Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDonaldson 98-05-04 FIN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION BETWEEN:, ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION (hereinafter called the Union) ~ANSHAWE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY (hereinafter called the Employer) and - GRIEVANCE OF GARY DONALDSON (hereinafter called the Grievor) ARBITRATOR PROFESSOR IAN A. BUNTER FOR THE UNION~ Ms. Louise Watt, Chief Steward FOR THE EMPLOYER: Ms. Sheila Wilson, Personnel Officer '~/ AN.BXP~DITED ARBITRATION HEARING WAS HELD IN LONDON, ONTARIO ON APRIL 21, 1998 (1) Introduction The grievance of Gary Donaldson is dated Hay 26, 1997 and alleges improper classification. Hr. Donaldson is currently classified as a Skilled Trades Worker, Payband 9. The grievance seeks reclassification as Skilled Trades Worker, Payband 10 with pay, benefits and seniority retroactive to the date of the grievance (Hay 26, 1997). An arbitration hearing was held at Fanehawe College, London, Ontario on April 21, 1998. (2) The Position De.s_c_riotio__n Form (Exhibit 2) The P.D.F. describes the position as' "mason, architectural services" Mr. Donaldson has held this position (with one interruption) for approximately twenty (20) years. He is the only certified bricklayer among the maintenance staff at Fanshawe College. Se reports to Hr. Doug Crinklaw, whose title is Supervisorr Facilities and Maintenance. The P.D.F. was agreed to between the parties. It summarizes the position as follows: "Under general supervision of the Supervisor, Maintenance Services performs skilled work in facility services, specializes in masonry, including installation, maintenance repair and preventative maintenance". The core functions of the position involve installation, maintenance, renovation and repair of masonry, roofing, drywall, ceilings, doors, etc. The Grievor, Gary Donaldson, is a qualified bricklayer, and he does (sometimes with labourinq assistants) virtually all of the College's bricklaying work. But he also does a variety of general (i.e. non-bricklaying) building and repair functions, involving all types of building materials: metals, woods, plastics, asbestos, shingles, vinyl tile, carpet, etc. (3) Job Factors AGreed The parties are agreed on the appropriate rating of the following j ob factors: Factor Level, Points Training/Technical Skills Level 4 71 points Experience Level 4 45 points Complexity Level 4 58 points Judqement Level 4 66 points Independent Action Level 4 46 points Responsibility for Decisions/Actions Level 4 62 points Work Environment Level 4 77 points 1 Guide Chart Vs, Core Point Rating The College submitted that the position in question could be adequately embraced by the Job Evaluation Guide Chart for the Skilled Trades Worker (Section VI, page 47). Having heard the evidence of Hr. Donaldson, and his Supervisor, Mr. Crinklaw, I do not agree. As will become evident when I examine the specific factors in dispute, there are several areas where I have concluded that this particular position at Fanshawe does not fall within the Skilled Trades Worker Guide Chart. Consequently, I turn to the specific job factors in dispute. (6) Job Factors in Dispute (a) Motor Skills The factor measures the fine motor movements necessary to fulfil the requirementa of the position. It considers dexterity, complexity, coordination and speed. In this particular case the parties are agreed on the motor skills required (C). Those motor skills are: "Complex fine motor movement, involving considerable 4 dexterity, coordination and precision, is required. Speed is a secondary ' ' ', consideration . The dispute between the parties is as to the required prevalence of these motor skills. The College has rated this factor C3 (thirty-one to sixty percent (31-60%) of the time). The Union has rated factor C4 (mo~ than sixty percent (60%) of the time). On this issue, all the evidence before me concurs The P.D,F. indicates that the motor skill requirement is at least eighty percent (80%) of the time. The Grievor's evidence was that these skills are required ninety-five percent (95%) of the time. And his Supervisor's (Mn Crinklaw) evidence, was that these motor skills are required sixty to sixty-five percent (60-65%} of the time. Ail of this evidence establishes the conclusion that the prevalence is "frequent - more than sixty percent (60%) of the time". Accordingly, the Union's proposed rating - C4 - is correct. 5 Motor Skills C4 (b) Phvsical Demand This factor measures the demand on physical energy required to complete tasks. Raters are instructed to give consideration to: #- the type and duration of physical effort; the frequency; strain from rapid and repetitive fine muscle movements or the use of larger muscle groups, lack of flexibility of movement". The College has rated this factor Level 4. In the instant case, this means either "continuous moderate physical effort" or "recurring heavy physical effort" The Union has rated this factor Level 5: "constant physical demand continuous heavy physical effort". Obviously both parties agree that this is a heavy physical job. Mr. Donaldson testified that of all the work he does at Fanshawe, bricklaying is the most ephysicah jobL s o 6 testified that bricklaying is the most physically demanding of all the jobs in the Maintenance department, and Mr. Crinklaw concurred with that. The P.D.F. describes the job as involving: "standing/ walking/pulling/lifting/straining/climbing - more than ninety percent (90%)" The Grievor testified that all elements of the job involved heavy physical effort ninety percent (90%) of the time. The heavy elements involve: loading and unloading cement blocks which may weigh from thirty to eighty pounds; carrying carrying cement blocks; bricks; pushing wheelbarrows full of mortar exceeding two hundred pounds. The Grievor estimated that sixty-five to seventy-five percent (65-75%) of his time he was doing heavy lifting, and more than ninety percent (90%) of the time his job involved heavy physical effort. These estimates were not seriously challenged by Mr. Crinklaw's evidence. Whether I base my decision on the P.D.F., or on the oral evidence before me, Level 5 seems to me the best fit. The Grievor'$ job duties require constant physical 7 demand. There is repeated use of muscles and the Grievor must engage in nearly constant heavy physical effort. Ms. Wilson pointed out to me that no jobs are to be found in the Level 5 "illustrative classifications" The manual tells me to carefully review such classifications "to confirm" a rating which might otherwise be assigned. I have done that. While it does concern me that there are no positions in the Level 5 "illustrative classification", in my years of experience as an expedited arbitrator in the College system I have not encountered a position which to appears have such physical demands as Mr. Donaldson's. If his job, as described to me in the yiva voce evidence, does not warrant a Level 5 then it is difficult to envisage any position which would. The parties negotiated inclusion of a Level 5 and it must have been intended that it should be utilized in some case. I am satisfied that this is that case. Accordingly, and with some trepidation, I have concluded that Level 5 is the correct classification. Physical Demand - Level 5 8 -'"'" (c) ~easo~ Demand This factor measures the demand on mental energy while performing tasks. The manual instructs me to give consideration to: "the level or degree o[ concentration; and the frequency of the requirement for careful attention to detail and accuracy" The College has rated this factor Level 3: "considerable ,,, sensory demand and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy". The Union has rated this factor Level 5: "extensive sensory demand and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy". Mr. Donaldson testified that it is bricklaying which requires the greatest attention to detail. Bricklaying functions comprise approximately seventy-five percent (75%) of his job duties. In these functions he must be very accurate in his calculations, otherwise the results will be unacceptable. 9 After considering the P.D,F., and the oral evidence of both the Grievor and his Supervisor, I have concluded that neither party are correct are in their assessment of this factor. The level which best accords with the evidence is Level 4. The job duties of the Grievor'e position require "considerable sensory demand and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy". To accept the Union's position would be to equate the sensory demands of the Grievor'8 position with those of a Systems Analyst. I am satisfied that the sensory demands are not that great. However, I am also satisfied that they are greater than the College's rating of Level 3. Sensory Demand - Level 4 (d) Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines This factor measures the strain associated with, or caused by, frequency and predictability of deadlines, interruptions, distractions and/or workloads. II · The College has rated this factor Level 3: "moderate work pressures interruptions occur regularly but are usually predictable. Oooasionally, critical deadlines may occur". The Union has rated this factor Level 4: "conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in work flow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and occasional critical deadlines". The Grievor testified that at least eighty percent (80%) of his work is performed to deadline. The Maintenance department uses a wo~ order system, and each wo~ order contains an expected completion date. In addition to those deadlines, there are frequent emergency problems. The Grievor testified that "very frequently" he would be called away from a job to attend to another more critical emergency. Indeed, he instanced one job which took a week in which he was interrupted on eleven occasions. Over the course of a year he testified that "half my job I would be pulled off to do something else". Mr. Crinklaw confirmed that deadlines were an every day occurrence. On the summer time projects, Mr. Crinklaw testified that one aspect of the project had to be completed on schedule before the next could occur. He 11 accepted the Grievor's estimate of eighty percent (80%) of his work being subject to deadlines. He also confirmed that the Grievor would frequently be pulled off a job for another job, and "frequently interrupted". In my judgement, the P.D.F. (page 8) also confirms a rating at Level 4. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines - Level 4 (e) Communications/Contacts This factor measures the requirement for effective communication for the of advice, purpose providing explanation, influencing others, and/or reaching agreement. Consideration is given to the nature and purpose of the communication and the confidentiality of information involved. The College has rated this factor Level 25 "communication for the purpose of providing detailed explanations, clarification and interpretation of data or information". The Union proposed this factor be rated Level 3: "communication for the purpose of providing guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, or 12 for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures, policy or theory". The Grievor has communication with people for whom the particular job is being done (the customer at the College) or with those involved in getting the job done (the design team, building inspectors, masonry suppliers, etc. ) . I am satisfied that his communication is for the purpose of providing detailed explanation, clarification or interpretation. He is not required to give technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature. He has virtually no involvement with confidential information. There is no requirement for him to interpret College procedures, policy or theory. Consequently, I am satisfied that Co~m%unioations/Contacts is correctly rated at Level 2. Communications/Contacts - Level 2 13 (7) arbitrator's Core Point Rating Factors Level points Training/Technical Skills 4 71 Experience 4 45 Complexity 4 58 Judgemmnt 4 66 Motor Skills c4 28 Physical Demand 5 Sensory Demand 4 5039 Strain from Work Pressures/ Demands/Deadlines 39 Independent Action a 46 Co.~Lunications/Contacts 2 52 Responsibility for Decisions/ Actions 4 62 Work Environment 4 77 Total 633 Payband Level 10 (8) Pisposi~i.on For the reasons given, the grievance of Gary Donaldson is allowed. The Grievor is to be reclassified as Skilled Trades Worker, Payband 10, 633 points, retroactive in pay, benefits and seniority to May 26, 1997. I remain seized to deal with any issue which may arise in the implemmntation of this Award.