does not require
incumbent to have the two year Diploma in Law Enforcement although the PDF, in the
section dealing with Experience, states that it is an asset. As a matter of fact ~1 but one
of the gricvors does have the Diploma.
The union seeks level 4 for this factor; viz, skills normally acquired through
secondary school graduation and completion of additional job related training courses, or
one year Community College diploma, or equivalent · and job duties requiring the ability
to apply specialized skills.
In my opinion this claim cannot be supported. 'I do not consider the courses that
need to be taken to complete the Municipal Law Enforcement Officer program (that
would allow the grievors to issue parking tickets and enforce other local by-laws on
Seneca property) or the courses in First Aid and CPR to qualify as "additional job related
training courses" within the meaning of the Job Evaluation Plan. Although they are
"courses" and "job related" they are of such short duration as to be relatively insignificant.
Some sense of the kind of course that is necessary to qualify under this factor level is to
be taken from its surrounding context, viz, courses which compare in significance to a
one year Community College diploma or equivalent. Courses in which the total time
commitment of the incumbent would be at most 6 of 3 is
days
period
hardly
over
a
years
sufficient to qualify.
The need to have a working knowledge of federal and provincial laws and an
understanding of security procedures is dealt with in the PDF under the Experience Factor
where it appears that, in addition to 2 full time years experience in security
service/fieldwork graduation from a Law Enforcement program is regarded as an asset.
Thus, the "counting" of this job requirement for the purposes of job evaluation has
already been done under the Experience Factor. It would not be approphate that it be
counted again under the Training/Technical Skill Factor.
Finally, it is worth noting that, both in respect of the T£aining/'r¢chnical Skill
factor and the Experience factor, the position has been rated by the College at a level
higher tban the benchmark position ratings for these factors. I am satisfied that, while a
8
case can be made for recognizing that the Training/Technical skills required of the
grievors warrants an increase over the bench mark levels, I am not persuaded that the
position warrants a jump of two levels.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3 · 52 points
ii) Complexity
The PDF states that normally the guards are "scheduled and structured in
accordance with [their] daily duties" and that "routines rarely vay." Further it states that
incumbents "may be able to occasionally handle complex incidents that may require
constant logical analysis, in order to suggest an immediate resolution in accordance with
laws and policies in place" and that an incumbent "may occasionally have a confrontation
while issuing a Parking Infraction Notice · an unpredictable situation., where complexity
"varies depending on further developments."
The union seeks level 3 for this factor, viz,"vazious, rourine complex tasks
involving diffcrent and unrelated processes and/or methods." The College rates it at level
2. , viz, '"'specific tasks involving related steps, processes and/or methods.". In support of
its claim the union argues that, while the duties may be routine, the performance of them
requires the incumbents to follow different and unrelated procedures when attending to
the many different kinds of matters to may come to their attentioll, eg. first aid, theft: or
vandalism complaints, disruptive or violent incidents, parking and traffic control, cash
counting and verification. Although it is agreed that they follow a standardized intemal
procedure, there are different policies for different aspects of the job and the same
approach cannot be applied to trespass to property as to a parking violation.
9
While I would agree that the incumbents are required to attend to a number of
different types of calls having some security aspect I do not believe that this alone is
sufficient to meet the standard required for a level 3 rating. What is required is that they
use a "different process and/or method" to perform these "various routine complex tasks."
What is that "proc, ess" or "method" in the context of this particular position? In my view
it a process of investigation which requires the incumbents to ascertain certain facts,
through observation or inquiry; to assess the significance of those facts having regard to
different laws and policies that may apply ,Md then to take appropriate action; eg. request
that the action cease, prepare a report, call the police, notify a supervisor. That "process"
or "method" does not change dramatically from one situation to another -although
admittedly the questions which are asked and the action taken will of necessity vary.
In view the followed the grievor~ is better the
methodology
by
captured
by
my
language of level 2, viz, "related steps, processes and/or methods", that is, the incumbents
take the established process and apply it to the different situations which call for
attention.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 2 , 25 points
iii) Motor Skills
The PDF is ambiguous in respect of this factor. It identifies three activities that
involve fine motor movements, viz, answering phones, keyboarding, and typing reports or
the log book. However, when it allocates the percentage of time required to perform
those tasks it states that incumbents answer the phones for 50% of the time, and are
involved in keyboarding and report typing for 20% and 30% respectively. Clearly that
cannot be correct as it suggests that they do nothing else but those three tasks. What the
10
PDF requires is an estimate of the amount of total time in which fine motor movements
are required. This PDF leaves that question unanswered. However, during the grievance
procedure the ghevors confirmed that they spent approximately 20% of their time
recording notes in their log books and in keyboarding reports. It is' that which led the
College to revise its rating from the benchmark rating of A4 (Little or no f'me motor
movement required more than 60% of the time) to B 2 (non-complex fine motor
movement * liiited (some) dexterity, co-odination and precision required on an
occasional basis- i.e 10-30% of the time). The union agrees that the level of f'me motor
movement is properly rated at the B level but claims that the prevalence should be raised
to the level of 3, viz, 3 160% of the time.
In order to raise the prevalence a further 11% (to get to the 3 1% threshold) the
union relies on a number of other activities which involve skills which the union claims to
be tine motor skills but which are not accounted for in the PDF. These are counting cash,
issuing keys, unlocking classrooms and oftices, operating of camera equipment, writing
up parking tickets, making transparencies and the use of wands on patrols.
The problem which I have with this claim is that it invites me to include for
consideration various activities that are not listed in the PDF as involving fine motor
skills. In this regard is to be noted that the union agrees with the content of the PDF and
further that the College disagrees that the activities referred to above can be properly
characterized as involving the use of fine motor skills. I am in no position to make that
determination one way or the other and, in the circumstances, must limit my evaluation to
the activities identified in the PDF as involving fine motor skills.
Accordingly, since those activities have been agreed by the union to occupy the
11
incumbents for 20% of the time, the proper rating for this ~or is level B2 - 10 points
iv) Physical Demand
The PDF identifies 3 types of a activities that place a physical demand on the
incumbents and the amount of time for which this level of demand occurs. They are:
running (on emergencies) - 5%; walking/standing (duhng patrols) - 70%; and sitting
(office duties) ,- 25%.
The union seeks a rating of level 3, in particular, "continuous light physical effort."
as represented in the walking and standing associated with the patrols and the
investigation of incidents. The College rates this factor at level 2, viz, "rectll'fing light or
occasional moderate physical effort" again based essentially on the walking and standing
involved in the
job.
Although the union also sought to make some reference to certain aspects of the
duties in which some heavy physical effort was,required, eg. pushing cars in winter,
carrying heavy cash bags to the cash office, lifting parking "horses", I do not believe it
appropriate to rely on those duties as they were not referred to at all in the PDF.
Moreover, it appears that pushing cars in winter, while laudable, is not a part of their
assigned duties.
The Job Evaluation Plan provides some guide as to the meanings to be given to
terms like "continuous" and "recumng". In the discussion of the meaning of the Factor
Definition (Section VII, page 13) those terms appear to be defined as meaning "all of the
time" or "most of the day" respectively. Given the fact that the PDF and the evidence
indicates that the gricvors spend 70% of their time walking and standing (which is agreed
12
to be "light" physical effort) the best way of describing that kind of demand on physical
energy is that it is "recurring", that it occurs for "most of the day". To the extent that the
incumbents may be required to climb and are therefore exposed to a higher level of
physical demand, it could not be any higher than aS'"occasionat", viz, '"part of the day".
Finally, the 25% of the time spent sitting should not be regarded as "light" physical effort.
In this regard it may be noted that the benchmark positions for level 1 for this factor (no
physical demand) are positions in which the incumbents spend all of their time sitting (i.e.
Typist/Steno). That is an indication that "sitting" itself warrants no rating in terms of
physical effort.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 2.
v) Sensory Demand
The PDF states that sensory perception is "continuous" and sets the percentage of
time where sight, hearing and speech are required to be "frequent - 100%". With respect,
I find this to be exceptionally unhelpful as an aid to rating the position. It is difficult to
thii of any position in which, at least sight and hearing would not be required to be used
100% of the time or "continuously". It has to be assumed that all jobs require the use of
the senses of sight and heating as a basic minimum. The task then is one of assessing in
what respects the use of those senses is made more onerous by reason of the various
duties required in the job.
The union agues that a security guard's job is to be keenly alert at all hmes to
activities, persons, changes and potential problems in his/her environment; to be "on
guard" all of the time. It is suggested that thii, along with the need to ensure that
notetaking be accurate and complete - as it may later be referred to in an incident report
13
or used in court - and the attention to detail required liaising with Police, Fire and
Ambulance Departments, warrants a rating of level 3, viz, "moderate sensory demand
with "frequent careful attention to detail".
The College argues that the more appropriate rating is that of levd 2, viz,
"considerable sensory demand on mental energy" with 'periodic careful attention to
detail". It argues that, while it is true that the gricvors need to be vigilant while out on
patrol, the need for careful attention to detail and accuracy arises only when they are
responding to an incident, conducting some investigation which requires close listening to
witnesses or preparing their notebook entries o activities which according to the Duties
and Responsibilities set down in the PDF account for approximately 25% of the time.
In my view the College rating is to be preferred. It would appear that being "on
guard" all of the time is not, in and of itself, particularly significant since the benchmark
rating for thii factor for Security Guards (whose typical duties include many of the same
duties as the grievors, viz, reporting accidents, fires, thefts, emergencies, patrolling
property inspecting and securing doors and windows, answering telephones and personal
enquiries, ticketing vehicles in parking lots) is set at level 1. Thus, to get to a higher level
for this factor, more is required than merely to be vigilant while at work. I am not
persuaded by the evidence or the arguments of the union that there is anything unique in
this position that would warrant a rating two levels higher than the benchmark level.
Accordingly, I would rate it at level 2 - 16 points.
vi) Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
The PDF states that the incumbent must be capable of effectively and efficiently
14
handling a vanety of tasks simultaneously and/or within the procedural and time
constraints of a hectic business day; that a busy shift may require time management and
keen awareness to complete minimum patrol requirements; and that the base station
assignment may require a number of tasks (phone calls, dispatch, tire alarms, general
inquiries, key control, log entries and video surveillance) to be handled simultaneously.
The union seeks a rating at level 4, viz, "conflicting work pressures, frequent
interruptions to workflow . work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities
and occasional critical deadlines." The College has rated this factor at level 2, viz,
"predictable interruptions and pressing deadlines · occasional tight changing deadlines
and conflicting demands."
The College argues that the grievor~ have established routines and procedures that
are followed every shift, that an increase in the frequency of incidents is predictable at the
start of each semester and at exam time and that it is an industry expectation that security
guards will need to respond to incidents and emergencies that can arise at any time.
Further, it is noted that as a matter of practice, if a Guard cannot complete hist'her reports
by the end of the shift due to any incidents or emergencies that occurred during the shift,
the report can by submitted during the next shift. Or, if he/she is unable to complete the
minimum number of check points during Clock rounds, they are only required to explain
the reasons therefor at the end of the shift- eg. · emergencies etc.
In my opinion the language which best captures the level of strain associated with
this position is that set out in level 3, viz, "interruptions, changing deadlines, multiple
demands occur regularly but are usually predictable - occasional critical deadlines."
15
As the College argues, interruptions and some unpredictability are clearly part of
the job. However, it appears to me from both the evidence and from the specific
reference (twice) in the PDF to the need for the incumbents to perform a variety of tasks
"simultaneously", that the frequency with which this occurs is higher than is suggested by
factor level 2, that is "regularly" rather than only "occasionally". It is also to be noted that
the requirement to face "multiple demands" (i.e. perform "simultaneous tasks") is
specifically referred to in factor level 3 and not in factor level 2. Finally, I note that, with
respect to deadlines, there is a sense in which the position demands that, if for no other
reason than that memories fail, complete notes be made of incident as soon as possible.
Further, while it may be that the guards can explain why they were unable to complete the
required number of Clock rounds, that does not rnini~e, the fact that those deadlines are
there every day and are certainly a standard that they are required to work to - a factor
which bears directly the strain level in the
position.
on
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3 ,, 28 points.
vii) Communications/Contacts
The PDF states that the incumbent must be "trusted to provide confidentiality; be
able to persuade and be tactful" and "must communicate in a professional manner to all
staff and students." Those with whom the incumbents come into daily contact and the
purpose of that contact are students (regular patrols and investigations), employees
(investigations), maintenance (repairs), cash personnel (escorts/deposits), contractors
(equipment repairs/parking service/security) and visitors.
In their evidence at the heating the gricvors, while admitting that much of the time
they are involved in giving directions, nevertheless maintained that when they were
16
involved with people in conflict they saw themselves as playing the role of mediator.
Among the examples of situations in which they are called upon to deal with a dispute of
some kind they cited student arguments/fights over parking spaces, domestic disputes
brought into the College, student rowdyism and drunkenness around pub times, student
teacher conflicts in which they are called to remove a disruptive student from class.
The College rates this factor at level 1, viz, "routine communication for the
purpose of fumishing, exchanging or discussing factual data or information- personal
courtesy and normal working/social relationships required. It argues that the grievors are
essentially required to communicate factual information regarding College policies and
laws to students, staff and members of the public who are in violation of them; that they
are expected to inform individuals of the requirements in a professional manner in order
to them to the Where that fails therevarious back
persuade
cease
activity.
are
up
procedures that they can invoke, viz, call for back-up, notify the supervisor and/or the
police, refer the information to other departments/supervisors for follow up. In this
respect the College disputes the claim that the gricvors serve as "mediators" when dealing
with people involved in conflict.
In my opinion the reference in the PDF to the need to be able to "persuade" and be
"tactful" is of considerable significance to how this factor should be rated. If the role of
the gfievors was nothing more than to communicate factual information (albeit in a
courteous manner) it is difficult to see why persuasive abilities are needed. However, if
their role is not only to communicate information but also to attempt to induce a change
of behaviour in others, then the ability to persuade tactfully becomes and important and
necessary element of the position and fits more comfortably into the narrative for Factor
level 2, viz, a need to "empathize with and understand the needs of others in order to
17
handle problems or complaints" and communication for the purpose of "explanation,
clarification or interpretation", than for Factor level 1. Th~, I do not thii that the
grievors overstate their role when they claim that, at least at their initial involvement in a
dispute, they are acting as "mediators" attempting to resolve the dispute. It may be that
the extent to which they can serve in that regard is limited but that does not ~ the
fact that this is their role initially. Indeed, it is expected that most disputes will be
resolved without the need to refer it to a supervisor or the police.
Secondly, and of equal if not greater significance, is the reference in the PDF to
the expectation that the grievor's will maintain confidentiality of information obtained by
them in the course of an investigation of ~ incident. While the College acknowledges
thii obligation on the part of the grievor, it argues that their level of responsibility is
solely to record the information and submit it to the supervisor for action, if necessmy, by
others.
In my view this argument is without merit. One of the points of distinction
between the levels for the Communications/Contacts factor is the extent to which the
incumbent comes into contact with confidential information and the seriousness of the
implications that would flow from disclosure of that information. Level 1, at which the
College has rated this factor, appears to contemplate no contact at all with confidential
information as it is silent on the question. The first level where this element is mentioned
is level 2, viz, "occasional involvement with confidential information which has minor
disclosure implications." While the PDF is silent concm'ning the implications of
disclosure the requirement that confidentiality be maintained indicates at the very least a
concem about disclosure. Thus, given the explicit reference in the PDF to a requirement
to maintain confidentiality, further reason exists for rating this at level 2, the lowest level
18
in which confidenhality is referred to.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 2 . 52 points.
3. Summary and Conclusion.
Thus, based on the core poim ratings which I find to be appropriate the posihon
occupied by the grievors warrants a total poim rating of 397 points · a total which places
them in Payband 6.
Accordingly, the grievance is allowed and the College is directed to re-classify the
gfievors as Security Guard Atypical, Payband 6 effective the date of the grievance and to
compensate them for such losses as may have resulted from their improper classification.
I remain seised of jurisdiction to resolve any issues that may arise out of the
implementation of this award.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this ._ ~.. day of ~-~ ~ ~,~ , 1998.
.I
ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION
~'-'"~e: ~"~4,'1;~ ~- Incumbent: 4/~o~P _~P--,~u/,4-~'~e~'upervisor:..~o/+~fl
sent Classification: ~r_.~ t~t t.-_',~ G ~ ~(T'~ ~t£a-t - and Present Payband~.
job Family and Payband Requested by Gdevor:_4~-r' ,~r~,u ~.r~.~ .~ ~P'~_(._~:~-~)
1. Position 'Description Form Attached
2. [] The par~ies agree on the contents of the attadhed'Posltion Description .Form
OR
[] The Union disagrees with the contents of the attached Position Description Form. The specific details of this
disagreement are as follows:
{Use reverse side it necessary)
I AWARD
FACTO RS MANAGEMENT UNION ARBITRATOR
1. Training/Technical Skills
2. Experience _ :-
~'~,. Complexity '
4. Judgement
5. Motor Skills
!
6. Physical Demand
7. Sensory Demand
8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
9. Independent Action
10. Communications/Contacts
11 2.1' WorkReSp° nsibititYEnvironmentfOr Decisions/Actions.
ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: [] The Union I"1 The College
FOR THE UNION' FOR MANAGEMENT