HomeMy WebLinkAboutAtkin 98-12-14In the matter of an arbitration
between
SHERIDAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 2.4.$
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievance of Wtlilda ~.tkin
Sole Arbitrator: Gregory J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Rosalie Spargo, Human Resources Specialist
Brian Scannell, Mgr, Engineering-Maintenance
For the Union: Norma Pennington-Drabble, Vice-President (Grievances)
Vivian Gentleman, Steward
W~lda A~ Incumbent
Heating:
Sheridan College
N, ovcmber 20, 1998
2
AWARD
1. Introduction and Background
The grievor is an Architectural Technologist employed in the Physical Resources
Department of Sheridan College. She is classified as a Technologist C, payband 11, a
classification which she has held since September of 1989. She claims that she is
improperly classified and seeks re-classification to Technologist Atypical, pay'band 13.
The Arbitration Data Sheet indicates that the parties are agreed on the contents of
the Position Description form but differ with respect to the appropriate rating of a number
of the job factors. The respective ratings are as follows:
Factor College Union
Level Points Level Points
1. Training/Technical Skill 6 110 6 110
2. Experience 5 57 5 57
3. Complexity 5 74 6 90
4. Judgement 6 102 7 120
5. Motor Skills c 3 25 D 3 37
6. Physical Demand 2 16 2 16
7. Sensory Demand 3 28 5 50
8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands 3 28 5 50
9. Independent Action 5 60 5 60
10. Communications/Contacts 4 124 4 124
11 .Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 4 62 5 80
12. Work Environment 2 32 2 32
Total Points 718 826
?ayband 11 13
Thus, there are 6 factors in dispute: Complexity, Judgement, Motor Skills, Sensory
Demand, Strain from Work Pressures/Demands and Responsibility for Decisions/Actions.
3
The College takes the position that there is nothing that is unique about this
position that would justify treating it as atypical and subjecting it to Core Point rating. It
argues that existing Job Family Definitions and the Job Evaluation Guide Charts
adequately cover the position duties and responsibilities and warrant classification as a
Technologist C which position falls within payband 11. The union argues that the
position is atypical; that it should be Core point rated; that it falls within paybnnd 13 and
should therefore by classified as Technologist Atypical. The College argues, in the
altemative, that even when the position is Core point rated, it still should fall within
payband 11. I shall retum later to the matter of atypicality and core point rating.
It is useful at the outset to set out certain recent changes which have OOe~ at
the College, changes having an impact orl the demands placed on the grievor. Prior to
1992 the College employed, as part of its managerial staff, a Project Manager, who
worked in conjunction with the 2 Architectural Technologists and was responsible for the
administration of renovation projects. However, he retired and was not replaced by the
College and certain of his duties fell to be performed by Mr. $¢arm¢ll and the grievor.
Further, certain decisions were taken in 1997, on the occasion of the amval at the
College of a new President, to improve the various campuses through a number of
different renovation and beautification projects. Thus, in 1997 and 1998 the College
spent approximately 1.9 million and 1.3 million dollars respectively on these projects and,
in the process, put a great deal of pressure on the employees in the Physical Resources
Department. The gfievor, in particular, was put under a lot of pressure owing to the
frequent absence, due to illness, of Mr. Hutchenson ( who has since died). Much of that
pressure came during the summer months of May-August when the College was less busy
and construction work could be done with less interference. Mr. Scannell estimated that
approximately 60% of the grievor's time was spent on the administration of the projects
with the remaining time being equally distributed between planning, designing and
consulting on other projects (yet to be done) and operational duties. That compared with
a work distribution over the rest of the year of approximately 20% on project
administration, 45% on planning, designing, consulting and 35% on operational duties. A
measure of the scope of the duties assigned to the grievor in the summer of 1998 is set out
in the Summer Project Schedule for that year. It indicates that the gfievor was solely
responsible for 8 separate projects (one of which, Mobile Computing involved 9 separate
rooms) and had joint responsibility with Mr. Hutchcnson and Bob White (from the Davis
campus) for 2 other projects.
2. Duties and Responsibilities
The grievor's PDF summarizes the position as follows:
Under the direction of the Manager, Engineering and Maintenance, the incumbent
shall be responsible for the designing, planning and project management for
renovations and capital projects of a small to moderate size (up to $250,000.00)
The Duties and Responsibilities as set out in the PDF are:
Design layouts and proposals for projects related to office design, 45%
classrooms, general areas of the college. The effective use of space and
uhlizahon of industrial engineering principles is mandatory in the design
while abiding by all applicable govemmental regulations (i.e. Ontario
Building Code)
Provides estimates for all proposals and alternatives.
Preparation of contract drawings and specifications for approved5%
renovations capital projects
Management of projects. This includes preparation of tender, 35%
evaluation of tender, evaluation of proposals from contractors, on site co-
ordination, change orders and the certification of invoices. '
Supervises student co-op employee assigned to projects 10%
Other duties as assigned 5%
The grievor provided a detailed outline of her duties and responsibilities and how
those duties related to the various factors in dispute.
Generally, her duties involve her in the design and co-ordination of renovation
projects at the 3 main campuses of the College at Trafalgar Road in Oakville, at the
Skills Training Centre in Oakville and at the Davis Campus in Brampton. These projects
can vary in complexity from something as simple as placing a bookcase in a room to the
re-design of an office area to accommodate the amalgamation of two departments- a task
which might involve the installation of electrical and plumbing services, erection of
partitions or new walls etc.
The decision as to which projects are to be done is made by Mr. $c, ann¢ll and Mr.
Walt Glaser, the Director of Physical Resources, based on the monies available in the
budget for renovation projects. Initially the grievor may be asked to give a ball park
estimate of the costs of various projects that the College is considering.. Once the
decision is made to go ahead on a particular project the grievor is assigned it, usually on
an informal basis, by either Mr. $cann¢ll or Mr. Glaser at which point she contacts the
client and commences work on the project with a view to preparing a more detailed cost
estimate for submission to Mr. $cann¢ll or Mr. Glaser for their approval. Once that
approval is given the grievor is given responsibility to see that the work is done within the
6
approved budget.
Inihally she meets with the client to obtain an understanding of what it is that is
required. She then investigates the existing conditions, eg. by looking at blueprints,
measuring space and walls etc, existing electrical services to determine, in consultation
with the client and having regard to the requirements of the Buildmg Code and tire and
safety regulations, the extent to which completion of the project may or may not require
some altering of the existing conditions: eg. movement of a wall, addition or re-routing of
a power source. She prepares altemative proposals (usually two) for the client to review
and once a decision is reached the grievor, by using a computer program (Auto Cad)
creates various working drawings (eg. electrical, mechanical) that can be given to the
contractors that will ultimately be engaged to do the work. Through these working
drawings the grievor "designs" the project in such a way as to meet the needs of the client
within the constraints of the existing physical structure, the budget and the various
building codes.
Except for electrical work (and minor plumbing work) the College contracts out
the work that needs to be done (eg. diywall, flooring, painting, plumbing) to complete the
project. It is the grievor's responsibility to seek quotes and to selects the best fi.om a list
of contractors which the College has been using for a number of years. Having selected
the best bid she prepares a requisition for the approval of either Mr. Seann¢ll (for
contracts up to $20,000.00) or Mr. Glaser (for contracts up to $50,000,00) and, once
approved, she issues a purchase order to have the work done. The grievor creates the
project timetable (having regard to the need to minimize inconvenience to others using
the space) and co-ordinates the activities of the various contractors. She oversees the
renovation its end when the invoices she checks
project
through
to
received,
are
7
them, certifies that the job has been done satisfactorily, and passes them on to Mr.
$cannell for payment.
One major project worked on by the ghevor involved the conversion of classrooms
into a mobile computing centre that would allow students in a class of approximately 40
to sit in groups of 4 or 6 at worktables with their laptop computers such that they could
interact easily with each other as well as view a screen on which the teacher could project
images. This involved taking an existing area which had 4 classrooms of equal size and
converting that space into a large mobile computing room and using the remainder of the
space to create smaller Mac Labs - a task which required that two walls be tom down and
rebuilt in a different place. In addition, the gfievor researched and designed the kind of
work table that would meet the client's needs, viz a "puddle" table, the best method for
providing electrical and data services to the various tables located in the middle of the
room (viz, whether to use raised flooring or a packpole) and the erection and installation
of the tables around a pa¢lcpole (which was eventually chosen as the means for delivering
services). Further, she determined how best to locate the screens and projector so as to
avoid obstructions from existing eolunms.
The grievor cited various projects in which her input resulted in design
improvements and/or savings, (or potential savings) of money for the college. One such
project involved the re-fumishing of faculty work areas in such a way as to replace the
existing "conventional" furniture with modular fixmimm that would allow faculty to have
computers on their desks without sacrificing working surface. The suppliers of the
furniture prepared a plan which involved an inefficient use of space and blocked an exit
door. It fell to the gfievor to correct the plan and she produced one which made more
efficient of and in fact created extra for photocopiers. This
use
space
some
space
8
particular design became the standard used in the rest of the college. In another instance
the College had hired an outside firm to prepare a plan for the conversion of a vacant
room into an office area. That plan was given to the gfievor for review and she concluded
firstly that, in order to implement the plan it would be necessary to altered the air supply
ducts and the flourescent lighting; and secondly that generally the shape of the rooms was
inefficient and did not conform to the College standards. Accordingly, she prepared her
own design which, had the project been camed through, made a more efficient use of
space. In another instance the College had obtained some designs (prepared by others)
for a project which involved the building of a men's and woman's washroom at different
ends of a corridor. On the grievor'$ recommendation the washrooms were built adjacent
to each other, utilizing the same plumbing, and permitting the conversion of the area at
the other end of the corridor (which had been intended for a washroom) into initially a
storage room and subsequently an area to house 4 faculty members., saving the College,
in the ghevor's estimation, approximately twenty thousand dollars.
3. Evaluation
Before dealing with the particular factors in dispute it is necessary to address at the
outset the issue as to whether or not the correct classification of the position should be
determined by reference to the Classification Guide Charts (as the College maintains) or
through Core Point Bating (as the union argues.).
The Job Evaluation Manual makes it dear that the proper process to follow is one
in which, initially at least, the duties and responsibilities of the position are to be
compared to the Classification levels described in the Job Evaluation Guide Chart with a
view to finding the level which "most accurately describes" the content and
responsibilities of the position. While it is not anticipated that a perfect match will be
9
found in all cases it is expected that in most cases a "reasonably close approximation" to a
classification level described in the Guide Charts will be possible. Where that cannot be
done and the position is one of that "relatively small number of truly atypical positions"
encompassing duties and responsibilities which are not adequately covered by the
existing Job Family Definitions and Job Family Guide Charts, it can be evaluated by the
Core Point Bating Plan; or where "the position being evaluated has duties that cannot be
readily evaluated using the Job Evaluation Guide Charts", it can be core point rated.
(See, Manual, Section II, 4, 6).
It is the position of the union that, when a dispute arises and the matter is referred
to arbitration under the provisions of the collective agreement, the Arbitrator must in all
cases reacher higher conclusion on the basis of Core Point Rating, that it is not an option
to simply compare the duties and responsibilities of the position with those set out in the
Classification Guide Charts and find the "reasonably approximate" best fit.
In support of this position the union relied on the provisions of the collective
agreement dealing with the processing up to arbitration of classification complaints and
grievances, arguing that those provisions clearly contemplate that the matter before the
arbitrator is that of the proper core point rating of the position occupied by the incumbent
grievor.
Briefly, the grievance/arbitration process for classification ghevances is as
follows, t Step 1 the employee claiming improper classification makes what is referred to
as a "complainf' specifying the job family and payband claimed or, where it is claimed
that the position is atypical, the paybartd and job family where appropriate, (18.4.1) Prior
to meeting to discuss the complaint the College is required to provide a current PDF and
indicate if the position is guide-charted or core point rated. If core-point rated the college
is to provide the total core point rating for the position. Either at the meeting or within 10
days thereafter the employee and the union must indicate whether PDF and total point
rating appropriately reflect the assigned job 'and, if not, indicate what disagreements there
are with PDF and total point rating. (18.4.2.1) Within $ days of receipt of the
employee's response to PDF and total point rating, College must give its decision as to
how the position is to be classified (18.4.2.2)
If grievor is not satisfied with the College decision the matter proceeds to step 2
where a meeting is convened at which the parties exchange core point ratings by factor
for the job in dispute following which the College is required to give its written decision
with 7 days of the meeting. (18.4.2.3.)
Article 18.4.3 provides that if the matter is not resolved under 18.4.2. it may be
referred to arbitration. Prior to the heating both parties must complete the Arbitration
Data Sheet (Article 18.4.4.3.) Although the collective agreement is silent on the matter
the Arbitration Data Sheet agree to by the parties asks the parties whether they agree or
disagree with the contents of the PDF (and if disagreement, in what respect) and further
asks the parties to record their respecting core point ratings for each of the job evaluation
factors. By Article 18.4.4.5 the parties are required to submit to the arbitrator a written
brief in advance of the heating which brief is to contain the PDF supplied by the College,
the Arbitration Data Sheet, a written submission by the Union describing the complaint
and referencing the appropriate sections of the PDF and, at the option of the College, a
written submission on the matter. Article 18.4.6.1 states that "the arbitrator is restricted
to determining whether the lgievor's PDF accurately reflects his/her assigned job content
(where disagreement exists) and to determining whether the grievor's job is properly
11
classified pursuant to the CAAT SUPPORT STAFF JOB EVALUATION MANUAL..
It is my conclusion that the issue remitted to the arbitrator concems the appropriate
core point rating to be given for each of the factors in dispute. This is clear from what is
required to be exchanged by the parties prior to the heating and from what is included in
the brief to the arbitrator. What is initially referred to Step 2 (and ultimately to arbitration
if settlement cannot be achieved) is a disagreement between the employee (and his/her
union) and the College over the PDF and the total point rating assigned to the position.
At Step 2 the parties are required to exchange their respective core point ratings and
failing settlement at that stage the issue may be referred to arbitration at which point
again, the parties are required to exchange their core point ratings. Finally, it may be
noted that the Arbitration Data Sheet itself also contains a column to be filled out by the
arbitrator indicating his/her core point rating of the position.
It appears clear from this that the principal focus of the arbitration is on the
correctness of the core point rating. The College argues that, in restricting the powers of
arbitrators to determining whether the grievor's job is properly classified pursuant to the
Job Evaluation Manual, the collective agreement imports those provisions cited above
indicating that core-point rating is to be reserved for those relatively unusual cases in
which guide-charting does not work. I am unable to read this single reference to the Job
Evaluation Manual as having the effect of excluding core point rating. While it is the
case that our tasks as arbitrators is to resolve these grievances by reference to the Job
Evaluation plan negotiated by the parties, it should be noted that this plan includes as one
of its elements the process of core point rating. Thus, the requirement that arbitrators
determine the case by reference to the Job Evaluation Manual does not exclude reference
to core point rating.
12
The position taken by the College suggests that before one can get to core-point
rating it is necessaly for the union to establish that the position is atypical and cannot be
evaluated using the classification guide charts; that it must meet the burden of
demonstrating that the position occupied by the gfievor/incumbent fails within the
minority of cases that are appropriate for core point rating. I do not consider this to be
supported by the collective agreement. That does not appear to me to be consistent with
the pre-arbitration exchange of core point ratings and the submission of the core-point
ratings to the arbitrator- all of which are clearly contemplated by the collective
agreement.
In my view when the union chooses to take a grievance to arbitration it is in
essence claiming that the position in question is atypical; that the duties and
responsibilities performed by the grievor/incumbent are to be subjected to a factor by
factor analysis with a view to determining the correct total point rating and appropriate
payband. I do not see this approach as risking the integrity of the classification system as
a whole. The job evaluation scheme agreed to by the parties is designed to serve as a
general classification system for a large number of different positions in different colleges
with different areas of expertise and located in different parts of the province. In that
context it is not surprising that anomalies might emerge · in which the classification
system designed to operate system wide . simply did not work. It appears to me,
therefore, that the central issue at arbitrations of these grievances is whether or not the
case before the arbitrator is one of those atypical cases deserving of core point rating. In
my opinion the College cannot prevent an examination of that question by arguing that
core-point rating is not appropriate at all. In my view that begs the very issue that is put
before the Arbitrator.
Having said this it should be observed that arbitrators should take care not to come
too easily to the conclusion that a position is atypical - lest the cumulative effect of such
decisions will undermine the integrity of the classification system as a whole and the
principle of relative equality on Which it is bascd.'in this regard it may be noted that the
proper use of the Core Point Rating Plan requires raters (and presumably arbitrators) to
have regard to the illustrative classifications (from the Classification Guide Charts) for
the purposes of ensuring some measure of consistency in the application of the plan. (See,
Section VII, page 3). These serve as a check to make sure that the interpretation and
application of the necessarily general language in the factor definitions in the specific
case before the arbitrator remains as reasonably consistent as possible across the system,
taking into account the inherent difficulties associated with administering any job
classification scheme.
I proceed then to deal with the factors in issue in this case.
i) Complexity
The issue in respect of this factor is whether or not the position warrants a level 5 ,
"complex and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized processes ~.nd/or methods" or
level 6 - "investigation and resolution of a variety of unusual conditions involving the
adaptation and/or development of sp¢¢ializ~ processes and methods." In support of its
claim the union and the gfievor rely heavily on her work in connection with the design
and implementation of the mobile computing room. In particular it was suggested that
the research involved in determining what kind of table would best accomplish the
demands of the client and the best means by which services could be supplied to the
tables met the level 6 standard of "adaptation and/or development of specialized
processes and methods."
14
There is a sense in which it could be said that the gricvor's work on that project
falls comfortably within the factor definition for either of these two levels. Both refer to
"specialized processes and methods" but differ as to whether the incumbent is merely
"involved" in such methods or whether she "adapts or develops" the methods. In my
view care needs to be taken not to give too broad a reading to terms like "adaptation and
developmenf' as they could be taken to include, for example, a situation where the
position required the incumbent simply to determine where best to run an electrical chord
that would supply power to a location not normally serviced. Clearly, no one would
claim that this involved worked of the highest possible level of complexily. Yet, on a
broad reading of those terms, such a conclusion might follow.
I do not believe the grievor's role in "figuring out" the problem of the table design
and the means for supplying power and data services to the table as necessarily moving
her to level 6. Moreover, except in the broadest sense, ! have some difficulty in seeing
how her work can be seen as involving the "investigation" and "resolution" of an "unusual
condition."
Further, when the grievors duties and responsibilities are compared with those of
the other positions which are benchmarked at levels 5 and 6 for thii factor, it becomes
apparent that the better fit is with those at level 5 rather than level 6. One series of jobs
that are used as benchmark positions for this factor are those of Programmer Analyst A
(level 5) and Programmer Analyst B, and C (level 6). One of the differences in the
typical duties performed by an A as compared to a B or a C is that, in the latter two
instances the incumbent is concemed with somewhat larger "system wide" implications
of particular projects whereas in the former the tasks seem to be more closely tied to
individual client needs. Thus, the typical duties of a Programmer Analyst A include
determining system requirements with client, developing programs to fulfill requirements,
and interfacing with the client after installation. I see this as comparable to the way in
which the grievor goes about her work, by meeting with the client, determining the clients
needs, designing what will best achieve those needs and taking responsibility for ensuring
that the project is carded through to its conclusions.
Accordingly, I rate this factor at level 5 . 74 points.
ii) Jndgement
The issue in respect of this factor is whether or not the position warrants a level 6 ·
'high degree - involving adapting analytical techniques and development of new
information on various situations and problems" or level 7 · "very high degree- involving
originating new techniques and utiliig them in the development of new information."
In support of this claim the union again relies on the gfievor's work in condition with the
mobile computing project as well the redesign and re-fumishing of a faculty work area
such as to have it accepted as a College standard. It is suggested that there were a number
of respects in which, in connection with the mobile computing room project in particular,
the gfievor had 'originated new techniques"; viz, design of a puddle table and how it was
to be installed, research and design of the technique for supplying power to the tables,
creating the plan for locating projectors to avoid obstruction of the beam. In addition it
was suggested that the design of the modular faculty work station involved the origination
of a new technique.
Again, given the language used in the factor def'mition, it would appear that a good
case can be made for rating the judgment required of the gfievor at either level 6 or level
7. Clearly her work takes her into using new techniques and developing new information.
16
Some of it involves adapting some existing analytical techniques (such as the re-design of
the location of the washrooms in the "infiI! project" while other projects (eg. the mobile
computing project) involve a considerable creative input in the design of the puddle
tables and the effective delivery of services to those tables. Again, I draw some
assistance the illustrative classifications for these competing factor levels. Included
among those classifications involving the use of judgement at level 7 are: the Systems
Analyst andtho Technical-Support Specialist. When the typical duties performed by
incumbents in those positions are examined (divorced from their specific context) it
becomes apparent that they bear a close similarity to the position occupied by the
incumbent. Thus, the Systems Analyst "designs and develops" (computer systems)
"plans and co-ordinates projects" (to implement systems); "provides liaison with user
departments...". The Technical Support Specialist "assesses user needs and determines
(software appropriate) to meet those needs"; and "alters and designs (software systems)
where required". Were one to substitute something like "the use of College physical
space" for those references to computer systems and software or software systems, in
order to ¢ontextualiz¢ it to the gfievor's position, it would become quite clear that the
position occupied by the gfievor could be easily and comfortably compared with that of
the Technical Support Specialist.
Accordingly, there is good reason for rating this factor at level 7.
iii) Motor Skills
The parties are agreed that the position requires the use of motor skills on a
"regular" basis, viz 3 160% of the time. However, they disagree on the nature of the
motor skill that is performed. The College argues that it is that captured by level C, viz,
"complex motor movement involving dexterity,
fine
considerable
co-ordination
and
17
precision - and where speed is a secondary consideration. The union argues that it should
be rated at level D, which differs from level C in that the dexterity required must be
"significant" as opposed to "considerable" and in that speed is a "major" rather than a
"secondary" consideration.
The dispute between the parties does not appear to be over whether the dexterity
required is "considerable" or "significant". Rather, it is over the question of whether or
not speed is a "major" or a "secondary" consideration.
The basis for the union's claim that, in respect of these duties, speed is a major
rather than a seconda~ consideration, lies in the fact that, unliie an ordinary CAD design
office where work would be done on the basis of plans that may have been submitted with
detailed written specifications, the grievor often does her work on a "while-u-wait" basis.
Thus, in respect of some of the simpler projects, clients will appear at her office, give her
verbal instructions for work that they want done and will wait while she does it. It is also
submitted that, having regard to the numbers of ltifferent projects that she was working on
in the summer of 1998, speed was a major consideration even in respect of those projects
in which she did have some opportunity to work from written instructions.
While there appears to be no dispute that the grievor is required to work under
some time pressure (albeit less acutely at some times of the year than others), it is my
view that in the context of this position that is a factor whose significance should be
measured under the Strain from Work Pressures factor where it more properly falls.
Apart from the fact that the work is, at times, done under time pressure, the motor skills
required in this job are not inherently of the sort which requires rapid fine motor
on a regular cannot, my opinion, reasonably compared
movements
basis.
It
be
to
the
18
benchmark level D positions of Secretary A and Secretary B whose typical duties involve
the transcribing of correspondence from shorthand and/or dictating equipment using a
typewriter or word processor.
Accordmgly, ! rate this factor at level 3C.
iv) Sensory Demand
The issue in respect of this factor is whether the position warrants a rating of level
3 . "considerable" demand and "occasional" attention to detail or level 5 . "extensive"
demand and "frequent" attention to detail.
The PDF itself states ~ara 7.1) that "visual concentration is required conhnually"
(although that term appears to have been quantified in para 7.2 as occupying the grievor
for only 35% of the time.) It further identifies 40% of the time as requiring the grievor to
face the "mental challenge" of visualizing concepts from a drawn two dimension image to
a real life three dimensional situation. However, these cannot be treated as cumulative
since they each involve a different aspect of that part of her job in which the grievor is
designing while working at the AUTO CAD.
In my opinion the position does require a "frequent" careful attention to detail.
Although the term "frequent" is not defined for this factor some guidance to its meaning
can be found from the factor definition for Motor Skills, which defines frequent as over
60% of the time. Although admittedly the grievor does not spend all of her time at the
AUTO CAD she does use it to do, in her estimation, 95% of her jobs. Moreover, even
when engaged in the management of a project already designed she is required to ensure
that it is carded out as required according to the specifications etc. Mr. Scannell
19
estimated that, in the summer of 1998 (when the grievor had so many projects on the go)
her time was divided on the basis of 60% project supervision, 20% planning, designing,
consulting and 20% on operational issues. For the remainder of the year he estimated that
project supervision would drop to IO-20°A, planning, designing, consulhng would occupy
her for 40-50% and operational issues for a further 3040%. On the basis of these kinds
of numbers it would be downgrading the position to describe the need for careful
attention to detail as only "occasional".
Further, it is my view that the term "considerable" (rather than "extensive") best
captures the level of concentration that is required in the position.
The union argued that, in assessing the level of concentration required, regard
should be had for the fact that the gfievor was required to mentally juggle a large number
of different tasks at the same time and work under very difficult deadlines. In my view
those concems are more appropriately addressed under the factor of strain.
Accordingly, it is my conclusion that the appropriate rating for the Sensory
Demand factor is level 4 - 39 points.
v) Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
The dispute in respect of this factor is whether the position warrants a rating of 3 -
"moderate" work pressures - "regular but usually predictable" interruptions, changing
deadlines and multiple demands; occasional chtical deadlines - or a rating of 5 o
"continuous work pressures and unpredictable interruptions in workflow" with "numerous
conflicting demands and frequent tight deadlines."
20
The PDF refers to renovation projects having deadlines for completion in time for
classes and to the fact that events occur, eg. bankruptcy of a contractor, during a project
which causes strain and pressure. Finally it notes that clients can be difficult to deal with.
In her evidence the ghevor identified specifically various occasions when she had
to leave the project she was then engaged on to attend to some other demand. For
example, shortly before the deadline for the completion of the mobile computing room,
she was asked to redesign an office - a project which had not been scheduled and
planned for but which was required to be done quickly. She also referred to many
renovations which were "designed on the spot" and changed in midstream when an
administrator had a change of mind about what was actually wanted. It was noted that the
list of scheduled projects on which work was to be done in the summer of 1998 changed
from I2 in April to as many as 25 by June of the same year. She also spoke generally, of
the interruptions from the co-op students that she supervises, from the need to drop work
on one project and attend to another where, for example, one of the trades had finished
the work and it had to be inspected before the next trade could be brought in, and
intermphons arising from unexpected events occurring at a particular work site, eg. the
discovery of an electrical cable when a wall is pulled down. "Difficult people" included
those whose premises were being renovated against their will or in a manner with which
they disapproved.
It is suggested by the College that projects are all planned and, if there are to many
to be scheduled, they are placed in a priority system - with the College making the
decision as to which should be given the highest phohty. While that may be true for the
major projects it is my sense that a good deal of what does on during the gfievor's typical
work day involves much more than working to a regular, predictable schedule; that she is
21
frequently interrupted and taken from whatever she is working on and asked to deal with
it on fairly short notice. While some of that may occur in respect of minor projects it is
nevertheless a part of her job which requires her to adjust her working schedule - and it is
the strain associated with that need which is measured by this factor.
Thus, I do not think that a rating of 3 does justice to the strain experienced by the
grievor. Nor, however, am I persuaded that level 5 is appropriate. The standard to be met
in order to satisfy level 5 is particularly high, viz, "continuous" work pressures,
"numerous" conflicting demands, "frequent tight deadlines.". It is also of some
significance that there are no illustrative positions anywhere in the College system where
this factor has been rated at level 5, While this is not conclusive the absence of any in the
system as a whole suggests that in order to succeed in having a factor rated at this level
the union is under burden of In opinion that burden has not
high
persuasion.
a
vely
my
been met.
Accordingly, I rate this factor at level 4 -39 points.
vi) Responsibility for Decisions/Actions
The dispute in respect of this factor is whether the position warrants a rating of 4 -
"considerable" impact -"errors detected at, er the fact and resulting in considerable
interruption and delay in work output and waste of resources"; or level 5 o "significant"
impact - "errors difficult to detect result in significant waste of resources and continuing
influence on operational effectiveness."
The PDF states that the "impact of the incumbent's decisions are moderate to
critical with regard to the organization in respect of choice of material for a project,
22
construction timing, and costs. Critical in respect to "Life Safety" issues by ensuring that
rules are followed. Further, it provides that "Errors are readily detectible by review and
verification and if made usually are an inconvenience to the community and are usually
expensive to rectify.
In my view this issue is largely resolved by an examination of the PDF itself. I
note firstly that it describes the impact of decisions as "mo&rate" with regard to certain
identified illatters. The choice of the term "moderate" is instructive as it is one of the
terms used in the Core Point Rating plan to help draw the distinction between different
levels. Indeed "moderate" impact is at an even lower (level 3) than "considerable" impact
· which is what the College has rated the position. While it is true that the PDF also
speaks of that impact as being "critical" in certain annas it would appear that, even if one
were to equate "critical" impact with "significant" impact (level 5) the fact theft the PDF
describes the impact as being on a range between moderate and critical would suggest
that the most appropriate level that would capture the impact as a whole would be the
compromise middle level, i.e. level 4 - "considerable".
Secondly, with respect to error detection, the language of the PDF places this
position squarely within level 4. To repeat, the PDF states that errors are "readily
detectable by review and verification: and level 4 requires that "errors be detected after
the fact". Clearly, the PDF does not state that "errors are difficult to detect" which would
need to be established if this factor were to be rated at level 5.
Finally, while it is clear that errors, if undetected, would result in a waste of
resources, there is nothing that indicates that such loss is anything more than
"considerable". Moreover, it bears noting that the most common kind of dislocation that
23
is likely to result from a failure on the part of the grievor to complete a project on time,
eg. the renovation of a classroom or an office, is an "interruption and delay in work
output".
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 4 · 62 points.
4. Summary and Conclusion
Thus, based on the core point ratings which I find to be appropriate the position
occupied by the grievor warrants a total point rating of 758 points . a total which places
her in ?ayband 12.
Accordingly, the grievance is allowed and the College is directed to m-classify
the gfievor Technologist Atypical, Payband 12 and to her for such losses
compensate
as may have resulted fi-om her 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 / ~c7/:dm of ,~ Ce~~'M 1998
Arbitrator.
ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION
~e: "~l~-i~J~ Incumbent: ~/~._ b ~ .,~-~'r"~/~,J Supervisor: ~f~ ~~~
sent Classification: ~~=~ ~ ~f~ ~ and Present Payband: I/
Job Family and Payband Requested by Grievor: ~~ ~. ~c~ / ~~e~o G~ ~/~
1. position 'Description Form Attached
~ The p~ies 8gre~ on the contents df the ~ch'~dPositio~ Description Form
The Union disagrees with the oontents of the ~tt~ohed Position Desoripfion Form. The speoifio details of this
disagreement ~re ~s fot~OW5:
{use reverse sic[e if necessary)
AWARD
FJ[C'~ MANAGEMENT' UNiOI~ ) ARBITRATOR
Level Polnt~ LivM PMntl
1. Training~echnical Skills
2. Experience
X Complexity _
,, Judgement
5. Motor Skills
6. Physical Demand
7, Sensory Demand , ~
8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines _
9. Independent Act}on _
10. Communications/Contacts
1 1. Responsibilit~ for Decisions/Actions
12. Work Environment
PAYBANDITOTAL POINTS
~OB CLASSIFICATION ~C~e~e~
ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ~ The College
FOR THE UNION' FOR MANAGEMENT
-{Gr~evor) (Date) (Coflege Representative) (0ate)
IUn~n Hepresenta~v.e) [Date)
:OR ARB[T~~
93-12-09 b:da[esheet.doc