HomeMy WebLinkAboutJames 99-10-01In the matter of an arbitration
between
Fanshawe College of Applied AI~ and Technology
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 109
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievance: Dwight James; #99¢0:t5
Sole Arbitrator: Gregory J. Brandt
Appearances:
For tho College: Ms. Sheila Wilson, Human Resources Consultant
Mr. Doug Busch¢, Mimag~, Educational Support Services
Mark Bialkowski, Observer
For the Union: Barbara Ford, Presentor
Dwight James, Grievor
Steven Leach, Advisor
Hearing:
London, Ontario
September 21, 1999
2
AWARD
1. Introduction.
The grievor is a Computer Lab Technologist and works in the Academic
Computing Services section (one of 4 support services that fall within Educational
Support Services) under the management of Mr. Doug Busch¢. He is classified as a
T¢~ihnologist B. Pa3tband I0 and claims that he ought to be reclassified as a Technical
Support Specialist Atypical, Payband 12.
The mandate of Academic Computing Services is:
- to assist the college in the planning and development of computing facilities for the
direct support of teaching and leaming activities
· to oversee and/or undertake the implementation of assigned projects involving the
creation or upgrade of academic computflig facilities
· to develop, maintain and operate c~'ntrali,ged academic computing facilities for the use of
students and faculty at the Main Campus, Md to assist ~ta's of these facilities
- to provide assistance to other departments in the support of their academic computing
facilities, as negotiated with such depar'an~ts.
The Facilities in which Academic Computing Services provides support include
22 High T~ch Classrooms, 11 shared Microcomputer Labs containing nearly 500 PC $
and 24 printers, a student homework lab containing approximately 50 work stations , 11
homework stations in the librmy, a Micro CAD Lab and a CAD Plotter Room. The High
Tech Classrooms house, in a single cabin~ a single computer onto which is loaded
various software and which is linked to the In, met, a data projector that will allow for
the display of data on a large screen, a VCR and (in some cases) document cameras that
can mn images through the data projector. Access to the equipment is limited to the
instructor who uses it for teaching purposes in the classroom. One of the High Tech
Rooms is also equipped for video conferencing with the Woodstock campus of the
College and another is specially equipped to handle both Macintosh and IBM PC
3
operating systems. The Microcomputer labs each contain between 25 and 50 PCs
accessed by students working on assignments either when classes are not otherwise
scheduled in them or, subject to the permission of the instructor, when classes are
scheduled. Each work station has the same hardware and the same variety of software.
Once it has been determined in a prototype workstation that all the software works and
appropriate security against tampering with critical files has been programmed in it is
cloned on all of the other workstations. Similarly, the student homework lab and the
homework stations in the library contain a number of PC s for use by the students
although no classes are scheduled in this area. The CAD plotter room houses 2
computers and 2 plotters which students can use to print out drawings.
There are 64 different so~al~s loaded on the various computers supported by
Academic Computing Services. These include both opc'a'ating softwams such as Dos,
Apple, Windows, and Windows NT Server and applications software including certain
familiar ones like ACCPAC Plus, ACCPAC Shnply Accounting, Electronics
Workbench, Lotus, Norse, ape Navigator and Wordperfect as well as specialized ones such
as W and W Matemity Nursing, PH Anatomy and Physiology and Dye and Durham
Legal Docs.
Computer support services arc ltJ~o provided by other academic divisions in
College. Thus, there are 6 labs with approximately 130 PC s in Applied Arts and
Technology, 114 PC $ in 7 labs in Communication Arts, 115 PC s ill labs in Design, 127
PC $ in labs in Electrical/Electronics Technology and 202 PC s in labs and high tech
classrooms in Information Technology in each of which is loaded in general the same
software as that loaded on the PC s in Academic Computing Services. In total there are
close to 1500 PC s'locatcd at the Oxford Street East campus of the College of which
4
approximately one third (i.e.527) are supported by Academic Computing Services.
The .~taff complement in Academic Computing Services consists of a Computer
Lab Co-ordinator (Lead Hand), three Compu~r Lab Technologists (one of which is the
gricvor) and several part time Computer Lab Monitors and Help Desk Assistants. The
Computer Lab Co-ordiiator is a Technologist C, Payband 11 and the Computer Lab '
Monitors and Help Desk Assistants, are classified as Technician A, Payl~md 5. The
grievor and the other Computer Lab Technologists are all classified as Technologist B,
Payband 10.
The grievor works from 2:30 to 10:00 p.m. Monday to Thursday, has Friday off,
and works on Saturday moming. The other Computer Lab Technologists work from 8:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday to Fhday (Mr. Leach) or 8:30 am. to 4:30 p.m. Monday to
Friday.OgEs. Cascadden). Although all provide support services in respect of all of these
facilities, there has been some a~xfinistrative division of responsibility between and
among members of the division. For example, Ms. Cascadden is responsible for the PC $
in the student homework lab and the homework stations in the libra~; and Mr. Leach md
the gricvor divide share responsibility for some of the other PC $ hl the microcomputer
labs. However, as the gricvor is the only member of the division present at the College
after 4:30 pm. he is expected to address problems arising in connection with all other PC
s in use during the period from 4:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. when the College closes.
Although some of the microcomputer labs may be used for classes in that period, others
may be open for student access. Thus, the gricvor may be required to deal with concems
of both students using the PC $ and of faculty members experiencing some technical
difficulties in connection with their classes. However, the gricvor has minimal
involvement with the student homework lab or the homework stations in the library as
there is a student worker there to help students with their problems. There are no classes
scheduled in these areas.
The parties are agreed on the contents .of' the Position Description Form. It
summarizes the position as follows:
Under general supervision of the Manager, Educational Support Services, through the
Academic Lab Coordinator, ensures a productive leaming ~nvironment via the following:
providing high-level technical advice and assistance to users of the computer lab
facilities; monitoring lab decorum and security; on-going ~¢lmie,,lll support pertaining to
custom installation, maintenance and debugging of hardware, software and networks,
completing or initiating corrective action as necessary; providing direction and assistance
to faculty in support of efficient computer courseware delivery.
The core duties, compromising 84% of the duties, are set out as follows:
1. Custom installation, configuration, maintenance and debugging network/stand alone
hardware and software to ensure maximum computer availability and performance.
Tunmg systems, identifying potential problems and improving preventative techniques.
45%
2. Assisting lab users with difficulties encountered in using lab facilities. Assisting
students and faculty who are involved in self-directed use of applications and ~:oraput~r-
based leaming (CBL) packages. Assisting students, faculty and staff in the detection of
defective disks and recovery of corrupted files. 25%
3. Checking user-reported problems on lab hardware, and where possible, correcting the
problems. Hardware problems requiring additional service are documented for subsequent
servicing by the equipment maintenance personnel. 1 4 %
6
The Arbitration Data Sheet sets out the following respective ratings of the job
factors.
College Union
Level Points Level Points
1. Teelmieal/Training Skills 6 110 6 110
2. Experience 4 4s 4 45
3. Complexity 4 58 6 9 0
4.Judgment 5 84 7 120
5, Motor Skills c 3 25 c 3 2 5
6. Physical Demand 3 28 3 2 8
7. Sensory Demand 3 28 5 S0
8.Stra_in from Work Pre~s~emand~ 3 28 4 3 9
9. Independent Action 4 46 $ 60
I0. conununications/contacts 3 88 4 124
11. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 4 62 4 6 2
12. Work Environment 2 32 2 32
Payband/Total Points 10 634 12 785
Job Classification Technologist B Technical Support
Specialist (Atypical)
Thus, there are 6 job factors in dispute: Complexity, Judgment, Sensory Demand,
Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines, Independent Action and
Communications/Contacts.
2. Analysis and Conclusions
Before dealing with the particular factors in dispute it is necessary to address at the
outset the issue as to whether or not the correct classification of the position should be
determined by reference to the Classification Guide Charts or through Core Point Ratmg.
7
The Job Evaluation Manual makes it clear that the proper process to follow
initially involves a determination as to the Job Family in which the position belongs using
the "predominant or central duties of the position" for that purpose. Having identified the
appropriate Job Family, it is next necessay to:compare the duties and responsibilities of
tho position to the Classification levels described in the Job Evaluation Guide Chart with
a view to findingth¢ level which "most accurately deschbes" the content and
responsibilities of the position. While it is not anticipated that a perfect match will be
found in all cases it is expected that in most cases a "reasonably close approximation" to a
classification level described in the Guide Charts will be possible. Where that cannot be
done and the position is one of those "relatively small number of truly atypical positions"
encompassing duties and responsibilities which are not adequately covered by the
existing Job Family l)¢fllliliolls and lob Family Guide Charts, it can be evaluated by the
Core Point Rating Plan; or where "the position being evaluated has duties that cantlot be
readily evaluated using the Job Evaluation Guide Charts". it can be core point rated.
(See, Manual, Section II, 4,6).
It is the position of the College that the appropriate job family is that of
Technologist which is defined as follows:
This family covers positions that provide technical services requiring the application of
specialized knowledge. Major responsibilities include planning, designing, developing,
selecting and testing of facilities, equipment, materials, methods and procedures, etc.
related to the instructional programs and administrative services. Incumbents
demonstrate the principles and theories of the speciality in variOUS learning activities and
provide technical advice.
8
It is the position of the Union that the appropriate job family is that of Technical
Support Specialist, the definition for which reads:
This family covers positions that manage ~lld~llm directly responsible for software in one
or more specialized areas (eg. operating systems, data communications, data syst~rn~) and
provide technical information and guidance related to the systems eofhvare and/or data
base software on a College wide basis.
In my view thii position cannot comfortably fit ill the Technical Support Specialist
family.. Although the incumbent clearly has significant involvement with software, the
context in which the core of his duties are performed is essentially one of problem solving
through providing advice and assistance to users of the software. While these problems
can be and are considerably complex his duties do not, in my opinion, reach the level of
"management" and "responsibility" for operatingsystems software or the provision of
"technical information and guidance related to the systems software and/or data base
software on a College wide basis." That language suggests an involvement with software
issues far broader and of far greater significance than, for example, helping a student
recover a corrupted file from a disk- or helping a faculty member deal with a computer
hang up.
This view is further confirmed when one examines the Summary of Responsibility
and the Typical Duties of the Technical Support Specialist. Whiie there is no doubt that
the incumbent provides advice and guidance on computer problems, that advice is not "as
to software provisions best suited to user needs and design". Furthermore, while he is
required to work with the software to deal with problems, he does not typically "design
and alter software programs to meet specific requirements". Finally the Typical Duties
performed by a Technical Support Specialist position are, in my opinion, of a different
nature from those performed by the grievor. Those duties are:
9
determining the appropriate software to meet user needs
altering and/or designing software systems where required
providing advice and guidance on the most effective use of software systems
implementing systems designed for college
acthlg as technical resource for entire College. (Emphasis added)
The above emphasized r~femnces describe a position in which the technical advice
and support offered is system related or College wide and does not contemplate the
situation which most commonly confronts the incurnb~t, viz, where an individual (most
commonly students but including faculty) has a particular problem relating to computer
services and requires a solution to that problem. While that is'obviously a useful and very
necessary service it cannot be seen as comparable to the sort of system wide concems that
are contemplated by the Technical Support Specialist position.
(~"'N~ Accordingly, it is my conclusion that this position does not fall into the Job Family
of Technical Support Specialists. It does, however, fit very comfortably in the
Technologist Family Definition.. The service provided by the incumbent is "technical"; it
requires the "application of specialized knowledge"; responsibilities include some
"testing of facilities, equipment and materials.,.related to the instructional programs; and
.,- the incumbent "provides technical advice." Similarly, the Summary of Responsibilities
' for the Technologist B position are a good reflection of the position occupied by the
incumbent. Thus, he provides "technical expertise of a specialized nature to
fac~ultie, s...stl~dents using independent judgment to determine services and methods
required to meet user needs." In my view this description more closely captures the kin. d'
of one on one relationship which the incumbent has with fa~:ulty and students, in
addressing their problems, than does the summay of responsibilities for the Technical
Support Specialist.
10
The next step in the analysis is to compare the duties and responsibilities of the
position to the Classification levels described in the Job Evaluation Guide Chart to
determine which level "most accurately describes" or '*rao~t reasonably approximates"
the content and responsibilities of the positio~in question - and determine whether or not
theposition can be classified by reference to the Classification Guide Charts or whether it
must be treated as an atypical position and core-point rated
I begin with the Typical Duties of a Technologist B as set out in the Classification
Guide Charts. They are:
-designs ~td/ot 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.
· .evllluat~ equipment and other resources and mak~ recommendations prior to purchase
-controls supply invenl:ori~ and budgets
-may assist in student evaluations in relation to learning activities in which the
Technologist B takes part.
As for the 45% of the duties comprised in Duty ! (custom installation,
configuration, maintenance and debugging of hardware and software and the tuning of
systems to identify potential problems) I am satisfied that they can, although not without
some difficulty, be seen as involving the "design/and or development of equipment
systom~..to meet user output requirements." In particular I note the grievor's involvement
in setting up the lab that would house both Mac and IBM operating Sy~$tClm. the
installation of an additional zip drive to allow for the transport of large files, the setting
up and testing of a prototype with various different softw,,res (for loading on to all of the
PC fl in the microcomputer labs), the installation of features that will allow incompatible
softwares to co-exist, and the installation of security devices that will prevent tampering
with critical files.
However, in my opinion none of these typical duties adequately capture what,
from the Position Description Form, constitutes 39% of the job, that is, problem solving
for users of the hardware and software. (See Duty 2 and 3). Thus, these typical duties of
a Technologist B (set out in the Cl~sification-:Ouid¢ Charts) do not appear to include
such things as; recovery of corrupted files on a disk, assisting an instructor with a piece of
ltOfB,vst'o that is not working, helping students use the 8OflW~ to centre text or make a
graph, or determinmg why a printer does not work (eg. toner cartridge not sitting right) or
why a monitor does not work (eg. replace a video card) - all of which the gfievor
indicated are typical of the kinds of problems that he is expected to address and which fall
under Duty 2 and 3 in the Position Description Form.
Where the typical duties ii, ted in the Classification Guide Charts do not include
close to 40% of the duties set out in the Position Description Form and which are
p~a-form~l by !11~ incumbent, it is very difficult to flrld that they "most accurately
describe" or constitute a "reasonable approximation of' the duties of the position being
evaluated. Accordingly, ! conclude that this position cannot be rated using the
Classification Guide Charts and must be core point rated.
As noted above the patties disagree with respect to the proper core point rating for
6 of the factors: Complexity, Judgment, Sensory Demand, Strain from Work Pressures
and Demands, Independent Action and Communications/Contacts. With respect to each
of these factors the College has core point rated the position at the level which the guide
charts prescribe for the Technologist B position and the union has rated it at the
corresponding level for the Technical Support Specialist.
shall deal with each factor separately.
1. Complexity
The guide chart for Technologist B describes the tasks that are performed as
"varied, non-routine and complex involving different and unrelated processes/ and/or
methods" , level 4. The union asks me to ~ them at level 6 - viz, investigation of a
varicty of unusual conditions" involving the adaptation and/or development of
"specialized processes and/or methods.
There is no doubt that the grievor, at a minimum, is expected to deal with a
considerable variety of non-routine tasks and that, in performing those tasks, he uses
methods and processes that are "different and unrelated" However, the question is
whether or not they go beyond that to the point of being "tmu~ual" and whether he uses
methods that are 'specialized."
In support of his claim the grievor refen~ to his work in connection with the
video conferencing room as being both unusual and specialized. ~ it is one of a very few
such facilities in the city with only one outside vendor that he can call upon for help. H e
also referred to the fact that, as the software that is installed on the workstations covers
such a wide range (in order that any faculty member Ii'om any division can use the lab
· when he/she needs it), the workstations have very specialized and unusual configurations
. far different from any that you would fmd on a typical office or home computer.
Further, he suggested that what is required to be done in order to secure critical files from
tampering involves a very specialized technique that goes beyond the typical use of the
various tools provided in an operating system. Finally he referred to his work in
facilitating communication between the Macintosh users and the server · something he
did without the assistance of any of the local dealers or Apple. as a task of a specialized
("~'. nature.
13
While each of these examples may well be characterized as specialized and
unusual care needs to be taken not to allow those isolated tasks to control the
classification. In my view what is set out in the ?DF is of far greater significance in
assessing the appropriate level and, in that regard, I note that the problem determination
scenario there set out'Involves a task which does not involve the level of complexity
found in the examples cited by the grlevor at the hearing. Moreover, the PDF states that
"the lncmnbent must possess a very high level of expertise with a variety of operating
systems in ,, multi-vendor environment and will regularly be required to investigate and
resolve multiple Problems simultaneously." This language does not, in my opinion,
support any claim that the complexity of the position is at the level of performing
"relatively unusual" tasks using "specialized" methods.
Accordingly, I rate this factor at level 4,. 5 8 points.
2. Judgment
The College has rated this at level 5, viz "interpreting complex data or refining
work methods and techniques to be used". The union rates it at level 7, viz "originating
new techniques and utilizing them in the development of new lnfotmation.".
I am unable to see any basis either in the PDF or in the account of his position
offered at the hearing for concluding that, except occasionally, the gficvor can be said to
"originate new techniques and utilize them in the development of new information."
However, I do conclude that the level of judgment required goes further than that
determined by the College. In my opinion the more appropriate level to describe the level
of judgement required in this position is level 6, viz "adapting analytical techniques and
development of new information on various situations and problems". The grievor stated
that there is much more to resolving a software problem than reading and
"interpreting'thc manual; that frequently the "fixes" that he has to do cannot be found in
the manual that comes with the software or the operating system and that he has to figure
out his OWtI fixes. Further, he noted that he obtains very little assistance from
vendors, when the pt~blcm he is faced with arises from the interaction between two or
more different sofhvares ~ as each vendor tends to blame the other soft, ware. Given that
there are over 60 different sofhvares loaded on the PC 8, the scope for this kind of
problem arising is, in my judgment, considerable.
I find support for this conclusion hi the PDF itself which sets out 2 different types
of problems and specifies what is expected of the incumbent. It states, among other
things, that the incumbent searches the available ~doettttlellt/h¢lp files from such 8ollte~
as the Interact and vendor customer support services and, "if insufficient irffonm~ott i~
available from these resources, the incumbent must r~e.,areh or develop another route
to a solution." Further, it states that the incumbent "is expected to investigate the
problem device/software and to apply analytic techniques and to determine and correct
the solution, and to develop techniques to avoid problem recurrence."
I am satisfied that this involves more than "interpreting data or refining work
methods" and would, accordingly, rate this factor at level 6,102 points.
3. Sensory Demand
The College maintains that the job requires "moderate visual, auditory, or sensory
demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy". Tile
union maintains that it requires "extensive visual, auditow and sensory demand on mental
and careful attention detail and
energy
frequent
to
accuracy."
15
In my opinion the PDF is conclusive on this issue insofar as it explicitly states that
the various duties require "extensive mental concentration". Further, to the extent that the
percentage of time required to perform these tasks is stated to be greater than 67% on the
Use of VI)Ts and greater that 50% in resolving problems and assisting users, it could be
said that there is a need for 'frequent" careful attention to detail o a point which the
College appears to have conceded in its submissions.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 5, 50 points.
4. Strain from work Pr~ss~emands/~adlines
The College rates this factor at level 3, viz, "moderate" work pressures or
demands, regular and usually predictable interr~a~ ptions, changing deadlines and
multiple demands with occasional critical deadlines. The union rates it at level 4, viz,
"conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in work flow with
unpredictable work situations with shifts in priorities and occasional critical
deadlines."
Again, the language of the PDF is conclusive as to this factor. It states, among
other things, that the incumbent "works in a fast paced environment where there are
routinely hundreds of users who expect immediate response and who come and go every
hour; that this leads to "constant interruption and distraction"; that the incumbent is
"frequently confronted with many problems at the same time, requiring quick, and
sometimes unpopular, prioritization; and that the incumbent must deal with sometimes
conflicting faculty requests and critical hardware/software upgrade deadlines." The
PDF further states that interruptions occur 75% of the time, that multiple problems arise
10% of the time and that both are not predictable.
The above emphasized portions of the PDF demonstrate how closely it
corresponds to the description in the Core Point Rating plall for level 4 for thii factor.
Thus, interruptions are frequent (75%) and unpredictable; work situations may involve
"conflict"; and the incumbent is fll~l with .oe~c, asional (10%) deadlmes. Were I to rate
this. factor at anything other than level 4 I would be blatantly ignoring the clear terms of
the PDF the contents of which have been agreed upon by the parties.
Accordingly, I rate this ~ at level 4 - 39 points.
5. Independent Action.
The College rates this factor at level 4 - viz, duties performed hl accordance with
procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular
situations with considerable fl'~dom to act independently with supervisor input or
verification when requested. The union rates it at level 5, viz duties performed in
accordance with "general instructions and policies" involving changing conditions and
problems with significant freedom to act independently.
In my opinion the most appropriate level for this factor is level 4.
Th~ro is little question that the grievor works largely independently of any
supervision. His work assignments are largely determined by the demands of those who
need his assistance, i.e students or faculty or, in the summer term, the installation of
software upgrades or in some cases new sol[wares, According to the PDF his work is
reviewed "by exception" and through "weekly discussions" with his supervisor - to whom
he may also refer supply and equipment issues as well as user complaints that require the
(~"'~\ supervisor's involvement. However, I do not believe it can be said that the gricvor works
17
only in accordance with "general instructions and policies". The PDF specifically lists a
number of policies, procedures etc. to which the grievor can refer on an "as required"
basis. These include the Intemet, the Lab Operations Manual, Computer Manuals (for
both hardware and softwm'e), and posted rttle% for student behaviour. There is no
question that, ill the resolution of problems that come to hhn, the gfievor may be required
to show some creativity and ingenuity and move beyond these various policies.
However, level 4 contemplates that in that it speaks of "adapting and modifying" policies
and procedures to meet particular situations.
It is also significant in my opinion to note that the parties have each rated the
factor of Responsibility for Actions, which complements the Independent Action factor,
at the same level 4. ."-
Accordin.' gly, i would rate this factor at level 4. 46 points.
6. Communications/Contacts
The issue here concems the purpose of the communications and contacts which the
ghevor has with others inside and outside the college. The College rates this factor at
level 3, viz, communication for the purpose of providing gnidanee or technical advice of
a detailed or specialized nature. The union rates it at level 4, viz, communication for the
purpose of providing basic instruction or for the resolution of complex problem
situations.
In applying this factor it is necessary to have regard to both the nature of the
contact and its frequency. Thus, relatively infrequent contact involving questions of high
complexity will not determine the appropriate level. The PDF indicates that the grievor
18
has daily contacts with students, faculty and .staff related to the performance of his duties,
weekly contacts with the Computer lab Co-ordinator on lab issues and schedules, weekly
contacts with the Manager on policy issues, .soil, ware location, and the resolution of
complex problems, weekly contacts with lIES. Technicians on equipment maintenance
and infrequent contact with IT Tech Support specialists and vendors and suppliers of
hardware and .software on matters of technical support.
In my opinion the most appropriate level for this factor is level 3. The extent to
which the grievor is involved in discussion of complex problems at a sophisticated level
is relatively infrequent . at best weekly and in many cases only "infrequentlyH (which
according to the PDF means less otten than every month). Although his daily contacts
include faculty and staff as well as students, the great majority of these daily contacts are
with students who far outnumber faculty. As indicated above the kinds of problems dealt
with involve such things as assistance witb the use of certain sottwam features, assistance
in recovering data from files, assistance with a monitor or a printer that does not work.
etc. None of these reach the level of complexity that would be required to warrant a
rating at level 4. Rather, in my view, these contacts are more in the nature of providing
'guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature.."
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3 . 88 points.
In summmy, I would core point rate the job as follows:
1. Technical/Training Skills 6 110
2. Experience 4 45
3. Complexity 4 58
4.Judgment 6 102
5. Motor Skills c3 25
6. Physical Demand 3 28
7. Sensory Demand 5 50
8.Strain from Work Pressures/Demands 4 39
9. Independent Action 4 46
10. Communications/Contacts 3 88
11. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 4 62
12. Work Environment 2 32
Payband/Total Points 10 685
Accordingly, the gfievor is to be re-classified as Technologist B, Payband 10.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this/'St~day o f ~--~5~ ~,,1999
Orego le Arbitrator
.eh! CG'sSification: ~-----.d'/~/,,./oc~ ~ ~ 'S~" ~ and Present Pa~and: /0
Job Famil~ and Payband Requested byG~vo~_~~.~~~_~F~,~,~~ ~, ~V~.~
1. PosJ~ 'Description Fe~ AEached
2. ~ ~e pat-ties agree on the contents of the ~e~ Pos~on Description Form
~ The Union d~gmes with the contents of the aEached Position Description ~. The specific details of
disagreement are as
luse reverse side if necessary)
AWARD
FACTORS MANA~,F.M~T UN;ON A. mmATOR
1. Training/Technica! Sk~ls
2. Experience
3. Complexity
j, geme,,
6. Physical Oemand
7. Sensory Demand
8. Strain from Work PressuresiDemands/De~d1~nes
~9. Independent Action ~"
I 10. Communications/Contacts ~'
1 1.. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions
12. Work Environment '
.........
ATTACHED WRITTE~ SUBMISSIONS: r"l The Union [] The College
FOR THE UNION' FOE MANAGEMENT