Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPayne 01-10-11 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CENTENNIAL COLLEGE ("the employer") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE OF MS. SHIRLEY PAYNE (OPSEU #O1C087) ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate APPEARANCES For the Employer: Linda Carson, Manager, Employment Services M. E. Fischman For the Union: Larry Goldin, President, Local 559 Shirley Payne HEARING: In Toronto on September 11, 2001 AWARD The employer classifies the grievor's position as that of a Secretary C at pay band 8. In a grievance dated April 14, 2000 the grievor contended that she should be classified as a Secretary Atypical at pay band 10. At the hearing the grievor said that she views her job as being between that of a Secretary C and a Support Services Officer ("SSO") since she does part of both jobs. THE PARTIES' POSITIONS Prior to a first step grievance meeting the employer rated the grievor's job as having a total of 548 points under the applicable job evaluation system. The union rated the job at 644 points. Initially six job factors were in dispute. Following a first step grievance meeting on May 5, 2000, however, the employer agreed with the union's rating for the factor of sensory demand. This raised the employer's total rating to 559 points, still within pay band 8. In a memo to the union dated May 23, 2000, and again at the hearing, the representative of the employer contended that at the fa'st step grievance meeting the union agreed with the employer's ratings for the factors of motor skills and physical demand. The union argued at the hearing, however, that it had not agreed with the employer's ratings for these two factors. I do not view it as appropriate for a party to enter into an agreement with respect to the proper rating for a job factor and then repudiate the agreement at arbitration. Accordingly, at the hearing I indicated that I was prepared to abide by and enforce any agreement between the parties respecting the proper ratings for the factors of motor skills and physical demand. I al.qo indicated that as the party alleging the existence of such an agreement it was up to the employer to prove that the union had agreed with its ratings. The representative of the employer subsequently stated that while the employer understood that the two factors had been settled, since the employer did not have any notes of the relevant discussions she was content to allow the two factors to be discussed at the hearing. In the result the hearing proceeded on the basis that the two job factors remained in dispute. In addition to the factors of physical demand and motor skills, the parties also disagreed on the proper ratings for the factors of complexity; communications and contacts; and responsibility for decisions and actions. THE ORAL EVIDENCE COMPARED TO THE PDF An arbitration data sheet signed on behalf of the employer on July 9, 2001 and on behalf of the union on July 11, 2001 has a tick mark beside the statement: "The parties agree on the contents of the attached Position Description Form". The grievor was one of those who signed the arbitration data sheet on behalf of the union. The grievor's evidence, as well as certain assertions that she made in a written argument filed at the hearing, differed in certain respects from statements contained in the PDF. The gricvor's cvidcncc at times expanded on and clarified the contents of the PDF. In such situations I have relied on the grievor's evidence and the PDF. In a number of these instances the grievor's evidence indicated that her actual responsibilities did not have the same scope as might be suggested by the language of the PDF. By way of example, the PDF states that the grievor "negotiates with instructors when support requested is unrealistic or material asked for is inappropriate to copyright guidelines." This language could be interpreted as suggesting that the grievor negotiates varying levels of support staff assistance with individual instructors and assesses material for copyright purposes. At the hearing the grievor clarified the language by explaining that the initial part of the statement refers to instructors who ask for tests to be typed and printed for the following evening, work she will do if the materials are urgently required. She indicated that the second part of the statement relates to the fact that she will not forward to printing requests by instructors to have copies made of portions of a text book unless the request is accompanied by a form stating that the book's publisher has agreed to the material being copied. A somewhat different situation concerns the factor of physical demand. The PDF entry respecting this factor commences with the statement "Minimal physical demand is required for this position". This is immediately followed by a reference to the grievor working in a normal office environment with the flexibility to change movement or physical position. Subsequent entries in the PDF, however, refer to the grievor lifting bundles of priming and doing a lot of bending when preparing CE folders. The grievor testified that she lifts heavy boxes of printing and at times works on the floor stuffing pouches. These are tasks that involve more than minimal physical demand. In the circumstances I have interpreted the phrase "minimal physical demand is required for this position" as referring only to the immediately following statement respecting the grievor's normal office functions as opposed to other activities such as carrying boxes of printing and working on the floor. There were also situations where the oral evidence directly contradicted the PDF with the result that the evidence and the PDF could not be reconciled. One key area of conflict related to how much time the grievor spends doing keyboarding. The PDF states that it is 60%. The grievor testified that it is more than 60%. Anything over 60% would lead to an increased rating for the factor of motor skills. As noted above, the parties acknowledged on the arbitration data sheet that they had agreed to the contents of the PDF. In my view it was inappropriate for the grievor to adopt a position inconsistent with the agreement of the parties. Accordingly, I have relied on the wording of the PDF. THE GRIEVOR'S DUTIES AND RESPOSIBILITIES The employer refers to the grievor as Secretary, School of Business, Part Time Studies. She reports to office manager Ms. Moreen Jones Weekes for administrative matters and to Ms. M. Fischman, Chair - School of Business, Part Time Studies, with respect to her duties and responsibilities. The grievor testified that she serves as secretary to Ms. Fischman and as program support secretary for two of the four SSOs in the area. She also assists part-time faculty, including by typing tests and examinations. One of the grievor's duties is to schedule Ms. Fischman's appointments. The grievor testified that she also works with Ms. Fisehman to set the time and date of departmental meetings. The grievor screens students who ask to meet with Ms. Fischman. The grievor testified that she f'n'st tries to help such a student and if she is unable to do so she attempts to get someone else in the office to assist him or her before arranging for the student to meet with Ms. Fischman. She explained that as a result of this approach only complicated matters such as a grade appeal or a student who is very upset will be referred to Ms. Fischman. The grievor testified that she opens Ms. Fischman's mail and places it in her in-tray. She indicated that she only puts magazines in the in-tray if they contain an article she feels will be of interest to Ms. Fischman. The grievor testified that on a daily basis she monitors student enrollment in individual sections for the SSOs. She said that an SSO will usually decide whether to cancel a section due to a lack of students but in the summer when the area has been short staffed she has made the decision. She said that she based her decisions on previous policy respecting the number of students required for different ty~es of courses. Ms. Fischman testified that normally the decision to cancel a course is made at the SSO level in consultation with the program supervisor and herself. She said that either the program supervisor or the SSO would confer with her for a final decision. Ms. Fischman indicated that in the absence of an SSO the same process would be followed but with the grievor being involved instead of the SSO. This corresponds with a statement in the PDF that the grievor, "monitors enrolment to determine when additional sections or cancellation of sections is warranted during Program Officer's absence and seeks further direction from the Chair". When a section is cancelled the grievor telephones the students already registered for the section to advise them of the cancellation and offer them the option of enrolling in another class. The grievor assists students to fill in the necessary forms for program transfers and then obtains the appropriate approval signature. She said that she also ensures that students follow proper procedures with respect to grade appeals. The grievor deals with in-person and telephone inquiries about what courses are being offered, when they will be held and whether a course has any prerequisites. The grievor testified that she is usually able to answer these questions but if she cannot she refers the individual to the appropriate supervisor. The PDF states that the grievor processes book orders and obtains special instructional resources aides and supplies. The grievor explained that course outlines list a required text. She said that if an SSO is away she will order the text by filling in a form and giving it to the bookstore. The grievor testified that she prepares teaching contracts for instructors that are signed by the instructor and Ms. Fischman. She testified that as required she also prepares personal change notices and forwards them to payroll. Should an instructor call the grievor about not being paid she will follow up with payroll. The PDF states that the grievor, "informs instructors of college regulations affecting the teaching/learning process, e.g. I grades etc." The grievor testified that she does this by including a faculty guidebook in pouches provided to the instructors. Students are at times asked to evaluate courses and instructors. The grievor testified that she opens sealed evaluation forms from the students and summarizes the results. She indicated that this involves counting the different ratings given by students for different aspects of a course and for the instructor's abilities. The grievor prepares a master schedule for courses in her portfolio area. She said that she does not actually schedule courses or rooms but ensures that information is brought together so that one can easily ascertain what an instructor is teaching, when and in what room. The PDF contains the statement that the grievor will "prepare and input calendar copy." The grievor indicated that SSOs and others write the calendar text but once a year she loads it into the college's computerized student information system ("SIS") so that students can actually register for courses. That portion of the PDF which addresses the factor of experience describes one skill or ability required for the position as: "Ability to load calendar copy to the College's student information system; load course numbers, section numbers, start/stop dates, room numbers, etc.; pre- requisite/co-requisite through the use of several screens and add/drop/course cancellations." When Ms. Fischman gave her evidence the grievor suggested to her that calendar loading is a specialized skill. Ms. Fischman disagreed. She said that anyone who knows the SIS system could do the loading. She described it as involving data entry work that is not any more complex than other data entry work. She acknowledged that it must be performed accurately. Ms. Fischman contended that a new employee with a couple of months' experience could perform the work and that the Registrar's office uses part-time staff to do loading. The PDF contains the statement that the grievor will, "input grades (approximately 6,000/semester) and reviews grade submissions to assure correctness and accuracy and informs instructors where revisions must be made when the grades do not conform with Centennial's official grading policy." The grievor testified that at the end of every semester instructors submit grade rosters and she will load the grades. She said that if she has a question about a grade, for example if the grade is not clear, she will contact the instructor to clarify the matter. She also said that she advises an instructor if a grade does not conform the college's grades policy. She gave the example of an instructor giving a student a mark of B- when a B- is not permitted, even though a B+ is allowed. Approximately 10% of the grievor's time is taken up in handling printing requests and then receiving, sorting and distributing printing jobs. THE FACTOR OF COMPLEXITY 'rhis job factor measures the amount and nature of analysis, problem solving and reasoning required to perform job-related duties. It measures the conceptual demands of a job as characterized by the 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 employer rated this factor at level 4 worth 58 points. The union argues in favour of a level 5 rating worth 74 points. The criteria for these factors as well as illustrative classifications listed in the job evaluation manual provide as follows: 4. Job duties require the performance of varied, non-routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods. Clerk General D, Library Technician B, Programmer A, B. 5. Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods. Programmer/Analyst A, SSO B, C, Technologist C The wording of the factor level definitions does not clearly indicate where one is to draw the line between varied non-routine complex tasks as opposed to complex and relatively unusual tasks, or what constitutes different and unrelated processes and/or methods as opposed to specialized processes and/or methods. The illustrative classifications for the two levels and the job evaluation guide charts for certain classifications do, however, indicate the type of typical activities meant to be captured by the different levels. The job evaluation guide chart for a typical Secretary C, the top typical secretarial position, indicates that someone performing the duties of this position will generally receive a level 4 rating for complexity. A Programmer B, a position involved in working with computer systems, is an illustrative classification for a level 4 rating. The typical duties set out in the job evaluation guide charts for these classifications, as well as for a Programmer/Analyst A, an illustrative classification for a level 5 rating, are as follows: Secretary C In addition to secretarial duties described for Secretary B: - Researches material to provide supervisors with background information required for policy and planning meetings. - Gathers program, student and staff data and prepared narrative and statistical summaries. - Ensures that matters requiring immediate attention are routed to the appropriate officials for action. - Assembles and organizes information and materials for presentations. Programmer B - Codes, tests and debugs complex programs. - Documents all procedures used in programs. - Prepares test data to test program logic in trial runs. - Revises and refines existing programs, tests, debugs and documents changes. Pro~rammer/Analyst A Determines input/output and systems with client or other analysts. Interprets system specifications. Develops, codes, test programs to fulfill requirements. - Interfaces with client after system installation. - Writes and maintains user operations instructions for computer systems. The secretary guide charts when read together indicate that the typical duties of a Secretary C also encompass the typical duties of a Secretary A and a Secretary B. The typical duties of a Secretary A include screening callers and arranging appointments. Those of a Secretary B include purchasing office supplies under delegated authority, answering inquiries that require complete knowledge of policies and procedures as well as gathering and compiling divisional/departmental statistical data. At the hearing the grievor contended that her position warrants a level 5 rating because it is complex, intricate and involved, especially the calendar loading. She said that this work is intricate because it requires constant concentration. She argued that calendar loading involves a specialized skill. In her written argument the grievor made the following statements with respect to complexity: Argument based on the following: complex- intricate & involved eg. Calendar loading which requires specialized skills, processes and/or methods of data entry and detail/concentration - not considered all job duties non-routine as specified in 4/58 - have to provide logistical support for CE courses when many of the normal college support systems are not in place e.g. evening/weekend courses off campus. 10 The grievor's routine functions do not appear to be any more complex than those of a typical Secretary C. The grievor relied heavily on to her role in calendar loading into the SIS system to support her claim for a level 5 rating. While this work requires a detailed knowledge of the SIS system, I do not view this as elevating the data entry into a specialized process such as to warrant a level 5 rating. In reaching this decision I have relied, in part, on the fact that a typical programmer B who codes complex programs and revises and refines existing programs is rated at level 4, the same level as the grievor. The type of complexity associated with a level 5 rating for computer work is at the level of a typical Programmer/Analyst A who determines input/output and systems requirements and then develops, codes and tests programs to fill the requirements. The grievor's involvement with the SIS system does not approach that level of specialized process. As noted in the grievor's evidence and written argument, calendar loading requires attention to detail and concentration. These are considerations taken into account when assessing the factor of sensory demand, however, not the factor of complexity. In her written argument the grievor referred to the fact that she provides logistical support for continuing education courses when many of the normal college support systems are not in place. This duty is reflected in an entry in the PDF that states: "The range of complexity in providing logistical support for the CE courses and programs is quite diverse since most activities take place in the evening or on the weekends and arrangements have to be made or alternatives identified and actioned". This suggests that the grievor must on a regular basi~q addre~qs a range of non- routine complex tasks, which meets the definition of a level 4 rating. It does not, however, suggest that specialized procedures or methods must be employed when performing the tasks as required for a level 5 rating. Having regard to the above, I confirm the level 4 rating given by the employer. MOTOR SKILLS This factor measures fine motor movements necessary to fulfill the requirements,of a position. There are two aspects of a rating for his factor. 11 One considers the dexterity, co-ordination, precision and speed required. The parties agree that the grievor's position is entitled to a D rating for these considerations, the highest rating possible. They disagree on the other aspect of the rating, namely prevalence. The employer submits that a level 3 rating for prevalence representing to 31% to 60% of the time is appropriate whereas the union argues in favour of a level 4 rating representing more than 60% of the time. The D-3 rating given by the employer produces 37 points, the second highest possible for this factor. The D-4 rating argued for by the union produces the maximum possible 40 points. The PDF has areas to list those aspects of the position that require fine motor movements as well as the percentage of time spent in performing each of these tasks. The relevant entries on the PDF state as follows: Keyboarding skills - used in word-processing. Accuracy and speed are required. Task/Equipment % of Time Keyboarding 60 A frequency of 60% is the upper limit for a level 3 rating. In her written argument the grievor advanced a number of submissions unrelated to frequency but also made the statement "Frequent - More than 60% for keyboarding." At the hearing the grievor contended that she is at the computer over 60% of the time. At one point she estimated that 70% of her time is spent at the computer while 30% involves physical demand. Ms. Fischman estimated that the grievor performs keyboarding less than 50% of the time. In support of this contention she listed a number of the grievor's duties, including tasks that she said the grievor performs at the computer but do not involve continuous keyboarding, such as checking information on the SIS ~ygtem and reading e-mails. As indicated above, I propose to rely on the wording of the PDF given that the parties on the arbitration data sheet signified that they agreed on the accuracy of the form. I do not believe it appropriate to give weight to evidence that runs directly counter to this agreement. 12 Having regard to the foregoing I find that the grievor performs keyboarding 60% of the time. This meets the requirement for a level 3 rating for prevalence. Accordingly, I uphold the D-3 rating worth 37 points given by the employer. PHYSICAL DEMAND This factor measures the demand on physical energy required to complete tasks. The employer rated this factor at level 2 worth 16 points. The union argues for a level 3 rating worth 28 points. The criteria and illustrative classifications for these two levels are as follows: 2. Job duties require some physical demand. There is an occasional requirement for repetition and/or speed. Employee usually has comfortable bodily positions with flexibility of movement. Employee uses recurring light physical effort, OR Occasional moderate physical effort. Bus Driver, Secretary A, B, C, Security Guard, Clerk General B, C, D, Programmer A, B, C 3. Job duties require regular physical demand. There is a regular need for speed and repetitive use of muscles. Employee is in uncomfortable or awkward bodily positions for short periods of time with some flexibility of movement. Employee uses continuous light physical effort, OR recurring periods of moderate physical effort, OR occasional periods of heavy physical effort. Ceu-etaker A, B; ECE Worker; Switchboard Operator; Technologist A, B; Clerk General A 13 The job evaluation manual indicates that the term "occasional" refers to part of a day, "recurring" to most of a day and that "continuous" is a reference to all of the time. The PDF contains the following entries with respect to this factor: Minimal physical demand in required for this position. The incumbent works in a normal office environment and has the flexibility to change movement or physical position. The incumbent may be sitting for long periods of time when working at a workstation. - A large amount of the incumbent's work is done on microcomputer thereby resulting in visual strain. - The incumbent may lift bundles of printing and may be required to make at least two trips a day to retrieve these as well as mail from the duplicating room. - The incumbent does a lot of bending preparing CE folders. Task % of Time Sitting More than 60% Lifting/Bending 10-30% Walking 10-30% As noted above, given that the PDF refers to lifting bundles and doing a lot of bending I infer that the statement "Minimal physical demand is required for this position" refers to the grievor working in a normal office environment with the flexibility to change movement or position. The grievor testified that her job requires that she lift large boxes containing course outlines, tests and handouts when she is moving them from printing. She said that she might have five or six boxes to move at a time. She indicated that this occurs on a regular basis throughout the year. The grievor testified that in September and January, and to a lesser extent in May, she stuffs about 400 pouches and does this work on the floor. She said that she is on the floor once or twice per day and this goes on for the first 14 three weeks of each semester. She said that once things quiet down she has sufficient space to perform the task on a table. It is apparent from the grievor's evidence that some of the bundles of printing she lifts are heavy. This represents occasional periods of heavy physical effort. The time the grievor spends on the floor involves awkward bodily positions for short periods of time. These considerations meet the criteria for a level 3 rating. Accordingly, I find a level 3 rating worth 28 points to be appropriate. COMMUNICATIONS/CONTACTS This factor measures the requirement for effective communication for the purpose of providing advice, explanation, influencing others, and/or reaching agreement. A note in the job evaluation manual states that raters are not to rate the content of confidential information but rather the communications responsibilities involved in handling it. The employer rated this factor at level 3 worth 88 points. The union contends that the appropriate rating is level 4 worth 124 points. The definitions for these levels and the related illustrative classifications are as follows: 3. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures, policy, or theory. There may be a need to promote participation and understanding and to secure co-operation in order to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive nature. Regular involvement with confidential information which has moderate disclosure implications. Clerk General D; Library Technician A; Secretary C; SSO A, B; Technician B, C 4. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing basic instruction or for the resolution of complex problem situations. There may be a need for sophisticated influential or persuasive techniques in order to address the 15 problem of those with special needs. Regular involvement with confidential and sensitive information where disclosure implications are significant. ECE Worker; Library Technician B; Nurse; SSO C; Technologist C The grievor testified that she has access to the social insurance numbers and addresses of faculty members and she takes steps, such as locking up a Rolodex, to ensure that others cannot access this information. The grievor enters student marks into a computer system. She does not, however, have any other communications responsibilities with respect to the marks. She testified that when students ask for their grades they are told they must go the Registrar's office. I am satisfied that the grievor's communications responsibilities as they relate to handling confidential information do not justify a higher rating than level 3. In her written argument and her evidence the grievor addressed a situation involving an upset student. At the hearing she indicated that an SSO would normally have dealt with the situation but none was available. In her written argument the grievor described the situation as follows: Basic instruction eg. Recently a student filed a grade appeal against one of our instructors, she was very upset and persistent coming into my area every 15 minutes for 2 days. I went out of my way to take the student aside and calm her down and explain procedure and used very professional & sophisticated influence to address the situation. This was a highly complicated situation and by having and using sophisticated reasoning, I calmed the student down, and once she understood the college policy and procedure, she became relaxed. I then used my persuasive nature to arrange for my boss to meet with her and resolve the situation, the outcome: the student came back and hugged me, thanked me over and over, offered to buy me a coffee, she was so grateful and said that I was the only one who reached out to help her. The grievor~s interaction with students and part-time faculty involves her explaining and interpreting procedures and policies, which meets the criteria for a level 3 rating. This includes the situation described above 16 where the grievor explained college policy and procedure to the student. She did not provide the student with basic instruction. The grievor's role in getting her boss, presumably meaning Ms. Fischman, to meet with the student to resolve the situation involved securing the cooperation of the student and Ms. Fischman's in order to respond to a problem or situation of a sensitive nature. It is not obvious that sophisticated influential or persuasive techniques would have been required to get them to meet. There is also nothing in the evidence to suggest that the student was a person with special needs. If, in fact, the grievor did require sophisticated persuasive techniques to convince the student and Ms. Fischman to meet with respect to a person with special needs, a single incident such as this would not justify a higher rating for the factor. Having regard to the above, I confirm the level 3 rating for the factor of communications/contacts given by the employer. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS AND ACTIONS This factor measures the impact on internal and public relations, the responsibility for information management, equipment, assets and records, and the consequences of decisions and/or actions. The employer rated this factor at level 3 worth 44 points. The union contends that a level 4 rating worth 62 points is more appropriate. The criteria and illustrative classifications for these ratings are as follows. 3. Decisions and/or actions have moderate impact on the organization. Errors are usually detected by verification and review and may result in disruption of the workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited waste of resources. Clerk General C, D; General Maint Worker; Reprod. Equip. Operator B, C; Secretary B, C 4. Decisions and/or actions have considerable impact on the organization. Errors are detected after the fact and may result in considerable interruption and delay in work output and waste resources. ECE Worker; Stationary Engineer C; SSO B, C; Technologist B, C 17 The PDF contains the following statements with respect to the factor of responsibility for decisions and actions: If the incumbent does not accurately translate the needs of the department when preparing/fulfilling work as requested it would result in a backlog. Incorrect information to the public on college programs, its organization and administration, would cause minor embarrassment and confusion. Errors are easily detected through inquiries from faculty or the Chair. There is minor effect on the department. At the hearing the grievor contended that any decision or action on her part could impact on the department and the college. She submitted that a wrong judgement call might cost the college a student since the individual might decide that the college is not worth attending. Presumably in the grievor's view this type of situation would arise if she provided someone with incorrect information. The PDF, however, describes this situation as one that would cause minor embarrassment and confusion. In her evidence the grievor referred to a situation where there had been errors in the calendar copy. She said that she and other employees went online to make the necessary corrections, which caused a delay in her work. In her written argument the grievor contended that this "did result in considerable disruption and delay, having to go back and change errors and waste time correcting each error on SIS so that students could register for Fall courses". This incident demonstrates that if the grievor were to make an error when entering calendar information into the SIS system there would be a need to correct it. This, however, appears to be caught by the wording of the criteria for a level 3 rating which refers to a disruption in workflow and duplication of effort. It does not meet the criteria for a level 4 rating of a considerable interruption and delay in output and waste of resources. In her written argument the grievor made the following statement: 18 ...recently during summer vacations for instance, I would find myself here by myself and would have to make decisions that a SSO would make and ifI made the wrong one, it would have a considerable impact not just on the department but the whole college. The above comment may relate, in part, to the incident involving the student who the grievor arranged to meet with Ms. Fischman. It is not obvious how the grievor's action could have a considerable impact on the organization. Presumably the grievor's comment also relates to the cancellation of sections in the absence of a SSO. Ms. Fischman's evidence indicated that the SSOs, and in their absence the grievor, will make the initial decision that the minimum target figure for a section has not been met and accordingly the section should be cancelled. The final decision, however, is actually made by Ms. Fischman. If during the absence of a vacationing SSO the grievor did not make an initial determination about canceling a section, presumably the section would not be cancelled until the SSO returned from summer vacation. Again, it is not apparent how this would have a considerable impact on the organization. Having regard to these considerations I confirm the level 3 rating given by the employer. CONCLUSION Subsequent to the filing of the grievance the employer agreed with the union's rating for the factor of sensory demand. I have found the proper rating for the factor of physical demand to be level 3. This results in a point total of 571. This falls just within the range of 571 - 630 points required for payband 9. Accordingly, to that extent the grievance succeeds. I will remain seized of this matter to deal with any issues that may arise out of this award the parties are unable to resolve. This includes the issue of the amount of compensation owing to the grievor. Dated this 31 st day of October 2001 ¢¢7//~~ ArbitraFfr Classification: ~~ and Present Payband: ~The pa~iss agre~ on the contents of the attached Pcaitio~ Description F~rm OR The Union disagrees w~th the conte~ of the attached Pos~on D~cHot[on Form. The specific de~ails of th~s disagreement are as follows: iu~e reverse side ~.~ neceesar¥) FACTORS M~NA~EN1ENT UNION Level ~tl Level Pelntm Strain frO~ A~'ACHED WRI~N SU~MIS~tO~S~ ~ The Union ~ The College FOR ARBITRATOR'S USE: