HomeMy WebLinkAboutDickieson 98-10-22In 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 245
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievance of Kevin Dickieson
Sole Arbitrator: Gregory J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Rosalie Spargo, Human Resources Specialist
Joyce Frizzell, Manager, Client Support Services
For the Union: Norma Pennington-Drabble, Vice-President (Grievances)
Jay Jackson, Local Union President
Kevin Dickieson, Grievor
Hearing:
Sheridan College, Oakville Ontario
September 29, 1998
2
AWARD
1. Introduction and Background
The griever is employed in the position of Computer Lab Technician in the
Department of Information Technology at the Trafalgar Campus of Sheridan College in
Oakville, Ontario. At the time of his grievance on December 3, 1997 he was classified as
a Technologist A, payband 8. In this grievance he claims that he should be classified as
Technologist B, payband 10. During the course of the grievance procedure the College
rating for certain of the factors was changed the result of which would have placed the
griever in payband 9 and changed his classification to Technologist Atypical. However,
the griever remain unsatisfied with this classification and the matter was referred to
arbitration.
The Arbitration Data Sheet completed by the parties sets out their respective
ratings for the Job Evaluation Factors. It rems as follows:
Facter College Union
Level Points Level Points
1. Training/Technical Skill 6 110 6 110
2. Experience 3 32 3 32
3. Complexity 4 58 5 74
4. Judgment 4 66 4 66
5. Motor Skills c3 25 D3 37
6. Physical Demand 3 28 3 28
7. Sensory Demand 3 28 4 39
8. Strain from Work Pressures 3 28 5 50
9. Independent Action 3 33 4 46
10.Communications/Contacts 3 88 3 88
11 .Responsibility for Decisions 3 44 4 62
12. Work Environment 2 32 2 32
( ,'"~ Payband/Total Points 9 572 10 664
Thus, the factors in Motor Skills, Demand, Strain from
dispute
Complexity,
are;
Sensory
Work Pressures, Independent Action and Responsibility for Decisions/Actions.
2. Duties and Responsibilities
The parties are in agreement as to the contents of the Posihon Descriphon Form
which provides, inter alia, as follows:
Position Summax~j:
The primmy responsibility of this position is to provide support to employees and staff in
the Academic Computer labs. General responsibilities include providing assistance to
employees and students in use of the hardware and software located there and supporting
the hardware and software illfrastrllcttlr¢ of the Labs. The incumbent must be able to
trouble shoot problems and to resolve them and approach such situations with a customer
service attitude.
.~! Duties and Responsibilities
1. The incumbent assists faculty and staff in the use of the facilities .-, 40%
. answers questions relating to the use of the equipment and software
- responds to problems brought to his/her attention; solves the difficulty or escalates to
obtain a solution if necessary
· provides orientation to faculty; provides demonstrations or information sessions for
faculty/students
-assists faculty and students with network account and access problems
· conducts information sessions and provides demonstrations on the use of equipment,
software, lab procedures and policies
· communicates with other staff members and outside suppliers to monitor problems and
solutions
, prepares documentation as requested by supervisor; assists in maintaining
bulletin/notice boards; checks fumiture, lighting and general tidiness.
2. The incumbent is responsible for the operation of the Mac Lab
· ensures the lab is operational, stable and secure 25%
· consults with faculty on hardware and software requirements
· researches new software or problem resolution
. installs software, tests and ensures lab is operational
~ troubleshoots problems; liaises with Helpdesk, coordinates with other College contacts
and vendors to ensure effective resolution escalates if necessary
. ensures backups, security and disaster recovery processes are in place
· identifies, communicates, and monitors policies, procedures and security issues.
3. The incumbent assists in maintaining software installations
. maintains software images on hard drives as directed 15%
· assists in installation of software as directed
-assists in testing software after production changes that may affect the environment
· identifies and corrects virus problems.
4. The incumbent works to maintain the hardware infrastructure of the Labs and the
Employee Training Rooms 15%
. diagnoses problems and does minor repairs and replacements
. assesses, resolves and reports difficulties with facilities, students or staff to technologist
or appropriate College resource
· performs preventative maintenance of equipment as directed
- assists in testing changes to the Lab environment to ensure hardware/software is
working
. monitors printer usage and replaces paper and toner as required
· restarts print queues as required
· if requested, changes server tapes to enable nightly system backups to proceed.
The ghevor is employed in the Information Technology Department as a member
of the Academic Lab group which is responsible generally for support of the hardware
and software infrastructure of the general-purpose academic labs at the College. He
reported to Ms. Joyce Frizzell, Manager of Client Support Services. At the time of his
grievance he provided technical support to employees and students in approximately 10
computing labs, included among which was the School of the Arts (Mac Lab). Technical
support is also provided by personnel in various classifications (including that of
Technologist B) who work at the Help Desk and in the Department of Information
Technology according to a centralized "support system", Under that system students and
direct their and to the "front line" Lab Staff
faculty
problems
questions
initially
(of
$
whom the ghevor is one) and, if the problem cannot be resolved at that level, it is
referred to the Help Desk and, if necessary, to the technologists in the Information
Technology Department. Many of the problems are resolved by the front line staff. Of
those which are referred (or in the language of the PDF "escalated) approximately 55%
are resolved by the Help Desk and the remaining 45% referred on to the Information
Technology Department technologists.
The PDF states that the labs can support more than 300 students at any time
although the gfievor himself stated that typically there would be between I SO-200
students in the labs at any one time. Most labs are 2-3 hours long and, as classes are.
staggered, a different group of students comes into the labs usually on the hour when
classes change. Also present in the lab is a co-op student (who is not a member of the
bargaining unit) but who the College expects to offer service as and when needed and a
Technologist B who is largely responsible for setting up new equipment and testing new
software.
As indicated in the list of Duties and Responsibilities in the PDF a significant
portion of the ghevor's time (approximately 65%) is spent on answehng questions or
trouble shooting both hardware and software problems arising for both faculty (but
primarily) students in connection with their use of the computer equipment installed in
the labs. In his evidence the grievor broke his duties into3 broad categories:
1. Problems which could not be resolved "intuitively" and which required the
assistance of the Help Desk if the grievor himself could not resolve them on a trial and
error basis through the exercise of "common sense" and reliance on "past experience"
and a knowledge of the process. Included among these problems were system wide
problems such as the network (once a year) or a sub-network (3-4 times a year) going
6
down (or access problems with an individual server), or problems affecting more than
one user or the class as a whole or unfamiliar problems of the sort which might arise
when a new software package has been added or there have been some changes in the
network resulting in the appearances of some new "error messages' not seen before.
Where a lot of users were affected or if the problem was very unusual the griever was
expected to contact the Help Desk quickly. He estimated that on a "slow" day he might
call the Help Desk 20 times (some of which calls could be as straightforward as getting a
student's forgotten password) and on a busy day as many as 100 times.
In connection with this group of problems the griever considered his role as
generally one of documenting and detailing information about the problem, which
information was then used by the Help Desk (which may have had reports of similar
problems from others) to resolve the problem. He saw his relationship with the Help
Desk as a "collaborative" one in which they shared information and "bounced ideas off
each other" in an effort to resolve these problems. Ms. Frizz¢ll disagreed to some extent
with that characterization of the relationship. She considered the staff in the lab to be the
"eyes and ears" for the people in the Information Technology Department (including the
Help Desk) who were the ones who "solved" these broader based problems. While she
agreed that there was a good deal of communication between the lab staff and
Information Technology, the role of the lab staff was more to engage in some
"preliminary trouble shooting" (which would assist others in solving the problem) and to
offer "front line customer service" for lab users.
2. Problems that can be "intuitively" solved, that is, solved while he is doing
other things, or by asking a series of standard questions that may point quickly to the
solution. He estimated that at a minimum he would have to deal with between 25 and 50
such problems a day, rising to 100 on a busy day. As examples of these kinds of
problems the griever listed such things as forgotten passwords, key stroke errors,
inability to access e-mail, printer problems (paper jams, toner smudges, paper
replacement, cleating printing queues), assisting students who had a problem with a
particular application, eg. creating a pie chart (although Ms. Friz, zell stated that assisting
students in that way was not a part of his duties.)
Included in this group of problems were those arising in connection with the Mac
Lab, a lab that was used exclusively for students in Graphic Design. As all of the
terminals in this lab are "stand alone" terminals, the sort of "system wide" problems that
arose in the other labs when the network or a sub network went down did not arise in this
lab. The grievor stated that he could not recall having to contact the Help Desk with
respect to Mac Lab problems. Rather, what he did when he could not resolve the
problem himself was to contact the software vendor.
3. Miscellaneous duties that included various special projects that he was involved
in. Included among these special projects were: preparation of a report setting out the
results of a questionnaire designed to measure the user level of satisfaction with
computer equipment; providing input into what was needed to upgrade the equipment in
the advertising lab and calving out the upgrades and installation of that equipment; and
assisting (through the creation of graphic images) in the preparation of a web page.
3. Issues and Conclusions
As a result of the changes in the College's ratings of certain of the factors, the
effect of which was to move the griever from payband 8 to payband 9, his classification
was changed from Technologist A to Technologist Atypical. In view of this atypicality it
is appropriate and necessary to assess his classification by reference to the Core Point
8
Rating system - which according to the Job Evaluation Manual is intended to be used for
positions which do not, by following the Classification Guidelines, fall into one of the
recognized classifications. As noted, the parties disagree as to the appropriate ratings in
respect of 6 of the job factors.
1. Complexity
The respective ratings of the parties for this job factor are as follows:
College: level 4 - "varied, non-routine, complex tasks involving
different and unrelated processes and/or methods."
Union: level 5 - "complex and relatively unusual tasks involving
specialized processes and/or methods.
In support of its claim the union points to the PDF stating that "difficulties
encountered in the lab can involve some aspect of the network, remote hardware, lab
hardware or software, each of which is itself a specialty" and to the fact that "each
incident had to be evaluated on its own" ~ supporting the rating of this factor as one
requiring the performance of unusual tasks involving specialized methods or processes".
Although it may well be the case that different methods or processes may be
needed to solve the many different kinds of problems which students of differing ability
might bring to the griever it cannot be said that the method or process used to resolve
them is "specialized" or that the tasks were "relatively unusual". In my view the term
"non-routine" better describes that aspect of the griever's duties. In fact the griever
described a good deal of his own problem solving (in both the general purpose labs and
the Mac lab) as "intuitive", as the kind which he could do while doing something else or
by asking a particular series of questions in the correct sequence. Moreover, when he
was faced with more difficult problems it was expected of him that he refer them up to
the Desk.
Help
9
It is not enough to characterize the tasks as "complex" (which they clearly are) in
order to justify the rating level claimed by the union as that element is present in both
factor levels. The difference between the two factor levels is whether they are "varied
and non-rourine" or whether they are "relatively unusual". In my opinion the need to be
able to handle problems from students of differing ability in connection with some 80
different soffwares is better captured by the terms "varied and non-routine" and
"different and un-related processes."
Further, the Core Point Rating Plan states that the Complexity Factor measures the
"amount and nature of analysis, problem-solving, and reasoning required to perform the
job-related duties." Again, considering the grievor's own characterizarion of his problem
solving as "intuitive" and the requirement that he refer problems that cannot be quickly
solved to the Help Desk (which occurs on average 20 times a day to a maximum of 100
times a day), I have some difficulty in seeing how the rating for this factor could be
higher than that which is provided for the Technologist B position, which he is
claiming.
Accordingly, I conclude that the appropriate rating for this factor is level 4.
2. Motor Skills
The parties agree on level 3, viz, regular (3 1-60% of the time) for the prevalence
component of this factor. Where they differ is in respect of the nature of the Motor Skills
required. In that regard, the respective ratings of the parties for this job factor are as
follows:
College: level C . "complex, fine motor movement involving
considerable dexterity, co-ordinarion and precision. Speed is a secondary
consideration
Union: level D - "complex, tine motor movement involving significant
dexterity, co-ordination and precision. Speed is a major consideration.
10
The PDF, in a number of places, refers to or suggests the need for the griever to
perform his duties quickly. Under the Judgment factor it is stated that customer service is
best provided when the problem can be solved "quickly" and efficiently. Under Strain
there is a reference to there often being a "line-up" waiting for assistance from the staff.
Under Independent Action it is noted that "the incumbent's performance is implicitly
checked by the level of client satisfaction and the speed with which the difficulties are
resolved." Further, the numbers themselves, viz, students numbering on average 150-
200 at a time, changing on the hour, waiting in line and presenting up to 100 problems
on a busy day · would indicate clearly a need for speedy action on the part of the griever.
The College argued that speed was not a major consideration for the majority of
the time. I understand this to mean that speed is not a major consideration for the
remaining 70% of the griever's time. However, that is irrelevant. As noted, there is
agreement on the prevalence factor and, while admittedly the gfievor is at the bottom end
of the range of 3 1-60%, the relevant consideration is whether or not, durint~ the time that
he is involved in the use of motor skills, speed is a secondary or a major consideration.
In my view there can be little question that, for the approximate 30% of the time
that he is required to use fine motor skills, speed is a major consideration. Accordingly, I
would rate this factor at level D3.
3. Sensory Demand
The respecting ratings of the parties for this factor are as follows:
College: level 3 moderate (demand) and frequent careful attention to detail; or
considerable (demand) and occasional careful attention to detail or
extensive (demand) and periodic careful attention to detail
11
- level (demand) frequent to detail; or
Union:
4
considerable
and
attention
extensive (demand) and occasional careful attention to detail;
It is argued by the College that level 3 is appropriate and is consistent with the
ratings of other technologists, even the Technologist B position which the grievor seeks.
While that argument has merit as one of the key objectives on any job evaluation plan is
to establish relative value and intemal job equity, it is not conclusive since it may be
that in respect of a particular factor the incumbent is atypical and should not be assessed
by reference solely to what how this factor is weighted for others in this classification.
The PDF states that 70% of the time is spent communicating with clients, eliciting
information, analyzing and providing solutions to software~ardware problems.
Although, the Job Evaluation Manual does not provide any benchmarks for this factor as
to what constitutes "periodic, occasional, or frequent" I am satisfied that 70% meets the
standard of what can reasonably be called "frequent".
As for whether or not the sensory demand is "considerable" or "moderate" the
PDF provides a clear answer in stating that "considerable concentration is required." In
my view where the PDF itself uses the same evaluative language (such as "considerable'*
or "moderate" or "frequent") as is used in the Core Point Bating Plan vely good reasons
are needed for not treating that as indicating conclusively how the parties (who have
agreed on the PDF language) consider this factor should be evaluated.
Accordingly, I rate this factor at level 4.
4. Strain from Work.
This factor measures the strain associated with or caused by frequency and
predictability of deadlines, interruptions, distractions and/or workloads, multiple and/or
12
conflicting demands and/or dealing with people in difficult situations.
The respective ratings of the parties for this factor are as follows:
College: level 3 . moderate work pressures or demands. Interruptions,
changing deadlines, multiple demands occur regularly but are usually
predictable. Occasionally critical deadlines may occur.
Union: level 5 · eontinuous work pressures and unpredictable
interruptions in work flow. Numerous conflicting demands and tight
deadlines occur frequently.
The PDF states that "constant interruptions and shifts or short notice for some
deadlines are a regular part of the job"; that there is often a line-up waiting for assistance;
that technical problems are most likely to occur when the labs are the busiest and the
equipment itself is under stress (which according to the grievor . and agreed in by Ms.
. occurs not only at the beginning of a new term or semester but also at class
Frizzell
changes when new groups of students try to log on and are facing access ~oblerns.)
Further, it states that lab staff can be involved in problems relating to security, theft and
personal conflict and that "time management" is difficult where there are deadlines on
additional projects. Finally, while answering quehes and providing directions to students
and staff is a predictable activity, analyzing and correcting technical problems (which
accounts for 50% of this time) and dealing with security or behaviour problems (2%)
are stated to be a non-predictable tasks.
I am unable to agree with the union's claim that level 5 is appropriate for this
factor. Nothing in the PDF or in the evidence at the heating suggested that the grievor
was under "continuous work pressure" and exposed to numerous "conflicting" demands
or "frequent" tight deadlines or that he had "unpredictable interruptions in his work
flow". There is no doubt that the tasks that he does vary a great deal from day to day and
13
are unpredictable in the sense that he cannot know on any day what kind of problem he
will have to deal with. However, nothing in the PDF or the evidence indicated that is
workflow was intemrpted in an unpredictable manner. As I see it his "workflow"
consists of sequentially attempting to solve a number of different problems. Similarly, I
do not consider the demands placed on him to be "conflicting" in the sense that he has to
prioritize them. What he does is deal with each, albeit different, problem as it arises and
either solves it intuitively or refers it on to the Help Desk.
Nor, however, am I able to agree with the College's rating for this factor. The
statement in the PDF that there "constant interruptions" are a regular part of the job does
not in my view tit comfortably with the requirement that, to be rated at level 3, the
interruptions etc .must occur "regularly". Nor, according to the PDF are they "usually
predictable" in that 50% of the interruptions, those requiring some analysis and
correction of a technical problem are expressly said to be "not predictable".
In my view the most appropriate rating, though not a perfect fit, is~-that captured by
the language of level 4, viz, conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in
work flow with work situations that may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and
occasional critical deadlines.
Accordingly, my rating for this factor is level 4.
5. Independent Action.
The respective ratings of the parties for this factor are:
College: level 3 -job duties performed in accordance with general
procedures and past practices under periodic supervision, with
occasional periods of Supervisor input or verification. There is
moderate freedom to act independently.
14
Union: level 4 -job duties are performed in accordance with procedures
and past practices which may be adapted to meet particular situations
and/or problems. There is considerable freedom to act independently
with Supervisor input or verification when requested.
But for the fact that the PDF explicitly states that there is "moderate freedom to
act independently", I would have no doubt that the appropriate rating for this factor is
that claimed by the union, level 4. The grievor works essentially without any
supervision as there is no lead hand in the department. He is essentially expected to
resolve problems independently of the supervisor and, in that regard, has developed his
own set of set questions to ask as a preliminary step to resolving the problem. The PDF
itself explicitly states that "minimal instructions are provided for routine lab
maintenance" and notes that the kind of problems which the ghevor must resolve are "as
varied as the people who ask or- report them" . suggesting that much of what he does is
done through developing his own solution to the problem. There is a further indication
in the PDF that, in connection with the Mac lab, "expectations and requirements from
faculty using this lab are not well defined."
Much of this indicates that it is the ghevor who is expected to take the initiative in
resolving problems. However, as noted, the PDF also states that the incumbent has
"moderate" freedom to act independently. I have indicated above (in my discussion of
the Sensory Demand factor) that where the PDF uses the same evaluative word as that
set out in the Core Point Rating plan, that should be taken prima facie as indicating how
the factor should be evaluated. However, my task is to look at the whole PDF and in
doing that it appears to me that, but for the reference to "moderate freedom to act
independently", factor definition for level 4 seems to be more appropriate. Where I to
conclude otherwise I would be allowing the single sentence in the PDF referring to
"moderate" freedom to act independently to become controlling. I am not prepared to do
15
that as it would diminish the significance of other parts of the PDF which also must be
taken into consideration.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 4.
6. Responsibility
This factor measures the impact on intemal and public relations, the responsibility
for information management, equipment, assets and records and the consequences of
decisions and/or actions.
The respective ratings of the parties for this factor are as follows:
College: level 3 - decisions and actions have moderate impact..Errors
usually detected by verification and review and may result in disruption of
the workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited waste of resources.
Union: level 4 - decisions and actions have considerable impact. Errors
are difficult to detect after the fact and may result in considerable_
interruption and delay in work output and waste of resources.
The PDF states that the incumbent a) is involved in maintaining Lab
infrastructure which is essential for course delivery and also in maintaining security both
for the equipment and for the people using the labs; and b) is the first line contact for
staff, students as well as the general public. The union argues that if the incumbent does
not do his job then faculty cannot do their job, students cannot prepare for classes or
complete assignments and classes may have to be cancelled causing a major disruption to
the institution. I am unable to see how these admittedly disastrous consequences flow
from a failure on the part of the gfievor to do his job. It is to be recalled that the
gfievor's principal filnction is to address the problems that are brought to him by
primarily students, resolve them quickly if possible, but then to refer them on to the Help
Desk if that cannot be done. Where the problems are more systemic and involve network
or sub network failures his role is to provide information for the Help Desk or the
technologists in the Information Technology Department for their attention. The
consequences that flow from an inability on the part of the grievor to solve one of the
problems presented to him appear to be essentially some delay in having the problem
solved. Responsibility for systems failures and network breakdowns leading to
difficulties with course delivery etc. lies more with those in the Help Desk and in
Information Technology than it does with the grievor who is, essentially a first line
trouble shooter.
In my view the evaluative criteria of "moderate" impact and "limited" waste of
resources more closely capture the consequences that flow from decisions made by the
grievor and I accordingly, rate this factor at level 3.
Summary "
In the result I have core point rated the various factors in such a fashion as to
increase the gfievor's rating in the factors of Motor Skills, Sensory Demand, Strain from
Work and Independent Action resulting in an overall increase in his points total to 619.
However, as that falls short of the threshold needed to move him into the next payband
he remains in payband 9 and remains classified as Technologist Atypical, Payband 9.
I conclude by noting that the result which I have reached through Core Point
Rating is quite consistent with the Classification Guide Charts. When the grievor's
duties are compared against the typical duties of a Technologist B as set out in the Guide
Classification Charts, it becomes clear that the classification of Technologist B is not
appropriate. The typical duties of the Technologist B there listed are the following:
17
Designs and/or develops equipment systems, facilities, materials etc. to
meet user output requirements
Plans, organizes and conducts experiments and demonstrations explaining
correct procedures and theoretical principles involved.
Evaluates equipment and other resources and makes recommendations
prior to purchase
Controls supply inventohes and budgets
May assist in student evaluations in relation to learning activities in which
the Technologist B takes part.
There is clearly no basis for finding any of the grievor's duties to be analogous to these
"typical" duties of the Technologist B. Of course that is to be expected since the position
is regarded as "atypical". Nevertheless, it is in my view appropriate to at least examine
the sorts of "typical duties" that will command pay at the level of payband 10 for the
purposes of confirming that the core point rating of this position at payband 9 achieves
the kind of consistency and intemal equity that is required of a job evaluation plan.
In the result the grievor is to be classified as Technologist Atypical, Paybartd 9
and the ghevance is dismissed.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this '~ Z--clay of ~ "~' "~~k- ,1998
ego~! randt, Arbitrator
ARBITRATION DATA SHEET · SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION
int Classification: "~r"~;C ~/oL.~ c.,~ S ~-' ,)~'T¥~t C -~c(,__ and Present Payband: c~
Job Family and Payband Requested by Griever: -~_~ n/,,cc C=_/ ~.;'-- {-~ ~,~" ~_~ t C~ .
1. Position Description Form Attached
2. I-I The parties agree on the contents of the attached Position 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 if necessary)
AWARD
FACTO RS MANAQEMENT UNION ARBITRATOR
Level Polflt~ Level Palina L~wel Pa~nt,
1. Training/Technical Skills ~ 't.._
· 2. Experience
u. Motor Skills ~ '~ '~"~
6. Physical Demand
7. Sensory Demand ~'
8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines '
9. Independent Action
10. Communications/Contacts -'~
1 1. ResDonsibility for Decisions/Actions .
1 2. Work Environment ~ ~ ~--
PAYBAND/TOTA/POINTS
JOB CLASSIFICATION
A'I-FACHED WPJ'I-FEN SUBMISSIONS: ri The Union [] The College
FOR THE UNION FOR MANAGEMENT
(G,evo~l (Dalai (College-Reprosantativol ).Date)
(Union RepresentarJve)
1
2-09
b:datll~et.doc