Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCiupa 01-01-26IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CENTENNIAL COLLEGE ("the employer") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF MR. WALTER CIUPA (OPSEU # 00A362) ARBITRATOR: lan Springate APPEARANCES For the Employer: Linda Carson, Human Resources Consultant Klm Nilsson, Manager, Planning and Assessment For the Union: Larry Goldin, President OPSEU Local 559 Walter Ciupa, Grievor Sheila Draycott-Gregg J. Lyford HEARING: In Toronto on October 3, 2000 AWARD INTRODUCTION The griever is a full-time Assessment Administrator at the Centennial College Assessment Centre. At least one other full-time person is in a similar position. Part-time staff perform some of the same work on a seasonal basis. The centre administers assessment tests to virtually all applicants for admission to the College. The results of the tests are used for admission purposes and for streaming students into different English classes. The employer classifies the grievor as a Clerk General D at payband 8. By way of a grievance dated May 19, 1999 the griever contended that he should be classified as a Support Services Officer at payband 11. At the hearing the union indicated that it was seeking to have the griever re- classified to an Atypical Support Services Officer at payband 10. The parties disagree on the appropriate ratings for six of the 12 job factors under the applicable job classification system. Each of the factors in dispute is discussed separately below. Initially the parties also disagreed on the rating for the factor of training/technical skills. Prior to the hearing, however, the employer agreed with the union's contention that level 4 is the appropriate rating for this factor. At the hearing the union indicated that it was substantially in agreement with the content of a position description form utilized by the employer. The union did not advance any proposed alternate wording. When giving his evidence the griever strongly disputed the entry in the position description form respecting the factor efjudgement. THE GRIEVOR'S JOB DUTIES Fifty percent or more of the grievor's time each year is taken up with the invigilatien of assessment tests. This includes obtaining from a storage area the material required for a test, such as test questions, answer cards and writing paper. The griever then goes to a classroom where applicants are scheduled to take the test and welcomes them as they arrive. The griever testified that prior to the start of a test he writes information respecting the test on a board, including the name of the test and the time allowed. He said that if an answer card is being used he draws a diagram of the card on the board to show where applicants are to write their names and other required information. If a test involves writing an English essay the griever distributes written material that lists essay topics, the amount of time allowed and what the test markers will be looking for. The griever testified that he orally notes the time allowed and reads out that portion of the material that discusses what the markers will be looking for. He said that he also reviews the different levels of English offered at the College and explains that test scores will be used for admission purposes and for English placement levels. He testified that if applicants are writing a computer logic test he will explain to them that the test has three parts of 10, 15 and 30 minutes' duration. Before applicants start to write a test the griever tells them to turn off their pagers and cell phones and to place a photo ID and a receipt for testing fees on their desk. When they start writing the test the griever tells them what the time is and writes it on the board. He then circulates around the room taking attendance and checking ID's to ascertain if anyone is trying to impersonate an applicant. If someone does not have a fees receipt he tells him or her that they must make the required payment. The grievor's evidence indicated that if an applicant arrives at a test location more than 30 minutes late he or she is generally not allowed to write the test. He testified that if the situation warrants it, such as if someone has come in from Peterbereugh, he will try to make arrangements for the person to take the test, perhaps by having someone else invigilate it. While a test is being written the grievor keeps watch for possible cheating and the use of forbidden aids such as a calculator. He indicated that he will not confront a person who he sees cheating but will ascertain the individual's name and pass it on with what he observed to his supervisor, Ms. Kim Nilssen, the Manager of Planning and Assessment. The grievor testified that he is responsible for maintaining order during a testing session. He said that he has at times taken an applicant out of the room and told them that their behavieur was unacceptable and would be noted. He indicated that on occasion he has barred an applicant from completing a test if he or she continued to cause a disturbance. The griever has a cellular telephone so that if necessary he can contact security for assistance. The grievor testified that applicants have become ill while writing a test. He said that sometimes they have been able to go to a washroom and return to complete the test but on other occasions he has offered an individual the option of making another appointment to write the test. The griever indicated that sessions are held when tests are administered to applicants with special needs. He testified that these applicants make the necessary arrangements through a Centre for Students with Disabilities. He said that he receives instructions respecting special testing arrangements from a counselor. He indicated that there have been occasions during regular testing sessions when applicants have broken down due to stress and he has advised them that special testing arrangements can be made for persons with special needs. A testing session can last up to four hours. At the end of a session the griever collects all of the test material. He testified that he checks answer cards to ensure that they contain a student number, the date and the name of the test. He said that he also checks to ensure that exam questions are "clean" and can be reused. Following the end of a testing session the grievor feeds the answer cards into an optical mark reader that operates in conjunction with computer software to produce an applicant's mark. If a test involves an English essay the essays are forwarded to someone else for marking but the marks are provided to the griever for entering into the computer. The griever testified that the software used for marking is not supported by the College's I.T. Department and accordingly he deals directly with the author of the software when any problems arise. The grievor testified that he is responsible for working with new tests when they are added to the exam library. He said that this involves adding information into the software and decoding an answer key so that the equipment can read it. He indicated that over the preceding year he had added three tests to the library with each one taking him about half a day's work, although in one case the work was spread out over an extended period of time. As noted above, the grievor spends at least 50% of his time each year invigilating assessment tests. The position description form indicates that an additional 40% of his time is spent in performing one of three different tasks, namely scheduling assessment tests, monitoring off-site testing or monitoring the telephone answering system. The position description form indicates that these duties are rotated among staff on a yearly basis. In his evidence the grievor said that last year he had monitored off-site testing and this year he is doing the scheduling. He did not say that he had monitored the telephone answering system. The position description form describes the assessment scheduling process as follows: Creating and constructing the department assessment schedule (three to four times annually and updated regularly), carefully considering the needs of all users (schools/ departments/applicants) served. This document sets the entire department process flow and has significant impact on the flow of admissions processing for the college. The process demands acute attention to detail. Past experience, planning and forecasting are also required to complete this task. Construction of the schedule requires: Negotiating with Scheduling and Part Time Studies for room allocations. Contacting the program coordinators to establish the desired frequency of testing and negotiating how program information sessions and program orientations can be held concurrently with assessment. Compiling and composing a draft schedule. Arranging with Records Department for the Student Information System to be prepared to accept bookings in a separate term, so that all Assessment transactions are kept separate from all other College business. Entering the scheduling data into the SIS system allowing online bookings to begin. Updating and reproducing the schedule as changes (sic). Deleting booking from all applicant's records and sections to ensure that the booking process does not interfere in the registration process. The griever testified that when performing the scheduling function he advises the Scheduling Department of room requirements at the College's various campuses and the Department then indicates which rooms can be used for testing. He said that he prepares a testing schedule that lists times, locations and the program for which applicants are to be tested. The griever said that when doing the scheduling he must ensure that the requirements of all departments are adequately covered and that the scheduling reflects the changes in recruitment and programming at the College. He said that he must also allow for the time it takes to complete each test and the time staff require to travel between campuses and for rest periods. Ms. Nilssen decides which employee will invigilate each of the testing sessions. The grievor testified that a schedule takes three months of preparation and planning. He described the production of a schedule as requiring the fine-tuning of departments' test offerings each time it is prepared. Ms. Nilsson contended that when he is doing the scheduling the griever is given the rooms to be used and testing demands by others. She said that the process involves modifying the previous schedule based on room availability and the introduction of new programs. She described it as a clerical function. Off-site testing allows applicants for admission who reside outside the local area to write assessment tests in their home communities. The griever testified that when applicants seek this service a two-part form must be completed, one part filled in by the applicant and the other by a person who has agreed to invigilate the test. The griever testified that the employee responsible for off site testing scrutinizes this material and ensures that the proposed invigilater is not a family member. He said that if everything is in order a package of test material and instructions is compiled and sent out and the material is supposed to be returned once the applicant has completed the test. He indicated that frequently material is not returned and accordingly follow up calls need to be made to applicants and their invigilaters to get the material back. As noted above, in his evidence the grievor did not refer to having performed the task of monitoring the telephone answering system. The position form indicates that he may be required to perform this function. The form describes the function in the following terms: Coordinating the Call Centre activity of the assessment booking line to function smoothly, by: Ensuring that the equipment is in good working order; Monitoring the out going messages and making necessary changes to the recordings; Ordering and maintaining telephone equipment; Keeping Call Centre Staff abreast of changes (admission targets met, new programs, testing requirements, providing Assessment Schedule); Monitoring the availability of seats per session, increasing available seat numbers, advising schedule creating staff member if additional dates are required or deleting sessions as required. Advising the Manager of trends in calling patterns to best plan staffing for telephone coverage. THE APPROPRIATE JOB FAMILY The union and the griever contend that the griever's position properly comes within the Support Services Officer job family. The employer, however, classifies the griever's position as that of a Clerk General D. This classification appears to have been based on the employer's view that the position comes within the Clerk General job family and the employer's rating of the twelve job factors which produced a total of 531 points, which is in the point range for payband 8. A Clerk General D is paid at the payband 8 level. The employer's ratings for several job factors respecting the griever's position differed from those for a typical Clerk General D as suggested by the applicable guide chart Below are set out the job family definitions for the Clerk General and Support Services Officer job families. Also included are the summary of responsibilities and the typical duties contained in the job evaluation guide charts for a Clerk General D, Support Services Officer A (which is at the same payband as a Clerk General D), and a Support Services Officer B at payband 9. There is no typical Support Services Officer position at payband 10. Clerk General Job Family Definition This family covers positions that are involved in clerical or business machines operating either manually or electronically, or in combination with incidental typing or stenographic duties. Clerk General D Summary of Responsibility Incumbents perform specialized senior clerical work requiring the exercise of considerable judgement. Typical Duties Determines student financial assistance and eligibility. Verifies the completeness and accuracy of produced payroll. Analysis statements to determine causes of budget variance. Conducts cost analysis studies. Processes and controls purchase orders. Organizes systems, procedures and paper flow. Analyzes problems relating to clerical systems and procedures and recommends revisions. Organizes the clerical activities of activities such as convocation, open house, orientation, Support Services Officer Job Family Definition This family covers positions that perform administrative duties that are functional/project orientated rather than task oriented and involve conceptualizing, facilitating and project managing. Support Services Officer A Summary of Responsibility Incumbents perform a number of non-routine, moderately complex administrative duties associated with college service areas and academic/administrative programmes. Liason functions are normally of a reactive nature. Typical Duties Compiles data and statistics required for departmental reports. Develops and recommends policies and procedures for administration of unit. Provides data to decision makers allowing them to determine best course of action. Responds to needs of service users by coordinating administrative details of projects. Support Services Officer B Summary of Responsibility Incumbents perform a variety of complex duties associated with the administration of college academic/administrative pregrammes in response to requirements of client groups. Liaison functions are normally of an interactive nature. Typical Duties Compiles and analysis data in order to provide recommendations as to appropriate course of action. Prepares operation plans, schedules and terms of reference. Represents college in dealings with public by attending appropriate functions. Trains, co-ordinates and monitors activities of others as appropriate. The employer contends that the grievor's position falls within the clerical job family in that his primary duties are task and not project oriented. It contends that the tasks involved with the testing process are repetitive and known to occur on a regular and consistent basis. Ms. Nilssen in her evidence said that when preparing the schedule the griever does not have a lot of control. She said that he is provided with certain rooms and testing demands and uses past practices when incorporating new programs into the plan. She contended that his role is more about making sure that no details are missed than about judgement. She also said that although the preparation of as assessment schedule appears to be a project, a true project would have more unknowns. She said that it would have to be constructed out of nothing. The grievor contended that his job is not repetitive. He said that each testing session involves a different group of people with a unique set of problems. In a written brief that he prepared the griever made the following argument about the apparent repetitiveness of testing sessions: 10 As a "model" each assessment session is repetitive, but the reality proves otherwise. Failure to acknowledge the diversity of the clients we serve and their varying abilities (varying degrees of formal education, varying degrees of written and verbal comprehension, applicants with special needs, consideration of applicants who are granted re-testing privileges and those with a poor command of English) is key to the understanding of why we pre-test applicants. The griever feels that this diversity brings to light that this job is not as repetitive as it appears. The griever argued that the preparation of an assessment schedule is a project and accordingly captured by the Support Services Officer job family definition. He argued that events such as program rationalization, new program offerings, changes to program start dates, revised admission targets and changes in employment trends all effect how a schedule is created and managed. I am satisfied that the preparation of a schedule for assessment testing is in the nature of a project rather than a clerical function. The fact that the griever starts with a previous schedule does not make it any less of a project. He is involved over an extended period of time in creating a new document that is to be utilized as part of the College's admissions process. One of the typical duties of a Support Services Officer B is the preparation of schedules. Although the scheduling function is an important aspect of the griever's position it takes less than half of his time. In a year when he is doing the scheduling it accounts for approximately 40% of his time. In other years he does not do any scheduling at all. None efthe griever's other duties have the characteristics of a project. Accordingly, from a time perspective the griever's position does not primarily involve project-oriented duties. The grievor argued that the testing process is not repetitive due to the diversity of the clients involved. The fact that all testing sessions are not exactly alike, however, does not mean that each session somehow becomes a project. Testing sessions are limited to several hours and the griever has a number of tasks to perform during each session. It is very much a task oriented rather than a project oriented function. 11 It would be a different matter if the griever were responsible for designing an assessment system that takes into account applicants' different levels of education and abilities. The College's assessment system, however, is already in place. Part of this system involves the administration of standardized assessment tests in a standardized manner to almost all applicants. Departures from the standard testing procedures are made for applicants with special needs. The griever, however, is told what changes are to be made. He is not involved in developing a specialized testing process for specific individuals. Based on the above considerations I am satisfied that most of the griever's duties are task oriented and do not come within the Support Services Officer j ob family definition. The Clerk General job family covers positions that are involved in performing clerical duties. The typical duties listed for a Clerk General D, including determining student financial assistance and conducting cost analysis studies, indicate that for the purposes of the job evaluation system senior clerical work is viewed as involving functions that might otherwise not be regarded as clerical in nature. The griever's involvement with marking equipment and monitoring off-site assessments can be viewed as similar types of senior clerical duties. So can most of the duties involved in monitoring the telephone answering system. The actual invigilatien of tests, however, cannot by any stretch reasonably be described as a clerical function. The job evaluation manual acknowledges that a position may not fall within a single job family definition. It states that in such a situation the "principle of core theory" should apply with the predominant or central duties of position determining the job family. The difficulty in this case is that neither the clerical nor the project aspects of the griever's job predominate. It appears that over any two-year period the clerical functions will be greater than the project functions but the clerical functions over the same two-year period will still represent less than half of his work. The griever's job is indeed an unusual position. The employer has classified the grievor's position as coming within the Clerk General job family. This job family is not really a very good "fit". It appears, however, to be a "better fit" than the Support Services Officer job family. On an overall basis there is somewhat more senior level clerical 12 work involved than project type work. As noted above, the invigilation work performed by the grievor is not clerical in nature. It is, however, task oriented rather than being a functional or a project oriented duty similar to what a typical Support Services Officer might perform. Having regard to these considerations I am not prepared to disturb the Clerk General job family classification assigned by the employer. 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 and 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 grievor contended that he is required to exercise a significant degree of judgement. He referred to the situations where he has arrived at a classroom for a testing session only to find the room already occupied. That part of the position description form that addresses the complexity of the job 13 states that in such a situation the griever must quickly determine the best course of action. If it means moving the location of the test he is to contact the Scheduling Department to find alternate classroom space, post announcements notifying latecemers of the location change and notify the Information Desk, Admissions and the Program Coordinator. In his evidence the grievor stressed the judgement he is required to exercise when an applicant arrives late for a testing session. He said that in such a situation he is called upon to decide whether he will hold fast to the 30-minute rule and not let him or her write the test or accommodate the individual. He said that when making his decision he must take into account the impact of a late arrival on others as well as his own schedule. He indicated that if he is at the Warden campus he may be able to arrange for a latecomer to write the test separately in an office area. If he is at another campus he may by phone arrange for the late comer to go to the Warden campus to take the test. The griever argued that his involvement with applicants who arrive late requires that he refine work methods and techniques, which justifies a level 5 rating. Ms. Nilsson acknowledged that the grievor is required to exercise judgment but contended that it was done within clearly set parameters. She said that the griever is expected to try harder to accommodate someone from Peterbereugh than someone who lives down the street. She testified that when she started in her current position she made changes to the testing procedures, which she described as a refinement to work methods. She contended that on a day to day basis "we" do not want any differences. Ms. Nilssen said that in order to ensure all applicants have the same testing experience everything is done as systematically as possible. She described the applicants who take a test as part of a competitive pool. Given Ms. Nilsson's evidence and the purpose of the assessment testing, it is apparent that part of the griever's role is to ensure that as far as possible applicants have a similar testing experience. Applicants with special needs require some changes to the normal testing process to accommodate their situations. The griever, however, is not the one who decides what the changes will be. Out of the ordinary situations that he deals with include late arrivals, applicants who become ill and applicants who are unable to cope with the stress of being tested. These types of situations require the exercise of judgment on the part of the griever, although within fairly narrow limits. I do not regard these situations as 14 involving the refining of work methods and techniques such as to justify a level 5 rating. The illustrative classifications for a level 4 rating include Early Childhood Education Worker and Nurse. Individuals in these classifications are typically expected to deal with problems associated with having to interact with different individuals and different personal situations. The types of situations faced by the grievor are not dissimilar. Having regard to the foregoing I confirm the level 4 rating given by the employer. MOTOR SKILLS This factor measures the fine motor movements necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position. It considers dexterity, complexity, co-ordination and speed. The employer rated this factor at level C-3 worth 25 points, the union at level D-3 worth 37 points. The agreed on 3 rating reflects a prevalence of between 31 to 60% of the time. The level C and D definitions, with D being the highest rating possible, and the illustrative classifications for the two levels are as follows: C Complex fine motor movement involving considerable dexterity, co-ordination and precision is required. Speed is a secondary consideration. Nurse; Support Services Officer A, B, C, D; Clerk General C, D; Programmer A, B, C; Switchboard Operator D Complex fine motor movement, involving significant dexterity, co-ordination and precision, are required. Speed is a major consideration. Secretary A, B, C; Typist-Stenographer A, B, C; Microcomputer Operator A, B; and Data Entry Operator A, B 15 The grievor contended that he must be quick when keying in the results of tests. He said that there are times of the year when there are no part-time staff to book appointments for test sessions and accordingly this is a task he must at times perform. He indicated that this involves talking to applicants on the phone, checking the schedule, giving the caller the appointment particulars and keying in the relevant information. He said that he typically has to key in between 30 and 35 characters. Ms. Nilssen testified that data entry is not a major part of the griever's work. She contended that when dealing with people on the phone good customer skills are required to move the process along. She said that the time consuming part is the discussion on the phone rather than keying in 30 characters. The position description form contains the following entry with respect to the factor of motor skills: Occasional input requires awareness of keyboard structure, some practiced ability to do this efficiently. Input of specific types of data to a high level of accuracy but not speed. Booking appointments online via telephone calls, speed is considered based on caller volumes. Searching files for hard copy exams to verify results and checking daily reports. A high level of accuracy is required; speed is not essential. Cross checking/editing weekly and departmental lists to ensure accuracy of schedules. A high level of accuracy is required; speed is not essential. Edit exam materials for cleanliness and correct as required, accuracy is very important; speed is not essential. A level D rating requires that speed be a major consideration. The illustrative classifications for this level all involve positions where keying in information is a substantial part efthe job. Presumably due to the volume of work involved speed takes on special importance. That is not the griever's situation. The emphasis in his situation is not doing the task quickly but ensuring that it is done accurately. The evidence does not suggest that the griever has a greater need for speed when keying in information than is the 16 case for a Support Services Officer A, B, C or D or a Clerk General D, all of which are illustrative classifications for level C. Having regard to these considerations I confirm the level C-3 rating given by the employer. PHYSICAL DEMAND This factor measures the demand on physical energy required to complete tasks. The employer rated the grievor's position at level 3 worth 28 points. The union argues that level 4 worth 39 points is more appropriate. The definitions for these two levels together with the illustrative classifications are set out below. The job evaluation manual links the term "occasional" to part of a day, "recurring" to most of a day and "continuous" to all of the time. 3 Job duties require regular physical demand. There is a regular need for speed and repetitive use of muscles. Employee is in uncomfortable or awkward bodily positions for short periods of time with some flexibility of movement. Employee uses continuous light physical effort, OR Recurring periods of moderate physical effort, OR Occasional periods of heavy physical effort. Caretaker A, B; Early Childhood Education Worker; Switchboard Operator; Technologist A, B; Clerk General A 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. Skilled Trades Worker; Clerk Supply A, B, C; General Maintenance Worker 17 The position description from contains the following statements with respect to this factor: use of rapid an fine muscle movement (e.g. keyboarding: SIS) is an occasional task which poses minimal physical strain on the incumbent discomfort in one's position by sitting, standing or walking (e.g. while invigilating testing) is a recurring task which poses moderate physical strain on the incumbent use of larger muscle groups when transporting testing supplies is an occasional task which poses minimal strain on the incumbent The most physically tasking situation for the incumbent would be to invigilate and administer an assessment test session for a very large group. In most cases, these sessions are conducted in space that is equipped with fixed furniture limiting flexible movement. The largest group scheduled has a maximum seating of 140 people. In support of a level 4 rating the grievor relied on what he described as a need for repetition and speed when keying in information. It is apparent, however, that the use of a keyboard relates to motor skills and not the factor of physical demand. This is illustrated by the fact that a typist/stenographer is an illustrative classification for a level 1 rating for physical demand. Such a rating is appropriate when there is no requirement for speed or repetition. Secretary A, B, and C are illustrative classifications for a level 2 rating which is appropriate when there is an occasional requirement for repetition and/or speed. The grievor referred to the fact that he must circulate during a test session to distribute and collect test materials, take attendance and verify identification. He testified that this involves moving around in a confined space. He also said that in classrooms where the furniture is not fixed he may have to move desks and chairs prior to a testing session. The grievor referred to a need to transport test materials to and from his car and within a campus. He testified that there is a carrier to assist in moving materials at only one of the College's four campuses. He indicated 18 that if the quantity of material warrants it he will take multiple trips to move required materials. The need to at times move desks and chairs within a classroom and to transport test material can appropriately be viewed as involving recurring periods of moderate physical effort. As such they fit the criteria for a level 3 rating. I note that this is the same level assigned to the illustrative classifications of Caretaker A and B. The grievor's movement of classroom furniture and test supplies does not involve the same continuous physical effort as a Clerk Supply A who typically spends much of his or her time loading and unloading supplies and delivering supplies and equipment to various locations. A Clerk Supply A is an illustrative classification for level 4, presumably because of continuous moderate physical effort and/or recurring heavy physical effort. The evidence does not suggest that the grievor is in awkward bodily positions over extended periods of time or that he is in any more physically restricted than a Switchboard Operator, which is an illustrative classification for level 3. Having regard to these considerations I confirm the level 3 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 4, which is worth 39 points. The union argues for level 5 rating, the highest rating possible, which is worth 50 points. The definitions for these levels as well as the associated illustrative classifications are as follows: 19 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 5 Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. Systems Analyst, Technical Support Specialist Support Services Officer A, B, C and D are all illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating. The grievor testified that he must be accurate when entering an applicant's essay scores and preparing a schedule. He contended that when invigilating a test he must always be watchful. Ms. Nilssen acknowledged that the griever is required to focus when entering information into the computer system but contended that this does not involve a significant time factor. She testified that in the spring a lot of the work is performed by part- time staff. Ms. Nilssen contended that invigilating a test requires being aware of what is going on in the room but does not require the same type of concentration that is required of a systems analyst. The wording used in the factor level definitions is not particularly helpful in determining which rating is appropriate for this factor. The illustrative examples, however, help in understanding is meant to be covered by the different levels. A typical Support Services Officer who spends some of his or her time focusing on details requiring accuracy is at level 3. A typical Clerk General D who spends most of his or her time working with detailed material requiring accuracy is at level 4. A typical Systems Analyst or Technical Support Specialist who presumably spends the great majority of time focusing on detailed material is at level 5. The griever's role in 20 invigilating tests requires a constant awareness of what is going on in the room. It does not, however, logically require the same type of demand on mental energy as a Systems Analyst or a Technical Support Specialist. Accordingly I find a level 4 rating to be appropriate. INDEPENDENT ACTION This factor measures the independence of action and decisions required by a job. The job evaluation manual notes that controls can be in the form of supervision, policies, procedures or established practices. The employer contends that a level 3 worth 33 points is appropriate. The grievor originally requested a level 5 rating, the highest rating possible, for this factor. He now asks for a level 4 rating worth 46 points. The relevant 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 contended that he acts independently when different programs request additions or deletions to test offerings after an assessment schedule has been set. He said that he must consider many variables not usually evident to the person making the request and engage them in negotiations when the request cannot be honored as presented. He 21 contended that because he interacts with a new group of applicants on a daily basis the problems that occur in each testing session are unique and require that he adapt and modify procedures and past practices. He described his role in the testing of applicants as an unsupervised function. Ms. Nilsson described the grievor's independent action with respect to applicants as being "zero". She contended that the griever does not select the tools or parameters for testing and that the guidelines for dealing with disruptions during invigilatien sessions are clear. Ms. Nilsson testified that all issues respecting cheating are brought to her without the griever having challenged the applicant involved. She said that if a department does not cooperate or provide information during the scheduling process the matter will be raised with her. She also said that if a question arises about the invigilater chosen by an applicant for off site testing she is the one who decides whether or not it is an acceptable choice. The grievor's role in monitoring off-site testing involves following established practices. The same is true for when he invigilates tests. At times he will encounter applicants who are disruptive, ill or nervous. His scope of action in such circumstances is limited by a need to allow other applicants to complete the test with a minimum of disruption together with the existence of established practices for dealing with such disruptions. He can caution and if necessary bar a disruptive applicant, advise someone who is ill that they can seek to re-register for the test and indicate to someone who cannot cope with the testing process that they can approach the Centre for Students with Disabilities. This type of action appears to be better described as following general procedures and past practices rather than adapting or modifying procedures and past practices. The grievor develops and changes the test schedule. This involves making modifications to a previous or existing schedule. It is, however, done by following an established process whereby room availability determined by the Scheduling Department is matched with test requirements determined by various College departments. The scope of action is relatively circumscribed. Having regard to the above considerations I confirm the level 3 rating given by the employer. 22 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 3 worth 88 points. The union contends that the appropriate rating is level 4 worth 124 points. The definitions for these levels and the related illustrative classifications are as follows: 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 ad&ess 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 23 The grievor contended that when he gives directions at testing sessions he is providing basic instruction. He submitted that it is also relevant that applicants frequently ask him for information about applying for financial aid and whether a particular program is right for them. He said that when asked these types of questions he tells the applicant whom to contact for information. In my view, all of these functions fit within the level 3 criterion of communication for the purpose of providing guidance. They do not involve basic instruction. This conclusion is borne out by the illustrative classifications for this factor. Technicians B and C, who typically are involved in demonstrating correct techniques for the use of materials and equipment to students, are illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating. An Early Childhood Education worker who typically provides practical training to students involved in early childhood studies is an illustrative classification for a level 4 rating. The grievor's role is not at this level. The grievor testified that if he is asked to provide additional testing sessions after a schedule has been set he may be required to use persuasive techniques to explore options or deny the request. In my view this process can be described as involving a need to promote understanding in responding to a problem of a sensitive nature, which meets the criteria for a level 3 rating. It does not involve a need to use sophisticated influential or persuasive techniques in order to address the problem of those with special needs, which is what the level 4 definition refers to. The grievor argued that he must use sophisticated persuasive techniques to address the problem of those with special needs when interacting with disruptive applicants during a test session. The evidence, however, suggests that the grievor will caution and then if necessary bar an individual from the testing session.This falls short of a need to use sophisticated persuasive techniques. The grievor handles confidential information when he inputs student assessment marks into a computer. He does not appear to have any other communication responsibilities with respect to this information. The grievor contended that he has a regular involvement with confidential material for the purpose of communication with respect to the 24 assessment tests themselves. In support of this contention he referred to the following statements contained in material issued by the supplier of the tests: The Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that the contents of the Seller's tests constitute what in law is termed trade secrets, including confidential and proprietary material, property, information and procedures of the seller. Access to tests is to be limited to persons with a responsible professional interest who will safeguard their use. Test scores and materials are to be released only to persons who are qualified to interpret them and use them properly. Requests to copy a test or a copyrighted answer document are to be referred to The Psychological Corporation. Consent cannot be guaranteed in the absence of satisfactory assurances that the copied material will not be indiscriminately disseminated or otherwise misused. The reasons for the caveat is obvious; a test that is not secure is no test at all. As noted in the above excerpt, a test that is not secure is not a test at all. Tests and answer sheets are accordingly considered confidential. The grievor's communication responsibilities respecting the material involves handing out (or mailing out for off site testing) test material so that students can write the test. He then collects it back after the test is completed. In my view this is not a function that justifies increasing a rating for the factor of communication beyond what is otherwise appropriate. Having regard to the foregoing I confirm the level 3 rating given by the employer. 25 CONCLUSION The employer's initial rating of the grievor's position resulted in the position receiving a total of 531 points. A level 4 rating for the factor of training/technical skills raises this by 19 to 550 points. This is still within the 511 to 570 point range for payband 8. The grievance is, accordingly, hereby dismissed. Dated this 26th day of January 2001. Arbitrator