HomeMy WebLinkAboutWaugh 02-02-25IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
SHERIDAN COLLEGE
("the employer")
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
("the union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF MR.
GRANT WAUGH (OPSEU #O1C330)
ARBITRATOR: lan Springate
APPEARANCES
For the Employer: Erin Holl, Manager, H R Client Services
Lee Corlett, Human Resources Consultant
Michael Large, Associate Dean
For the Union: Jay Jackson, President, Local 245
Grant Waugh, Grievor
HEARING: In Oakville on January 28, 2002
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The griever is a photography technologist employed in the College's
applied photography program. The parties disagree on whether he should be
classified as a Technologist B at payband 10 or as a Technologist C at
payband 11.
The griever is a graduate of the applied photography program. He
started working for the employer in 1974. He testified that he spent four or
five years at another campus working with black and white photography
prior to transferring into his current position at the Trafalgar Road campus in
Oakville.
In 1986 the grievor was classified as a Technologist B. In 1989,
however, his position was reclassified downwards to that of a Technician B.
The griever continued to be paid the higher rate of a Technologist B. On
January 16, 2001 the griever filed a grievance in which he contended that he
was improperly classified and should be reclassified as a Technologist C.
On January 17, 2001 the employer raised the griever's classification to
Technologist B retroactive to January 15, 2001. Because the griever was
already being paid as a Technologist B this change did not have any impact
on his pay. Further, it still left outstanding the issue of whether he should be
classified, and paid, as a Technologist B or a Technologist C.
Initially the parties disagreed on which position description form
("PDF") should be used in these proceedings. The employer contended that
it should be a newly developed PDF dated January 15,2001. This form was
not actually provided to the griever until after he had filed his grievance.
The union contended that the relevant PDF was one on file dated August 30,
1994. During the grievance procedure the parties reached agreement on
most of the wording for a new PDF. The only exception relevant to these
proceedings related to the amount of practical experience required to fulfill
the requirements of the griever's position.
During the grievance procedure the parties also reached agreement on
the ratings for certain job factors under the applicable job evaluation system.
They continued to disagree, however, on the proper ratings for the factors of
experience, complexity, judgement and independent action.
THE GRIEVOR'S DUTIES
The College's applied photography program prepares students to
become professional photographers. It takes two years to complete. One of
the grievor's duties is to assist students using the program's darkrooms,
especially for colour photography. The PDF language agreed to by the
parties indicates that the grievor spends 55% of his time engaged in this
aspect of his duties. The PDF describes the duties as follows:
Assists student activities within the Photography program by
designing systems and procedures, demonstrating and clarifying
proper theoretical understanding of technical procedures and
techniques of colour and black and white printing. An
extensive knowledge and high lever of expertise in the
operation of equipment and how equipment is integrated into
curriculum is required. Acts as technical advisor to students
and faculty on equipment and procedures used within the
program of colour and black and white printing.
The grievor testified that students frequently consult him with respect
to the production of colour prints. This includes demonstrating the proper
operation of darkroom equipment. He said that the faculty member who
teaches a colour theory class is part-time and is only available to assist
students three hours a week. He explained that students in other classes also
produce colour prints.
The grievor testified that students in the colour theory course receive a
different assignment every week or two. He gave as an example an
assignment to make a good colour print from a colour negative. He said that
students come to him when they encounter problems with an assignment,
such as a print that comes out yellow or blue, and he explains to them what
went wrong. He indicated that problems with a print could be due to any
number of factors including timing, water temperature and the mixing of
chemicals. The grievor described this aspect of his role as instructing
students. He said that he will at times "spoon feed" students so that they can
obtain the right composition.
The grievor testified that his role includes clarifying colour theory to
students. He also said that a student who misses a class must still complete
the related assignment and because the part-time teacher is generally not
available he will teach the student what is required for the assignment.
Mr. Michael Large, Associate Dean of the School of Animated Arts
and Design, is the griever's supervisor. He testified that teaching is not part
of the griever's job. He described the griever's role as helping students
produce their work. Later, in response to a question from the union
spekespersen, he acknowledged that the griever does impart information to
students.
The grievor testified that students come to him with him a range of
problems that he must research, including by calling photo companies. He
gave the example of a situation where for several months prints being
produced by students were off celeur, sticky and had a dull finish. He said
that after calling various companies and service people "it was determined"
that the water at the college contained quite a few impurities and algae was
forming in the water. He added that a solution to the problem was reached
by trying different types of chlorine in the water. The griever also gave the
example of a student coming to him about a film he was unfamiliar with and
him calling the manufacturer of the film for processing information.
The grievor acts as an advisor to faculty members. He testified that
every few years a new person takes over the teaching of the celeur course
and he explains to them the employer's equipment and procedures. The
griever also said that whenever instructors in an art and art history program
change the new instructor will ask him about procedures and equipment.
The grievor's duties include maintaining equipment, keeping an
inventory of supplies and several other related tasks. The PDF agreed to by
the parties indicates that the griever spends about 40% of his time attending
to these duties, which it describes as follows:
Responsible for the daily security of program space. Operates,
maintains and evaluates program equipment, making
recommendations for future needs. Prepares program
equipment and facilities in ready state for daily student use.
Carries out daily maintenance for the weekly operation of
equipment. Inspects, repairs and restarts equipment where
necessary. Develops and maintains inventory for control of
supplies. Maintains facilities to meet safety standards.
At the hearing the griever was asked about the reference in the PDF to
him being responsible for the daily security of program space. He replied
that he imagined this related to him ensuring that no one walks off with
equipment or is rowdy.
The grievor indicated that he learns about problems with equipment
either orally or by way of notes slid under his door. He gave the example of
a student having a problem with a piece of darkroom equipment due to a
burned out light bulb or a filter that needed replacing. He said that when a
piece of equipment is not operating properly he looks to see if he can repair
it or whether he should send it out for repair or, if it is a large unit, have a
service person come to the College. He said that he repairs only a very
small percentage of the equipment. He also said that he does the odd
modification to equipment, such as modifying a tank to work on a particular
job. The griever testified that because parts are often not available for older
equipment he adapts gears and switches to keep the equipment operating.
The grievor said that when equipment needs replacing or updating he
checks around for a replacement unit, which might be either new or used.
Initially in his evidence he said that he generally makes his recommendation
about purchasing replacement equipment to the supervisor, although
occasionally he might talk the matter over with the program coordinator who
in turn might discuss it with the supervisor. Later he said that he will
research a new machine and phone people about it and then make a
recommendation but the coordinator actually selects the machine.
The grievor testified that he maintains an inventory of supplies,
including light bulbs and chemicals. He said that when supplies run low he
asks an order clerk to order more of what is required and the clerk
automatically does so with respect to consumables. He said that when he
asks for a large ticket item the clerk goes to the supervisor "or whoever"
with respect to his request.
On an ongoing basis the grievor mixes chemicals for students to use in
a tray and also for use in the machines. The griever testified that while the
same types of chemicals have continued to be used, the concentrations
involved as well as the formulas for their use have changed over the years.
The spekespersen for the union asked the griever about a reference in
the sensory demand factor section of the PDF to him spending 10% of his
time planning and organizing. The griever's response indicated that this
related to him planning his day, including deciding what matters to address
first.
THE JOB FACTOR OF EXPERIENCE
The job evaluation manual indicates that the factor of experience is
designed to measure the amount of practical work experience necessary to
fulfill the requirements of a position.
The employer rated this factor at level 4, which is worth 45 points
under the job classification system. The union claims that a level 5 rating
worth 57 points is more appropriate. The relevant factor level definitions
and illustrative classifications contained in the job evaluation manual read as
follows:
4. More than three years and up to five years of practical
experience.
Clerk General D; Secretary B, C; Technician C; Technologist B
5. More than five years and up to eight years of practical
experience.
Programmer/Analyst C; SSO D; Technologist C
As noted above, this is an area where the parties were unable to agree
on the wording for the PDF. The employer proposed that the PDF list a
requirement of three to five years professional work experience in a job-
specific field. The union asserts that more than five years of practical
experience is required.
It is clear from the job evaluation manual that the factor of experience
is not meant to include the time when a person is attending a relevant
educational program. That is addressed by the factor of training/technical
skills which measures the minimum amount of independent study, formal
education, internal and/or external training programs necessary to fulfill the
requirements of a position. The parties agree that the griever's position
justifies a level 6 rating for the factor of training/technical skills, meaning
that it requires skills normally acquired through a three year community
college diploma, a three year undergraduate university degree or equivalent.
In a written brief filed prior to the hearing the union submitted that up
to five years experience for the griever's position would be reasonable if the
griever were responsible only for black and white print processes. It went
on to add that "the complexity of celeur in this position must be recognized
by some higher level of experience rating." The union brief also relied on
the fact that the position of another individual who is responsible only for
black and white photographic processes was rated by the employer as
requiring one to five years' experience. At the hearing the union
spekespersen argued that the dynamic environment and the modest human
support received by the griever in terms of instruction, guidance and
problem resolution requires a senior level of experience for anyone coming
into the position.
The grievor testified that someone with only two or three years of
experience would be on a par with the students and accordingly not be able
to give them the advice required to complete their assignments. Mr. Large
in his evidence, however, contended that the griever's job does not require
someone with more than five years of experience. He added that such a
level of experience is not even required of faculty members.
The grievor testified that he had five years related experience when he
started with the employer. He based this on two years during which he was
engaged in photography as a serious hobby, two years when he was a
student in the photography program at the College and then one year doing
freelance photography work prior to being hired by the employer. As noted
above, periods of formal education are captured by the factor of
training/technical skills. Accordingly, the griever did not actually have five
years experience when he joined the employer. Before he obtained his
current position he did spend four or five years in another position involving
black and white photography and thus did have over five years of related
practical experience. The factor of experience, however, is not meant to
reflect an incumbent's actual experience now or when he/she started in a
position. Rather it is designed to measure the minimum amount of related
work experience required to fulfill the requirements of the job.
At the hearing the spokesperson for the employer contended that
management is free to set whatever level of experience it wants for a
position. Management does, in fact, have a wide discretion to raise or lower
the level of prior experience it requires for a position and thereby raise or
lower the minimum level of performance it is willing to accept from an
employee just starting out in the position. Management cannot, however,
purport to set a required level of experience that is below what someone
actually requires to perform the basic requirements of the position.
Management also cannot say that it requires a particular level of experience
when in reality it is demanding some greater level of experience.
It is apparent that the grievor's lengthy experience, both prior to and
in his current position, has enabled him to perform his job at a high level of
competence. I cannot conclude on the evidence, however, that a person with
a relevant three year community college diploma or equivalent and up to
five years of relevant experience would be unable to fulfill the basic
requirements of the position. The evidence also does not establish that the
employer has actually set a higher minimum level of experience that what it
says it has. In all the circumstances I conclude that the level 4 rating
assigned by the employer is not inappropriate.
THE FACTOR OF COMPLEXITY
This job factor measures the amount and nature of analysis, problem
solving and reasoning required to perform job-related duties. It addresses
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 the 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 the illustrative classifications listed in the job evaluation
manual are 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 agreed-on language for the PDF includes the following entries
with respect to this factor:
Demonstrates, relates to and assists different levels of students,
in groups or individually, on the proper operation of program
equipment. Applies appropriate course theory. Converses with
and provides technical support to faculty.
Research, analysis and interpretation required for problem
definition.
Creativity and ability to select appropriate solution and/or
implement new procedure for dealing with complex
technical/mechanical problems.
Ability to perform complex activities and deal with a wide
variety of difficult tasks to meet program objectives.
When giving his evidence the grievor contended that working with
colour involves using specialized processes. He said that the reference to
research, analysis and interpretation in the PDF is to situations when he runs
into a problem that he has not seen before. He said that many things might
have gone wrong and he is required to use a process of elimination to
determine what it was.
The grievor disputed a claim by the employer that the steps he follows
are predefined. He contended that things do crop up that are totally new. He
added that new procedures and new materials are constantly being
10
introduced and these in turn create new problems. He also said that because
there is no rulebook for problems he must either figure out a problem by
himself or ascertain if someone else has faced the problem and how they
dealt with it.
In response to a question from the spokesperson for the employer, the
grievor said that over the years the equipment at the College has changed but
it is still similar to the previous equipment, only better. He compared it to a
car today as compared to a car 20 years ago. He also indicated, however,
that there have been on-going changes to the chemicals and types of paper
being used. He indicated that major changes have generally been
accompanied by bulletins from the manufacturer but less dramatic changes
have only been reflected in amended instructions that he did not pick up on
until something went wrong. He also said that at times he has had to work
out new procedures on his own. He gave the example of a new type of paper
that required 10% less time when using it, although he only discovered this
through trial and error.
In its brief the union contended that level 5 is the appropriate rating
for this factor because it is the first level to recognize an involvement with
specialized processes and/or methods. It also submitted that the grievor has
no internal human resource to assist him in problem solving whenever a
colour problem arises. At the hearing the spokesperson for the union argued
that the grievor's independence in terms of supervision results in a greater
degree of job complexity.
The employer in its brief contended that the level of analysis and
problem solving required of the grievor is limited by the scope of college
and departmental policies and procedures. It also argued that the technology
utilized in the photographic studio is of a mature nature that does not
change. It submitted that while the tasks performed by the grievor can be
unrelated, they are not unusual due to the boundaries of the curriculum.
When assessing whether a position fits the criteria for level 4 or level
5 rating the wording of the relevant factor level definitions is of limited
assistance. It is not obvious from the wording where the line is to be drawn
between varied non-routine complex tasks as compared to complex and
relatively unusual tasks, or what constitutes different and unrelated
processes and/or methods as opposed to specialized processes and/or
methods. Some assistance can, however, be gained from the illustrative
11
classifications for the two levels as well as the job evaluation guide charts
for these classifications.
The first listed illustrative classification for a level 4 rating is Clerk
General D. The job evaluation guide chart for this classification lists a
number of typical duties associated with the classification. Some of these,
such as determining student financial assistance and eligibility, suggest a
need to apply standard procedures to different fact situations. Others,
however, such as "organizes systems, procedures and paper flow" and
"analyzes problems relating to clerical systems and procedures and
recommends revisions" suggests that an incumbent may at times take a fresh
look and ad&ess how matters might be handled.
With respect to the other illustrative classifications for a level 4 rating,
the typical duties listed for a Library Technician B include "undertakes
original cataloguing under the direction of a librarian" and "recommends
and implements changes in library procedures." The typical duties of a
Programmer A include "modifies existing programs and documents charges"
while those of a Programmer B include "codes, tests and debugs complex
programs.' These typical duties indicate that an incumbent will typically
deal with the same subject matter and procedures but may at times have to
adopt a somewhat different approach.
The grievor's duties also appear to involve working with the same
subject matter, namely the processing and printing of colour photography
using equipment, chemicals and paper. He must at times adapt a different
approach; such as by mixing chemicals differently or altering the timing
involved when using a different type of paper.
One of the illustrative classifications for a level 5 rating is
Programmer/Analyst A. The listed typical duties for this classification
include: "Determines input/output and systems requirements with client or
other analysts"; and "Develops, codes, tests programs to fulfill
requirements." A person performing these duties not only applies his or her
expertise to achieving a desired end result but is also involved in
determining what the end result should be. Support Services Officer B and
C are also illustrative classifications for this level. The typical duties of a
Support Services Officer B include "prepares operation plans, schedules and
terms of reference" while those of a Support Services Officer C include
"analyzes requirements of groups, both within and external to College and
12
develops programs to meet these requirements." These SSO duties suggest
an involvement in setting different goals and, particularly in the case of an
SSO C, developing different programs for different groups.
The guide chart for a Technologist C lists the following typical duties
associated with this classification which justify a level 5 rating for
complexity:
Plans for the provision of technical services and effective
utilization of resources based on independent assessment of
the College's needs.
Co-ordinates projects involving overall planning,
development, purchasing and testing of equipment and
resources.
Develops procedures for the administration of a function.
Solves a wide range of complex problems associated with
specialization.
The grievor might be said to perform the last of the listed typical
duties. He is not, however, involved in planning for the provision of
technical services, coordinating projects, or developing procedures for the
administration of a function. The grievor's role remains constant, namely to
assist students to produce quality prints using equipment, film, paper and
chemicals. Because the equipment and materials are constantly evolving the
grievor must at times take a fresh approach in order to adjust to changing
conditions. This, however, fits the type of duties involved with the
illustrative classifications for a level 4 rating.
Apart from the grievor's need to adjust to changes in equipment and
supplies his duties generally match the following typical duties in the guide
chart for a Technologist B associated with a level 4 rating for complexity:
Designs and/or develops equipment, systems, facilities,
materials, etc. to meet user output requirements.
13
Plans, organizes and conducts experiments and
demonstrations explaining correct procedures and theoretical
principles involved.
Evaluates equipment and other resources and makes
recommendations prior to purchase.
Controls supply inventories and budgets.
May assist in student evaluations in relation to learning
activities in which the Technologist B takes part.
Having regard to the foregoing I confirm the level 4 rating given by
the employer.
JUDGEMENT
The factor definition for judgement states that this factor measures the
independent judgement and problem solving required on the job. It states
that it assesses the difficulty in identifying various alternate choices of action
and in exercising judgement to select the most appropriate action. It also
considers mental processes such as analysis, reasoning or evaluation.
The employer rated the grievor's position at level 5, which is worth 84
points. The union contends that level 6, worth 102 points is a more
appropriate rating. The definitions and illustrative classifications contained
in the job evaluation manual for these two levels are as follows:
5. Job duties require a significant degree of judgement.
Problem solving involves interpreting complex data or
refining work methods and techniques to be used.
Programmer B; Stationary Engineer C; Technologist B
6. Job duties require a high degree of judgement. Problem
solving involves adapting analytical techniques and
development of new information on various situations
and problems.
Programmer/Analyst A, B; SSO C; Technologist C
14
The agreed on PDF language contains the following entries respecting
the degree of independent judgement and problem-solving required for the
griever's position:
Determines and designs maintenance systems and repair
requirements for program equipment which involves varied
complex solutions, new purchases, or new techniques
independently. Resources sources of information to deal with
unique or unusual situations. Assess requirements to meet
safety standards.
May assess the extent of repair necessary to equipment and
determine whether the repair is feasible or if new equipment
should be purchased.
Assists students in determining technical information necessary
to obtain desired results.
Resolves situations by determining appropriate course of action
or resource.
Demonstrates practical application for equipment including
procedure to be used.
At the hearing the grievor was asked about the statement in the PDF
that he determines and designs maintenance systems. The griever said that
the term "maintenance procedures" would be a better description than
maintenance systems.
The grievor's role in demonstrating the proper use of equipment and
materials, his duties maintaining and occasionally modifying equipment and
also evaluating equipment and making purchase recommendations are all
covered by the typical duties of a Technologist B listed in the relevant guide
chart. The guide chart also indicates that a typical Technologist B is to
receive a level 5 rating for judgement.
The grievor in his evidence suggested that he is required to develop
new information and adapt analytical techniques. He gave the example of
Kodak bringing out a new type of photo paper and recommending that
15
certain types of filters be with the paper. He said that because the employer
does not use Kodak equipment he must translate Kedak's recommendations
to enable the paper to be used on the employer's equipment. He indicated
that at times he will contact either a manufacturer or a friend who works in a
photo lab for information when a student encounters a difficulty he is
otherwise unable to resolve. He also made the statement that sometimes
when a student comes to him with a chemical problem or a time problem
finding the solution might be as simple as looking in a manual provided by
the supplier.
The grievor in his evidence noted that supplies such as chemicals and
paper are constantly changing. He also said, however, that the assignments
given to students have not changed much over the years and accordingly he
knows what is expected of the students.
Mr. Large in his evidence claimed that little analysis is involved in the
griever's position except for a need to diagnose why a student's print did not
turn out.
Problem solving on the part of the grievor generally fits the criteria for
a level 5 rating. When addressing difficulties encountered by students and
new materials he must refine work methods, which is part of the criteria for
a level 5 rating. This includes the situation he referred to where he used
Kodak paper on non-Kodak equipment. The griever does research technical
information by looking at instructions and in manuals and by contacting
individuals for assistance. I do not, however, view this as actually
developing new information on situations and problems so as to justify a
level 6 rating.
Having regard to the above, I find that the griever's position does not
meet the criteria for a level 6 rating and accordingly confirm the level 5
rating given by the employer.
INDEPENDENT ACTION
This factor measures the independence of action and decisions
required by a job. The job evaluation manual notes that controls can be in
the form of supervision, policies, procedures or established practices.
16
The employer rated the grievor's position at level 4 which is worth 46
points. The union asks for a level 5 rating, the highest rating possible, which
is worth 60 points. The relevant level definitions and illustrative
classifications are as follows:
4. Job duties are performed in accordance with procedures
and past practices which may be adapted and modified to
meet particular situations and/or problems. There is
considerable freedom to act independently with
Supervisor input or verification when requested.
Library Technician B; Secretary C; SSO A, B; Technician C;
Technologist B
5. Job duties are performed in accordance with general
instructions and policies involving changing conditions
and problems. There is significant freedom to act
independently.
SSO C, D; Systems Analyst; Technologist C
The following is the full entry in the agreed-to PDF respecting this
factor:
INDEPENDENT ACTION
9.1 Describe the kind of instructions that are required or
provided at the beginning of a typical work assignment.
Verbal instructions on curriculum.
In accordance with past procedures.
Incumbent is left on his own to complete necessary tasks.
9.2 Describe the procedures, policies and past practices that
are available to serve as guidelines for typical work
assignments and indicate how often they are referred to.
Programme procedures.
Equipment technical reference manuals are used initially,
and when not available experience must be used.
Independent problem solving required.
17
Course curriculum as varied situations occur.
Safety policies and procedures are reviewed.
9.3 Indicate how regularly work is checked (i.e. several times
daily, in process, weekly, monthly or at the completion of
a project). Describe how the work is reviewed (i.e. by
detailed review, by exception, by report or by
discussion).
By discussion as situations arise.
9.4 Describe the duties that are the incumbent's
responsibility where independent action requires
initiative and/or creativity and indicate how often the
duties occur.
Ensure equipment is maintained, repaired, and in
working order as needed and meets safety standards.
9.5 Identify the typical situations or problems that are
normally referred to the Supervisor for solution.
Recommends purchase of new equipment, and estimates
cost of extensive repairs.
The grievor took issue with the statement above indicating that he
receives verbal instructions on the curriculum. He also took issue with a
claim in the employer's brief that he receives verbal and at times written
instructions from his supervisor at the beginning of a typical work
assignment. He testified that he does not receive any instructions, written or
verbal. He also said that he relies on past practice, namely what has been
going on for years. He did say that several years ago when assignments
were being developed he had more contact with the instructors and with the
program coordinator. He also said that someone new in the position might
require specific assignments.
18
When giving his evidence Mr. Large did not contend that he or
anyone else provides instructions to the griever, either verbally or in writing,
with respect to specific assignments.
Based on the grievor's evidence I am satisfied that the grievor does
not receive any instructions with respect to individual assignments. From
the agreed on language in the PDF and the griever's evidence I further
conclude that someone in the griever's position would normally receive
verbal instructions respecting the curriculum. Because the griever has been
in the position for such an extended period of time, however, he is familiar
with the curriculum and does not need to receive instructions.
Mr. Large is the first level management person above the grievor and
as such is his supervisor. Mr. Large testified that he is responsible for five
different programs each of which has a coordinator. He said that he sees
each of the coordinators a couple of times a week. Mr. Large commented
that he works closely with the five coordinators, the technologists work
closely with the coordinators and the faculty, and any issues come to him.
He then said that some technologists come to him with issues and some
don't and some technologists work more closely with the coordinators than
do others.
Mr. Large testified that the coordinator for the grievor's program had
told him that he is available for the griever and also that students tend to go
to the faculty with questions. I note that the hearing in this matter was held
in accordance with an expedited hearing procedure for classification
grievances. The established practice associated with this procedure is for
only the griever and his or her immediate supervisor to give evidence. This
meant that the coordinator could not be called to give direct evidence.
The grievor testified that the program coordinator is the black and
white photography instructor and when he encounters a problem with celeur
photography he does not take it to the coordinator. The clear implication
was that in the griever's opinion the coordinator would not be able to assist
him with celeur photography. The griever said that he has very little
communication with faculty members due to the fact that he is aware of past
practices. He also said that he does not go to Mr. Large with problems but
rather resolves them on his own or seeks the assistance of people who might
be able to help him.
19
There does not appear to be any material dispute between the grievor's
evidence and that of Mr. Large, including with respect to what Mr. Large
was told by the coordinator. Mr. Large's evidence indicated that some
technicians raise issues with him directly or through a coordinator. The
grievor was clearly not one of those technicians. Some students go to
faculty members when they have questions. It is clear, however, that when
some students encounter problems they raise them with the grievor. Indeed,
assisting students is one of the most important aspects of his job.
The grievor has wide latitude when carrying out his functions. Given
the nature of his duties and the relatively unchanged curriculum, his
independence of action fits within the first sentence of the criteria for a level
4 rating. His duties are performed in accordance with procedures and past
practices that may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations or
problems.
The grievor's independence of action also fits within the initial part of
the first sentence of the criteria for a level 5 rating. His job duties are
performed in accordance with general instructions and policies. The
additional requirement of that sentence, however, namely that job duties
involve changing conditions and problems does not apply. Specific
problems faced by the grievor do change due to changes in paper, chemicals
and the like. The nature of the problems and general conditions, however,
do not change. The grievor essentially performs the same highly specialized
function against the background of a curriculum that remains largely
unchanged.
The grievor's duties contrast with the typical duties of the illustrative
classifications for a level 5 rating. Incumbents in these positions have a
wide freedom of action in the context of dealing with different conditions.
The typical duties of Support Services Officers C and D include developing
programs to meet the requirements of groups inside and outside the College.
These requirements would logically differ from group to group and
presumably might also differ over time for the same group. The first typical
duty listed for the Systems Analyst position is the design and development
of computer systems required to meet the information needs of a college.
Different departments within a college presumably have different and at
times changing information needs. As noted above, the typical duties of a
Technologist C include planning for the provision of technical services and
20
co-coordinating projects. This also suggests an involvement with changing
conditions.
The criteria for a level 4 rating refers to "supervisor input or
verification when requested." It appears from Mr. Large's evidence and the
reference in the PDF to work being reviewed "by discussion as situations
arise" that it is open to the grievor to raise matters with Mr. Large. Because
of the grievor's expertise, however, it would not make sense for him to raise
technical matters with Mr. Large. Potentially the grievor could have raised
any difficulties he was encountering with students or faculty. The lack of
any reference to such difficulties in the evidence indicates that the grievor
has strong interpersonal skills and an ability to get along well with students
and does not need any assistance in those areas.
The fact that the grievor has not actually requested supervisor input or
verification is a factor that points towards a level 5 rating. In my view,
however, it is outweighed by the fact that the grievor's duties do not involve
changing conditions and problems, which is a requirement for a level 5
rating. In all the circumstances I confirm the level 4 rating given by the
employer.
CONCLUSION
Having regard to my reasoning set out above, I find that the employer
has properly classified the grievor's position as that of a Technologist B at
payband 10.
Dated this 1 st day of March 2002.
Arbitrator