HomeMy WebLinkAboutMontgomery 01-04-26In the matter of an arbitration
between
Fleming College of Applied Arts and Technology
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 351
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievance: W. Montgomery
Sole Arbitrator: Gregory J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: Joanne Hearst, Human and Organizational Development
Consultant
Mike Signorotti, Manager, Plant and Property
For the Union: Marilyn Hinds, Chief Steward
Wally Montgomery, Grievor
Hearing:
Fleming College, Peterborough Ont.
April 11, 2001
2
AWARD
1. Introduction
The grievor is a General Maintenance Worker, Pay Band 6 working in the
Facilities Department of the College. He claims that he has been improperly classified
and seeks reclassification to General Maintenance Worker, Atypical, Payband 7.
The Arbitration Data Sheet setting out the respective ratings of the job evaluation
factors provides as follows:
College Union
Level Points Level Points
1. Training/Technical Skills 4 71 4 71
2. Experience 5 57 5 57
3. Complexity 3 41 3 41
4. Judgement 2 30 3 48
5. Motor Skills B2 10 C2 22
6. Physical Demand 4 39 4 39
7. Sensory Demand 3 28 3 28
8. Strain from Work Pressures 3 28 3 28
9. Independent Action 2 19 3 33
10. Communication/Contacts 1 16 1 16
11. Responsibility for Actions3 44 3 44
12. Work Environment 3 55 3 55
Total Points 438 482
Pay band 6 7
Thus, there are 3 factors in dispute: Judgment, Motor Skills, and Independent
Action
The parties are agreed on the contents of the Position Description Form.
3
The Duties and Responsibilities of the Position are set out in the Position
Description form as follows:
1. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair tasks including, but not limited to:
- repairs of file cabinets, shelving, curtain hardware, casters, chairs, desk drawers,
light fixture housing
- replaces ceiling tiles, lamps, base trim, cove mouldings
- installs whiteboards, chalk boards, sharpeners, art, security mirrors, fire
extinguishers, under desk computer keyboards
- painting
- basic plumbing
- mounts projection screens
- fixes loose or broken handles on toilet door
- installs signs 60%
2. Performs monthly fire extinguisher verification and sends out extinguishers for
repairs and maintenance. 10%
3.. Transports resources throughout the building, such as event set ups and office
moves. Takes furniture to and rom central storage. Re-arranges furnishings for special
classes or events. 5%
4. Recycling Area
- identifies problems associated with cleaning and management of recycle bins,
totes and refuse. Advises plan office of problems such as contractor service and
performance. Keeps associated areas in sanitary condition. 1%
5. Performs outside chores, eg.snow shovelling and snow blowing, general yard
and grass maintenance, as may be required. Maintains Dahl property grounds. 14%
6. Orders various supplies in consultations with lead hand, eg. light bulbs, visually
checks for burnt out lamps. 1%
7. Assists in fire drill, performing checks in assigned areas 1%
8. Checks safety inspection reports and repairs items listed (if appropriate) 4%
9. Maintains patio, entrances and grounds area by clearing refuse when required or
instructed. 3%
4
2. Facts
The griever receives his work assignments mainly by written work orders.
Requests to have work done at various locations in the college are sent to the Facilities
Assistant typically in the form of e-mail messages. The Facilities Assistant reviews and
assesses the request and forwards it to the appropriate staff member by placing a copy of
the e-mail in his mail slot. Those work orders that are directed to the griever are retrieved
by him from his mail slot and he proceeds to perform the work that is required to be done.
When he finishes the task he writes on the work order that the task is completed, signs it,
and returns it to the Facilities Assistant.
A number of e-mail message/work orders were filed as examples of the types of
work that the griever has done. They included the following: moving a projection screen
in a room, removing vertical blinds from the staff lounge, removing cerkbeard from
outside an old office and installing it within a glass cupboard outside a new office,
hanging signs and pictures, dismantling light fixtures and ceiling tiles, installing a fire
extinguisher, removing and replacing a toilet seat in a washroom, unplugging a blocked
toilet, removing chairs and tables from classrooms and placing them in storage, replacing
burnt out lights, repairing broken shelves and cabinets, attaching name plates to doors. In
addition to these the griever also spoke of various other jobs that he had done. These
included the following: repairing damaged furniture and filing cabinets, installing new
shelving, installing white boards of various sizes in the classrooms.
The griever stated that, in the course of carrying out these various tasks he is
required to make various decisions. When installing shelving, signs, white boards, fire
extinguishers, he needs to consider how best to anchor the item considering its weight
and the nature of the surface on which it is to be anchored in order to ensure that the item
5
will be properly and safely anchored to the surface in question. Or, when he is asked to
repair an item, it is necessary for him to determine initially whether or not it is beyond
repair. Further, if he decides that something can be repaired there are various options
open to him as to how best to do it. Thus, where the drawer in a filing cabinet did not
slide properly the solution might lie either in straightening the rail or in requisitioning a
new rail from the Lead Hand.
In carrying out these various tasks the grievor works largely on his own. He is not
required to priorize his work but simply completes the work orders that have been given
to him. Where it is necessary for a particular job to be completed by a particular point in
time that is noted on the work order and the grievor is not required to decide which of two
or more jobs on his "list" are to be done first.. His work is checked periodically on
completion by the Lead Hand, Mr. Talbot Hurren. In addition Mr. Signorotti, the
Manager, Plant and Property, reviews all completed work orders on a regular basis (to
verify that the job has been done) and also conducts some random checks on the jobs
themselves. The tools used by the grievor are primarily small tools, eg. screwdrivers,
hammers, drills, levels and stud finders and a chop saw occasionally.
3. Evaluation of the Factors in Dispute.
It is appropriate at the outset to note that the parties at this College have a tradition
of core point rating all positions. Consequently, there is no need in this case to deal with
the preliminary question of whether or not the position should be classified solely on the
basis of the Classification Guide Charts without regard to separate core point rating of
each factor in dispute.
I turn then to the factors in dispute.
a) Judgment.
The union claims that this factor should be rated at level 3, viz, "moderate"
judgment with problem solving involving "the identification and breakdown of the facts
and components of the problem situation". The College rated this factor at level 2, viz,
"some judgment or choice of action within limits" with "some analysis" involved in
problem solving.
The union argues that there are a number of respects in which the griever is
required to use "judgment" that is "moderate" in character. It is argued that, given that he
works alone most of the time and does not have his "hand held" by the lead hand when he
determines how best to complete a particular task that has been assigned to him or the
priority that he is to give to a particular jeb, the griever is required to exercise
"moderate" judgement.
While there is no question that the griever is required to make various "decisions"
throughout the course cf his work day as to when and how to do a particular jeb, ! am
unable to agree that this requires the use of "moderate judgment" in the sense in which
that term is used in the job evaluation plan. Essentially, what he is required to do is make
a choice as to how best to do a particular jeb, eg. what kind of anchor to use to ensure that
the item that is being affixed to a particular surface (whether it be a sign, a white board, a
picture, a fire extinguisher) will in fact remain in place. In my opinion this involves
"choice of action" which, as the core point rating plan indicates, is what is involved in
judgment being exercised at level 2. This conclusion is further supported by the PDF
itself which indicates that the griever is to refer problems that are encountered to the Lead
7
Hand, the Supervisor or to the Facilities Assistant. The section of the PDF dealing with
Judgment notes that the incumbent must judge "how to solve any problems and may
consult with the lead hand" and that he is to "judge repair and physical plan problems
with the lead hand". Further, it notes that the incumbent is to inform the office or lead
hand of any encountered problems in heating, cooling, cleaning, security, light
replacement etc. to advise the supervisor of needed repairs to eg. elevator, lock problems,
photocopy machine. Finally, it notes that the incumbent "determines choice of action
when making minor repairs" - i.e. deciding the best way to repair.
Having regard to the provisions of the PDF and to the grievor's own evidence I am
satisfied that the proper rating for the Judgment factor is level 2.
b) Motor Skills
The parties agree that fine motor skills are required on an "occasional" basis, ie.
between 10-30% of the time. However, they disagree as to the nature of those skills. The
union claims that this factor should be rated at level C2, viz, "complex, fine motor
movement, involving considerable dexterity, co-ordination and precision" with "speed"
as a secondary consideration. The College rated the factor at level B2, viz "non-complex
fine motor movement involving limited (some) dexterity, co-ordination and precision is
required."
The union argues that fine motor movements are often required when working
with small parts for repairing file cabinets or fastening signage and whiteboards in place
and that co-ordination and dexterity would also be used when trying to balance on a
ladder and change a light bulb or install a sign.
8
The College does not dispute that fine motor skills are required in the performance
of the duties of the job. However, it takes the position that the fine motor movement that
is required is of a "non-complex" rather than "complex" kind.
In my opinion the position of the College is to be preferred. While there can be
little question that, insofar as the griever is required to work with such tools as a screw
driver and small screws, he is engaged in "fine" motor movements. However, the tools
which he uses, viz, screwdriver, power drill, hammer, painting tools and grounds
equipment cannot reasonably be described as "complex" in nature. It is instructive, in
this connection, to note that included among the benchmark jebs that have been rated at
level C for Motor Skills are those efNurse, Switchboard Operator and Programmer. !
find it difficult to consider the level of complexity involved in the fine motor movements
used by the griever to be equal to that required in these benchmark classifications.
Consequently, I conclude that the appropriate rating for the Motor Skills factor is
level B2.
c) Independent Action
The union claims that this factor should be rated at level 3, viz, job duties
performed in accordance with "general procedures and past practices under periodic
supervision, with occasional periods of Supervisor input or verification" and
"moderate" freedom to act independently. The College has rated this factor at level 2,
viz, job duties performed in accordance with "established practices under regular
supervision with the Supervisor monitoring progress" and "limited freedom to act
independently."
9
In support of its claim the union relies on the fact that, although work orders are
assigned to the griever, the actual method of completing the work is decided in most
cases by the griever who, as the PDF states (E.9.1) works along for 80-90% efthe time.
Further, it is noted that neither Mr. Signeretti nor the Lead Hand check all of his work -
except to verify that it has been done. Rather, that work is checked at best on a periodic
basis - and then only by the lead hand.
The College acknowledges that the griever works on his own for the majority of
the time. However, it disputes the claim that, by virtue of that, he had "moderate"
freedom to act independently. Rather, it is argued that he works under very specific work
orders, and follows procedures that are set out in the College Safety Policies and
Procedures Manual and has access to lead hand instruction if needed. (See PDF E.9.2)
Further it is noted that, while the griever is expected to take independent action to correct
any observed safety hazards, all such situations are to be reported to the supervisor
whether or not the supervisor is on hand to direct the work. (See PDF E 9.1) Similarly, he
is required to inform the office or the lead hand of problems encountered in
heating/cooling, cleaning, security, light replacement etc. and to advise the supervisor of
needed repairs. (PDF 4.2)
In my opinion, notwithstanding the fact that the griever works alone for the vast
majority of his time, it remains the case that he has limited freedom to act independently
during that time. His work orders are specific; he reports problems that arise to the lead
hand or his supervisor; he alerts the supervisor when repairs are needed - and does not act
on his own. While it is the case that he is not closely supervised while performing the
tasks his work is nevertheless checked upon completion by either the Lead Hand or Mr.
Signeretti. In that respect it can be said that his supervisor was "monitoring his
10
progress".
Of further relevance is the fact that the griever has been giving a higher rating in
the Experience factor than is set down for the General Maintenance Worker in the
Classification Guide Charts. Under the Guide Charts the weighting for Experience is set
at between one and three years of practical experience - which is level 3. The griever's
rating for this factor is level 5, viz, between 5 and 8 years experience. In rating the
Experience factor at this level the College adopts the view that, insofar as a great deal of
the job involves routine maintenance work wherein the majority of the tasks performed
are similar in nature, it is valuable to have someone in the position who, by virtue of his
experience, is sufficiently familiar with the work that needs to be done so as to be able to
perform it adequately based on how he has done it in the past - without any need for close
supervision and instruction while on the job.
Thus, to the extent that the griever is already "rewarded" through the
comparatively high rating given for the Experience factor, (relative to the Classification
Guide Charts) he cannot at the same time claim a higher rating for Independent Action
than that set down in the Classification Guide Charts - particularly where the PDF
indicates in a number of places that he is given specific work assignments (the work
orders) and is expected to report problems to others without being required to take any
initiative on his own.
In my view, for the reasons given, the position is appropriately rated at level 2 for
the factor of Independent Action.
04/Z~/ZO01 11:14 FAX 519 $79 9Z39 BRANDT ARB SYCE$ ~02
11
4. Summary and Conclusions
Thus, I conclude that the position ~hould be rated as follows:
l. Training/Technical Skills 4 71
2. Experience 5 57
3. Complexity 3 41
4. Judgement 2 30
5. Motor Skills B2 10
6. Physical Demand 4 39
7. Sensory Demand 3 28
8. Strain from Work Pressures 3 28
9. Indepcndmat Action 2 19
10. Communication/Contacts 1 16
11. Responsibility for Actions 3 44
12. Work Environment 3 55
TOtal Po[nB 438
Pay band 6
In thc result the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at London, Ont. this ~-/O day of //1~~,~ ,2001.
Grcgory~~Arl~~
04/26/2001 11:14 FAX 519 679 9239 BRANDT ARB SYCE$ ~03
1. Position Oescription Form AT['ached
Z, ~ Tl~e Oarfie$ agree on ~e ~n~en~ of ~e a~d Posk~on Oes=ipden Form
OR
~ The Union dis~rees with ~e conten~ of ~e a~ached Position OescriD~on Form. The s~ecific details of ~ is
pAYSANDffOTAL POI~S [~ [ ~ ~ '" I ~ ~]
A~ACHED WRI~ SU6M;Sl0N$: ~ ~e Ufl~fl ~ ~ Col~ge
FOR THE UNION FOR MA~G~