HomeMy WebLinkAboutHrynkiw 97-01-01In the matter of an arbitration
between
HUMBER COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 563
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievance of Helen Hrynkiw
Sole Arbitrator: Gregory J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Nancy Hood, Director Human Resources
Maggie Swithenbank, Manager, Business Services
Janis Miller, Director, Business and Industry Services
For the Union: Kathleen Lawrence, Grievance Officer
Helen Hrynkiw, Grievor
Hearing:
Humber College
April 17, 1997.
2
AWARD
The grievor, Ms. Helen Hrynkiw, is a Project Co-ordinator employed in the
Business and Industry Services Division of the College. She is currently classified as a
Support Services Officer B, Payband 9. In this grievance she seeks re-classification as a
Support Services Officer C, Payband 11.
The Business and Industry Services Division is set-up as a separate self-
supporting, revenue generating operation of the College. Its primary business is to
provide training and fee-for-service classes to various associations. The grievor works in
the Business Services Unit of this Division and reports to the Manager, Ms. Maggie
Swithenbank. The Business Services Unit is responsible for developing and delivering
certificate programs, seminars and conferences in the broad business management field.
As of the time of the grievance, December 19, 1995, the grievor was responsible for
administering 7 different certificate programs. These were: Property Management,
Condominium Management and Administration, Real Estate Certificate Program,
Insurance Institute of Canada, Institute of Housing Management, Ontario Management
Development Program and Institute of Law Clerks. The grievance concerns the proper
characterization of her duties in connection with the administration of these programs.
The parties disagree over the appropriate rating for 5 of the factors contained in the
Job Evaluation Plan. They are the factors of: Training/Technical Skills, Judgment, Strain
from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines, Independent Action; and Communications/
Contacts.
The following table sets out the respective core point ratings of the various factors
by the parties
Factor Management Union
Level Pts. Level Pts.
1. Training/Technical Skills 5 91 6 110
2. Experience 4 45 4 45
3. Complexity 5 74 5 74
4. Judgment 4 66 6 102
5. Motor Skills 2 22 2 22
6. Physical Demand 2 16 2 16
7. Sensory Demand 3 28 3 28
8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands 3 28 4 39
9. Independent Action 4 46 5 60
10. Communications/Contacts 3 88 4 124
11.Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 4 62 4 62
12. Work Environment 2 32 2 32
Pay Band/Total Points 9 598 11 714
Job Classification SSOB SSOC
A Position Description Form (PDF) was originally signed by both parties in
September, 1995 and submitted to Human Resources for review as the griever had
informally raised an issue as to her classification. Between September and December the
PDF was further discussed and refined and signed by both parties on December 1, 1995.
The griever remained unsatisfied as to her classification and filed her grievance on
December 19, 1995. Subsequently, following certain discussions held in the grievance
procedure, the College altered that portion of the PDF dealing with Training/Technical
Skills to provide that, instead efrequiring a "Post Secondary diploma or degree in a
related field or an equivalent combination of education and experience" (as reflected in
the December 1, 1995 PDF), it would read "Two year College Diploma in a related
field...etc." In so doing the College took the position that, insofar as the PDF required a
4
minimum of 3-5 years experience in project/program management under the Skills
(Experience) factor, it was appropriate to lower the Training/Technical Skills factor as
indicated.
At the hearing it was ruled that the College could not alter the PDF after the
grievance had been filed and that the grievance was to be determined on the basis of the
PDF in place as of the date of the grievance.
The Position Summary as set out in the PDF provides as follows:
Provides leadership in the development, planning and administration of
specific programs/projects and training activities. Makes critical decisions,
applying problem solving skills to the delivery of assigned
programs/projects, taking into account supplier/customers needs,
maintaining their customer base while constantly adhering to divisional
goals and objectives.
The Duties and Responsibilities of the position as set out in the PDF are:
Contributes to the annual revenue goals of the Business Unit by assisting in
lead generation, sector research, "cold calling"prospective and existing
customers, obtaining appointments and preparing proposals.
10%
Organizes, plans and manages all program logistical arrangements,
including coordinating and participating in Advisory and/or Planning
Committees. Develops a detailed critical path on specific program
requirements and deadlines 26%
Sources, selects and maintains ongoing working relationships with various
suppliers within the prescribed guidelines, research and negotiate price,
quality service, delivery and follow-up
Negotiates, moderates, generates contractual agreements, audits and follows
up on services rendered and process orders and payment. Supplier reports
directly to the incumbent. 18%
Using cost and pricing guidelines prepares and monitors program budgets
by costing all the variable and fixed costs, monitoring costs to meet
divisional financial targets and expectations, verify payments, reconcile
5
accounts and invoice clients
Analyses statistical information for divisional planning and forecasting.
Generates reports as required. 10%
Identifies, develops and implements marketing strategies for
established/repeat programs/projects. Coordinates and disseminates sales
copy, graphics, printing and distribution of promotional materials.
Researches, selects and purchases appropriate marketing services 15%
Counsels customers/students regarding program eligibility/suitability and/or
authorizing exemption. Responsible for on-site customer service including
the team and the Advisory Committee. This may include registration, co-
ordinating facilities, audio-visual set-up, evaluations, and other duties as
contracted with the customer. 15%
Other related duties as assigned 2%
The grievor's primary responsibility is to provide support services in connection
with the delivery of a number of continuing education courses and programs for adult
learners. This includes determining whether or not, having regard to the enrolment
numbers, the course should or should not be run and, if not, what alternatives might be
offered to students who have enrolled. With respect to courses which are offered the
grievor is responsible for the preparation of a timetable and the scheduling of some 136
classes a year and attending to the various logistical problems associated with such a task,
eg. finding rooms suitable for the particular class size, arranging for audio-visual
equipment to be in the rooms, ensuring that printing requirements of the instructor are
met, counselling students with respect to eligibility for or exemption from program
requirements, and attending to problems that may arise between student and instructor
over such matters as grade appeals or inter-personal conflicts between instructor and
student and dealing with last minute changes required as a result of the inability of an
instructor to hold the class.
6
She has also had some responsibility in connection with the development of
programs and some involvement in the hiring and negotiation of contracts with between
80-100 instructors who deliver the programs at the College. Generally, the courses that
will be required in order to obtain the requisite certificate in one of the programs and the
instructors who will teach those courses is determined by the particular sponsoring
association. However, the griever has had a more active involvement in curriculum
development and planning in respect of the Property Management Program sponsored by
the Institute of Housing Management and the development of a common curriculum for
two associations - the Institute of Housing Management and the Association of
Condominium Managers. She also acts as the Provincial Vice-Chair of the Standards
Committee for the Ontario Management Development Program (which monitors and
oversees programs, implements changes and approves new courses) on which committee
there also sits a representative el the Ministry of Education with whom the griever liases.
She is also a member efthe Education Committee for the Association of Condominium
Managers (which makes some decisions concerning curriculum and teaching staff) and
the Institute of Housing Management in which capacity she serves as liaison between the
College and the students. She also took on some responsibility for making the necessary
contacts with sufficient numbers of practitioners of Family Law that would allow for
sufficient staffing and marketing of a course in Family Law to be offered by the Institute
of Law Clerks as part of their certificate program.
Her involvement in the Property Management Program came about as a result of
the fact that she was at the time administering a course offered by the Association of
Condominium Managers and she was approached by the Director of Research and
Development at Humber College with a proposal that had come from the Institute of
Housing Management which had a program running in Ottawa and wanted to expand its
market. What she did was to take the existing model contract that the college had with
7
the Association of Condominium Managers and "negotiate" an appropriate contract that
would suit the needs of the Institute of Housing Management. Included in the subjects
"negotiated" were the courses to be offered and the time flame within which they would
be offered, the process for determining who would serve as instructors in the course,
(which was that the Institute would recommend and the College would have the final
decision) and the manner by which the College wold be promoted in Institute publications
as delivering the program. Ultimately the contract was signed by a representative of
management. Apart from the Property Management Program and her efforts in
connection with the merger of the programs of the Institute of Housing Management and
the Association of Condominium Managers the griever has not had occasion to approach
an association for the purpose of assessing its needs or recommending new programs in
the last 3 years.
With respect to the question of hiring it was the griever's evidence that the
sponsoring Associations generally provide the College with a list of people who are
considered certified and suitable to teach the courses. However, this is not always the
case. For example, the staffing of the Family Law Course for the Institute of Law Clerks
was accomplished through the griever contacting those responsible for administering the
Bar Admission course,, finding out who had taught Family Law in their courses,
contacting these people and interviewing them. It was also the griever's evidence that,
although the contract would be signed by a member of management on behalf of the
College, the final hiring decision is made by her and it is she who interviews the
candidates and negotiates their rates efpay - within the context of a salary budget for
each program. In that regard she testified, in particular, as to having been primarily
responsible for negotiating the introduction of a system wherein payment for instructors
in the Real Estate program was changed from one in which all were paid a fiat rate to one
in which they were paid on a sliding scale according to enrelment in their particular
8
course - a change which helped ensure that lower enrelment courses continued to be
offered.
Although the griever admitted to being aware of a process that was in place for the
selection of"suppliers" (i.e. instructors), viz, the selection of a name for a register of
names provided, it was her understanding that this process was intended for use by "in
house" clients and not for the programs that she was administering - and she did not
necessarily follow the process. Rather, as indicated, she would on occasion contact
various employers and do reference checks on prospective instructors. Similarly, while
the griever was aware of College policies concerning Continuing Education rates, she did
not follow those policies in connection with the payment of those instructing in the
Ontario Management Development Program - although she admitted that as they never
went over the maximum in any event they were in conformity with the rates.
The griever's current supervisor, Ms. Maggie Swithenbank, testified as to the
expectations of the College in respect of hiring and the initiation of new business. She
stated that where selection of instructors is made from a list provided by an Association
she [Swithenbank] has no involvement in the process. However, new instructors are
hired by a selection committee (on which the griever does not sit but to which she might
provide some input) and which is responsible for ensuring that quality instructors are
hired. Similarly, a process is in place for the initiation of new programs wherein
discussion occurs at the managerial level between the association(s) involved and a team
(manager and project co-ordinator) within the Business Services Unit and, once the
decision is made to run a program, persons in the position of the griever take over and
become involved with the logistics of offering the program. Ms. Swithenbank also
testified that many of the programs are and have been in "maintenance mode" for a
number efyears (some for as long as 7 years) and that many of the problems attested to
by the griever, while they may be present at the initiation of a new program, are not
9
common among continually running programs.
Unfortunately, since Ms. Swithenbank did not become the grievor's supervisor
until very shortly before the grievance, she is not in any position to speak with authority
as to what was involved in the position prior to that time. This is particularly significant
in view of the fact that the grievor herself specifically denies certain claims made in the
College brief. She disputes the claim that, "without exception" the programs have been
running for many years and are generally in a maintenance mode and the claim that
primary development of new programs or major revamping of current programs resides in
the manager's position by citing the example of the Family Law course introduced into
the Institute of Law Clerks program. She also takes issue with the claim that "substantive
changes to programs are co-ordinate through the appropriate association's advisory
committee by the manager" arguing that to date that co-ordination is done largely by her.
Further, she disputes a number of claims advanced by the College in its brief to the effect
that the grievor's decision making is either subject to some final review by the manager or
made in consultation with the manager, viz, that final hiring decisions are made by the
manager, that marketing strategies are done in consultation with the manager; and that the
exercise of "judgment" through the preparation of proposals that will meet the objective
of both the college and the client is done in consultation with the manager.
In view of the fact that the College was not able to challenge any of these claims
for the period of time prior to Ms. Swithenbanks becoming supervisor, these claims must
be accepted. Indeed, they find some support in the evidence of Ms. Janis Miller, the
Director of the Business and Industry Services Department who candidly admitted that, at
least with respect to hiring, while it was the intent and expectation of the Department
that the hiring protocol be complied with, there had been a number of managers in the
Department and the grievor may not have been told about the protocol.
10
The proper process to be followed in applying the Job Evaluation Plan is set out in
Section II of the Manual, viz,
4. Having determined the appropriate Job Family, the duties and
responsibilities of the position being evaluated are compared to the
Classification levels described in the relevant Job Evaluation Guide
Charts...Considering the normal activities of the position, it is matched with
the guide chart level which most accurately describes the actual content and
responsibilities of the position .... In most cases a reasonable close
approximation to a classification level described in a Guide Chart will be
possible.
6. 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, are evaluated
by the Core Point Rating Plan .... This section can also be used to core point
typical positions if the position being evaluated has duties that cannot be
readily evaluated using the job Evaluation Guide Charts.
The relevant provisions of the Classification Guide Charts with respect to the
positions of Support Services Officer B and Support Services Officer C are as follows:
Support Services Officer B Summary of Responsibility
Incumbents perform a variety of complex Support Services Officer C
duties associated with the administration
of college academic/administrative Summary of Responsibility
programmes in response to requirements
of client groups. Liaison functions are Incumbents perform duties associated
normally of an interactive nature, with developing and operating college
academic/administrative programmes
according to the assessment of the needs
of client groups within and outside the
College. Liaison functions are normally
of a proactive nature.
11
It cannot be said that the griever's position performs duties associated with
"developing and operating college academic/administrative pregrammes according to the
assessment efthe needs of client groups." The griever herself admitted that even with
respect to the Property Management Program, which appears to be the one program in
which she was most involved from a developmental standpoint, she did not "develop"
that program. What she did was respond to an initiative from the Institute of Housing
Management and then negotiated a contract that would be appropriate for that program.
While she did appear to have some more active direct involvement in connection with the
development of a common curriculum for the Association of Condominium Managers
and the Institute of Housing Management that should be viewed as an isolated example
and is not representative of her general duties.
Nor, except in respect of her proposing the "merger" of a common curriculum for
those associations, and possibly the role that she played in developing a sliding scale rate
for the payment of instructors in the Real Estate Program, am I able to characterize her
liaison functions as being "normally" of a proactive nature. Rather, it appears to me that
in most of her liaisons with others, she is acting in an "interactive" manner. For example,
in connection with the addition of a course in Family Law to the program sponsored by
the Institute of Law Clerks, she essentially responded to an initiative taken by others to
put on the course and took certain steps calculated to identify persons who would be
qualified to teach the course. Her role in the hiring of instructors is essentially an
"interactive" one - requiring her to deal one on one with the instructor but within the
context of a program budget which she cannot exceed. The various "logistical" problems
that she is required to solve, involve her in interacting between the instructor and the
student (perhaps in relation to a course requirement or a grade appeal) or between the
instructor and the College ( perhaps in relation to the provision of equipment etc.)
12
Nor, finally, am I able to conclude that her contacts with the various associations
require her to engage in any "assessment" of their needs. As indicated, it is generally the
case that the associations themselves determine both the curriculum to be offered and
provide a list of instructors whom they consider to be qualified to teach. There is no
sense in which the grievor is, for example, presented with a broad overview of a program
objective and then asked to decide how best that should be achieved. I do not consider
her membership on the standards committee of the OMDP or the education committees of
the Institute of Housing Management and the Association of Condominium Managers to
qualify in that regard. To the extent that she has had some closer involvement in
curriculum development (eg. the "merger") and the identification and hiring of instructors
(eg. the Family Law course) they have been the exception rather than the rule.
It is far easier to classify her primary responsibilities within the Summary of
Responsibility provided for the Support Services Officer B. The core duties of her job are
"administrative" in nature. She takes certain given information concerning courses and
enrolments and prepares a timetable; she identifies which rooms would be suitable to
accommodate the enrolment; she ensures that all required equipment is made available;
she attends to student inquiries concerning eligibility for programs, exemptions from
program requirements; problems with instructors etc. Carrying out these administrative
duties is "in response to requirements of client groups". It is they who require that
certain courses be offered at certain times and in certain sequences; it is they who require
rooms of a certain size; it is they who require that equipment be provided - and it is the
grievor who ensures that those requirements are met.
The typical duties of the Support Services Officer B and C as set out in the
Classification Guide Charts are:
Support Services Officer B -Compiles and analyses data in order to
provide recommendations as to
13
appropriate course of action.
-Prepares operation plans, schedules and
terms of reference
-Represents college in dealing with
public by attending appropriate functions
-Trains, co-ordinates and monitors
activities of other as appropriate
Support Services Officer C
-Researches/prepares presentations and
reports to communicate/support College
plans and objectives
-Provides functional guidance/direction
to others
-Analyses requirements of groups both
within and external to College and
develops programs to meet requirements
-Provides liaison with government
agencies re:administration of projects.
14
In conducting a comparison between the typical duties of the position and those set
down in the respective Classification Guide Charts it is important to note that the Guide
Charts, which are intended to apply across the whole system, can only define typical
duties in quite general terms. It will generally not be possible to find a perfect match.
However, as indicated above, the classification system does not require that. It only
requires a search for what is a "reasonably close approximation". With that in mind I
mm to a comparison of the typical duties.
There is little in the PDF or in the grievor's own account of her duties that fits
comfortably within the Typical Duties of a Support Services Officer C. There is no
research and preparation of any report that would communicate and support College plans
or objectives. Although the grievor is made aware of the requirements of the various
associations and responds to these requirements, there is no "analysis" of those
requirements or, save for the occasional and exceptional examples referred to above, any
"development of a program to meet these requirements". Nor, do I consider the fact that
a representative of the Ministry of Education sits on the standards committee of the
OMBD to qualify as "providing liaison with government agencies in relation to the
administration of projects".
The only "typical duty" of a Support Services Officer C that might be said to be
performed by the grievor is the provision of"functional guidance and direction to others".
To the extent that the grievor attends to inquiries from students concerning course
requirements etc. or that she is required to ensure that instructors comply with deadlines
for the submission of grades, or with other college requirements she can be said to be
engaged in "direction" or "guidance" of others.
There are a number of respects in which the typical duties of the position
15
correspond comfortably with those set out in the Classification Guide Charts for the
Support Services Officer B. The PDF states that 26% of the grievor's time is spent in
organizing, planning and managing program logistical arrangements and developing a
critical path - and a further 10% on monitoring program budgets, reconciling accounts
and invoicing clients. These duties corresponds closely to the preparation of "operation
plans and schedules" and the "compiling and analysing of data to provide
recommendations a to appropriate courses of action.". In being involved for 18% of the
time in maintaining working relationships with suppliers and negotiating contractual
agreements for services and in occupying 15% of her time on the development and
implementation of various marketing strategies for the programs the grievor can be said
to be "representing the college in dealing with the public."
Thus, it can be fairly said that the Typical Duties of the position correspond more
closely to those of the Support Services Officer B than those of the Support Services
Officer C. However, this is not the end of the comparison for it is also necessary to
examine and compare the various other job factor definitions in the Guide Charts which
are in dispute.
1. Training/Technical Experience.
The PDF itself (as a result of the ruling of the arbitrator - see above) requires a
Post Secondary diploma or degree in a related field or an equivalent combination of
education and experience. The Classification Guide Chart for SSO B requires "skills
normally acquired through attainment of a two year Community College diploma or
equivalent" and, for an SSO C, "skills normally acquired through attainment of a three
year Community College diploma or three year undergraduate University degree or
equivalent". The grievor stated that when she was hired in 1987 the requirement stated
on the job posting was for a 3 year Community College diploma or degree. As a matter of
16
fact she has a 3 year Community College diploma in Business Administration from
Humber College. The union argues that, although the current PDF is silent as to the
length of the required program, the reference to a "post secondary degree" must be taken
to imply at least a 3 year University degree. Hence it is submitted that the PDF
corresponds to the SSO C definition in the Guide Chart.
It is the position of the College that, in the recruitment for this position, it is
appropriate to look at training and experience together and that since it was seeking
between 3 and 5 years experience, it need only require a 2 year Community College
diploma as a minimum requirement of formal training - and that accordingly the position
fell within the Guide Chart definition for SSO B.
It is to be noted that the PDF contemplates the approach which is taken by the
College in so far as it stipulates either a "post secondary diploma or degree" OR "an
equivalent combination of education and experience." That suggests that something less
than a post secondary diploma or degree may be required where it is balanced offby a
relatively longer period of experience. In this case, while the College rated the
experience required at the level stipulated for the SSO C, it felt that in view of that rating
it was appropriate to reduce the required amount of formal training to something less than
a full 3 year diploma or degree.
In certain respects this makes good sense. The general PDF form used by all of
the Colleges divides the factor of Skill is divided into two parts: one which measures the
level of formal education or training and the other which measures practical experience.
This reflects the common sense view that skill is a combination of education/training and
experience; that each complements the other. Accordingly, where it is felt that a
relatively long period of experience should be required that may be counterbalanced by a
17
comparatively shorter period of formal training. In this way the Skill factor gets
evaluated as a whole and not separately as if the formal and the practical elements where
unrelated to one another. Thus, incumbents who are placed in a comparatively low level
for Training/Technical Skills would be compensated by a higher rating for Experience.
However, the Guide Charts do not appear to contemplate this sort of approach to
evaluating the Skill factor. For the Training/Technical Skills component the division
between an ssa B and ssa c is expressed in terms of a two year Community College
diploma (or equivalent) or a three year Community College diploma or a three year
undergraduate University degree (or equivalent). For the Experience component the
difference is defined by the number of years of practical experience, i.e. between 1 and 3
and between 3 and 5 years. There is no scope for including an Experience element in the
evaluation of the Training/Technical Skills component - as this PDF appears to do.
In these circumstances the PDF must be taken at face value. When it refers to a
Post Secondary diploma or degree I take it as at least including a 3 year University degree
since there are no known degrees of less than 3 years. Accordingly, it falls under the
Guide Chart definition for the ssa c position.
2. Judgment
The difference between the ssa B and ssa c in terms of this factor is between a
requirement that the incumbent have a "significant" or a "high" degree of judgment and
between a method of problem solving that involves "interpreting complex data or refining
work methods and techniques to be used" (ssa B) or "adapting analytical techniques and
development of new information on various situations and problems."
The examples of situation in which problem solving occurs and judgment is used
18
as set out in the PDF involve dealing with problems such as course materials not arriving,
unexpected delays and program changes, unsuitable facilities and irate customers. In her
evidence the grievor also referred to the need to deal with student complaints about an
instructor either in the rare (2-3 times in the last 7 years) instance when the whole class
complains (and the sponsoring association may have to become involved) or in the more
common (3-5 times/semester) when one or two students have a complaint. She stated that
in those latter situations she tries to establish what the concerns are, makes suggestions as
to how to approach the instructor and attempts to "get a dialogue going". Other kinds of
problem situations that may arise involve decisions on whether or not to cancel a course
based on low enrolment.
In assessing the degree of judgment required for problem solving care must be
taken not to jump too quickly to the conclusion that, because an otherwise familiar type of
problem presents itself in a new form, it should therefore be seen as a an entirely new
problem which requires new techniques and strategies etc. In a position such as the one
occupied by the grievor it will rarely be the case that exactly the same problem will repeat
itself. I have little doubt that the grievor is frequently called upon to deal with novel
situations, whether they arise by way of instructor/student conflict or through some
problem of a logistical nature. I am sure she is quite correct when she say that there is
nothing that is "routine" about her job. However, that does not mean that in order to
address this novel situation she is required to "adapt analytical techniques" or "develop
new information". I think it more accurate to say that she "refines" her work technique
to suit the particular problem before her.
Accordingly, I would find the degree of judgment required of this position to
correspond more closely to that described in the Guide Charts for the SSO B position..
19
3. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
The PDF identifies dealing with a "multitude of program/projects with a variety of
deadlines" - and - Considerable stress in dealing with conflicting demands" as examples
of the strain associated with the job. Further, it states that unpredictable interruptions
occur 20% of the time, unpredictable changes in customer needs and supplier's suitability
to the project occur 5% of the time; and that unpredictable changes in schedules and
deadlines occur 10% of the time.
In her evidence the grievor clarified the "conflicting demands" as meaning
conflicting demands on her time, such as would occur when she may be required to attend
to a student or an instructor request while attempting to meet a deadline for the
submission of calendar copy. She considered a "change in schedule" to occur where, for
example, an instructor called at the last minute to say that he could not meet the class
thereby requiring her either to find a replacement (from a pool that she has available) or
get in touch with the students. The interruptions occur largely through having to respond
to telephone requests for information or action of some sort. The grievor disagreed with
the suggestion of the College that while the timing of the interruptions was not
predictable, the nature of the interruptions was predictable in that they were usually
related or associated with the normal duties of the position. In her opinion the nature of
the interruptions was not predictable and she cited one instance of a sexual harassment
complaint raised against one of the instructors.
In order to meet the Guide Chart factor definition for the SSO C position it must be
shown that the job duties "involve conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions
in workflow" - and - "work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and
occasional critical deadlines." I am quite satisfied that this definition accurately describes
the strain experienced from work pressures, demands, and deadlines. The claim advanced
in the Union's brief that the grievor has to deal with approximately 2300 students a year,
20
between 80-100 instructors a year and approximately 136 courses a year is not challenged
by the College. Even if it is the case that these courses are in "maintenance mode" as the
College claims, their remains significant scope for interruption in the grievor's work flow
requiring her to shift her work priorities which in mm could affect her ability to meet
other deadlines. I am prepared to accept the claim of the College that, in general terms,
the nature of the interruptions is not likely by and large to be very surprising. However,
the requirement to respond to the concerns of such a significant number of instructors and
students - to say nothing of the concerns of the sponsoring associations - takes the degree
of strain involved beyond that which is contemplated for an SSO B.
4. Independent Action.
The Guide chart definition for this factor for the SSO B position indicates that
"there is considerable freedom to act independently with Supervisor input or verification
when requested." I am not persuaded that this accurately describes the level of
independent action enjoyed by the grievor as of the date of her grievance in December of
1995. As noted, the College did not dispute the grievor's evidence that much of what she
did was neither subject to review nor done in consultation with her manager. Whether or
not that situation has changed under her current manager, Ms. Swithenbank is not
relevant as I must take a snapshot of the position as of December 19, 1995 and as of that
time the grievor, in my judgment enjoyed a level of independent action more
appropriately described in the Guide Chart factor definition for the SSO C position, viz,
"significant freedom to act independently".
This conclusion also finds support in the PDF where it is indicated, inter alia, that
"incumbent is expected to develop methods, initiate and negotiate his/her own time and
resources to meet deadlines outlined in the critical path"," incumbent is responsible for
setting [sic] their own priorities on assigned programs/projects", "accuracy of work is
21
incumbent's responsibility".
5. Communications
The nature of this position is such that it requires the incumbent to communicate
with many different groups of people (both within the College and outside the College)
and for many different kinds of reasons - all having to do in general with the
administration of the various programs which are her responsibility. The key difference
between the SSO B and SSO C lies in the purpose of the communication. For the SSO B
the purpose is to "provide guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature
or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures...' and "there
may be a need to promote participation and understanding or to secure co-operation in
order to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive nature." For the SSO C the
purpose is to provide "basic instruction or for the resolution of complex problem
situations"..where there "may be a need for sophisticated influential or persuasive
techniques in order to address the problem of those with special needs". Unfortunately,
save for one or two exceptions, the PDF does not set out the purposes of those contacts in
the same terms as are reflected in the Job Evaluation Manual, viz, advise, explain,
persuade etc. Instead, it largely describes the reason for the communication, eg. order
books.
Although admittedly there have been instances when the grievor has engaged in
communication whose purpose would appear to be to "persuade" others to move in a
particular direction (viz, the merger of the common curriculum and the establishing of the
sliding scale of payment for the Real Estate instructors), it cannot be said that this kind of
communication constitutes a regular part of the job. I do not understand the "negotiation"
that is done with instructors to involve any "bargaining" of contract terms in the ordinary
sense of that term. Her contacts with the associations when a new program is being
22
considered or concerning the administration of an existing program would appear to be
well capture by the phrase "to promote participation and understanding and to secure co-
operation..." In that regard it may also be noted that she herself considered her contacts
with other members of the College in connection with obtaining equipment or getting
brochures done or course materials prepared as involving the need to get "co-operation".
Nor can it be said that she provides any "instruction for the resolution of complex
problem situations" when she deals with student complaints of instructors. I prefer to
characterize her role in those case as more of the nature of providing "guidance" or
"explaining by interpreting policy" such as, for example, in connection with grade
appeals.
Another point of differentiation between the SSO B and SSO C in relation to this
factor is that of involvement with confidential information. Both contemplate "regular"
involvement with such material but the SSO C position speaks of confidential information
with "significant" as compared to "moderate" disclosure implications. I am not sure one
can even say that there is "regular" involvement in either kind of confidential
information. The griever identified the need to keep confidential the name of a student
making a complaint about an instructor as an example of such a communication. Even if
that is accepted I am not persuaded that the disclosure implications are anything other
than "moderate". While I would agree that the griever's involvement in the allegation of
a sexual harassment complaint did raise "significant" disclosure issues that was, on her
own admission, a rare and unusual occurrence.
Accordingly, I conclude that the factor definition set out in the Guide Chart for the
SSO B more closely describes the nature and purpose efthe communications and contacts
that the griever has in the course efperferming her duties.
23
To summarize the analysis, I have concluded that, save and except for the factors
of Judgment and Communications, the position corresponds more closely to the factor
definitions set down in the Guide Chart for the SSO C position. However, as noted, the
Summary of Responsibility and the Typical Duties more closely resemble those of the
SSO B position. It appears therefore that this is a case in which it is not possible to get a
"reasonably close approximation" from an analysis of the Guide Charts and it is
necessary to subject the position to Core Point Rating.
In doing that I need not repeat what is said above with respect to the appropriate
rating for the 5 factors in dispute except to summarize my conclusions, viz, that the
factors of Judgment and Communications should remain at level 4 and 3 respectively and
that the factors of Training/Technical Skills, Strain, and Independent Action be evaluated
at levels 6, 4, and 5 respectively.
This would result in the addition of a further 44 points to the Core Point Rating
done by the College resulting in a total of 642 points and placing the griever in Payband
10.
Accordingly, to the extent that the griever has achieved partial success, the
grievance is allowed.
The College is directed to re-classify the griever to the position of Support
Services Officer (Atypical) Pay Band 10 and to compensate her for monies lost in respect
of her improper classification. I retain jurisdiction to deal with any issues arising out of
the implementation of this award.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this day of ,1997.
24
Gregory J. Brandt, Arbitrator