HomeMy WebLinkAboutGuay 97-01-01In the matter of an arbitration
between
CAMBRIAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 656
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievance of Susan Guay
Sole Arbitrator: Gregory J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Susan Pratt, Staff Relations Consultant
Sharon Orlak, Manager, Ontario Skills Development Office
L.N. Bouchard, Dean, Corporate Training and Community
Initiatives
For the Union: Bill Reiss, Local Union President
Susan Guay, Grievor
Hearing:
Sudbury, Ontario.
September 30, 1997
2
AWARD
1. Background
At the time efher grievance ( December 12, 1996) the griever worked in the
Ontario Skills Development Office (OSDO) at the College. That office consisted efthe
griever, (who is classified as a Secretary A, Payband 6, 3 "training consultants"
(classified as Support Services Officer D) and the manager. OSDO was responsible for
the development of employer Training Plans, through which members of the employer
community could obtain access to provincial funding to assist in skills development. For
reasons which are not important the demand for Training Plans began to decline in the
fall of 1996 and OSDO training consultants sought other sources of activity. Ultimately
by April 1, 1997 OSDO was phased out and the griever came to be employed in the
industrial Training Centre. This grievance is concerned only with the correctness of her
classification as a Secretary A while employed in OSDO. it is the position efthe union
and the griever that the more appropriate classification is that of Secretary B, payband 7.
It is appropriate to begin by noting that, for the first time in the experience of the
present arbitrator with this job evaluation plan, the parties are agreed as to the approach
that should be taken in dealing with classification grievances. An all too familiar issue in
these classification grievances has been that of whether, as employers have frequently
urged, the duties and responsibilities in question should be measured against the typical
duties and responsibilities as set out in the Evaluation Guide Charts or; whether, as unions
have claimed, they should be Core Point rated. The Job Evaluation Manual clearly
contemplates the possibility that either approach to evaluation may be used but indicates,
quite clearly, that core point rating is to be reserved for "a relatively small number of
truly atypical positions that encompass duties and responsibilities which are not
adequately covered by the existing Job Family Definitions and the Job Evaluation Guide
Charts." (See Section ii, para 6.) Thus, a subsidiary issue in many classification
3
grievances was that of whether or not the particular position in question could be
considered "truly atypical" and therefore a candidate for core point rating. As a result
employers and unions were frequently at cross purposes in terms of how the issues to be
resolved were to be defined; a situation which, in the context of the procedure in place for
dealing with classification grievances on an expedited basis, made the task of the
arbitrator somewhat more difficult.
It was therefore refreshing to discover that these parties, while they disagree
strongly as to the proper classification of the grievor's duties and responsibilities, are at
least operating from the same common starting point; viz, that of comparing the duties
and responsibilities against the typical duties and responsibilities set out in the
Classification Guide Charts for the 2 competing classifications. This does not exclude
Core Point Rating from consideration. However, what is required is that an effort first be
made to fit the core duties within those set out in the Guide Charts, to see whether they
bear a reasonable approximation to those set out in the Guide Charts. If, after that
exercise is completed, it is determined that no Guide Chart duty "accurately describes"
the duty in question, the position can be treated as atypical and core point rated.
2. The position
The relevant provisions of the PDF are as follows:
Position Summary:
Establishes, maintains and oversees office systems/procedures and provides
marketing support to the Consulting staff and the Manager. Provides senior
clerical support to the Manager and Training Consultants in support of
training/human resource consulting services. Provides computer/software
support to OSDO staff and Manager.
Duties and Responsibilities Approximate %
of Time Annually
4
1. Composes and types correspondence. Types projects/reports associated
with the development of employer training plans utilizing various computer
software packages in a networked environment. 30%
2. initiates the registration of all clients (employers) in the MET
information System and assigns related codes. Establishes and oversees
specific filing systems and data requirements of the consulting service to
MET specifications and coordinates their use and integrity.
13%
3. Researches potential employers from outside agencies and creates
supporting marketing database records.
10%
4. Analyses clerical problems and organizes/coordinates office systems
related to clerical systems and procedures, and recommends revisions.
10%
5. Advises clients of training status and redirects employers to various other
Government sponsored programs. 10%
6. Answers inquiries that require in depth knowledge of how the office
relates to other college areas and ensures that matters requiring immediate
attention are directed to the appropriate person.
15%
7. Verifies the completeness and accuracy of payroll reports and Ministry
information Systems data. 2%
8. Performs other related duties as assigned 3%
Essentially the "work" that is done at OSDO (which incidentally is located in
downtown Sudbury and not on the campus of the College) involves the creation of
various surveys, reports, projects etc. used to facilitate the entry into employer training
programs by members of the local employer community, through which programs
students obtain skills training from employers who, in turn, were reimbursed by the
Ministry. The creative initiative for the generation of these surveys, reports, projects, etc
5
comes entirely from the training consultants. The position occupied by the griever is one
of support and assistance.
The preparation of a training plan for presentation to employers involves a certain
amount of research intended to identify the employer community either generally or in
particular designated sectors and to determine what plans, if any, they have for expansion
or development. In relation thereto surveys or questionnaires, prepared by the training
consultants and typed by the griever, are sent to the employer community whose
responses are collected by the griever and recorded and organized for the use of the
training consultants. Or, on the direction of the consultants or the manager, the griever
may be involved in checking various other established sources, such as newspapers,
employer directories, Chamber of Commerce or Statscan data (which sources do not vary
from year to year) for the purposes of compiling information to be used at some later date
by the training consultants in the preparation of a training plan for presentation to
prospective employer clients.
The griever has some involvement in the presentation of the training plan to
prospective employer client. While the training consultants have primary responsibility
for the design of and the type efpresentatien that will be made, eg. whether to use
overheads or put the information into booklet form, the griever assists them "as a member
eft he team" in achieving the particular design or presentation objective. This may
require such things as changing font size, using different software packages to create
different graphics etc.
An employer who becomes involved in a training plan is required to enter into a
service plan agreement. This involves the employer in providing the Ministry with
certain required information concerning their particular operation, eg. re: the number of
6
employees, whether employees are unionized, whether the employer exports and, if so,
how much, etc. This information is required to be provided on standard pre-printed forms
which are the same for each employer which forms are returned to the griever who, in
mm, inputs the information into the Ministry Information System. A part of the griever's
responsibilities in this regard requires her to ensure that the form is filled in completely
and, if not, to contact the employer to obtain the information required. The griever also is
responsible for producing reports responding to requests (from her Manager for example)
for information that is recorded in the Ministry infermatien System. In order to do this
she must be familiar with the correct codes that will allow her to access the right "library"
to acquire the information required. Further, she may be required to generate (on a
monthly basis) reports for the Ministry of information contained in the Ministry
infermatien System.
Finally, there are a range of different duties that the griever performs in connection
with answering various inquiries in connection with training plans or the service in
general. For example, at a time when the training consultants are away from the office in
the field, an employer client may call in seeking information concerning a particular
project or revised information on an updated survey. In that event the griever must be
sufficiently familiar with the project and the stage efits development to be able to
respond to the request. Or, the griever may be requested to provide information with
respect to other government programs.
3. The Classification Guide Charts
Evaluation Criteria Secretary A
Summary of
Responsibility incumbents perform secretarial duties with associated clerical tasks.
Typical Duties . Transcribes correspondence from shorthand and/or dictating
equipment using a typewriter and/or word processing equipment.
· Initiates and composes correspondence in response to routine
enquiries.
· Screens callers, takes messages, arranges appointments, and
answers a variety of enquiries.
· Compiles and submits reports of a cyclical and specialized nature.
· Maintains a variety of records such as budgets, staff reports,
timetables, and purchase requisitions.
· Establishes office systems and routines and develops record
keeping procedures
Secretary B
Summary of
Responsibility Incumbents perform advanced secretarial duties with related
responsible clerical functions·
Typical Duties In addition to secretarial duties described for Secretary A:
· Purchases office supplies under delegated authority and reconciles
divisional budget records.
· Answers enquiries that require a complete knowledge of policies
and procedures.
· Attends meetings in the supervisor's absence to record and/or
transmit information.
· Contacts officials to obtain information and arrange meetings.
· Gathers and compiles divisional/departmental statistical data.
· Assembles and organizes information for meetings.
8
Secretary C
Summary of
Responsibility Incumbents perform executive secretarial duties with associated
administrative functions.
Typical Duties In addition to secretarial duties described for Secretary B
· Researches material to provide supervisors with background
information required for policy and planning meetings.
· Gathers program, student and staff data and prepared narrative and
statistical summaries.
· Ensures that matters requiring immediate attention are routed to the
appropriate officials for action.
· Assembles and organizes information and materials for
presentations.
As for the other Evaluation Criteria set out in the Classification Guide Charts the
Secretary A differs from the Secretary B in only 4 of the 12 factors· Whereas a Secretary
A is required to have the skills normally acquired through attainment of secondary school
graduation or equivalent and the ability to apply advanced reading, writing and arithmetic
skills, the Secretary B must, in addition, have completed additional job related training
courses or one year Community College diploma or equivalent and the ability to apply
"specialized skills"· The minimum experience required for a Secretary B is between 3
and 5 years of practical experience as compared to between 1 and 3 years for a Secretary
A. The complexity factor differs in terms of whether the incumbent is expected to
perform "non-routine" tasks (Secretary B) or "routine" tasks (Secretary A). Finally, the
decisions or actions of the Secretary A have only a "limited" impact on the organization
with errors being "detected easily and quickly" and resulting only in "minor
embarrassment, confusion or expense for correction", while those of the Secretary B have
a "moderate" impact with errors usually detected by "verification and review" that "may
result in disruption of the workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited waste of
9
resources."
The union claims that the duties and responsibilities of the position occupied by
the grievor are more accurately captured by the typical duties set down in the Guide
Charts for the Secretary B (and in some cases, Secretary C). In addition it is argued that,
with respect to the Evaluation Criteria of Training/Technical Skills, Complexity and
Responsibility for Decisions/Actions, the position as reflected in the PDF and the
evidence adduced at the hearing more closely resembles the level set out in the Guide
Charts for Secretary B than for Secretary A. Finally, with respect to the Evaluation
Criteria of Experience, the union disagrees with the wording in the PDF and claims that
the minimum experience required should be rated at 3-5 years, viz, the level established
for the Secretary B.
I shall deal with the last matter first.
The position of the union in respect of the issue of requisite minimal experience is
simple and straightforward; that is, that earlier PDFs have stipulated a minimum practical
experience requirement of 3-5 years and there is nothing to suggest that the job has
changed in any way such that this requirement can be reduced to 1-3 years. It is the
position of the College that the original requirement of 3-5 years was premised on an
assumption that extra time would be required to acquire the various keyboarding
computer skills that are necessary to do the job. However, as those skills are now
routinely acquired either as a result of graduation from secondary school or through the
"one year Community College certificate with specialized skills in the Ministry
Information System and various software packages" (see PDF C. 1.1.1), the practical
experience required for an entry level employee can now be reduced.
10
This is a matter that is difficult to resolve under the expedited process which is
designed to deal with differences between the parties as to the appropriate rating of the
position where there is agreement as to what should be in the PDF. Where, however there
is a claim that the PDF itself is incorrect - as there is in this case - the expedited process
does not work since it limits the parties in terms of the evidence that can be called and the
material that can be relied upon. Although the College asserts that there is no longer a
need for extra time to acquire the requisite computer skills as these are now routinely
acquired in secondary school or through a one year College diploma the process does not
permit the College to prove or the union to deny the validity of that claim. I cannot take
arbitral notice of what computer skills are or are not taught in the secondary school or
College programs and, in the absence of some evidence in that regard, I have no basis for
determining this issue one way or the other. All I can do is confirm that there is a
disagreement between the parties as to the experience factor and attempt to resolve the
grievance by reference to the other factors.
I begin with a comparison of the duties and responsibilities of the position with the
typical duties of the Secretary A and B positions as set out in the Classification Guide
Charts.
It is first to be noted that, in conducting this comparison, it is the predominant or
"core" duties that are primarily relevant for the simple and obvious reason that an
infrequently performed and peripheral task cannot be permitted to control how a position
should be classified as a whole. Further, it should be remembered that there need not be a
perfect match between core duties performed and the typical guide chart duties insofar as
the manual only requires a search for the guide chart level that "most accurately describe
the actual content and responsibilities of the position", one where there is a "reasonably
close approximation to a classification level described in the Guide Chart" (See Section
11
II,4).
Approaching the matter from that standpoint there can be little doubt that the
duties and responsibilities of the position fit well within those set out for the Secretary A
position. Almost one third of the duties (30%), those comprised in Duty 1 in the PDF,
closely match those first 2 typical duties set out for the Secretary A, viz, "Transcribes
correspondence ...using ..word processing equipment" and "initiates and composes
correspondence in response to routine enquiries. A further 17% of the job, viz, answering
enquiries (7%) and advising clients of training status etc. (10%) is also well matched with
the third guide chart duty, viz, "screens callers, takes messages, arranges appointments,
and answers a variety of enquiries." Thus, almost one half of the duties fall easily and
comfortably into the typical duties set down for a Secretary A. Further, when the rest of
the duties are examined a place can be found for all of them somewhere among the
typical duties of a Secretary A. The monthly reports produced for the Ministry
information System and payroll verification involve activity of a "cyclical and
specialized nature"; the registration of clients in the Ministry Information System, the
establishment and overseeing of filing systems involves the "maintenance of a variety of
records"; and the organization and coordination of office systems and procedures and
organization of clerical duties falls squarely under "establishes office systems and
routines and develops record keeping procedures."
The only duty which appears not to find any very close association with one of the
typical duties of a Secretary A is duty 3, viz, "researches potential employers from
outside agencies and creates supporting marketing database records." Indeed that
particular duty cannot even be found in the Guide Chart duties of a Secretary B and finds
its closest comparison in the first Guide Chart duty listed for a Secretary C, viz,
"researches material to provide supervisors with background information required for
12
policy and planning meetings". Clearly, the kind of research done by the grievor is not of
the sort described for a Secretary C. Moreover, when this particular duty is examined
more closely it becomes apparent that, while the word "research" is used in the PDF,
what is actually done is research of a very elementary nature, viz, a routine check on
certain standard sources which do not vary from year to year and the putting together of
information in a file which will be used by the training consultants to formulate a training
plan. Had the PDF described this duty as, for example, "gathering information
concerning potential employers etc.." it would have been no less accurate a description of
what is actually done and would not have suggested the kind of sophistication in the duty
that goes with the term "research". In any event, this particular function only occupies
the grievor for 10% of the time and can, accordingly, not reasonably be considered to be a
"core function".
Thus, I find that the duties and responsibilities of this position as a whole fit well
within the typical duties of a Secretary A. However, that is not the end of the matter. The
Guide Chart for the Secretary B position lists a number of Typical Duties that are
performed "in addition to secretarial duties described for Secretary A." Thus, even
though the duties fall within those of a Secretary A it is necessary to go further and
determine whether or not, in addition, the grievor performs the typical duties of a
Secretary B.
The grievor sought to draw comparisons between her duties and a number of the
guide chart typical duties for both the Secretary B and Secretary C. The following table
sets out that comparison.
PDF Duty Guide Chart Duty
duty 2 Secretary B bullet 4 (contacts officials to obtain information
andarrange meetings) and bullet 5 (gathers and compiles
statistical data) for the Ministry.
13
duty 5 Secretary B bullet 2 (answers enquiries to that require a
complete knowledge of policies and procedures).
duty 3 Secretary C bullet 1 (researches material..).
duty 7 Secretary C bullet 4 assembles and gathers information and
materials for presentations.
duty 6 Secretary C bullet 3 (ensures that matters requiring immediate
attention are routed to appropriate officials for action)
While it may be the case that there is a sense in which the words of the PDF can be
matched to bullet point duties in the guide charts for Secretary B and C care should be
taken to ensure that the process not become overly formalistic, where particular words
and language become governing without regard to context. To some extent that context is
provided by the Summary of Responsibility for the respective Secretary B and C
positions. Incumbents in the Secretary B position are described as performing "advanced
secretarial duties with related responsible clerical functions" and those in the Secretary C
position are described as performing "executive secretarial duties with associated
administrative functions". Thus, when looking at the attempted comparisons with
Secretary C typical duties the context must be appropriate. I fail to see any sense in
which any of the suggested Secretary C comparisons can be said to involve a context
wherein the incumbent is performing "executive" duties in associated with
"administrative" functions.
Although the absence of an appropriate context is less evident in connection with
the Secretary B comparisons there still are significant portions of the typical duties of the
Secretary B which the grievor does not perform. She has no involvement with purchasing
office supplies or reconciling divisional budget records or anything similar. Although she
14
does answer enquiries she is not required to have a "complete knowledge of policies and
procedures" of the College. She does not attend any meetings "in the absence of the
supervisor to record and/or transmit information"; and although she inputs data into the
Ministry Infermatienal System she has little responsibility for "gathering" that data.
I mm finally to the 3 other evaluation criteria which are in dispute.
1. Training and Technical Skills
The PDF describes these as "secretarial certificate/diploma. One year Community
College Certificate with specialized skills in the Ministry Information System and various
software packages." Clearly this goes beyond that set out in the Guide charts for
Secretary A and matches very closely that which is set out for Secretary B, viz, "required
skills normally acquired through attainment of secondary school graduation and
completion of additional job related training courses, or one year Community College
diploma or equivalent.". Further, the incumbent is, in my opinion, required to have the
ability to "apply specialized skills" (Secretary B) rather than merely an ability to apply
advanced reading, writing and arithmetic skills" (Secretary A).
2. Complexity
The issue here is whether or not the griever performs "routine, complex tasks"
(Secretary A) or "varied, non-routine, complex tasks" (Secretary B). It is always difficult
to find the appropriate division point between routine and non-routine tasks since most
positions have some variety in them. It is the position of the College that, while it may be
the case that the griever works on a number ef varied and different projects, viz, surveys,
training plans, and may be required to present them in a variety of different ways
(different fonts, overheads, booklets, etc.), her core duties are essentially to type and that
task is "routine" in nature. It is also suggested that the "research" activities of the griever,
15
insofar as they involve her in going to the same source each year and extracting the same
kind of information, are routine in nature.
In my view this description efthe griever's duties does not give sufficient credit to
the complexity of the position. Although there is some unavoidable similarity associated
with the performance of any secretarial position the range of projects the griever may be
involved in working on and the fact that she serves as a member of a team (albeit in a
supporting capacity) that is responsible for presenting materials to prospective employer
clients persuades me that her work is non-routine. ! am also not persuaded by the
argument that, insofar as her research sends her to the same sources, each year, it is
"routine". I do not suggest that it is "research" that might be conducted in a more
academic environment. However, it requires some search of the sources, identification of
what is relevant, and extraction of what is found to be relevant for inclusion in a file.
That, in my mind, involves one in tasks that are other than "routine."
I find support for this conclusion from the PDF itself which describes the
incumbent as often working on more than one project at a time involving different
procedures, systems and deadlines" and as having a "diverse number of duties and
responsibilities" which require the incumbent to "prioritize varied tasks daily and adjust
as required". (See Section C.3.1) In my opinion that describes a position which involves
the performance of"varied, non-routine" tasks of the type that would be required of a
Secretary B.
3. Responsibility for Decisions and Actions
The PDF states that:
11.1 The incumbent is often the first contact OSDO clients have on the telephone.
Poor representation could result in a perceived lack of customer service, which
could result in a loss of clients. This could have a negative impact on targets.
16
Incorrect or incomplete information to the client can cause confusion and
adversely affect contracts. Data entry errors in the MIS system can affect data
integrity.
11.2 Incumbent is responsible for proofreading all material. Errors or missing
information can result in incomplete documents and inefficiencies in service to the
client. This could impact on our reputation in the business community.
The Guide Chart for Secretary A states that decisions and/or actions have a
"limited' impact on the organization; that errors are detected easily and quickly and may
result only in minor embarrassment, confusion or expense for correction. That may be
contrasted with the criterion for Secretary B which speaks of decisions having a
"moderate" impact and "errors detected by verification and review and may result in
disruption of the workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited waste of resources."
I find it difficult to conclude that telephone errors committed by the grievor would,
in the normal course, cause anything other than "minor" embarrassment, confusion or
expense". Certainly it is extravagant to treat them as potentially resulting in disruption of
work flow or waste of resources.
Similarly, proofreading errors would not have the kind of impact that is
contemplated by what is set down in the Guide Charts for Secretary B. Indeed the PDF
itself only describes them as resulting in documents which are "incomplete" and in
"inefficiencies in service" to the client. I see that more as "minor embarrassment,
confusion or expense" than as "disruption of workflow, duplication of effort and limited
waste of resources"
In summary, while I am persuaded that for the criteria of Training/Technical Skill
and Complexity the criteria as described in the classification Guide Charts for Secretary B
17
better reflect the position than do the corresponding descriptions for Secretary A, in all
other respects I find that the guide chart duties which "most accurately describe" and
which bear a "reasonably close approximation" to those efthe griever are those set out in
the Guide Chart for Secretary A. I conclude, therefore, that the current classification of
the griever as a Secretary A is appropriate.
In the result the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this day of ,1997
Gregory J. Brandt, Sole Arbitrator