HomeMy WebLinkAboutMcCartney et al 01-12-12In the matter of an arbitration
between
SHERIDAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 245
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievances: J. McCartney, L. Glavan, C. Franch, C. Beeney, M. Fitzpatrick
Sole Arbitrator: Gregory J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Erin Holl, Manager HR Client Services, Human Resources
Dennis Montini, Manager, Accounting Services
For the Union: Norma Pennington-Drabble, Chief Steward, Local 245
Jay Jackson, President, Local 245
and others
Hearing:
Sheridan College
October 4, November 16, 2001
AWARD
1. Introduction
The grievors are employed as Cash Office Clerks in the Finance Department at the
Davis and Trafalgar Road campuses of the College. They are classified as Clerk General
D, Payband 8. In this grievance they claim that their classification is improper and seek
re-classification as Clerk General Atypical, Payband 12.
The parties do not agree as to the content of the Position Description Form.
Indeed, at an earlier stage in these proceedings, they disputed which of several different
PDFs applied. At the outset of the hearing, however, it was agreed that the classification
of the position should be determined by reference to the PDF that was on file at the time
that the grievance was filed. That is a PDF dated December, 1996. However, as noted,
there remains disagreement as to the content of the PDF.
At the commencement of the grievance process the parties disagreed as to the
appropriate rating for 10 of thc 12 job factors. During thc grievance process thc Collcgc
agreed with the union's rating for the Motor Skills factor and adjusted its ratings for the
factors of Physical Demand and Work Environment. However, notwithstanding these
changes, the position still fell within the range that kept it within Payband 8.
Having regard to the breadth of disagreement over the job factors in dispute and to
the disagreement as to both the identity and content of the PDF the College initially
sought to have this matter referred to a full board of mi arbitration. Following a hearing
and submissions on the matter an interim award was issued on February 14, 2001 in
which it was decided that there w-as no sound basis for referring the grievances to a full
board of arbitration. In that award I reserved the right to refer the grievances to a full
board if, during the course of the hearing, I came to the conclusion that the grievances
could not be satisfactorily' resolved under the expedited process. Having conducted the
hearing and reviewed the matter further I am satisfied that I am capable of reaching an
informed decision under the expedited process.
2. The Arbitration Data Sheet
The Arbitration Data Sheet filed with the parties' briefs sets out the respective
evaluations of the various factors by the College and the Union. It provides as follows.
College Union
Level Points Level Points
1. Training/Technical Skills 4 71 4 71
2. Experience 4 45 4 45
3. Complexity 4 58 5 74
4. Judgement 4 66 5 84
5. Motor Skills C4 28 C4 28
6. Physical Demand 3 28 4 39
7. Sensory Demand 4 39 5 50
8. Strain from Work Pressures 3 28 5 50
9. Independent Action 3 33 4 46
10. Communication/Contacts 3 88 4 124
11. Responsibility for Actions 3 44 4 62
12. Work Environment 2 32 5 100
Total Points 560 773
Pay band 8 12
3. The Position Description Form
The Position Description Form provides, inter alia, as follows:
A. Position Summary
Utilizing the Student Information System, the incumbent provides a full range of
registrarial m~d f'mancial services to students fi'om point of application through to alumni
records. This includes administering Ministry of College admissions, finance and
academic policies and providing advice and assistant to applicants, students, academic
advisors and other key internal and external constituencies. In addition, the position will
offer Financial Aid, housing and transportation information at Davis Campus.
In addition, this position is responsible for all accounts receivable activities for the Davis
Campus including balancing and daily deposits.
B. Duties and Responsibilities
Participates in the admissions/records process by; 30%
- serving as the initial contact person to students, applicants and members of the
community requesting general, specific program and complex financial information
- providing information including guidelines and policies, responsible for all in person
registration functions and making referrals were appropriate
- providing detailed information about courses and programs to prospective students
including Prior Learning Assessment information, applications and payments
- registering students in courses and programs, verifying and authourizing enrolment,
accepting and processing fees
- producing student photo identifications
Provides a range of financial services for students and other College services areas
at the Davis campus by: 40%
- processing all iii person documentation pertaining to admissions, registration, fee
payments, course and program changes, withdrawals, refunds and grades
- investigating and resolving account discrepancies and/or system anomalies
- administering College Academic and financial policies
- arranging and authourizing Financial Aid fee deferrals and related problem solving as
well as liaising with Collection Officer regarding fee arrangements.
- processing all incoming revenue, including advances, emergency loans and ensuring
appropriate accounts are current and accurate
- analyzing and determining student/client status with reference to funding and/or
accounts owing and refund entitlement
- receiving and processing accounts receivable for all departments at Davis campus
including posting funds to appropriate accounts, petty cash disbursements and making
bank deposits
- verifying payments and ensuring accuracy of information, issuing and signing
authourization for Revenue Canada tax receipts.
Monitors and records students progress by: 10%
- creating, organizing and maintaining accurate and timely official electronic and hard
copy records for all students
- certifying enrolment information for audit, funding and MET reporting purposes
- distributing and relaying enrolment information to academic departments
- producing, ensuring accuracy of and authourizing proof of enrolment forms and letters
for pensions, loans, insurance, daycare subsidies etc.
Analyzes systems and procedures by: 10%
-debriefing after major events, such as admissions cycle stages, registrations and
academic status meetings as well recommending improvements to accommodate
changing academic conditions
- participating in special projects and assignments
Offers a range of Financial Aid, transportation and housing information by:
5%
- providing general information to applicants and OSAP students regarding financial aid
policy and procedures both College and Provincial
- ensuring accuracy, currency and adequate stock of printed information available to
students
- making appropriate referrals to the Financial Aid office.
General Office Duties 5%
-opening and processing mail, photocopying, typing correspondence including letters of
attendance
- ordering supplies as well as forms and ensuring adequate supplies on hand
4. Daily duties and responsibilities - Evidence of the grievors
Although all of the grievors attended the hearing evidence as to the duties and
responsibilities of the position was given primarily by Ms. Christine Franch. Thc other
gricvors confined their evidence to various of the specific factors in dispute.
A theme running through thc evidence of Ms. Franch (and of thc other gricvors
who testified) was the fact that the grievors were required to perform their duties in an
environment in which they frequently faced long linc ups of"customers" seeking their
service, customers who may be abusive to them either because they were unhappy about
some concern that had arisen with respect to their student or financial records or about
the fact that they had to wait so long for service; that they often had to "find time" within
this context to perform many of the other duties that were required of them.
The grievors provide various services to customers who arrive at their counter.
Some of the less significant (but nevertheless time consuming) include providing
directions to College destinations; providing phone numbers, room numbers and e-mail
addresses of staff and faculty; selling parking permits and textbooks; or hearing
complaints that a car is illegally parked, that a toilet is flooded or a vending machine is
not giving change. (It should be noted that some of these are not within their prescribed
range of duties. However, because of the physical location on the campus of their office,
thcy arc confrontcd with rcqucsts of this kind.)
Of greater significance are duties in connection with the registration of students
into part time and continuing education courses, viz, providing application information,
verifying enrolment eligibility, processing l~e payments, providing transcripts or letters
of attendance on request, changing and verifying the accuracy of personal information
(eg. address) on the records.
The grievors also provide a full range of financial services to students at the
College. Much of this appears to involve checking and verifying the accuracy o£the
student's financial records. Apparently, there are a number of occasions in which there
are errors on student accounts, errors which lead the College either to demand more
money from the student than is owed or to award a refund to the student (such as may
occur where the student withdrew from the program or dropped to part time status having ·
paid his/her fees in full). Often these errors are a result of registration clerks entering the
wrong block code or attribute code numbers - which in turn leads to a wrong assessment
of fees owing. When this occurs the student will frequently come to the grievors to seek
an explanation and the grievors are required t° go into the records andto verify the
accuracy of the item Or to search out the source of the error and rectify it. In other
cases, there may be no error that requires rectifying. Rather, the gricvors are required to
explain to students the particular action which has been taken by the College, eg. a
refusal to accept the student's offer of payment, eg. ~vhere their offer of admission has
expired, or the presence of a registrarial status on their record (such as an outstanding
unpaid debt, an unreturned library book, an unpaid parking fine) which prohibits them
from registering or attending classes.
With respect to the matter of refunds the grievors need to take care not only to
determine correctly that there is a refund due and the proper amount of that refund, but
also to ensure that the refund money is sent to the correct recipient, eg. to a bank if the
student is supported by OSAP rather than to the student.
The grievors may- also be responsible for adding or deleting charges (or not as the
case may be) from a student financial record according to College academic and
financial policies. These include a "late" charge (added where a student has failed to pay
his/her fees within 2 weeks of being offered admission to the College) a "split fee"
charge or a fee deferral charge which may be added in certain circumstances. Or it may
be necessary to deal with a special fee arrangement that has been made with a student
whose circumstances warrant special considerations regarding the payment of fees. Or it
may be necessary to advise an international student who was invoiced some time before a
fee change of the fact that there has been a change in tuition and that more money is
owed. In each of these instances it is the grievors who administer College policy in
regard to when and in what circumstances these charges will be added. Similarly,
College policy provides that some charges (eg. graduation, alumni and transcript charges
for a student already graduated from a different program) are not to be paid and must be
reversed when they appear on the student's financial record.
:!
The grievors are also responsible for ensuring that various monies are properly
credited to student's accounts. These include bank direct deposits to the College as well
as OSAP payments, generally received in one lump sum but which must be credited to
individual student's accounts in an amount which correctly reflects the amount of the
loan as well as student bursaries and student awards each of which must be accurately
postcd to thc studcnt's account and crcditcd towards thc payment of fees. All of these
credits must be inputted accurately and prior to the expiry of fee payment deadlines in
order to ensure that the student concerned maintains his/her place in the program.
Similarly, the grievors are responsible for administering a system wherein deposits to
secure a place in one of the daycare programs operated by the College as well as pre-
authourized monthly charges are posted to the accounts of parents or guardians.
Other miscellaneous duties performed by the grievors include the following:
:disbursing and keeping track of petty cash for such items as re-imbursement of
employees or providing emergency cash to students; as maintaining an inventory of
textbooks and parking permits sold at the counter and of office supplies and equipment;
processing deposits from various College departments (eg. photocopy revenue, athletic
equipment rentals and sales from the health centre); timely and accurate preparation and
issue of official income tax fbrms to students; training of new full time, part time and co-
op students on computer systems in use in the office.
Finally, the grievors are required at various times to ensure that various accounts
are balanced, eg. daily cash sessions, petty cash vouchers, reconciliation of general ledger
accounts, and girl certificate reconciliations.
One aspect of their work which appears to have particularly troubled the grievors
is that respecting technical problems experienced with the point of sale machines, the
printers or the computer system and the impact that these problems had on their ability to
carry out many of their functions. When the computer system goes down or the printers
cease to function properly the grievors contact the technicians at the Help Desk who will
resolve the problem over the telephone. When the point of sale machines failed to
operate properly, e.g by declining a debit or credit card (which occurred generally once
every 2-3 months and, on one machine at the Davis campus - once every 4th card!), the
grievors had to contact the service representative at the CIBC who would walk them
through the various steps that needed to be taken in order to resolve the problem.
What concerned the grievors about this state of affairs was that, when the
machines went down, it typically would delay them in their ability to deal with the
various customers at the counter. For example, they would have to write out hand written
rather than printed receipts; they would have to call to get an authourization number or
get the customer to fill in an authourization forn~ to deduct monies from the account
(where thc credit or debit card was declined). Depending on thc length of thc breakdown
(estimated at between 5 minutes and an hour) this situation would significantly slow the
movement of people waiting in line and, on occasion, increase the level of abuse to which
the gricvors were exposed.
5. The process of evaluation - guide chart or core point rating.
The first issue to be dealt with is whether or not the position should be evaluated
by reference to the Classification Guide charts or by reference to the Core Point Rating
Plan. In its submissions the College invited me to compare the various factor levels
claimed by the union with those benchmark positions in which that level has been found
to be appropriate and to find that, based on that comparison, the union's claim was
insupportable. That approach to classification is precisely what the Job Evaluation
Manual contemplates. In general, the classification scheme agreed to by the parties,
seeks to maintain the principle of relative value, that is, that all positions across the
system are to be evaluated according to certain common standards - which are reflected
in the Classification Guide Charts and which are given specific expression in various
benchmark positions. While the Manual contemplates that there will be atypical
exceptions - in which event evaluation is to be done by core point rating - it is equally
clear that those exceptions are regarded as just that, relatively few in number.
However, the difficulty with that approach, from a practical perspective, is that the
parties have also negotiated a dispute settlement process which does not permit the
arbitrator to make the comparison except on a very general level. Thus, for example, the
arbitrator does not see the PDF s of other positions that are alleged to be comparable or
not comparable as the case may be. Nor does the arbitrator hear the evidence of other
incumbents in those positions - from which evidence it might be possible to reach certain
conclusions as to comparability of the position whose classification is being grieved and
other positions. All that is available to the arbitrator is the information that is contained
in the classification guide charts, in particular, the summary of duties and responsibilities
and the list of typical duties of the position.
Armed with that kind of information the most that an arbitrator can do is make
very rough comparisons without the benefit of a full and complete understanding of the
position and its various nuances.
The union argues that the position must be evaluated by reference to the core point
rating plan; that it is that process alone which permits the kind of microscopic analysis of
the job that will allow for an informed conclusion to be reached as to its true value.
While I would agree that core point rating does serve that purpose, far better than guide
charting, it completely ignores the requirement that [ also evaluate the position on the
basis of its value, relative to other comparable positions. Core point rating analysis of the
position being grieved can, under the process agreed upon, only lead to decisions being
made in a vacuum - without regard to their larger context..
I do not subscribe to the view, which has been advanced in some of these cases,
that any grievance which is processed to arbitration must, of necessity, involve an
atypical position and must, therefore, be dealt with under the core point rating plan. In
nay opinion that view is not supportable having regard to the clear indications in the Job
Evaluation Plan that, in general, positions are to be evaluated by using the guide charts,
attempting to find a "reasonably close approximation" and only the "truly atypical"
positions are to be evaluated by core point rating.
In my opinion, the best way of giving effect to these competing approaches
requires the arbitrator initially to make a determination as to whether, having regard to
the PDF and the evidence, and the classification guide charts, the position can be said to
be atypical. That exercise'would involve initially a comparison of the duties set down in
the PDF as elaborated upon in the evidence, with the typical duties and responsibilities of
the position (as well as others that might be relevant ) as set down in the classification
guide charts. If, based on that comparison, it is tbund that the position bears a reasonably
close and approximate relation to the duties and responsibilities as set down in the guide
chart, it should be treated as a typical position and classified accordingly. If, on the other
10
hand, it is found that for various reasons the duties and responsibilities of the position do
not fit comfortably within those set down in the guide charts, it should be treated as an
atypical position and exposed to the microscopic analysis that is permitted through core
point rating. Of course, that analysis does not guarantee a higher evaluation. It may well
be that, following core point rating, the arbitrator will still end up confirming the existing
classification at either the same or a higher point level within the same payband. What ~ ·
will be different, however, will be the process by which that conclusion is reached.
This exercise of comparison between the PDF of the position grieved with the
typical duties and responsibilities set down in the guide charts cannot, given the nature of
the guide charts, be very exact. The guide chart definitions must be general in nature in
order that they have some meaning and relevance across thc systcm as a wholc. Thcy
attempt to capture as comprehensively as is possible duties and responsibilities performed
in all of the Colleges many of which have quite different and unique programs and
mechanisms tbr delivery of those programs. Unavoidably any attempt by the arbitrator to
give meaning to that language will be acontextual and at risk of being misinformed.
Nevertheless, they are all that the arbitrator has to work with and the process can, at best,
produce only very "rough justice."
With these comments in mind I deal first with the question of atypicality.
There is no dispute that the position falls properly within the Job Family of Office
Services, i.e. positions "involved in clerical or business machines operating either
manually or electronically, or in combination with incidental typing or stenographic
duties." The dispute rather is as to the appropriate level within that family.
The classification guide chart for the position of Clerk General D, the grievors' current
classification, states as follows:
Summary of Responsibility:
Incumbents perform specialized senior clerical work requiring the exercise of
considerable judgment.
Typical Duties:
- Determines student f'mancial assistance and eligibility
- Verifies the completeness and accuracy of produced payroll
- Analyzes statements to determine causes of budget variances
11
- Conducts and analyses studies
- Processes and controls purchase orders
- Organizes systems, procedures and paper flow
- Analyze problems relating to clerical systems and procedures and recommends
revisions
- Organizes the clerical activities of activities such as convocation, open house,
orientation, etc.,~
Having reviewed the PDF and the evidence of the grievors it is my conclusion that
the guide chart for the position of Clerk General D does not adequately capture the broad
range of duties and responsibilities of the grievors. A brief listing of some of the range of
duties which they perform will serve to demonstrate the extent to which what they do
carries them beyond the list of typical duties and responsibilities of a Clerk General D.
First, I note that the PDF itself includes a quite broad range of disparate and discrete
duties and responsibilities. Secondly, from the evidence, ! cite the following non-
exhaustive list of duties and responsibilities: registration of students for part time studies;
attend to requests for various kinds of assistance (applications forms, transcripts);
correcting errors on student records, adding or deleting charges to student accounts,
disburse petty cash; credit monies (eg. OSAP payments, bursaries or student awards) to
student accounts; process refunds owing to students; sell textbooks and parking permits;
respond to complaints that a car is illegally parked, that pop machine is not giving the
correct change or that a toilet is flooded; order supplies and arrange for equipment repairs
when needed; train new full time, part time and coop students; process money deposits
from various College departments; and mail pick up and delivery.
While many of these are clearly clerical duties that fit comfortably within the
typical guide chart duties of a Clerk General D there are many which do not.
Accordingly, it must be fotmd that these positions are atypical and subject to evaluation
by reference to the core point rating plan.
6. Factor by factor analysis
1. Complexity
The College has rated this factor at level 4, viz, "performance of varied, non-
routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods." The
union seeks level 5, viz "performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks involving
specialized processes and/or methods."
put in the rest
12
Kathy Beeney, one of the grievors, spoke to the question of the complexity of the
job.
She noted the following factors as relevant, in the grievors' opinion, warranting
the level claimed by the union.
- the need to deal with impatient students from a multi-cultured environment
- the absence of privacy
-the need to be familiar with a wide range of college services, departments, and
programs
- the need for an in depth knowledge of the Student Information System and other
preXcursor systems in order to be able to manoeuvre through both
- the need to be familiar with all of the rules of the different programs defining the
charges that can be assessed against students - in order that errors can be identified and
corrected
- the need to deal with a large number of clients (10,000 students) with a wide
variety of queries in a very disruptive environment.
- the need to deal with memos with conflicting direction
- the need to know a large number of code numbers to work with
- the need to be aware of the numerous changes that need to be manually added to
or deleted from a student's financial record.
It should be noted that some of these elements, eg. disruptive environment,
conflicting direction, are more properly rated under other job evaluation factors and
should not be "double counted" when dealing with the factor of Complexity.
There is no question that the duties performed by the grievors are "complex" in
nature. However, as that element is present in both levels 4 and 5, the complexity of the
duties alone is not of assistance. What defines the difference between these two levels is
whether these complex duties are "varied and non-routine" or whether they are
"relatively ~_musual". I am unable to see anything in the evidence or the PDF which
would permit the duties to be characterized as "relatively unusual." The PDF, under the
factor of Complexity, speaks of performing a "variety" of accounting procedures and a
'~vide range" of account receivable duties. In my view, having regard to the evidence
and the language of the PDF, this factor should be rated at level 4. Further, and in
confirmation of this conclusion, it may be noted that the duties of this position do not
compare with the typical duties of a programmer analyst (benchmarked at level 5 for this
13
factor),viz, "determines input/output and system requirements", "interprets system
specifications".
Accordingly, I rate this factor at level 4 - 58 points.
2. Judgment
The College has rated this factor at level 3, viz, "considerable" judgment - handing
a "variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with established analytical
techniques". The union seeks level 5, viz, "significant" judgment - interpreting complex
data or refining work methods and techniques to be used."
Kathy Becney also spoke to this factor on behalf of all of the grievors. She
referred to the fact that, whereas the system is supposed to calculate and process refunds
"automatically" there are frequently cases in which there are "system glitches" which
require the grievors to go in and find the cause of the errors and try to fix them. Further,
she felt that in a number of respects the grievors have been given various jobs and
projects which fell outside their job description and which, in the absence of direction,
they had to take on and do themselves. These included, handling day care accounts,
selling parking permits, reconciliation of parking charges, special fee arrangements
(formerly a function done by the Financial Aid office but which came to be tied in to fee
payment), student awards (also formerly handled by Financial Aid); and the investigation
of errors in student records.
In my opinion the appropriate rating for this factor is level 5.
While I do not consider the "variety" of additional jobs given to the grievors to be
particularly determinative (since level 4 contemplates incumbents "handing a variety of
conventional problems), there is language in the PDF which lends considerable force to
the union's claim. The PDF itself describes the judgment required as "high" which, at the
very least, is consistent with both "considerable" (level 4) and "significant" (level 5).
Further, it requires the incumbents to be involved in an "interpretive" exercise in
situations where there is no clear answer from the established policies and procedures.
Paragraph 4.2 states that the incmnbent "interprets academic policy where there is not a
close fit with established procedures or past practices" and must "exercise a high degree
of problem solving skills ..... respecting unrelated problems and situations that may or may
not have a solution engrained in policies and procedures." (Emphasis added). Thus,
14
the problem solving by reference to "established analytical techniques" (level 4) is
qualified to some extent under this PDF.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 5 - 84 points.
3. Physical Demand '~
The College has rated this factor at level 3, viz, "regular physical demand - regular
need for speed and repetitive use of muscles - employees in uncomfortable or awkward
bodily positions for short periods of time, with some flexibility of movement." -
continuous "light" physical effort. The Union seeks level 4, viz, "Frequent physical
demand and frequent requirement for repetition and speed - awkward bodily positions for
extended periods of time with limited flexibility of movement." - continuou~ "moderate"
physical effort
Joan McCartney spoke to this factor on behalf of the grievors
She referred to the fact that the grievors need to stand on a carpet covered concrete
floor at a counter that is 42 inches high for long periods of time (the PDF states 75% of
the time). She confirmed that, although they have been given a chair to sit on, they bang
their knees against book shelves that are located under the counter. She also noted that
whenever a receipt is needed it i,q necessary to turn around and reach for a receipt from
the printer. Twice a day (or more frequently if they are busy) the incumbents carry bags
of money (weighing between 15-20 pounds) to the back of the office (50 feet away)
where it is rebundled and carried back to the safe.
I am unable to see how the grievors' duties involve "continuous moderate"
physical effort. The only moderate physical effort is the lifting and carrying of the
money -which only occurs at most on a "recurring" period (level 3). The essential
question for determination is whether or not being required to stand at a 42 inch counter
for most of the day - constitutes an "awkward bodily position over extended period of
time with limited flexibility of movement." I find it difficult to characterize "standing"
as an "awkward body position". Although the grievors are required to stand for long
periods of time the position itself is quite a normal position. Moreover, they have
flexibility to change that position. That is acka~owledged in the PDF itself- as well as in
the evidence with respect to the availability of a chair to sit on.
15
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3 - 28 points.
4. Sensory Demand
The College rated this factor at level 4, viz, "considerable ...demand on mental
energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy" OR "cxtcnsivc ..dcmand on
mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy." The union seeks
level 5, viz, "extensive ...demand and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy."
There is no doubt that the position requires "frequent careful attention to detail and
accuracy" in the closing and balancing and data entry functions that are performed.
However, that does not resolve the issue since that is an element that is common to both
levels 4 and 5. The primary issue for determination under this factor is whether or not the
"visual, auditory or sensory demand on mental energy is "extensive" (as the union
maintains) or "considerable" (as the College maintains). The PDF deseribe.g the mental
energy required as "high" which is capable of being construed as either "extensive" or
"considerable".
The union argues that regard should be had for the fact that the grievors are
required to carry out their activities in an environment which is subject to frequent
interruption and which may involve irate and abusive students - that this makes
concentration (which this factor measures) much more difficult and demanding. While I
do not discount the relevance of these considerations it appears to me that they are more
appropriately weighted under the factors of Strain from Work pressures and/or Work
Environment. To consider them relevant here would be to permit double counting.
Nothing before me persuades me that the level of sensory demand to which the
grievors are exposed is anything beyond that which one would normally expect of
someone who is performing data entry functions and dealing with complicated spread
sheets requiring close analysis. I am satisfied that their rating at the second highest level
for this factor is appropriate.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 4 - 39 points.
5. Strain from Work Pressures, Demands, Deadlines
The College has rated this factor at level 3, viz, "moderate work pressures or
demands; regular but usually predictable interruptions, changes in deadlines and multiple
demands; occasional critical deadlines. The union seeks level 5, viz, "continuous work
16
pressures and unpredictable interruptions in workflow"; numerous conflicting demands
and frequent tight deadlines.
The grievors are generally aware of when in the year they will experience peaks in
their work loads. These are at or near the deadlines for students to pay their fees - in
January, July, and November. Other deadlines include monthly and year end closing,
annual processing of tax receipts and monthly day care closings. While workload
naturally is higher at these times that change in workload is predictable - as contemplated
by level 3.
However, I do not consider the College rating to properly reflect thefact that the
environment in which the grievors carry out their functions appears to be one of lengthy
line-ups of students who are frequently kate (and in some cases abusive) - often seeking to
have some error to their records corrected. I see that environment as placing a level of
workplace "strain" on thegrievors which warrants a higher rating than that given by the
College. However, I am unable to see it as warranting the level sought by the union.
Nothing in the evidence indicates that the grievors are exposed "frequently" to "tight
deadlines" - nor that they are exposed to "numerous conflicting demands". On balance, I
am satisfied that the appropriate rating for this fhctor falls between that given by the
College and that sought by the union.
Accordingly, I rate this factor at level 4 - 39 points.
6. Independent Action
The College rates this factor at level 3, viz, duties performed "in accordance with
general procedures and past practices under periodic supervision with occasional periods
of Supervisor input or verification - moderate freedom to act independently." The union
seeks level 4, viz, duties performed "in accordance with procedures and past practices that
may be adapted and modified to meet particular problem situations and/or problems -
considerable freedom to act independently with Supervisor input when requested."
At the Davis campus of the College there is neither a Supervisor nor a lead hand on
site. At the Trafhlgar Campus the supervisor is located in a separate wing and on a
different floor from the area where the grievors work. Similarly, there is no lead hand.
There is evidence that at the Davis campus the grievors saw the then supervisor only 4
times in an entire year - 3 of which were when she came in to assist on a fee payment
17
deadline day. At the Trafalgar campus the supervisor would appear at peak times and to
cover for lunches and would also appear when the gfievors were assigned to work on
some special project.
The evidence also establishes that the grievors prioritize their own workload and
determine how and when they will achieve their various objectives and that their work is
not checked by any supervisor. Although they work with some procedure "manuals", they
are either out of date or organized in such a way as to offer little assistance.
Level 3 contemplates, as noted, "periodic supervision and occasional periods of
Supervisor input or verification." Contrary to what is stated in the PDF (viz, work is
reviewed by discussion with supervisor) the evidence does not indicat~ that this occurs in
any meaningful sense. Further, although the PDF lists the SIS Procedure Manual and an
Accounts Receivable Procedure manual among the guidelines that can be referred to, the
uncontradicted evidence is that these are of very little use to the grievors.
Finally, and conclusively, I note that the PDF specifically states, in para 9.4 that
"procedures and past practices may be modified to meet specific situations" and that the
incumbent "may develop and revise departmental procedures within the bounds of
College policies." I find this to be significant in that it very closely mirrors the language
set down in level 4 for this factor, viz, jobs are performed in accordance with procedures
and past practices that may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or
problems". Where the PDF, which represents at a minimum the College's description of
what the job entails, describes an aspect of the position in language which is virtually
identical to the language Core Point Rating Plan job factor narrative, it is difficult (absent
compelling evidence to the contrary) to justify selecting any other level.
Accordingly, I rate this factor at level 4 - 46 points.
18
7. Communications and Contacts
The College rates this factor at level 3, viz, 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 - may be need to
pr~omote participation to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive nature. The .
union seeks level 4, viz, communication for purpose of providing basic instructions or for
the resolution of complex problem situations - may be a need for sophisticated influential
or persuasive techniques in order to address the problem of those with special needs.
The vast majority of the contacts involve discussions with applicants or potential
applicants for admission to the College and with students in the College. Those
discussions are generally about academic programs and policies, admissions policies,
f'mancial policies and fees. The PDF describes the purpose of these contacts as to
"counsel, provide specific information and provide assistance relating to accounting
queries, problem resolution and advice on policy interpretation and application; diffusion
of situations involving irate students, providing program specific information and general
information on admission requirements and academic policies.
I see nothing in either the PDF or the evidence which would justify a rating of this
factor at level 4. The grievors do not "instruct" or "resolve complex problem situations."
Admittedly, they do address "problems" that students have. However, as I see it, they do
that essentially by interpreting or explaining the particular policy to them and seek their
cooperation and understanding.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3 - 88 points.
8. Responsibility for Decisions and Actions
The College has rated this factor at level 3, viz, moderate impact - errors usually
detected by verification and review and may result in disruption of workflow, duplication
of effort and/or limited waste of resources. The union seeks level 4, viz, considerable
impact - errors are detected after the fact and may result in considerable interruption and
delay in work output and waste of resources.
The PDF states that errors are generally corrected through daily balancing of
cashier sessions and monthly reconciliations of general ledger accounts; that accounts
billed to students/clients inaccurately would cause embarrassment and considerable waste
19
of resources to rectify; and could result in serious customer relations difficulties and
revenue losses.
Thus, errors caused by the incumbems in these positions are quickly discovered
and any damage resulting from them can be quickly contained. The daily and monthly
balancing constitute the kind of "verification and revie~v" which in my opinion are
contemplated by level 3. Further, although the College may suffer some embarrassment
by reason of an error, nothing in the evidence suggests that the rectification of these errors
will result in a "considerable interruption and delay in work output and waste of
resources" as required for level 4.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3 - 44 points.
9. Work Environment ;
The College has rated this factor at level 2, viz, occasional exposure to moderately
disagreeable elements OR recurring exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous
elements. The union seeks level 5, viz, continuous exposure to extremely disagreeable
and/or hazardous elements.
In support of its claim the union referred to a number of features of the work
environment which, in im ~qubmi.g~ion, expo.ged the grievors to "extremely disagreeable or
hazardous" elements on a "continuous" basis. Boxes of receipts are stored under the
tables on which the printers are located and when the boxes are moved out to restock the
printer there is risk that the primers will fall. An exposed telephone chord presents a risk
of tripping. The grievors work in a cramped space (surrounded by shelves and
photocopiers) which they need to share with 3 others from the registrars office.
grievors are required to stand for most of the day on a concrete but carpeted floor. The
noise level is high as a result of their working in close proximity with others and dealing
with large numbers of students and, in the case of Trafalgar campus, as a result of
renovation work that was being done. Gas fumes from cars come into the office at both
campuses and, at Davis campus, there are chemical leaks from overhead ceiling pipes.
They work under the surveillance of a camera in an environment of sometimes unhappy
and unruly students.
The PDF for this factor describes the environment as "Standard office environment
with little or no exposure to disagreeable elements - 100% of the time." Clearly, this
20
description bears little relation to the facts as they existed at the time of the grievances.
When analyzing the differences between the diffbrent factor levels it is noted that
exposure to "disagreeable and/or hazardous elements" is present in all levels and that what
differentiates the different levels is a combination of the frequency of exposure (i.e.
occasional, recurring or continuous) and the nature of the "elements" to which the
grievors are exposed, viz, whether they are "slightly", "moderately", or "extremely"
disagreeable.
:With such a lengthy catalogue of environmental issues it is difficult to assess the,
level at which to rate this factor. In terms of the frequency of exposure, for some of the
environmental factors to which thc gricvors rcfcr that cxposurc is only occasional (¢g. gas
fumes, renovation work noise); for others it is recurring (e.g noise, unruly students) and
for others it is continuous (eg. cramped working environment, standing most of the day on
a hard floor). Some of the elements are, in my opinion, extremely disagreeable (eg. gas
fumes, chemical fumes), some moderately disagreeable (eg. noise, unruly students) and
some only slightly disagreeable (eg. cramped working environment).
In my opinion the best fit for this combination of factors is that found in level 3.
Thus, there is continuous exposure to the slightly disagreeable cramped working
environment; there i~q recurring expo~qure to the moderately disagreeable noise and unruly
students and there is occasional exposure to the extremely disagreeable gas and chemical
fumes.
On behalf of the College it was subnfitted that a distinction should be made
between health and safety issues and work environment issues and that no allowance
should be made fbr those factors which relate only to health and safety; that the grievors'
recourse for those concerns was through proceedings under Health and Safety legislation.
I disagree. It is clear that the Core Point Rating plan, to the extent that it includes
"hazardous elements" as a relevant factor at all levels, contemplates that safety concerns
are properly taken into consideration for the purposes of evaluation.
Accordingly, for the reasons given, I would rate this factor at level 3 - 55 points 7. Summary and Conclusions
In summary the following table represents my conclusions with respect to the Core
Point Rating analysis of the factors in dispute:
21
Level Points
1. Training/Technical Skills 4 71
2. Experience 4 45
3. Complexity 4 58
4. Judgement 5 84
5. Motor Skills C4 28
6. Physical Demand ~. 3 28
7. Sensory Demand 4 39
8. Strain Rom Work Pressures 4 39
9. Independent Action 4 46
10. Communication/Contacts 3 88
11. Responsibility for Actions 3 44
12. Work Environment 3 55
Total Points 625
pay band 9
Consequently, the grievance is allowed and the College is directed to reclassify the
grievors as Clerk General Atypical, Payband 9 and to pay compensation for the amounts
owing as a result of their improper classification.
I remain seized o£jurisdiction to deal with any issues arising out of the
interpretation and/or implementation of this award.
25
Dlt~d at LONDON, OnL this /~'~'~ay of ~-~ ~'~-'---, 2001
G~egol"y J. Brandt