Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGallagher 00-11-20IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: FANSHAWE COLLEGE ("the employer") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF JANET GALLAGHER (OPSEU # 00D246) ARBITRATOR: lan Springate APPEARANCES For the Employer: Sheila Wilson, Human Resources Consultant Rosanna Stumpo, Program Manager for Continuing Education For the Union: Barbara Ford, Chief Steward Louise Watt, Advisor Janet Gallagher, Grievor HEARING: In London on September 12, 2000 AWARD INTRODUCTION This case concerns the proper classification of the grievor's position. The employer classifies the position as that of a Technologist A at payband 8. In a grievance dated January 14, 2000 the grievor alleged that she was improperly classified and asked to be reclassified to payband 10. The grievor works in the employer's Learning and Testing Centre. Approximately 50% of her time is spent tutoring mathematics, including performing error analysis of students' work and recommending improvement strategies. Tutoring is provided to both students enrolled in regular courses who come to the Centre for assistance and students who are following a personalized plan of study through the Centre. The grievor also scores mathematics tests. This and certain other related duties take up about 30% of her time. The grievor's remaining duties include explaining the Centre's practices and testing procedures to students and assisting faculty in the production and revision of learning and testing materials. The union initially rated the grievor's position using a core point rating plan that forms part of a job evaluation manual binding on the parties. At a first step grievance meeting the employer advised the union that in rating the position it had utilized the job evaluation guide chart for the Technologist A classification. This is one of a number of guide charts contained in the manual. During the meeting the union became aware that based on the Technologist A guide chart the employer had rated three job factors higher than had the union. The union subsequently raised its ratings for these factors to the levels given by the employer. The union also sought to raise the payband being requested from 10 to 11. At the hearing the employer objected to the union's attempt to seek a higher payband. I upheld the employer's objection. I ruled that the union could not argue for a higher payband than what had been claimed in the grievance. Job evaluation guide charts are based on the factor definitions utilized in the core point rating plan. Accordingly, a typical position should receive the same overall rating whichever approach is utilized. The job evaluation manual, however, indicates that in order to maintain consistency the relevant guide chart should be utilized when rating a typical position. It also indicates that the core point rating plan is the appropriate mechanism for rating atypical positions and positions with duties that cannot readily be evaluated using the guide charts. The grievor's duties are not the typical duties of a Technologist A as listed in the applicable guide chart. Accordingly, it is appropriate to use the core point rating plan to rate her position. As discussed below, however, when applying the core point rating plan a relevant consideration is the fact that the grievor's duties and those of a typical Technologist A both involve assisting students with their studies. Below are set out the typical duties of a Technologist A and a Technologist B as listed in the applicable guide charts. TECHNOLOGIST A Prepares and executes routine laboratory experiments showing the relationship between theory and test results. Modifies standard lab tests as per instruction. Prepares student lab manuals Assists in the developing of teacher aids working from given concepts. Demonstrates appropriate use of equipment and facilities. TECHNOLOGIST B Designs and/or develops equipment, systems, facilities, materials etc. to meet user output requirements. Plans, organizes and conducts experiments and demonstrations explaining correct procedures and theoretical principles involved. Evaluates equipment and other resources and makes recommendations prior to purchase. Controls supply inventories and budgets. May assist in student evaluations in relating to learning activities in which the Technologist B takes part. The parties agree on the contents of a position description form for the position occupied by the grievor. They disagree, however, on the appropriate rating for eight of the 12 job factors identified in the job evaluation manual. These eight factors are addressed individually below. EXPERIENCE The job evaluation manual indicates that this factor measures the amount of practical experience in any related work necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position. The College rated this factor at level 2, which is worth 20 points under the job classification system. The union claims that it should be rated at level 3, which is worth 32 points. The relevant factor level definitions are as follows: 2. More than six months and up to one year of practical experience. 3. More than one year and up to three years of practical experience. The position description form agreed to by the parties describes the minimum level of required prior experience as follows: At least one year related experience (teacher training and/or experience). The grievor is a former high school teacher. She testified that when she joined the College it was on a part-time basis until her position became full-time. In order to teach high school she presumably spent an academic year at a teachers college or faculty of education. Accordingly, she met the requirement contained in the position description form of having at least one year teacher training or related experience. Given these considerations I find level 3 to be the appropriate rating for experience. JUDGEMENT This factor measures the independent judgement and problem solving required on the job. It assesses the difficulty in identifying various alternate 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 employer rated the grievor's position at level 4, which is worth 66 points. The union contends that a level 5 rating worth 84 points is more appropriate. The level definitions as well as illustrative classifications contained in the job evaluation manual are as follows: 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. Early Childhood Education Worker; Nurse; Secretary C 5. Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used. Programmer B; Stationary Engineer C; Technologist B The agreed on position description form contains the following two entries with respect to the level of judgement required for the job. Independent judgement and problem solving are integral to the position. The incumbent must assess students' mathematics difficulties and determine whether referral to a professor is necessary. Students may frequently be irate or negative and the incumbent must provide positive reinforcement. The incumbent is responsible for delivering information in a manner which promotes learning. Must be able to analyze student's work to determine what kind of errors are occurring. Must decide what remedial action is beneficial to the student and make appropriate suggestions. The grievor testified that some of the students she tutors find mathematics threatening, either because they were unsuccessful with math in the past or because they have been out of school for many years. She indicated that students who are on heavy medications might understand concepts on some days but not on others and so she has to know when to "back off". She said that she needs to give some students a push but slow down others who think they know things that they don't. She indicated that if she is not sure that a student understands what he or she is doing she sits down with the student so that they can go through some questions together. The grievor contended that she refines work methods when she works with students on word problems, which many of them find difficult. By way of example she said that she might draw the student a picture to help him or her understand a problem. She said that another refinement "we" do is to test a student who does not have a "paper trail" such as a student from another country who is without papers or someone who claims to have learnt math on the job. The grievor contended that she was also involved in refining work methods when she advised faculty members that she felt the criteria for certain tests had been too high and when she provided suggestions to the coordinator of the Learning and Testing Centre and to Ms. Rosanna Stumpo, Program Manager for Continuing Education, concerning revisions to old challenge tests. At the hearing Ms. Stumpo contended that the current processes in the Learning Centre are in place because they work. She said that there may be times when there is a need to deviate from these processes but presumably on such occasions the grievor would raise the matter with the coordinator or herself. The criteria for a level 5 rating requires the interpretation of complex data or the refinement of work methods and techniques. There is nothing to suggest that the grievor is required to interpret complex data. I do not view her making suggestions to others about the content of tests or her role in administrating tests to students without education documents as meeting the criterion of refining work methods. A more difficult issue is whether when assessing an individual student's work and deciding how to best help him or her the grievor is using established analytical techniques as described in the definition for a level 4 rating, or refining work methods and techniques as required for a level 5 rating. The job evaluation manual does not directly address the role of tutoring students. It does, however, refer to classifications whose incumbents typically assist students with course material. One such classification is the Early Childhood Education Worker, which is an illustrative classification for a level 4 rating. The guide chart for this classification lists two of the typical duties of the classification as: "provides guidance to students involved in early childhood studies" and "provides practical training for students in conjunction with the Coordinator, Early Childhood Education". The Technologist A job evaluation guide chart suggests that a level 4 rating for judgement is appropriate for the duties typically associated with this classification. As noted above, these include the performance of routine laboratory experiments that show the relationship between theory and test results as well as demonstrating the appropriate use of equipment and facilities. Presumably a typical Early Childhood Education Worker or Technologist A will assess whether individual students are experiencing difficulties and decide how best to help them. A Technologist B is an illustrative classification for a level 5 rating. The typical duties of this classification include the planning, organizing and conducting experiments and demonstrations, explaining theoretical principles and possibly assisting in student evaluations. These functions suggest a degree of judgement related to planning and teaching course content that goes beyond the grievor's role of tutoring students. Having regard to these considerations I confirm the level 4 rating given by the employer. SENSORY DEMAND This factor measures the demand on mental energy while performing tasks. Consideration is given to the level or degree of concentration and the frequency of the requirement for careful attention to detail and accuracy. The employer rated this factor at level 3, which is worth 28 points. The union argues for level 4 rating, which is worth 39 points. The definitions for these levels as well as the associated illustrative classifications are as follows: 3. Job duties require moderate visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. OR Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy. OR Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and periodic careful attention to detail and accuracy. Clerk General C; Early Childhood Education Worker; Nurse; Secretary A, B, C; Skilled Trades Worker; Support Services Officer A, B, C, D; Technologist A, B, C 4. Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. OR Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy. Bus Driver; Clerk General D; Switchboard Operator The position description form contains the following entries with respect to this factor: Visual and auditory concentration requirements are paramount because of the high degree of dealings with people. The visual concentration requirement is also high when scoring tests. There is a significant problem solving component. Concentration and close attention to detail is required when proofreading. Task % of Time Visual and auditory when dealing with people 50% Visual when scoring tests, analysing and solving problems 45% Proofreading 5% The grievor testified that she uses an answer key when scoring most test questions. She indicated that if an answer is correct she will not assess how the student obtained the right result. If the final answer is not correct, however, she goes through the answer to ascertain where the student went wrong. She said that students also bring in work they have done and she goes through it to see if the work has been done correctly and, if not, to ascertain where they went wrong. She said that the proofreading work she does involves going through texts produced in the Learning and Testing Centre and reviewing new tests for possible errors and their level of difficulty. The level definitions are not helpful in terms of distinguishing between "considerable" and "extensive" demand on mental energy. The use of the bus driver classification to illustrate a level 4 rating, however, suggests that an extensive demand requires a continuous high degree of attentiveness. The various illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating indicate that extensive dealings with people is not by itself sufficient to meet the criterion of an extensive demand on mental energy. The other criterion relevant to this factor is the need for careful attention to detail and accuracy. The position description form refers to a need for visual concentration when scoring tests and for concentration and close attention when proofreading. In my view, close attention to detail is also required when the griever goes over students' work, especially when determining where they have made errors. The position description form indicates that proofreading, scoring tests and analyzing and solving problems account for about half the griever's time. In my view this is appropriately described as requiring "frequent" attention to detail and accuracy rather than "occasional" or "periodic" attention. 10 Having regard to the above, I find that the grievor's job duties require considerable visual, auditory or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. This is one of the definitions for a level 4 rating. Accordingly, I find that level 4 is appropriate for this factor. STRAIN FROM WORK PRESSURES/DEMANDS/DEADLINES This factor measures the strain associated with, or caused by frequency and predictability of deadlines, interruptions and/or workloads, multiple and/or conflicting demands and/or dealing with people in difficult situations. The employer rated this factor at level 2 worth 16 points. The union contends that a level 4 rating worth 39 points is more appropriate. The definitions for these two levels and for level 3, worth 28 points, are as follows: 2. Job duties involve some work pressures. INterruptions and pressing deadlines tend to be predictable. Tight, changing deadlines and conflicting demands occur occasionally. Clerk General A, B; Library Technician A, B; Technologist A 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. Clerk General C, D; Secretary A, B; Support Services Officer A, B 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. Secretary C; Support Services Officer C, D; Technical Support Specialist 11 The position description form with respect to this factor reads as follows: The incumbent is always involved with several activities which all have deadlines. Unexpected interruptions from staff and student questions and equipment related problems conflict with priorities. Dealing with students requires a continuous high level of tact and diplomacy. The volume of work varies during each term and peaks at the end. The end of term or a deadline period relating to student registration are high volume and high stress periods. Task % of Time PredictabiliW Normal dealings with students and staff>50% PR Registration deadlines 20% PR End of term deadlines 20% PR Dealing with difficult people 10% NP The interruptions and deadlines encountered by the grievor are generally predictable and the evidence does not suggest that her priorities shift over time. Accordingly, a level 4 rating does not appear to be appropriate. A key difference between the criteria for a level 2 and a level 3 rating is the frequency of interruptions and multiple demands. The position description form and the oral evidence suggest that interruptions occur on a regular basis. This is more accurately reflected in the definition for a level 3 rating which refers to regular interruptions, changing deadlines and multiple demands. Accordingly, I find a level 3 rating to be appropriate. INDEPENDENT ACTION This factor measures the independence of action and decisions required by the job. The job evaluation manual notes that controls can be in the form of supervision, policies, procedures or established practices. The employer contends that level 3 worth 33 points is the appropriate rating. 12 The union argues for a level 4 rating worth 46 points. The level definitions and illustrative classifications are as follows: 3. Job duties are performed in accordance with general procedures and past practices under periodic supervision, with occasional periods of Supervisor input or verification. There is moderate freedom to act independently. Clerk General C, D; General Maintenance Worker; Microcomputer Operator B; Secretary A, B 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. Library Technician B; Secretary C; Support Services Officer A, B; Technician C; Technologist B The grievor testified that her work with students is not checked. She said that when she has a query about math related issues she raises it with a faculty member. She also said that she raises problems with a student's behaviour with Ms. Stumpo or the coordinator and seeks guidance on non-academic issues from Ms. Stumpo. The position description form contains the following entries with respect to this factor: The incumbent is aware of day-to-day responsibilities and is free to proceed with day to day routines. Guidelines are set out when new or project oriented tasks arise. Work assignments are subject to applicable College policies and the Division's testing procedures. The College's academic calendar is referred to as necessary. Work is checked in progress by exception and by discussion. 13 Dealings with students and staff always require a high level of initiative and creativity. Their requirements occur daily. Problems referred to the co-ordinator or manager include any issues that would be non-standard situations and significant conflict resolution problems eg "retired" courses and instances of cheating. There is nothing before me to indicate that the grievor adapts procedures to meet particular situations and/or problems as referred to in the definition for a level 4 rating. Her activities do meet the definition for a level 3 rating. Accordingly, I confirm the level 3 rating given by the employer. COMMUNICATIONS/CONTACT S This factor measures the requirement for effective communication for the purpose of providing advice, explanation, influencing others, and/or reaching agreement. A note in the job evaluation manual states that raters are not to rate the content of confidential information but rather the communications responsibilities involved in handling it. The employer rated this factor at level 2 worth 52 points. The union contends that the appropriate rating is level 4 worth 124 points. Level 3 is worth 88 points. The definitions for levels 2, 3, 4, and the related illustrative classifications are as follows: 2. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing detailed explanations, clarification, and interpretation of data or information. There may be need to empathize with and understand the needs of others in order to handle problems or complaints. Occasional involvement with confidential information which has minor disclosure implications. Clerk general B, C; Programmer A,B; Secretary A,B; Skilled Trades Worker 14 3. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures, policy, or theory. There may be a need to promote participation and understanding and to secure co-operation in order to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive nature. Regular involvement with confidential information which has moderate disclosure implications. Clerk General D; Library Technician A; Secretary C; Support Services Officer A, B; Technician B,C 4. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing basic instruction or for the resolution of complex problem situations. There may be a need for sophisticated influential or persuasive techniques in order to address the problem of those with special needs. Regular involvement with confidential and sensitive information where disclosure implications are significant. Early Childhood Education Worker; Library Technician B; Nurse; Support Services Officer C; technologist C The grievor's role in scoring tests involves a regular involvement with confidential information. If a test result should be improperly disclosed that would be unfortunate and might lead to a complaint from the student. It would not, however, likely have any significant disclosure implications. The evidence led at the hearing indicates that one purpose of the grievor's contacts with students is to explain the testing practices and procedures. This fits easily within the definition for a level 2 rating of providing detailed explanations. I do not view tutoring students as falling under "providing basic instruction" in the level 4 definition. Instructing students in mathematics is the role of faculty members. This is demonstrated by the fact that a typical Technologist B who explains theoretical principles is rated in the applicable guide chart as being at the level 3 level, not level 4. 15 I do view the grievor's role in tutoring students in mathematics as providing guidance of a specialized nature. I distinguish it from what is communicated by a typical Technologist A at level 2 who executes routine laboratory experiments and demonstrates the appropriate use of equipment and facilities. The purpose of the grievor's communications appears to be closer to a Typical Technologist B who explains correct procedures and theoretical principles to students. It also appears to be closer to a Technician B who according to the applicable guide chart typically demonstrates correct techniques for the use of materials and equipment and who is rated at level 3. In light of these considerations I find that the grievor regularly communicates with students for the purpose of providing guidance of a specialized nature and that a level 3 rating is appropriate. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS AND ACTIONS 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 rated the grievor's position at level 3 for 44 points. The union rated it at level 4 worth 62 points. The factor level definitions and illustrative classifications for these ratings are as follows: 3 Decisions and/or actions have moderate impact on the organization. Errors are usually detected by verification and review and may result in disruption of the workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited waste of resources. Clerk General C, D; General Maintenance Worker; Reproduction Equipment Operator B, C; Secretary B, C 4 Decisions and/or actions have considerable impact on the organization. Errors are detected after the fact and may result in considerable interruption and delay in work output and waste of resources. Early Childhood Education Worker; Stationary Engineer C; Support Services Officer B, C; Technologist B, C 16 The position description form contains the following entries with respect to this factor: Because of the high involvement with students and applicants, the position's impact on internal and external public relations is extremely high. Because of the nature of the position, errors are detected by "complaints", i.e. students complain if their tests are not scored correctly; applicants complain if information is not forwarded to the Registrar's office in a timely manner. Students complain if they are not receiving tutorial help and/or explanations. It does not appear that an error on the part of the grievor would cause a considerable interruption and delay in work output or a waste of resources as contemplated by the definition for a level 4 rating. An error might have a considerable impact on a particular student but that is not the same as a considerable impact on the organization. This point is highlighted by the fact that a Clerk D is an illustrative classification for level 3. A typical duty of this classification is to determine student financial assistance and eligibility. In the circumstances I confirm the level 3 rating given by the employer. WORK ENVIRONMENT This factor measures working conditions in terms of the physical environment. The employer rated this factor at level 2 worth 32 points. The union argues for a level 3 rating worth 55 points. The first three level definitions and illustrative classifications for this factor are as follows: 1. Job duties are carried out with occasional exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous elements. Clerk General B, C, D; Secretary A, B, C 17 2. Job duties are carried out with occasional exposure to moderately disagreeable and/or hazardous elements OR Recurring exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous elements OR There is a requirement for occasional travel (10% - 30%) Support Services Officer C; Switchboard Operator; Technician A,B,C; Technologist A,B,C 3. Job duties are carried out with continuous exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous elements OR Recurring exposure to moderately disagreeable and/or hazardous elements. OR Occasional exposure to extremely disagreeable and/or hazardous elements. OR There is a requirement for moderate travel (31% - 60%). Caretaker A, B; Clerk Supply A, B, C; Food Service Worker A, B, C; Nurse The position description form contains the following entry with respect to this factor: The Learning Centre approximates an office environment. The particular location of the Centre is subject to below average air circulation and irregular temperature control. A review of the illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating, which include caretaker and food service worker, indicate that something more uncomfortable than below average air circulation and irregular temperature control is required for this level. In my view the reference in the level 2 definition to recurring exposure to slightly disagreeable elements covers 18 below average air circulation and irregular temperature control. Accordingly, I confirm the level 2 rating given by the employer. The evidence indicates that for some time the employer has been seeking to correct the air circulation and temperature control problems in the Learning Centre. Ms. Stumpo testified that over the summer the situation was OK although she feels "the test" will be the forthcoming winter. She added that she hopes the problem has been fixed. This changed situation may impact on future ratings for the work environment factor. It does not, however, alter what the situation was at the time the grievance was filed. CONCLUSION The process followed by the parties allowed the union to utilize the core point rating plan for the factors discussed above and also raise its initial ratings for three other factors to higher levels assigned by the employer based on the Technologist A guide chart. Because the grievor was not performing the typical duties of a Technologist A this may have resulted in a greater overall point total than if all factors had been core point rated. Since both parties adopted the same ratings for the relevant three factors, however, they were not put in issue in these proceedings. The employer's rating of the grievor's position resulted in the position receiving a total of 512 points. This was within the 511 - 570 point range covered by payband 8. My finding that a level 3 rating is appropriate for experience; a 4 rating for sensory demand; a 3 rating for strain from work pressures/demands/deadlines; and a level 3 rating for communications/contacts raises this by 12, 11, 12 and 36 points respectively. The new total is 583 points. This is within the 571 to 630 point range for payband 9. The grievance accordingly succeeds to the extent of raising the grievor's position by one payband. I will retain jurisdiction to address any issues that arise out of this award, including the compensation owing to the grievor. 19 Dated this 20th day of November 2000. Arbitrator