Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPaton 01-27-04 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: SHERIDAN COLLEGE (Hereinafter referred to as the College) AND OPSEU (Hereinafter referred to as the Union) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF E. PATON ARBITRATOR: Gail Brent APPEARANCE S: FOR THE COLLEGE: Erin Holl, Manager HR Client Services Susan Wodar, Labour Relations Assistant Barry Hemmefling FOR THE UNION: Norma Pennington-Drabble, V.P. Grievances Elaine Paton, Grievor Jay Jackson, Local President Hearing held in Oakville, Ontario on April 23, 2001. DECISION This is a classification grievance filed on December 7, 1999. The grievor's position, Registration Services Clerk, is currently classified as Clerk D, Payband 8. The grievance seeks to have the position reclassified as a Clerk General Atypical Payband 10. The procedure governing this grievance is set out in Article 18.4 of the collective agreement which was in force between the 2 parties at the time (September 1, 1997 to August 31, 2000). In that agreement the parties set out the following restrictions on arbitrators hearing classification grievances: 18.4.5.1 Restrictions The single Arbitrator or Arbitration Board is restricted to determining whether the grievor's PDF accurately reflects his/her assigned job content (where disagreement exists) and to determining whether the grievor's job is properly classified pursuant to the CAAT SUPPORT STAFF JOB EVALUATION MANUAL. What has been evident since ! first received the material from the parties, and was confirmed at a first meeting with them on February 15, 2001, is that there is considerable disagreement between them concerning the PDF which describes the grievor's j ob. It is a matter of agreement that the PDF prepared in 1997 regarding the grievor's position does not accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of her position at the time the grievance was filed. On February 15th the parties agreed that the duties and responsibilities outlined in Part B of the PDF on file at the time of the grievance should be amended to read as follows: 1. Admits new students by: - determining applicant eligibility for admission to college programs, issuing offers of admission and advising unsuccessful applicants of alternative courses of action - scheduling testing and making referrals where appropriate - providing information about courses and programs to prospective students - registering students in continuing education courses and programs and issuing parking passes and collecting and processing the appropriate fees - monitoring and controlling student intake in order to meet College enrolment targets without exceeding class capacities - accepting fees for Post-secondary and forwarding to Trafalgar for processing 3 Al~l~roximate % of Time Annually 20% 4 2. Administers academic and financial policies by: - processing all documentation pertaining to admissions, registration, fee payments, course and program changes, withdrawals, refunds and grades investigating and resolving process anomalies - maintaining ongoing liaison with academic advisors to ensure conformance with academic rules and regulations - advising students regarding the application and interpretation of college policies - granting advanced standing requests by validating instructional credentials, assessing academic documentation, and ensuring appropriate credits and content matches exist - balances cashier sessions by reconciling all fee payments (i.e. Credit Cards, Cash, Cheques or Interac) with continuing education registration receipts, parking pass receipts, and point of sale terminal transactions. This includes preparing bank deposits for verification by Finance Department. Al~l~roximate % of Time Annually 20% 3. Monitors and records student progress - creating, organizing and maintaining accurate and timely official electronic and hard copy records for all students - conducting credit checks and diploma audits to ensure eligibility for promotion and graduation - certifying enrolment information for audit, funding and MET reporting purposes - after documentation of apprentices, confirm attendance numbers - bi-weekly attendance reports on Block Release and reports to HRDC - tracking apprentices' attendance on a daily basis and reporting hourly attendance - issuing warning, termination and attendance letters Al~l~roximate % of Time Annually 50% 5 4. Analyses systems and procedures by: - debriefing after major events, such as admissions cycle stages, registrations and academic status meetings and recommending improvements to accommodate changing academic conditions - providing ongoing input to the academic policy review process - undertaking special assignments related to registrarial systems and procedures Al~l~roximate % of Time Annually 5% 5. Other duties as required - opening and closing office, safe and preparing floats daily Al~l~roximate % of Time Annually 5% Based on the agreement of the parties, ! find that the above represents an accurate summary of the significant duties and responsibilities associated with the position which the grievor filled at the date of the grievance. The position in question was originally rated at 520 points, which puts it in Payband 8 (511 to 570 points). During the course of the grievance procedure the College revised the points it attributed to various factors as follows: Factor Oriainal Colleae Position Revised Colleae Position Motor Skills 22 C4 28 Independent Action 33 46 Work Environment 10 32 These changes led the College to revise the points under the classification system to 561. This did not lead to a change in the Payband. During this process, as ! understand it, both the College and the grievor proposed changes to the PDF; however, to the best of my knowledge no new 6 PDF has been put forward by the College and rated under the CAAT Support Staff Job Evaluation System. Further, as ! understand it, one factor in this classification dispute is the fact that the position in question is performed at a satellite campus, approximately 6 km. from the main campus, where there is no on-site Supervisor, and where the incumbent is required to perform a variety of tasks rather than one set of tasks unique to a particular function. That is, at other locations there are specialized clerks, each performing a particular function, whereas at the incumbent's location there is only one clerk who performs all of the required functions. Given that both parties had proposed changes to the 1997 PDF, and that the College has revised the points assigned to the position in three factors, ! have no hesitation in finding that the 1997 PDF does not accurately reflect the grievor's assigned j ob content. Further, since the only agreement there was between the parties was to the content of the "Duties and Responsibilities" section of the PDF, ! am reluctant to rely on the accuracy of the PDF beyond that. ! received evidence and submissions from the parties about the matters relating to the job function and the seven factors in dispute (Complexity, Judgement, Motor Skills, Physical Demand, Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines, Responsibility for Decisions/Actions). ! have conveyed my concerns to the parties about whether or not this is an appropriate grievance to proceed by way of this informal expedited process. While ! confess to still harboring some doubt, ! believe that ! have sufficient evidence before me to deal with the dispute concerning the rating of those factors as of the date of the grievance. It is my belief that this job is continuing to evolve, and ! trust that the College will prepare a new PDF to reflect the job as it is currently being done and that that job will be rated. 7 ComplexiW The Factor definition as taken from the CAAT Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (hereinafter referred to as the Manual) is as follows: This factor measures the amount and nature of analysis, problem-solving, and reasoning required to perform j ob-related duties. This factor measures the conceptual demands of the j ob as characterized by: · analysis and interpretation required for problem and solution definition, · creativity, · mental challenge · degree of job structure, · planning activities, and · the variety and difficulty of tasks. The College has assigned 58 points for this factor. That would place it at Level 4 which is described as follows in the Manual: Job duties require the performance of varied, non-routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods. The Union is seeking 74 points for this factor; a placement at Level 5. That Level is defined as follows in the Manual: Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods. According to the Manual, Complexity Level 4 is that associated with Clerk General D, Library Technician B and Programmer A, B, while Complexity Level 5 is that associated with Programmer/Analyst A, Support Services Officer B, C, and Technologist C. Based on the submissions of the parties and the evidence presented to me, ! find that Level 4 is the best description for the Complexity Factor. In particular, ! find no evidence that the grievor performs "complex and relatively unusual tasks". While the tasks may be complex, they are varied, 8 often non-routine and do involve the use of different and often unrelated methods. 9 Judgement The Factor definition as taken from the Manual is as follows: This factor measures the independent judgement and problem-solving required on the job. it assesses the difficulty in identifying various available choices of action and in exercising judgement to select the most appropriate action. It also considers mental processes such as analysis, reasoning, or evaluation. The College has rated this at Level 4 - 66 points and the Union is seeking Level 5 - 84 points. The definitions of the two Levels are set out below: Level 4 Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with established analytical techniques. Level 5 Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used. There is no doubt that the job requires the exercise of judgement. However, as ! understand the evidence, most of the problem-solving involves dealing with issues that can be described as recurring in nature and solvable by using established techniques. On the evidence before me ! would not find Level 5 to be the best description of the level of Judgement required, and ! would agree that Level 4 is the more appropriate. Motor Skills The Factor definition as contained in the Manual is as follows: This factor measures the fine (delicate, intricate or precise) motor movements necessary to fulfil the requirements of the position. It considers dexterity, complexity, co-ordination and speed. 10 The College's position is that this factor should be at Level C4 - 28 points and the Union is seeking Level D3 -37 points. In rating this factor both the motor skill and the prevalence of that skill is measured. Hence, Level C4 is defined as follows: Motor Skills Complex fine motor movement, involving considerable dexterity, co- ordination and precision is required. Speed is a secondary consideration. Prevalence Frequent - more than 60% of the time Level D3 is defined as follows: Motor Skills Complex fine motor movement, involving significant dexterity, co-ordination and precision is required. Speed is a major consideration. Prevalence Regular - 31% to 60% of the time The evidence indicated that the grievor operated keyboards, calculators, point of sale terminals, etc., that is, normal office equipment. Further, based on the evidence, ! would agree with the College's assertion that accuracy is the primary consideration, while speed, although important, is a secondary consideration. ! therefore find that C4 is the more appropriate rating. Physical Demand This Factor is defined in the manual as follows: This factor measures the demand on physical energy required to complete tasks. Consideration is given to: · the type and duration of physical effort, · the frequency, · strain from rapid and repetitive fine muscle movements or the use of larger muscle groups, lack of flexibility of movement. 11 There is also a chart which "represents an example of how one might consider physical demand over the course of 'part' of a day, 'most' of the day or 'all the time' (occasional, recurring and continuous), in terms of light, moderate or heavy demand." The College has rated this factor at Level 2 - 16 points and the Union is seeking Level 4 - 39 points. The two Levels in question are defined as follows: Level 2 Job duties require some physical demand. There is an occasional requirement for repetition and/or speed. Employee usually has comfortable bodily positions with flexibility of movement. Employee uses recurring light physical effort, OR occasional moderate physical effort. Level 4 Job duties may require frequent physical demand. There is a frequent requirement for repetition and speed. Employee may be in awkward bodily positions over extended periods of time with limited flexibility of movement. Employee uses continuous moderate physical effort, OR recurring heavy physical effort. Based on the evidence before me, it would appear that the grievor's duties are primarily performed either sitting at a desk or standing at a counter with occasional light lifting. During the course of a day she can frequently be required to get up from her work station and walk to the counter to deal with inquiries. Given the need to input data, often for long periods of time, ! find that there is a recurring need for repetitive fine muscle movement. This is consistent with the College's position under the Motor Skills Factor, which indicated that the use of fine motor movement 12 occurred frequently (more than 60% of the time). In considering this factor ! cannot agree with the Union's position. There is neither continuous moderate physical effort nor recurring heavy physical effort involved. Further, nothing before me indicates the presence either of the degree of awkwardness or immobility contemplated by that level or the "frequent requirement for repetition and speed". A recurring light physical effort would probably be the most accurate description of the level of physical demands in this j ob. Therefore the College's position is the correct one. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines The Manual defines this Factor as follows: This factor measures the strain associated with, or caused by frequency and predictability of deadlines, interruptions, distractions and/or workloads, multiple and/or conflicting demands and/or dealing with people in difficult situations. The College has rated this at Level 3 - 28 points and the Union at Level 4 - 39 points. The two levels are defined as follows: Level 3 Job duties involve moderate work pressures or demands. Interruptions, changing deadlines, multiple demands occur regularly but are usually predictable. Occasionally, critical deadlines may occur. Level 4 Job duties involve conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in workflow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and occasional critical deadlines. Based on the information before me ! find that Level 3 is the more appropriate. The nature of the work is cyclical and most of the demands are predictable. Indel~endent Action This factor is defined in the Manual as follows: 13 This factor measures the independence of action and decisions required by the j ob. Initiative, creativity and decisions are governed by various controls. Such controls can be in the form of supervision, policies, procedures or established practices. The College has rated this function at Level 4 - 46 points while the Union has rated it at Level 5 - 60 points. The definitions of these levels are: Level 4 Job duties are performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems. There is considerable freedom to act independently with Supervisor input or verification when requested. Level 5 Job duties are performed in accordance with general instructions and policies involving changing conditions and problems. There is significant freedom to act independently. The decisions made by the incumbent must conform to the established College policies as published in the calendar, or to the rules set out by outside agencies such as HRDC. There is room for the exercise of discretion; however, there are instances where questions may be referred to her supervisor. ! consider that Level 4 most accurately captures the Independent Action in this position. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions The Manual defines this factor as follows: This factor measures the impact on internal and public relations, the responsibility for information management, equipment, assets and records, and the consequences of decisions and/or actions. The College has rated the factor at Level 3 - 44 points and the Union at Level 5 - 80 points. The two levels are defined as follows: Level 3 Decisions and/or actions have moderate impact on the organization. Errors are usually 14 detected by verification and review and may result in disruption of the workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited waste of resources. Level 5 Decisions and/or actions have significant impact on the organization. Errors are difficult to detect and result in a significant waste of resources and continuing influence on operational effectiveness. The information before me is that errors are not difficult to detect and will be detected by verification and review. The result of an error is not one which impacts operational effectiveness as required by Level 5. The impact of an error would be much more critical to an individual student than to the organization as a whole. ! therefore find that Level 3 is appropriate. Summary For all of the reasons set out above, ! find that the job which was being performed at the time of the grievance is properly rated as Clerk D Payband 8 with a total of 561 points as proposed by the College. Again ! urge the parties to press on with the procedure of creating an accurate PDF which will reflect the job functions as they have evolved and to rate that job. Nothing in this decision should preclude the Union from challenging the new PDF or the rating assigned to it. DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS 27TM DAY OF APRIL, 2001. Gail Brent