HomeMy WebLinkAboutPorter 98-11-25In the matter of an arbitration
between
ST. LAWRENCE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 418
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievance: Edna Porter
Sole Arbitrator: Gregory J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Pennie Car-Hams, Director, Human Resources
Betty Boone, Director, Student Services
For the Union: John Molleson, Vice-President, Local 3 18
Edna Porter, Grievor
Hearing:
Kingston, Ontario
November 16. 1998
AWARD
1. Introduction and Background
At the time of her grievance, dated September 23, 1996, the grievor was employed
in the position of Invigilator working in the Test Centre/Library at the campus of the
College located in Brockville, Ontario. She was classified as a Clerk General B,
Payband 4. The gfievor claims that she has been improperly classified and that she
should be classified as Atypical, Payband 6.
In order to understand the issues arising in this case it is helpful to set out briefly
the chronology of events leading up to its referral to arbitration.
Generally speaking the ghevor's duties and responsibilities have been divided
between the Test Centre and the Library. In the Test Centre she was responsible for
administering various tests set by members of the faculty at the Brockville campus. Her
library responsibilities involved her in various duties at the circulation desk as well as
shelving of books and magazines. However, there have been significant changes in her
PDF with respect to the amount of time occupied on those duties. On February 27, 1996
she was given a copy of a PDF stating that she performed various duties in the Test
Centre for 95% of the time, the remaining 5% to be spent providing "regular duty
assistance to library staff as assigned.". At that time the Library staff consisted of 2
people in the classification of Library Technician A and Ms. Sara Mannoll, a Library
Technician B who was a group leader.
Apparently, the distribution of duties as set out in the Februmy 1996 PDF did not
accord with the actual practice. At this time the Test Centre was open for 38 hours a
week. statistics the indicated that from least 1996
However,
provided
by
evor
at
May
3
'~ ~· to August, 1996 she spent on average approximately 22 hours/week in the Library
covering for Ms. Mahnoll when she was absent. The rest of her work week was spent at
the Test Centre. At all relevant periods when the grievor was assigned to work in the
Library there was also present in the Library another Librarian Technician B. During
those periods that she was absent from the Test Centre, Ms. Mann011 as group leader
assigned someone else to replace her.
In September 1996 the College declared the Librmy Technician A positions
redundant and reduced the hours that the Test Centre was open from 38 hours/ week to 18
hours/week. On September 9, 1996 the College changed the grievor's PDF to more
accurately reflect the fact that her duties were equally divided between the Test Centre
and the Librmy. At this time she was advised that the position kept its original
classification of Clerk General B, Payband 4. Shortly thereafter, on September 23, 1998,
the grievance was filed.
Subsequently, the description of the duties and responsibilities in the PDF was
altered slightly although without any change to the equal distribution of those duties as
between the Test Centre and the Library. Essentially, what the revised PDF did was to
expand somewhat on the Library duties and to break them up between circulation desk
duties (broadly defined) - 30% and library maintenance (sorting, shelving etc.) . 20%. A
comparison of that part of the griever's PDF that deals with her duties in the Librmy with
the PDFs of the two Library Technician A s who were declared redundant reveals that a
substantial portion of those two jobs (approximately 70% in both cases) involved the
incumbents in performing duties described in language that is identical to that found in
the griever's amended PDF.
4
As a result of discussions in the grievance procedure the College altered its rating
of certain of the factors and concluded that the position, as described in the amended PDF
should be classified as Atypical, Payband 5. However, the gfievor remained unsatisfied
with that rating and the grievance was referred to arbitration.
The Arbitration Data Sheet completed by the parties sets out their respective
ratings for the various Job Evaluation Factors as follows:
Factor College Union
Level Points Level Points
1. Training/Technical Skills 3 52 3 52
2. Experience 2 20 2 20
3. Complexity 3 41 3 41
4. Judgment 2* 30 4 66
5.Motor Skills c2 22 c3 25
6. Physical Demand 2 16 3 28
7. Sensory Demand 2 16 3 28
8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands 3 28 3 28
9. Independent Action 3 33 3 33
10. Communications/Contacts 2 52 2 52
11. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 2 26 2 26
12. Work Environment 1 10 1 10
PAYBAND/TOTAL POINTS 5 346 6 409
JOB CLASSIFICATION Clerk General Atypical
· At the heating the College took the position that the proper rating for this factor
was level 3.
The issues in dispute are not only the appropriate rating of the job factors of
Judgment, Motor Skills, Physical Demand and Sensory Demand. This case is unusual in
that there is also between the the Job The
dispute
parties
a
to
appropriate
Family.
union takes the that the distribution of duties between the Test
position
given
equal
Centre and the Library it is not possible to place this position categorically in either the
Librmy Technician Job Family or the Clerk General Job Family. Accordingly, in
accordance with the Job Evaluation Manual, it claims that the position should be
assigned to the Job Family "Atypical".
2. Duties and Responsibilities
It has been indicated above that the duties performed by the gfievor were equally
divided between the Test Centre and the Library. It is appropriate to deal with those
duties in greater detail having regard particularly to the factors in dispute.
The PDF provides, inter alia, as follows:
Position Summary
The incumbent ensures that there is an invigilated test service for all students on
behalf of faculty and other campuses and organizations. Ensures that tests and test
results are maintained in a secure maturer and that statistics are kept for all activity.
The incumbent performs the routine clerical and reception functions associated
with the libmy.
Duties and Responsibilities
I. Ensures that admission, security, filing and invigilating procedures 50%
are followed to administer tests set by the faculty and other organizations,
including CA. AT placement tests. Recommends, implements, fine tunes and
evaluates test room procedures on an on-going basis. Maintains current test files.
Generates/maintains accurate statistical data relevant to test room use. Ensures
that necessary supplies are available in the Test Centre. The incumbent is
responsible for ensuring that completed tests are retumed to the extemal
organizations and for invoicing extemal organizations for testing services.
2. Participates in circulation desk activities by issuing, renewing, receiving 30%
and discharging library materials; examining materials retumed; reserving
materials; issuing overdue notices; registering students, staff and general public on
library system; and processing mail and magazine claims.
6
3. Participates in LRC maintenance activities; sorting, shelving and 20%
shelf-reading of libraly materials, assisting with inventories and preparing various
usage/customer reports.
The gfievor works at the Brockviil¢ campus of the College. Both the Manager to
whom she reports in respect of her Test Centre duties (Ms. Betty Boone) and the
Librarian (who has overall responsibilities for the libraries at all three campuses of the
College (Ms. Barb Can') are located at the Kingston campus and spend a majority of their
time there.
At the Test Centre she is responsible for administering tests which have been set
by approximately 40 full time and 40 part time faculty. These tests are brought to her by
the faculty member to be stored by her in filing cabinet drawers located behind her desk.
Although it may be the case that an entire class will write the tests at the same time, (in
which event the grievor is expected to deny entrance to a student who shows up late for
the exam where a student who has completed the test has already left the room) it is more
common to have the tests written by the students at different times. The grievor estimated
that on average the 30 places in the test room could be occupied by students writing as
many as 15-20 different tests.
Students report to the Test Centre, present their identification, are registered in a
log book and are given the test to take into the room. One of the responsibilities of the
grievor is to monitor the test and ensure that no cheating occurs. She does this by either
entering the test room and walking up and down the rows (when she is not otherwise
occupied at her desk registering another student) or by keeping watch over the students
from her desk, either through the glass windows surrounding her office or by way of a
7
mirror that is placed in such a fashion that she is able to see the entire room. When
students have completed their test they retum it to her, she notes that the test has been
handed in and places it back in the filing cabinet in the hanging file that is tabbed for this
particular test.
In the course of monitoring the tests she is frequently required to deal with
questions from students arising out of mistakes in the tests themselves, eg. Missing
questions, missing pages, spelling errors. When that occurs she will attempt to contact
the faculty member but where, as is often the case, that is not possible, she is required to
deal with the problem and advise the student what to do. If possible, she will herself
correct the spelling error. If she cannot, she will advise the student to leave blank that
answer from the answer sheet. Where there are missing questions or missing pages she
advises the students to complete what they can and makes a note on the tests advising the
faculty member of the problem.
The ghevor spoke of various respects in which she came into personal conflict
with the students. Where there was a mistake on the test itself students became agitated
and upset (and would occasionally throw the test paper at the gfievor upon handing it in).
The most difficult problem had to do with dealing with cheaters. Except in open book
tests students were prohibited from bringing anything into the test room. Where she
observed a student cheating by, for example, looking at cheat notes, the gfievor would
approach the student diplomatically, ask them to explain their conduct and take away any
notes that they had brought into the test room with them. In addition she would make a
note on the paper to the faculty member's attention.
Student reaction to her allegations that they had been cheating was, in some cases,
quite extreme, eg. Challenging her to "try and take it (i.e. the cheat notes) lady", throwing
chairs or slamming doors so hard that they came off the hinges.
Some other situations involving the ghevor in some conflict with students
involved her denying a student permission to take a test if he/she had amved late and
another student had already left, requiring a student to wait because all of the seats were
then occupied, pressing a student to finish the test in the time allotted.
The grievor performs several different tasks in the libraly. She retrieves retumed
books front the bookdrop, stamps the retum date, sensitizes them, and places them (as
well as other books that students have personally retumed to the circulation desk) on a
book cart. At some point in the day she pushes the book cart to the stacks where the
books are re-shelved. She also processes various items that come into the library
periodically. Magazines are stamped when received, information is entered into a cardex
file, they are "tattle taped" for security and shelved in the reading area. Documents kept
in a loose leaf binder are kept current by removing old pages and inserting new ones.
Daily newspapers are stamped and registered and placed in the stacks.
One of her daily duties is checking to see which books are overdue for that day, a
task which requires her to go to the stacks to make sure that the overdue book has not in
fact been returned and put in the stacks, and issue overdue notices. Once a month she
does a printout of the overdue' books for the month.
She also provides some assistance to library users with respect to the operation of
the mandarin system, an on-line public access catalogue that directs students to the
holdings of the libra_,y. In this respect she provides some instruction on the use of the
9
system, eg. typing in the subject to be searched and also assistance in direchng students to
that part of the stacks where the books are housed. However, she does not provide
students with reference advise. That is provided by the Library Technician B in the
library.
3. Decision
The first issue to be determined is whether or not the position is atypical and one
which must be core-point rated in order to arrive at the correct classification and payband.
The College takes the position that, notwithstanding the equal distribution of duties and
responsibilities between the Test Centre and the Librmy, and notwithstanding the fact that
in respect of the Library duties, the grievor's PDF uses exactly the same language as that
used in the PDF for each of the Library Technician As who were declared redundant, the
position is still essentially a clerical one falling within the Clerk General Job Family. It
argues that the duties performed by the grievor while in the library were essentially
clerical and did not involve her in performing the core duties of a Library Technician A,
duties which would include the offering of reference advice to library users. In the
submission of the College assisting students wi,th the Mandarin system fell short of
providing the kind of reference advice that Would normally be provided by persons in the
Librarian Technician classification. As for the fact that, according to the PDF s of thc
Librarian Technician A's, the incumbents in that position were occupied for 70% of the
time with the same duties as the gfievor, it was submitted that it was the remaining 30%
of the duties (reference advice etc.) that brought them into that classification; that while it
may have been an expensive use of resources to classify them that way, the reference
work had to be done - and paid for at the appropriate rate.
The expedited procedure agreed upon for determining classification ghevances
C"'.
10
imposes certain restrictions on what the arbitrator can take into consideration. Although
one of the purposes of the Job Evaluation Plan is to produce equity having regard to the
various evaluation factors - and to that extent · would naturally require that comparisons
be made between different jobs, Article 18.4.5.1 of the collective agreement restricts my
power to that of determining whether or not the grievor's PDF accurately reflects the
assigned job content and whether it is properly evaluated. Whether or not the Library
Technician As were correctly classified and should, for example, have been placed in the
Clerk General Family is not a matter that is before me. Nor, given the scope of the
heating, am I in any position to determine what precisely led the College to classify those
positions as Library Technician A. ! must assume for these purposes that they are
correctly classified.
Nevertheless, in the circumstances of this case, it does seem appropriate to me that
I at least examine the PDF S of the Library Technician A for the purposes of determining
the question of atypicality. When I do that I cannot say with any confidence that this
position falls clearly within one job family or another. It could either fall within the Job
Family of Clerk General (positions involved in clerical or business machines operating
either manually or electronically, or in combination with incidental typing or stenographic
duties) or that of Library Technician (positions that perform a variety of technical and
related clerical duties associated with the operation of a Librmy and Resource Centre).
Even if it is accepted, as the College argues, that the functions performed in the Library
are of a "clerical" nature, such functions when performed in the Library context could fall
within the Librmy Technician A classification. Thus, it must be concluded that this
position is one that is "truly atypical" and one which, according to the Job Evaluation
Manual, must be core-point rated.
As noted there are 4 Job Evaluation factors in dispute: Judgement, Motor Skills,
Physical Demand and Sensory Demand. I shall deal with each separately.
Before doing so it is appropriate to address certain related queshons.
It is argued by the union that regard should be had for the fact that the grievor is
required largely to work "in isolation" considering that both Ms. Boone and Ms. Carr are
frequently absent from the Test Centre and the Library respectively; that this
circumstance warrants a higher rating in respect of certain of the factors in dispute.
I do not think that the circumstance of the grievor's having to work "in isolation"
is a relevant consideration for the purposes of this factor. Under the Job Evaluation Plan
the extent to which an incumbent in a position is required to work independently of direct
supervision and without guidance or assistance is measured by the factor of Independent
Action. In that regard it should be noted that both the College and the Union have rated
that factor in the grievor's PDF at level 3 which is one level higher than that contemplated
in the Core Point Bating Plan which lists the Clerk General B position as one of the
benchmark positions for this factor and sets it at level 2. Thus, it would appear that the
requirement that the gfievor work "in isolation" has already been accounted for in the
rating of the position and, for that reason, cannot be counted again. Thus, the proper
level for the factor of Judgement must be determined irrespective of these considerations.
Secondly, both the union and the gfievor sought to emphasize that aspect of her
duties, both at the Test Centre and in the Library, when she was put into positions of
conflict with students. Again, under the job evaluation plan, those features of a job are
typically measured under the factor of Strain from Work Pressures, Work Demands and,
12
in that regard, the grievor has been rated by both the College and the Union at one level
higher than is suggested in the Core Point Rating Plan. That Plan indicates that the Clerk
General B position is one of the benchmark positions for level 2; the parties have rated
the grievor's position at level 3 for Strain. Thus, the grievor's is exposure to greater
strain through being exposed to situations of conflict with students is already reflected in
the rating for that factor and cannot be counted again.
I tum to the factors in dispute.
1. Judgement.
Although the Arbitration Data Sheet indicates that the College has rated this factor
at level 2, it took the position at arbitration that level 3 was the appropriate rating. The
union seeks level 4.
The union bases its claim for a level 4 rating for this factor on the fact that the
grievor is frequently required, without the benefit of consultation with the faculty member
to make decisions respecting errors on the tests being written by students. It is agreed as
a matter of fact that in no case have any faculty members ever expressed any concem
either to her or to Management about how she resolved the particular problem before her
and that her resolution of the problems was always welcomed. The union argues that
these are all "judgement" calls wamng a rating at level 4.
The examples given of such judgment referred to by the grievor, viz, correcting
spelling mistakes if possible, advising students on what to do if parts of a question or
entire pages of the test was missing, do not strike me as involving the grievor in the use of
"established analytical techniques" in the resolution of the problem. I fail to see how any
13
"analysis" is involved. Rather, what she does is "identifies" the nature of the problem (eg.
missing question or parts of a question), advises the student to ignore the missing
question or part thereof, and makes a note to advice the faculty member of the problem.
Similarly, the role played by the gdevor in dealing with student conflict over such
things as cheating at the Test Centre or the assessment of library £1n¢$ for overdue books
essentially involves her in the administration of College policy with respect to these
matters. To the extent that some tact and diplomacy is required to deal with the problem
that is rewarded under the Communications factor which is not in dispute. However, as
far as the factor of Judgment is concemed, there is, in my opinion, little in the way of
"analysis" of the problem that is presented to the gfievor.
in my opinion the judgment exercised falls more closely under level 3, viz,
"moderate" judgment where "problem solving involves the identification and breakdown
of the facts and components of the problem."
2. Motor Skill
Both the college and the union agree that the relevant motor skills used by the
grievor are those described in level C, viz, "complex fme motor movement involving
considerable dexterity, co-ordination and precision" with speed as a "secondary"
consideration. Where they differ is in Prevalence", i.e. the amount of time when those
motor skills are used. Whereas the College rates Prevalence at level 2 (IO-30%) the
union rates it at level 3 (3 1-60%)
The PDF identifies "filing, collating and some keyboarding tasks" as the ones that
require fine motor movement. It further indicates that the grievor is involved in tiling and
14
collating for 50% of the time and in typing for 25% of the time.
The union submitted that, in rating this factor, the College had failed to take into
account the fact that the grievor had typing duties both in the Test Centre and in the
librarian, that as such her "typing duties" taken together exceeded 25%. The difficulty
with that argument is that it is not consistent with what is set out in the PDF which, as
noted, states that the ghevor is engaged in typing for 25% of the time. Given that the
parties are agreed on the content of the PDF I must rate this factor by reference to what is
stated therein. Thus, as the grievor is involved in typing duties, which would clearly be
regarded as "complex frae motor movement" for 25% of the time, her rating in respect of
that aspect of her job falls properly within level 2.
The union also argues that the filing and collating duties, in which the ghevor was
occupied for 50% of the time, qualify as complex fine motor movement. The particular
tasks associated with tiling and collating were opening and closing file drawers in the
tiling cabinet, retrieving test papers from hanging tiles (to be given to the student), sorting
retumed test papers, retuming them to the hanging files, retrieving them from the hanging
tiles to give to the faculty member. Given the large number of tests handled by the
ghevor (approximately 5,900) I have little doubt that this activity occupied a good portion
of her time. Further, while it required the use of the fingers in locating the appropriate
file and picking the test paper from it (or retuming it to that file), and was to that extent
"fine motor movement"- it was not, in my opinion, fine motor movement that could be
said to be "complex" or to require "considerable" dextehty. By way of comparison it
bears little relation to the fine motor movement involved in typing.
Thus, I am unable to include these duties among those for which "complex fine
15
motor movement" is required and accordingly, the proper rating for prevalence for this
factor is level 2 - occasional - 10-30% of the time.
3. Physical Demand
The College rates this factor at level 2, which according to the Core Point Rating
Plan is described as "some" physical demand with "occasional" requirement for repetition
or speed and with either "recurring light physical effort" or "occasional moderate physical
effort". The Union seeks level 3, viz, "regular" physical demand with regular need for
speed and repetitive use of muscles and either "continuous light physical effort",
"recurring periods of moderate physical effort" or "occasional periods of heavy physical
effort."
The PDF describes the relevant duties and the times involved in those duties. As
for the duties in the library it refers to "standing, walking and light physical effort, viz
retrieving books, reshelving, circulation book handling) (60%) combined with occasional
moderate lifting and pushing, viz, book carts, materials processing, book shipments
(20%) and the remainder of the time sitting at an operation station. (5%). The duties at
the Test Centre are stated as requiring "movement from in and out of a sitting position as
well as bending, stooping and pulling while retrieving and filing tests." However,
curiously, the PDF says nothing about the amount of time involved in those duties. It is
not clear whether these duties occupy the remaining 15% of the grievor's time.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of this case I am prepared to assume that it does.
The Core Point Rating Plan indicates (page VII, 13) that the terms "occasional",
"recurring" and "continuous" should be taken as describing respectively the extent of
physical demand required over "part" of the day, "most" of the day" and "all the time". In
16
this respect this factor differs from the Motor Skills factor in that, not only does it use
some different terms (viz, recumng and continuous as opposed to regular and frequent)
but it also does not assign particular percentages to these terms. It must be assumed that
these different terms .were-chosen for a purpose and that, contrary to the union's
argument, it is not necessarily the case that the percentages of times provided for the
Motor Skills factor should apply automatically to this factor.
Thus, in order for the position to be rated at level 3 for this factor it must be shown
that the grievor is uses light physical effort continuously or "all of the time" or moderate
physical effort for recumng periods or "most of the day." It is clear from the PDF that
this is not the case. It states clearly that light physical effort is used for 60% of the time
and (which is clearly not "all of the time" but which is "most of the day") and that
moderate lifting and pushing occurs for 20% of the time, that is, "part" of the day. On
this basis, I conclude that this factor is more properly weighted at level 2 which requires
light physical effort for most of the day and moderate effort for part of the day.
4. Sensory Demand
The College rates this factor at level 2 which, according to the Core Point Rating
Plan, requires either "moderate" demand and "occasional" attention to detail or
"considerable" demand with .... periodic" attention to detail. The Union rates it at level 3,
viz; "moderate" demand and "frequent" attention to detail, or "considerable" demand with
"occasional" attention to detail; or "extensive" demand with "periodic" attention to detail.
Unlike the Motor Skills factor the Core Point Rating plan does not provide any
percentages of time to help define the meaning of the terms, periodic, occasional and
frequent.
t7
The PDF states, with to this factor:
respect
Processing requisitions and tiling demand moderate visual attentiveness.
Student/teacher/public communications require auditory concentration. Report
writing, checking student Ids, and filing cause eye strain. Must listen carefully to
public, often interpreting between the lines, as to what the customer is really
requesting.
The percentages of time assigned to tasks involving sensory demand are:
Paperwork, filing 50%
Careful listening 50%
The Union argues that the College's rating of the position ignores that half of the
job in which the gfievor is involved in the performance of duties at the Test Centre; that
once those other duties become factored in the rating jumps from a level 2 to a level 3.
I agree with that argument. When both parts of the job are considered there can be
little doubt that the duties involve either moderate sensory demand with frequent careful
attention to detail or considerable sensory demand with occasional careful attention to
detail.
However, the problem is that the PDF itself appears to ignore entirely the test
Centre duties when it deals with Sensory Demand. I have no doubt that this is an
oversight and should be corrected at some level. However, for the purposes of this
arbitration, the parties have agreed to the PDF as written and, in that situation, I am
required to base by decisions on that. I cannot rewrite the PDF to make it conform to the
job as it is where the record indicates that the parties are in agreement on the contents of
the PDF. Thus, based on the libra~ duties only, the proper evaluation of this factor is, as
the College maintains, at level 2.
18
I should add that even if I were to rate this factor taking into account the duties
performed in both the library and at the test Centre, and rate it at level 3, the number of
points obtained would not be sufficient to raise the grievor into the next payband.
4. Summary and Conclusion
For the reasons indicated, the ghevance is denied and the position is to remain
classified as Clerk General B, Payband/4(. ~
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this ~t~/' day of N~~t.~ , 1998
.
Orcgo ator
GREGORY J. BRANDT
ARBITRATION/MEDIATION $I~RVICE,.~
FACULTY OF LAW TEL: (519) 661-3350
· .. UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO FAX (519)661-3790
LONDON, ONTARIO N6A 3K7 E-mail: lgbrandt@julian.uwo, ca
December 1, 1998
Mr. Roy Storey
OPSEU
100 Lesmill Road
NORTH YORK, Ont.
M3B 3P8
Dear Sir
Re: St. Lawrence College and OPSEU, Local 148
Classification Grievance: E. Porter
It has come to my attention that there is an inconsistency between the concluding page of
my award and the Arbitration Data Sheet.
The notation on page 18 of the award that the grievor remains in payband 4 is a
typographical error and should have read, as the Arbitration Data Sheet correctly
indicates, that the grievor remains in payband 5 . which is what the College itself had
rated the position.
I would be grateful if you would replace the attached amended page 18 to your copy of
the award.
ARBITRATION DATA SHEET · SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION
e: ~ ~(~:~¢L--" I n c u m b q n t: ,,,~'"Z)."V~" ~10/~'~"~ .t~__ Supervisor:,
~,'1! Class(float(on: ~ ! /-~-"'~4&- ~C-~/~c"-~_~t ~_ ~ and Present Payband:
Job Family and Payband Requested by Grievor: ~d~"f-y._~ ¢ ~, A I ~.y ~
1. Position Desoription Form Attaohed
2. [] The parties agree on the contents Of the attached Position Description Form
OR
[-I The Union disagrees with the contents of the attaohed Position Desoription Form. The speoifio details of this
disagreement are as follows:
(USe reverse side-if necessary)
i AWARD
FACTORS MANAGEMEm' UN~ON ARBITRATOR
1. Training/Technical Skills ·
2. Experience
3. Complexity
~ Judgement '~ 4~./~
~.~ .. Motor Skills
? 6. Physical Demand
7. Sensory Oemand ~-~ _
8, Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines ·
9. Independent Action
10. Communications/Contacts
11. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions
12, Work Environment
' PAYBANO/TOTAt. POINTS
JOB CLASSIFICATION
ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: [] The Union [] The College
FOR THE UNION FOR MANAGEMENT
[Grmver}' ~Oltl)' ~';-~,ile ~i-Rep r e fen t i~Lve )' (Dat~i
-~Un~n-Repre~entaCivm (Octet
~A T R'S USE:
{Arbi~t ~a~e of ~earing) (Date of Award}
93.12.09 b;dltash~,doc