HomeMy WebLinkAboutBain 00-02-11 IN THE MA-I-I-ER OF AN EXPEDITED ARBITRATION
BETWEEN'
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 109
(hereinafter called the Union)
· and.
FANSHAWE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter called the College)
- and -
CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF MR. DOUG BAIN
(hereinafter called the Grievor)
SOLE ARBITRATOR
PROFESSOR lAN A. HUNTER
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE UNION: Ms. Louise Watt, Chief Steward
FOR THE COLLEGE: Ms. Sheila Wilson. Personnel Officer
AN EXPEDITED ARBITRATION HEARING WAS HELD IN LONDON, ONTARIO
ON JANUARY 21, 2000
AWARD
(1) Introduction
The grievance of Doug Bain (Exhibit 1) is dated December 3, 1998. It alleges that
he is currently improperly classified as a Technologist C - Pay Band 11. The remedy
sought is that he be reclassified to Technologist Atypical - Pay Band 14, with retroactive
pay, benefits and seniority.
Under the protocol agreed between the parties for expedited arbitration, the Union
and the College both submitted briefs in advance to the arbitrator. These briefs were
helpful in focussing the issues and I express my thanks to both parties.
An expedited arbitration hearing was held at Fanshawe College on January 21
2000.
(2) Job Familv
Both parties agree that this position falls within the Technologist job family. The
Technologist family covers positions that provide technical services requiring the
application of specialized knowledge. Major responsibilities include planning, designing,
developing, selecting and testing of facilities, equipment, materials, methods and
procedures related to the instructional programs in Administrative Services. Incumbents
demonstrate the principals and theories of their specialty in various learning activities and
provide technical advice.
2
The College maintained that the position falls within the Technologist C guide chart
(Manual, section VI, page 61).
The Union submitted that Mr. Bain's position is an Atypical Technologist position.
(3) The Position Description Form (Exhibit 2)
The Position Description Form (Exhibit 2) was reviewed by the Classification
Committee in March, 1999. It was signed off by the Grievor on January 6, 2000.
The contents of the P.D.F. are not in dispute between the parties.
(4) Job Factors Aareed
The Arbitration Data Sheet (Exhibit 3) discloses agreement between the patties on the
following job factors:
Experience Level 5 57 points
Independent Action Level 5 60 points
Responsibility for Decisions
and Actions Level 4 62 points
Work Environment Level 2 32 points
(5) Atvoicalitv
From the briefs submitted by the parties, and from the evidence disclosed at the
arbitration hearing, I am satisfied that this position is an Atypical Technologist position.
3
In coming to this conclusion, I have kept in mind the Evaluation/Classification
Guidelines (Manual, section II, pages 1 and 2); I have also kept in mind, as Ms. Wilson
urged me to do, (a) the relative value of positions both within the College and the larger
classification system; and (b) that appropriate classification does not require an exact
fit to the evaluation criteria for a particular position (e.g. Technologist C) but rather ",., a
reasonably close approximation to the classification level described in the Guide Chart"
(Manual, section II, page 1).
(6) Overview of Position
Both parties agreed that the P.D.F. (Exhibit 2) provided a fair summary of the
position:
"Under the direction of the Manager, Purchasing. and Facility Services [now
Manager of Administrative Systems, Mr. Gord WorrallI the incumbent produces
and coordinates the production of material for instructional and promotional
purposes for both the Fanshawe community and external clients. He provides
advice and guidance to Fanshawe.$taff and students in production activities. He
communicates with all clients to convey methods and procedures for all digital
media. He coordinates various client requests to assure delivery of an accurate
and complete quality product that meets the expected deadline. He serves as a
specialist in areas of Macintosh, desktop publishing, and multi-media systems for
tl~e College.
At pages 3 and 4 the P.D.F. breaks down the approximate allocation of duties
and responsibilities as follows:
Multi-media 30%
Instructing 25 %
Desktop publishing 15%
Macintosh .systems 10%
Retail services 10%
Marketing
Other duties 5%
The Grievor, Mr. Bain, started with the College in April, 1972. He came from a
background in electronics and radio work. He started as an audio-visual technician, but
he soon became part of the production staff in the digital media centre. He works
Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m..
The Grievor's evidence left me in no doubt that he works daily with very
technical, high-end computer technology. In addition to all forms of digital technology,
he is responsible for (a) troubleshooting, at the request of both faculty and students;
and (b) the "cross-platform compatibility" between the College's P.C. and Macintosh
users.
The Grievor (and the other Technologist, Bruce Moore) has been requested by
the Manager of the Professional Development Centre to teach courses, primarily to
Fanshawe staff. These courses are taught during regular working hours. The Grievor
has taught such subject areas as: pagemaker, photoshop, director, scanning,
powerpoint, video editing, digital cameras, basic design for desktop publishing, and
PC. wallpaper.
(7) Factors in Disoute
(a) .__T._r_.._ain.in¢~ .fl'_ echn. ical Skills
This factor measures the minimum amount of independent study, formal
education, internal and/or external training programs, professional or
5
technical courses, or apprenticeship programs necessary to fulfil the
· - requirements of the position.
The College has evaluated this factor at Level 6: "Required skills normally
acquired through attainment of a three year Community College diploma .... Job
duties require the ability to organize complex statistical information and/or
understand and apply the elementary principles of a science or a professional
discipline."
The Union has classified this factor at Level 7: "Required skills normally
acquired through attainment of a four year undergraduate University
degree or higher, or equivalent. Job duties require the ability to
understand and apply complex principles of a science or a professional
discipline."
I note, first, that the P.D.F. is consistent with the College evaluation (Level
6).
The Grievor testified that most of the job has to be learned on-site. While the
Grievor thought that the four year Ryerson Bachelor of Technology program
might provide the required skills, he also acknowledged that a three year
Community College program (at least as recently restructured) could also
provide the basic required skills.
Nothing in the evidence suggested to me that the incumbent might apply
"complex principles of a science or a professional discipline". The position is a
6
complex one, but it does not require application of "complex principles of a
science or a professional discipline". The proper place to address the complexity
involved in the job-related duties is, in my judgement, in the next section.
Mr. Worrall, the Manager of Administrative Systems and the Grievor's
supervisor, testified that he was "comfortable" hiring from a three year
Community College program.
From the evidence before me the position is correctly classified at Level 6.
Training/Technical Skills Level 6 110 Points
(b) Comolexity
This factor measures the amount and nature of analysis, problem-solving, and
reasoning required to perform job-related duties. It measures conceptual
demands of the position as characterized by: analysis and interpretation required
for problem and solution definition; creativity; mental challenge; degree of job
structure: planning activities: and the variety and difficulty of tasks.
The College rates Complexity Level 5: ",.. complex and relatively unusual
tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods."
The Union proposes Level 6: "... investigation and resolution of a variety
of unusual conditions involving the adaptation and/or development of
specialized processes and methods."
7
The P.D.F. (Exhibit 2) indicates that the incumbent is "often required to
deal in-depth with a significant variety of client and self-initiated tasks . .
high degree of creativity in the processes that create the product.., the
incumbent must have knowledge of various computer platforms used
College-wide . . . job difficulty is at the high-end in both trouble-shooting
problems and in the degree of expertise/professionalism expected and
required by clients.
The Grievor testified that the greatest demand on his creativity is in the
design and trouble-shooting functions. He gave as an example having to
create an interactive CD. rom to demonstrate to Fanshawe students how
to use a new radiography program. The Grievor actually made the C.D.,
and the C.D. would show students how to get digital material from
¢,,~, University Hospital to Fanshawe College and how to read it. In the design
- function, the Grievor said that he had to create "the screens that would
allow you to see the C.D. as it opens up". He testified that he used
authoring software to get the program to operate; but he had to adapt the
software so that it would be of use for Fanshawe students. In the trouble-
shooting area, the Grievor testified that each problem is different and
every problem requires investigation and resolution of unusual conditions.
He said that many projects require adaptation and development of
specialized processes and methods. "In a high percentage of jobs, you
have to adapt."
Mr. Worrall quarrelled slightly with the word "adapt". His evidence was
that the Grievor develops materials that require the use of specialized
¢'"',
8
procedures and processes, but that he would seldom have to adapt those
procedures. On the radiography project, for example, Mr. Worrall
considered that the Grievor used functions that existed within the software
to create new, Fanshawe-specific, material, but "the program language is
in the software".
In my judgement, both the P.D.F. and the oral evidence support the
Union's classification of Complexity at Level 6. Trouble-shooting
comprises a substantial portion of the Grievor's recurrent duties, and I
accept his evidence that trouble-shooting almost invariably requires the
investigation and resolution of a variety of unusual conditions; I also
accept his evidence that the resolution involves the adaptation and
development of specialized processes and methods.
Complexity Level 6 90 Points
(c) Judaement
This factor measures the independent judgement and problem-solving required
on the job.
The College has classified Judgement at Level 6: "... a high degree of
judgement. Problem-solving involves adapting analytical techniques and
development of new information on various situations an problems."
9
The Union has classified this factor at Level 7: "... a very high degree of
... judgement. Problem-solving involves originating new techniques and utilizing them in
the development of new information."
All positions require a degree of judgement, and I must say that I have
never found the distinction between "high degree" and "very high degree"
of particular assistance.
But the evidence of both Mr. Bain and Mr. Worrall, is that the Technologist works
on the leading-edge of new digital techniques. The incumbent frequently works
with very recent technology and he must utilize that technology to develop new
information for Fanshawe students. The incumbent is frequently asked to teach
professional development courses that again are on the leading-edge of digital
technology. In addition, on the Grievor's own evidence, the Department does
¢""~ four or five highly specialized projects each year (e.g. the London Art Gallery
project or the radiography project). Most trouble-shooting problems that the
Grievor confronts require him to identify a problem, analyse it, and discover a
solution while working with a wide variety of software programs compounded by
cross-platform compatibility issues.
Not without some difficulty, I have concluded that Judgement should be
evaluated at Level 7. That is where the Systems Analyst and Technical
Support Specialist positions are classified, and I am satisfied that that is
the closest approximation to the Grievor's position at Fanshawe.
Judgement Level 7 120 Points
10
(d) Motor Skills
This factor measures the fine motor movements necessary to fulfil the
requirements of the position.
The College has rated this Level 3. The Union has rated it Level 4.
It became clear from the evidence that the dispute between the parties is
as to the "speed" requirement. The College's evaluation would have
speed a secondary consideration. The Union's evaluation has speed a
major consideration.
The Grievor testified that speed was "extremely important", but I consider that his
evidence confused "speed" with "meeting deadlines" (which I accept is
important). I prefer the evidence of Mr. Worrall who testified that the emphasis in
this position is not on speed but on producing a high quality product.
I am satisfied that Motor Skills are correctly evaluated at Level 3.
Motor Skills Level 3 25 Points
(e) Physical Demand
This factor measures the demand on physical energy required to
complete tasks,
The College has rated this at Level 2, and the Union claims Level 5.
11
It is clear from the evidence that there is no physical demand in the lifting/pulling
sense. The only physical demand involved in the position is sitting for lengthy
periods in front of a computer.
The P.D.F. indicates that the incumbent sits at a computer with associated vision
and audio demands ninety-percent (90%) of the time.
As I read the Manual (section VII, page 13) Level 3 is the best approximation of
the Griever's position on Physical Demand.
Physical Demand Level 3 28 Points
(f) Sensory Demand
This factor measures the demand on mental energy.
The College has rated this at Level 3. The Union proposes a rating of
Level 4.
From the P.D.F., the Grievor's evidence and Mr. Worrall's evidence, I am
satisfied that this position is properly rated Level 3. The Union's proposed
rating would equate the Sensory Demand to a Bus Driver or Switchboard
Operator which is to overstate the sensory demand requirements.
Sensory Demand Level 3 28 Points
12
(g) Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
This factor measures the strain associated with, or caused by, frequency
and predictability of deadlines, interruptions, distractions and/or
workloads, multiple and/or conflicting demands and/or dealing with people
in difficult situations.
The College has rated this Level 3: "... moderate work pressures or demands ,,~
changing deadlines, multiple demands occur regularly but are usually
predictable. Occasionally, critical deadlines ....
The Union proposes Level 5: "... continuous work pressures and unpredictable
interruptions . numerous conflicting demands and tight deadlines occur
frequently."
Virtually all the work the incumbent performs is subject to deadlines.
However, as Mr. Worrall indicated, there is some flexibility in negotiating
the deadlines. And not all of the deadlines are immediate. Level 3 allows
for "occasional" critical deadlines, multiple demands, with some
predictability. In my opinion this is an exact description of the incumbents
position.
Strains from Work Pressures/
Demands/Deadlines Level 3 28 Points
(h) Communications/Contacts
This factor measures the requirement for effective communication for the
purpose of providing advice, explanation, influencing others, and/or
reaching agreement.
The College has rated this Level 4: "... basic instruction or for the resolution of
complex problem situations .... "
The Union seeks a rating of Level 5: "... providing highly detailed or
complex explanations or instructions . . a need to secure understanding,
co-operation or agreement for the purpose of concluding negotiation
activities. Extensive involvement with confidential and sensitive
information...".
Everything in the P.D.F. supports the College's classification at Level 4.
So, too, did the evidence of Mr. Bain and Mr. Worrall.
Communications/Contacts Level 4 124 Points
14
(8) Core Point Rating
FACTO RS I,,EVEL POI NTS
Training/Technical Skills 8 110
Experience 5 57
Complexity 6 90
Judgement 7 120
Motor Skills 3 25
Physical Demand 3 28
Sensory Demand 3 28
Strain from Work Pressures/
Demands/Deadlines 3 28
Independent Action ,5 60
Communications/Contacts 4 124
Responsibility for Decisions
and Actions 4 62
Work Environment 2 ~
Total 784
Pay Band 12
¢''''~' (9) Decision
The grievance of D. Bain (Exhibit 1) is allowed. The Grievor is to be reclassified
as Technologist Atypical, Pay Band 12 retroactive to the date of the grievance.
Dated at the City of London this.~4 y of ~-'-"~' ', 2000.
(' Prof}essor lan A. Hunter
x,,~...~_~ Arbitrator
ARBITRATION DATA SHEET . SUP~P.QRT STAFF CLASSIFICATION
College: F~_/0~/--//:)/.~..~--Incumbent: D ~),~/A) Supervisor:
Present Classification: ~OM~O~O~ ~ ~ and Present Payband:
//
Job Family and P~yb~n~ Requested by Gdevor: '~~~ O ~ / S ~ f~ ~_~
1. Position Description Form Attached
2. ~ The parties agree on the contents of the attach;; Position Description Form
[] The Union disagrees with the contents of the attached Position Description Form. The specific details of this
disagreement tire as follows:
luse reverse side if necessary)
FACTO RS MANAOEMENI' UNION ARBITRATOR
2. Experience ~' 5 0
7. Senso~Demand __ , ~ ~ ~ :~
8. Strai. from Work PressureslDemands~eadlines ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~
9. Independent Action , ~' ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ r O
11. Responsibilit~ for Decisions/Actions , ¢ ¢ Z , q b A . ~ ~ ~
12 Work Environment ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' D ~
PAYBANDnOTAL POINTS ~/~ iq ~ ~ ? ¢ ~
JOB C~SSIFICATION l'~-C (/,) ~ ~g,}l ~
A~AOHED ~I~EN SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ~ The Oollege
' FO R~N ~ F OR~ANAGEMENT ~.
- . .~ ; .__
fOR ARBITRATOR'S USE:
tt~tof's-, Signature) tDite ot H~GFing) - t~at~ et Awar~)
~3.12 ~9 b:data~haet.doc