Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFordyce 00-10-28IN 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 MS. JEAN FORDYCE (OPSEU # 99C641) BOARD OF ARBITRATION: Ian Springate, Chair Ron Hubert, Employer Nominee John McManus, Union Nominee APPEARANCES For the Employer: Margaret Szilassy, Counsel Sheila Wilson Doreen Whitehead For the Union: Mary Anne Kuntz, Grievance Officer Barbara Ford Jean Fordyce HEARING: In London on March 24, June 1, 2, 2000 2 AWARD INTRODUCTION On June 14, 1999 the grievor filed a grievance which alleged that she had been improperly classified as a Support Services Officer A at payband 8. In her grievance she asked that she be reclassified to a Support Services Officer at payband 9 retroactive to September 1, 1997. This case is unusual for several reasons. When she filed her grievance the grievor was not performing any of the duties associated with her position. Instead she was on a full-time leave in connection with her duties as president of the local union. The grievor started the full-time leave on or about October 1, 1998. She was still on full-time leave at the time of the hearing. Since at least May 1996 the employer and the union have been in agreement that the grievor's position comes within the Support Services Officer job family. At the hearing employer counsel suggested in her final submissions that this agreement might have been misguided and that the Clerk General D classification might be more appropriate. Another unusual aspect of this case is that on January 20, 1997 the grievor, who was then on a part-time union leave, filed an earlier grievance seeking to be reclassified to payband 11. On May 22, 1998 the matter came on for hearing before the chair of the instant arbitration board who was sitting as a sole arbitrator. In an award dated June 27, 1998 he increased the point levels associated with two of the nine job factors that had been in dispute. The point total for the position, however, still remained within the range for payband 8. As discussed in some detail below, a key issue in this case is the amount of prior experience necessary to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position. In the earlier arbitration proceedings a level 3 rating was utilized for this factor. This rating is appropriate when a position requires more than one year and up to three years of practical experience. In the instant proceedings the union representative took issue with a claim by employer counsel, and a statement in the June 27, 1998 award, that in the earlier proceedings the parties had agreed on the appropriate points for the factor of experience. The union representative contended that the union had simply chosen not to challenge the rating given by the employer. That is not quite accurate. Prior to the 1998 arbitration hearing the two parties signed an arbitration data sheet. This sheet records that both the union and the employer rated the position at level 3 for the factor of experience. A copy of the arbitration data sheet is attached to the June 27, 1998 award In addition to the factor of experience, in these proceedings the union challenged the rating that the employer gave for the factor of judgement. THE POSITION IN ISSUE The position that the grievor would be occupying were she not on union leave is that of a financial aid advisor. Persons in this position have at times been referred to as award advisors, award officers and editors. For ease of reference we will consistently use the term financial aid advisor. An individual in this position processes Ontario Student Assistance (aSAP) and other financial assistance applications, reassessments and reviews and also approves student bursaries. Prior to 1996 the processing of aSAP applications at the College was done manually. Students would generally hand in a completed application form with supporting material to a Clerk B or a receptionist situated at a front counter. The material would then go to a back area where a financial aid advisor would review it for accuracy and completeness. At times a financial aid advisor might send an information request form to a student asking for certain additional information. A student would generally forward the requested information to the advisor by mail. The grievor testified that occasionally she might deal with a student over the telephone or call a student in for an interview. The completed paperwork was forwarded to the Ministry of Education and Training. In 1996 the College was provided with limited access to the Ministry's computer system. This enabled financial aid advisors to key information directly into the system for computer processing at the Ministry. The manner of dealing with students, however, remained largely unchanged. In July 1997, after the filing of the earlier grievance, changes were made to the manner in which aSAP applications were processed at the 4 College. The parties did not address these changes at the earlier arbitration hearing. The changes included making student financial aid part of the Registrar's Office, thereby providing students with a "one stop shopping" service. Financial aid advisors were moved forward to the front counter so that they could deal directly with students. At about the same time the advisors were given increased access to the Ministry's computer system to allow them to enter and change the information available to the Ministry while still dealing with a student. Yet another of the changes was to give students direct access to a College computer system to allow them to book an appointment with a financial aid advisor. These appointments are generally scheduled at ten- minute intervals. Due to the fact that some appointments do not require a full ten minutes, if required an advisor can spend additional time with an individual student. Notwithstanding this, it is clear that as a result of the changes financial aid advisors now must make decisions within a limited time frame. THE SSO A and B GUIDE CHARTS The job evaluation manual that governs the evaluation and classification of College support staff positions contains a series of job evaluation guide charts. Each guide chart briefly lists the typical duties of the classification along with specific evaluation criteria for twelve different job factors. The manual states that the charts provide a stable, reliable and consistent narrative standard by which most positions can be quickly and effectively classified. It also indicates that a relatively small number of unique or atypical positions not covered by the job evaluation guide charts will need to be evaluated using a core point rating plan, which involves awarding points for each of the twelve job evaluation factors. The employer classifies the grievor's position as that of a Support Services Officer A. The job evaluation guide chart for this classification lists the following typical duties of the classification: 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. The guide evaluation guide chart for a Support Services Officer B, the next higher classification within the job family and which is at the payband 9 level, lists the following typical duties of that classification: Compiles and analyzes data in order to provide recommendations as to appropriate course of action. Prepares operation plans, schedules and terms of reference. Represents college in dealing with public by attending appropriate functions Trains, co-ordinates and monitors activities of others as appropriate. It is apparent that the duties associated with the grievor's regular position are not typical duties of a Support Services Officer A or B. They are also not the typical duties of any higher classification within the same job family. (Notwithstanding this the arbitration data sheet attached to the June 27, 1998 award indicates that prior to those proceedings the employer rated all of the job factors for the position at the levels suggested by the guide chart for a typical Support Services Officer A.) The first duty included on the list of typical duties on the job evaluation guide chart for the Clerk General D classification is "Determines student financial assistance and eligibility". 6 The job evaluation guide charts for both the Support Services Officer A and B classifications contain the following entries for the factors of training/technical skills and experience. Required skills normally acquired through attainment of a two year Community College diploma, or equivalent. Job duties require the ability to organize simple statistical information and to understand the elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline. More than one year and up to three years of practical experience. The job evaluation guide chart for the Clerk General D position has the following entries for the same two factors: Required skills normally acquired through attainment of secondary school graduation and completion of additional job related training courses, or one year Community College diploma, or equivalent. Job duties require the ability to apply specialized skills. More than three years and up to five years of practical experience. The entries on the various guide charts indicate that the typical duties of a Support Services Officer A and B require a higher level of education than do the typical duties of a Clerk General D. A Clerk General D, however, typically requires three to five years prior experience while a Support Services Officer A and B typically requires one to three years experience. Both a Clerk General D and a Support Services Officer A are paid at the payband 8 level. At the bottom of every job evaluation guide chart is a note to raters that reads as follows: "Evaluation criteria drawn from the factor level definition describing particular classifications are general statements which may or may not have total applicability to a particular position." EXPERIENCE FACTOR LEVEL DEFINITIONS The job evaluation manual states that the factor of experience measures the amount of practical work experience in any related work necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position. The College rated this factor at level 3, which is worth 32 points under the core point rating plan. The union claims that the correct rating is level 4, which is worth 45 points. The relevant factor level definitions as well as illustrative classifications contained in the job evaluation manual read as follows: 3. More than one year and up to three years of practical experience. Caretaker B; Clerk General C; Library Technician B; Support Services Officer A, B 4. More than three years and up to five years of practical experience. Clerk General D; Secretary B, C; Technician C; Technologist B THE REFERENCE TO EXPERIENCE IN THE GRIEVOR'S 1996 PDF The position description form in place when the grievor filed her January 20, 1997 grievance had been approved by the College's Human Resources Department on March 7, 1996. Below a heading which asked for the minimum practical experience in any related work necessary to fulfill the requirements of the position was the following entry: Three years experience in a helping/financial environment as well as working with "details". Related work experience in a financial environment. Basic word processing / data entry skills. Below this entry the position description form listed the following as additional skills or abilities required to fulfill the requirements of the position: Proven accuracy in reviewing and analysing verbal or written information/applications. Excellent communication, human relations, interpersonal, organizational and time-management skills. Common sense approach to problem solving. Experience in providing very detailed information in an interactive group setting. At the hearing the representative of the union contended that the only reasonable interpretation of the reference to three years experience in the 1996 position description form is that a minimum of three years experience was required. Ms. Sheila Wilson, a Human Resources Consultant with the employer, however, testified that the employer's practice has been to rate a reference to "three years" in a position description form as meaning "up to three years". As noted above, on the arbitration data form used at the 1998 arbitration hearing both the employer and the union rated the experience factor at level 3. This level is appropriate when more than one year and up to three years of practical experience is required. From this we infer that the union at least tacitly accepted the employer's practice as outlined by Ms. Wilson. We further find that prior to the job changes referred to above, the union's view was that one to three years' practical experience was required for the position. The 1996 position description form listed the minimum level of education required for the grievor's position as "Post-secondary graduate, including administrative and human relations background." For the 1998 arbitration hearing both parties rated the factor of training/technical skills at level 5. This level requires skills normally acquired through attainment of a two-year community college diploma or equivalent. THE CREATION OF A PART-TIME POSITION AND THE JUNE 1998 PDF Ms. Marilyn Peaker became manager of the financial aid office in 1986. She had been in management at the College since 1979. The financial aid manager's position has had different titles. For ease of reference we will consistently use what appears to be the current title, namely Manager of Financial Aid. Ms. Peaker was called as a witness by the union. She testified that following the July 1997 job changes she decided not to immediately prepare new position description forms for the financial aid advisors because certain matters had not worked out as well as she had hoped. She indicated that in February and March 1998 she talked to staff about their position description forms and in April 1998 advised them that there would be changes to the forms. In early 1998 management decided to temporarily fill a part-time vacancy for a financial aid advisor that resulted from the grievor being on part-time union leave. In order to advertise a vacant position the employer required that there be an up-to-date position description form. Because of this requirement Ms. Peaker prepared a proposed position description form for the part-time position before she revised the forms for the other financial aid advisor positions. In her evidence Ms. Peaker expressed the view that as a result of the movement of financial aid advisors to the front counter, the highlighting of customer service and the need to work within time restraints, advisors now required significant customer service experience. The position description form she prepared for the part-time position listed the education requirement as "Post-secondary graduate in a customer service, administrative or human relations discipline." The form included new language respecting experience that read as follows: More than three years and up to five years experience in a customer service financial environment which included working with "details". Related work experience in a financial or customer service and defined time response environment. Strong data entry/word processing skills. 10 In accordance with established practice Ms. Peaker forwarded the proposed position description form to the employer's Human Resources Department for approval. Ms. Peaker indicated that she had previously written some 40 to 50 position description forms, perhaps more, for forwarding to Human Resources. She indicated that at times she had subsequently met with someone from Human Resources to clarify matters for Human Resources. The representative of the union asked Ms. Peaker how common it had been for Human Resources to override her recommendations. She replied that it was next to never except to clarify certain matters. The final position description form for the part-time position stated on its front page that it had been approved by Ms. Wilson on April 21, 1998. Ms. Wilson did not dispute that she had approved the position description form but testified that she had no recollection of doing so. She said that she knew she had not evaluated the position since there was no rating sheet. Ms. Wilson said that the position needed to be posted quickly and she speculated that she might have asked Ms. Peaker if the position description form was accurate and reflected the job and when advised that it did she had indicated to Ms. Peaker that the job could be posted. At the hearing Ms. Wilson's evidence indicated that when she became aware of the wording of the position description form she was concerned about it for two reasons. One was that the reference to being a post- secondary graduate did not define what actual post-secondary education was required. The second was that the reference to three to five years' experience did not match the benchmark for a Support Services Officer A. Ms. Wilson noted that the guide chart for a Support Services Officer A speaks of requiring skills normally acquired through attainment of a two year community college diploma and more than one and up to three years of practical experience. The job vacancy for a part-time Support Services Officer A was posted by way of an advertisement in the May 1, 1998 edition of The Fanshawe News. The portion of the advertisement that set out the required qualifications read as follows: Qualifications: Post-secondary graduate in a customer service, administrative or human relations discipline with several years experience in a customer service financial 11 environment or an equivalent combination of education and related work experience. Strong data entry/word processing skills. Proven accuracy in reviewing and analysing verbal or written data. Excellent customer service, communication, human relations, interpersonal, organizational and time- management skills. Common sense approach to problem- solving. Experience in providing and comprehending very detailed information in a one-on-one or interactive group setting within a time defined period. In her final submissions the representative of the union described Ms. Wilsen's claim that she did not recall approving the position description form as a convenient and self-serving memory lapse. Based on the evidence, however, we believe that what likely happened was that in the rush to advertise the part-time position Ms. Wilson gave her approval to the form without examining it and without being aware that it referred to more than three and up to five years experience. The reference to "several years experience" in the Fanshawe College News advertisement would not have alerted Ms. Wilson to the wording of the experience requirement in the position description form. Ms. Mychele Herz-Fischler, an external applicant, was hired to fill the advertised position. She was classified as a Support Services Officer A at payband 8. Ms. Herz-Fischler signed the position description form on June 25, 1998 and was provided with a copy. The griever testified that she asked Ms. Herz-Fischler for a copy of the form and noticed that it referred to three to five year's experience. During the hearing counsel for the employer suggested to the grievor that Ms. Herz-Fischler had less than three years prior experience. The griever disagreed. She said that at her suggestion a friend who had been a mathematics professor applied for the part-time position. She said that she later asked Ms. Peaker why her friend had not been selected and Ms. Peaker told her that she lacked customer service experience whereas Ms. Herz- Fischler had over five years experience. Ms. Peaker, who testified after the griever, was not asked about this conversation or about Ms. Herz-Fischler's prior experience. In these circumstances we conclude that Ms. Herz- Fischler had over five years relevant experience. 12 The griever testified that when she went on full-time union leave Ms. Herz-Fischler's hours were increased to full-time. She also said that Ms. Herz-Fischler no longer works for the employer. On June 27, 1998, two days after Ms. Herz-Fischler signed the position description form, the arbitration award respecting the griever's earlier grievance was released. As noted above the award increased the total points associated with the griever's position but not enough to move it into payband 9. The griever's evidence indicated that she expected that when a new position description form was finalized her position would be reclassified to the payband 9 level. This was based on the additional points awarded in the June 1998 award and her assumption that a revised position description form would specify that more than three and up to five years of practical experience was required. The associated higher points for the factor of experience would raise the point total for the position into the range for payband 9. THE JUNE 1999 PDF Ms. Peaker went on sick leave from her position as Manager of Financial Aid in October 1998. Ms. Peaker testified that prior to going on sick leave she completed proposed new position description forms for five financial aid advisor positions except she did not do a percentage breakdown of each employee's duties and responsibilities. Ms. Peaker said that she asked that this be done during her absence but it did not happen. When Ms. Peaker went on sick leave Mr. Grant Meadwell became the acting manager. Ms. Peaker returned to work on a part-time basis in February 1999 on a project assignment. Mr. Meadwell remained Acting Manager of Financial Aid. Ms. Peaker technically remained the manager and did the percentage breakdowns necessary to complete the five position description forms. Ms. Peaker never did return as the active manager but instead moved to a new managerial position effective June 1, 1999. Ms. Peaker testified that at a meeting between her, Ms. Wilson and Mr. Meadwell it was agreed that the requirement of a post-secondary graduation in the position description forms should specify that this included either a certificate or a diploma. The evidence indicates that a college 13 certificate can take one year to acquire but a diploma requires two or three years of study. On April 6, 1999 Ms. Peaker sent the five proposed position description forms to Ms. Wilson. This included one for the position the grievor would be occupying were she not on a full-time leave. This proposed form contained the following entries for training/technical skills and experience: Post-secondary graduate (includes certificate or diploma) in a customer service, administrative or human relations discipline. More than three and up to five years experience in a customer service financial environment which included working with "details." Related work experience in a financial or customer service and defined time response environment. Strong data entry/word processing and communication skills. At some point between April 6 and June 3, 1999 a meeting was held to discuss the proposed position description forms submitted by Ms. Peaker. (Ms. Peaker testified that the meeting was held on June 7th. This is unlikely given that Ms. Wilson approved the form after making changes to it on June 3, 1999.) In attendance at the meeting were Ms. Wilson, Ms. Peaker, Mr. Meadwell and at least one, and possibly more, other people. One of the topics at the meeting was the level of required education. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that anyone actually proposed changing the requirement for either a community college certificate or diploma. In response to a question from the representative of the union, however, Ms. Wilson agreed that Ms. Peaker had made it clear that she viewed three years experience as a minimum requirement but she was prepared to sacrifice educational requirements. At the hearing Ms. Peaker suggested that a person might not actually require a post-secondary education to perform the duties of the position. She said that a secondary school graduate with a lot of customer service experience would be fine with her. She also said that in her experience one could not learn customer service in an academic setting. 14 There was considerable discussion at the meeting about what level of experience was required. As noted above, the proposed position description form stated that there was a need for at least three and up to five years of experience in a customer service financial environment. Ms. Wilson testified that as a rater she was having difficulty with requiring a greater level of experience then before since the role of the position had not changed and there had been a focus on customer service in the previous position description form. Ms. Wilson agreed with the representative of the union that Ms. Peaker had argued that some clerk positions require three to five years' experience and there was a need for consistency in who the college put out to the public. A position description form for Ms. K. MacDonald, a Clerk General D in the Registrar's Office, was filed into evidence at the hearing. The griever testified that Ms. MacDonald worked at the same counter as the financial aid advisors. The position description form for Ms. MacDonald states that her position requires a community college certificate or equivalent as well as more than three and up to five years experience in a related office environment. Ms. Wilson decided to reduce the experience requirement set out in the position description form prepared by Ms. Peaker so that it required up to three years of relevant experience. Ms. Peaker testified that she was not present when this decision was made and she assumed it was made after she left the meeting but prior to its conclusion. Ms. Wilson testified that the decision may have been made at a second meeting and she could not recall if Ms. Peaker was present at that meeting. From this it seems likely that the decision was made at a second meeting where Ms. Peaker was not in attendance. Ms. Wilson approved the position description form with the changed wording on June 3, 1999. As noted above, the griever filed her grievance on June 14, 1999. The final wording of the education and experience requirements set out in the position description form are set out below. In these proceedings the union challenged the required experience level set out in the form but not the education requirement. Post-secondary graduate (includes certificate or diploma) in a customer service, administrative or human relations discipline. 15 Up to three years experience in a customer service financial environment which included working with "details". Related work experience in a financial or customer service and defined time response environment. Strong data entry / word processing and communication skills The position description form states that the following additional skills and abilities are also required to fulfil the requirements of the position: Proven accuracy in reviewing and analysing verbal or written data. Excellent customer service, communication, human relations, interpersonal, organizational and time-management skills. Excellent analytical and problem solving skills. Experience in providing and comprehending very detailed information in a one-on-one or interactive group setting within a time defined period. Demonstrated team member with a commitment to providing quality customer service. Some travel to area campuses - valid driver's license required. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RESPECTING THE REQUIRED LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE Much of Ms. Peaker's evidence respecting why she feels more than three years of customer service experience is a requirement for the position is referred to above. In response to questions from the representative of the union, Ms. Peaker said that she had understood the reference to three years experience in the 1996 position description form meant a minimum of three years. She also said that this had been clarified in the 1998 position description form to indicate three to five years' experience. Later in the hearing counsel for the employer suggested to Ms. Peaker that she viewed the level of experience required in 1996 as being no different than the level of experience required today. Ms. Peaker agreed with this suggestion. When giving her evidence Ms. Wilson explained why she felt that one to three years' experience was appropriate. She noted that the parties had 16 agreed that the position comes within the Support Services Officer job family and the job evaluation guide charts for the Support Services Officer A and B classifications refer to having more than one and up to three years experience. She also noted that the Support Services Officer A classification, which falls within payband 8, and the Support Services Officer B classification, which falls within payband 9, are both illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating for experience. This indicates that they require more than one and up to three years of practical experience. Ms. Wilson explained that illustrative classifications are meant to be used as a guide by a rater to ensure consistent application of methodology and to maintain relative value. Ms. Wilson contended that the factors of training/technical skills and experience need to compliment each other and that one of these factors cannot be considered independently of the other. She noted that if she had adopted the approach suggested by Ms. Peaker of lowering the required educational requirement and raising the experience level, the net effect would have been to reduce the overall rating of the position by 7 points. The employer called Ms. Doreen Whitehead, the current Manager of Financial Aid, to give evidence. The union objected to Ms. Whitehead giving evidence on the basis that she had not been the griever's supervisor. Ms. Whitehead became the Manager of Financial Aid in August 1999, two months after the grievance was filed. Since November 1998, however, she had been in the student awards area three days a week assisting Mr. Meadwell the acting manager. Ms. Whitehead did not observe the griever perform the duties and responsibilities of the position only because the griever was by then on full-time leave. Ms. Whitehead had for a number of years supervised staff at the University of Western Ontario who performed functions similar to those performed by the College's financial aid advisors. Given these considerations the arbitration board allowed Ms. Whitehead to give evidence at the hearing, including expressing her views cenceming the amount of experience required for the position. Ms. Whitehead testified that the primary things she looks for are the ability to relate to people and the ability to deal with difficult people. She said that she had hired people without skills but who had the personality for the job. Presumably this was when she was at the University of Western Ontario. Ms. Whitehead said that a person either has the right personality for the job or does not. She described the right personality as someone with 17 the ability to diffuse situations, to work as a team player and to handle high volumes. Counsel for the employer asked Ms. Whitehead what minimum level of experience in customer service is required to gain those skills. She replied that she would hope for one to two years in some kind of customer service. Ms. Whitehead gave evidence respecting the minimum level of education required for the position. Twice she made the comment that a minimal post-secondary education is required. At one point, however, she said that it was not that staff actually need a post-secondary education since they learn in the position. She added that she looks to see if they are a team player, if they are able to diffuse a situation and if they have the right attitude, and these are not things learned in a classroom. The griever testified that she did not believe that she could do the financial aid advisor job with one to three years prior experience. She also said that everyone in her department has over three years experience and "they" only hire people with over three years experience. THE APPROPRIATE EXPERIENCE RATING In her final submissions the representative of the union contended that following the release of the June 27, 1998 arbitration award the employer had been in a dilemma. She noted that the award found that the griever's position was entitled to additional points as a result of higher ratings for two job factors and that the increased points associated with requiring three or more years experience would move the position to payband 9. She argued that the arbitration award had celeured Ms. Wilsen's decision not to accept Ms. Peaker's recommended experience level. Counsel for the employer noted that in the prior arbitration proceeding the parties had agreed that the griever's position was in the Support Services Officer job family and the appropriate rating for experience was level 3, namely more than one and up to three years practical experience. She submitted that when rating the experience factor in 1999 the employer had taken into consideration the fact that the position was part of the Support Services Officer job family, the agreement of the parties in the earlier proceedings and also the changes to the manner of delivering services. 18 Employer counsel suggested that based on the evidence of Ms. Peaker and Ms. Whitehead concerning the educational requirements of the job, the parties' agreement on the Support Services Officer job family may have been misguided and that a Clerk General D classification might be more appropriate. She also noted that the combined effect of adjusting the level of education required for the position by lowering the factor of training/technical skills to level 4 and raising the experience factor to level 4 would result in a net loss of 7 points. Employer counsel submitted that when she was being cross-examined Ms. Peaker recognized that the changes in the manner of delivering services did not require an increase in the level of experience. She noted in this regard that Ms. Peaker had agreed with her that she viewed the level of experience required in 1996 as no different than the level of experience required today. Although Ms. Peaker did agree with employer counsel that the required level of experience remains the same, a review of Ms. Peaker's evidence as a whole indicates that in her view both before and after the job changes at least three years of customer service experience was required. It is apparent from Ms. Wilson's evidence that when considering the level of experience required for the position she was influenced by the fact that the position was classified as that of a Support Services Officer A and the job evaluation guide chart for this classification lists the required experience as being more than one and up to three years of practical experience. Ms. Wilson also took into account the fact that the guide chart for a Support Services Officer B, the next higher level in the job family, also refers to more than one and up to three years of practical experience. The difficulty with Ms. Wilson's approach is that the duties of the position in issue are not the typical duties of either a Support Officer A or B. It follows that the level of experience required to perform the duties of the position need not necessarily be the same level of experience required to perform the typical duties listed on the Support Services Officer guide charts. Ms. Wilson also took into account what she viewed as a relationship between the required level of education and required years of experience. It is apparent that some jobs require skills normally acquired through higher education and do not require a lengthy period of prior experience. Other jobs require skills and/or detailed knowledge generally acquired through 19 lengthy on-the-job experience but little or no post-secondary education. This does not, however, mean that raising the rating level of one of these factors must necessarily result in a reduction of the other factor. Indeed, a review of the various job evaluation guide charts reveals a number of classifications where employees typically require both relatively high levels of education and lengthy prior experience. More importantly for these proceedings, the factor of training/technical skills is not in dispute. Although the employer may be having second thoughts about the correctness of the rating, the fact remains that prior to the hearing it rated this factor at level 5 and the union did not challenge the rating. We do not believe it would be appropriate to use an agreed upon rating for training / technical skills as a basis for not awarding a rating for experience that is justified by the evidence before us. We do not view the wording of the position description form for the part-time position occupied by Ms. Herz-Fischler as being in any way determinative. As noted above, the evidence suggests that Ms. Wilson approved the form without being aware that it referred to more than three and up to five years experience. The wording of the position description form did, however, reflect Ms. Peaker's view that a financial aid advisor requires more than three years experience in a customer service financial environment. We also do not believe that anything turns on the fact that prior to the earlier arbitration proceedings the union agreed on a level 3 rating for the factor of experience. That case did not address the significant job changes impacting on customer service that occurred subsequent to the filing of the initial grievance. In these proceedings we are called upon to assess the position after the changes had been made. Ms. Whitehead's evidence indicates that in her view the most important consideration for a financial aid adviser is that he or she has the right personality for the job. She also looks for some post-secondary education and one or two years of customer service experience. Ms. Peaker indicated that she believes that more than three years of customer service experience is required. Ms. Peaker was the Manager of Financial Aid at the College for over ten years, including when the changes were made to the manner of processing OSAP applications. Ms. Whitehead became the manager two months after the filing of the grievance. In our view Ms. Peaker was likely in a better position than Ms. Whitehead to assess the level 20 of experience required to perform the position at the College. Ms. Peaker's evidence was also consistent with the griever's evidence which indicated that only people with over three years prior experience had been hired to perform the job. Accordingly, we find that a level 4 rating reflecting a requirement of more than three years and up to five years of practical experience is appropriate. THE FACTOR OF JUDGEMENT As noted above, one of the issues in dispute in these proceedings is the appropriate rating for the factor efjudgement. The rating for this factor was also in dispute in the prior arbitration proceedings. The award of June 27, 1998 upheld the level 4 rating given by the employer and rejected the union's contention that level 6 was the appropriate rating. In the instant proceedings the union argued that a level 5 rating is appropriate. The grievor testified that a greater amount of judgement is now required for the position. She contended that although OSAP eligibility requirements have remained the same, financial aid advisors now have only ten minutes to deal with each student. She said that as a result of the job changes a financial aid advisor who rejects a student's application now tells the student directly rather than the student being advised through a letter. She also contended that it was easier to talk with a student in a separate room rather than at a counter with other people about. Ms. Peaker testified that although the changes introduced in July 1997 changed the way services are delivered to students, financial aid advisers still elicit the same information and make the same decisions as before. She indicated that in her view there is no difference in the actual level of judgement being exercised. She acknowledged that the changes do require an ability to obtain and understand information more quickly. The grievor testified that when she occupied the financial aid advisor position she was able to approve student bursaries up to $500 whereas the person who replaced her has the authority to approve bursaries for up to $2,000. The evidence of Ms. Dereen Whitehead, the current Manager of Financial Aid, was that she now handles most bursary applications. She said that in the 1999-2000 academic year Ms. Lorraine Judd, the person who replaced the griever, handled only one bursary application. Ms. Whitehead 21 contended that the increase in the amount of individual bursaries is not highly significant. Both Ms. Whitehead and the griever explained in some detail how the higher dollar amount for individual bursaries is related to recent increases in student tuition fees. In her final submissions concerning the factor of judgement the representative of the union relied on the changes to the manner of processing OSAP applications. She referred to evidence which indicated that when applications were being processed manually prior to 1996 the Ministry could catch errors made at the College but this is no longer the case. She also relied on the ability of staff to approve higher bursary amounts. The union representative suggested that Ms. Peaker had not really turned her mind to the amount efjudgement now required for the job. In our view the considerations advanced by the union do not justify an increase in the rating level for the factor of judgement. While certain aspects of the job have changed, the level of independent judgement and independent problem solving remain essentially the same. We confirm the level 4 rating given by the employer. THE APPROPRIATE PAYBAND In June 1999 the employer prepared a core point rating summary form that detailed how it evaluated the position in issue. This included a breakdown of the level ratings for each job factor and the related number of points. The form indicates that the employer awarded a total of 565 pents for the position. Our finding that level 4 rather than level 3 is the appropriate rating for the factor of experience raises this by 13 points. This brings the total to 578 points. This is within the point interval boundaries of 571 and 630 points for payband 9. CONCLUSION Based on the above, we find that the position that the griever would be occupying were she not on full-time union leave should be rated at the payband 9 level. 22 As noted above, in her grievance the grievor asked to be reclassified to the payband 9 level retroactive to September 1, 1997. Article 18.4.1.1 of the applicable collective agreement states that there shall be no retroactive payment prior to the date of presentation of a written classification grievance. Evidence was led during the hearing relating to the grievor's claim that the employer had agreed that if her position were to be placed in a higher payband, in accordance with the College's practice it would be done retroactive to September 1997. After the conclusion of the evidentiary part of the hearing, but prior to the parties' final submissions, the parties agreed that the arbitration board should retain jurisdiction with respect to the issue of retroactivity and address it only if necessary. In response to a question from the chair of the board seeking to clarify what it was the parties had agreed to, counsel for the employer indicated that if the issue of retroactivity were brought back before the board the parties would be entitled to lead further evidence and make submissions with respect to the issue. This arbitration board will retain jurisdiction of this matter to deal with any outstanding issues. This includes any compensation that may be owing to the grievor. Dated this 28th day of October 2000. Chair "John McManus" Union Nominee