HomeMy WebLinkAboutLyons 03-19-05In the matter of an arbitration
between
Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 109
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievance of Dwayne Lyons; #01C 242
Sole Arbitrator:Gregory J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College:Julie McQuire, Human Resources Consultant
Marion Dietze, Manager, Ancillary Services
Sheila Wilson, Human Resources
For the Union:Ursula Reznick, Presenter
Dwayne Lyons, Grievor
Barbara Ford, Advisor
Hearing:
Fanshawe College, London, Ont.
January 24, 2002
AWARD
1.Introduction
The grievor is employed in the position of Caretaking/Receiving Co-ordinator in
the Ancillary Services Department which provides service delivery for the College's
Shipping and Receiving area, daytime Caretaking and Parking related activities. In
classifying the position the College considered that, given the duties performed by the
incumbent, it could not be classified using the Classification Guide Charts as there was no
"reasonably close approximation" to a charted position. Accordingly, it treated the
position as atypical and rated it according to the Core Point Rating Plan. As a result of
that exercise it concluded that the position should be classified as Atypical Clerk Supply,
Payband 6. In this grievance the grievor disputes a number of the core point ratings
assigned to the various job factors and seeks reclassification to the position of Atypical
Clerk Supply, Payband 10.
The Arbitration Data Sheet sets out the following respective ratings of the job
factors.
College
Union
Level
Points
Level
Points
1. Technical/Training Skills 3
52
4
71
2. Experience
3
32
4
45
3. Complexity
2
25
4
58
4.Judgment
3
48
4
66
5. Motor Skills
B1
7
2C
22
6. Physical Demand
4
39
5
5O
7. Sensory Demand
2
16
4
39
8.Strain from Work Pressures/Demands 3
28
4
39
9. Independent Action
3
33
4
46
10. Communications/Contacts 2
52
3
88
11. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 3
44
3
44
12. Work Environment
3
55
4
77
Payband/Total Points
6
431
10
645
The parties agree on the Contents of the Position Description Form which provides, inter
alia as follows:
A. Position Summary
Incumbent is "responsible for providing direction and guidance to Caretaking and
Receiving Team". Performs duties associated with caretaking and receiving
functions."
B. Duties and Responsibilities
Provides direction and guidance to the Receiving and Caretaking team to ensure
deadlines are met by establishing an on-going schedule of activities and tasks.
Carries out inspection/follow-up of work performed by staff and reports findings to
Manager. 45%
Performs porter work by moving furniture, supplies, goods to all areas of the main
campus and satellite campuses as directed by work orders. Performs general
caretaking duties such as dusting vacuuming, sweeping, mopping of floors and
garbage collections. As required by the season, assist with snow removal from
sidewalks. 40%
Complete weekly inventory sheets of all goods in the Receiving Department
5%
Performs minor repairs and maintenance on college vehicles 5%
Replacement for caretaking and receiving including collection and delivery of mail,
mail collection and sorting, receiving goods. Operation of forklift 5%
2. The duties and responsibilities of the position
The grievor is one of 11 members of a receiving/caretaking team who perform
both receiving and caretaking functions.
Receiving/Caretaking functions include picking up, sorting and delivering mail to
various College areas and picking up outgoing and internal College mail for processing;
picking up and delivering courier deliveries (primarily books and computer products)
and completing the associated paper work; delivering supplies (eg. furniture,
chalkboards, computer equipment, program guides) from College inventory to College
departments as and when requested; checking on College supplies, advising the Manager
when inventories are low and supplies need to be ordered and replenishing supplies when
inventories fall too low. Some of these services are also provided for the College's four
satellite campuses in Woodstock, Simcoe, Tillsonburg and St. Thomas - necessitating a
twice weekly 250 kilometre round trip with a van (or large track if necessary).
These various functions are performed through use of various pieces of equipment
that are made available by the College. That equipment includes flat beds on wheels, 2
wheel carts, dollies, a manual pump lift on wheels that can be pushed, and an electric fork
lift for large skids and large furniture. Essentially, the items to be moved are loaded on to
the appropriate type of vehicle (either by manual lifting or through the use of lifting
devices) which vehicles are then either pushed or driven to the location where the items
in question are offioaded and placed where required.
In addition to these functions members of the team also perform various other
caretaking duties such as dusting, sweeping, mopping floors, garbage collection and snow
removal.
The members of the team are all classified at payband 5 with the exception of one
person (who is largely responsible for servicing the satellite campuses) who is classified
at payband 4. As a member of the team the grievor is expected to perform all of these
functions as and when he is available to do so and, as indicated, these the functions
comprise 40% of his duties. However, what differentiates him from the rest of the team -
and which led the College to consider the position to be atypical and to warrant a
classification at a payband one level higher than the other members of the team are the
remaining 45%, viz providing "direction and guidance" to the team to "ensure that
deadlines are met by establishing an ongoing schedule of activities and tasks." It is to
those duties that I now turn.
Much of the grievor's work assignments are given to him by way of work orders.
These are generated in the various departments of the College and forwarded to the
grievor's Manager who reviews them and, if necessary, discusses them with the other
department managers or co-ordinators and modifies them and, decides which ones should
be passed on to the grievor. Some of the work is "scheduled work" and is given to the
grievor on the Friday to be performed at some certain time during the following week.
Other work orders may be assigned to him during the work week - to be completed when
he finds time to do it. The grievor may either do the work himself or he may assign and
distribute this work among the members of the team having regard to their other
scheduled work (eg. cleaning) and other duties they may be engaged in and the deadlines
that they have to meet. In addition he may be required to contact the appropriate person
in the department in which the service (eg. delivery of packages) is to be provided, to
arrange for a suitable time of delivery and to ensure that someone is there to receive them
and give directions as to where they should be taken.
In addition to these work order assignments - there are "last minute emergency"
jobs (eg. cleaning up broken glass, mouse pickups, replenishing washroom supplies,
cleaning up spills) which the grievor learns of though a 2 way radio that he carries with
him. When he receives these calls he may either do the work himself, if he is in the
vicinity where the service is required and if he is not involved in some other work that
must be completed by a deadline, or he may contact some other member of the team
whom he knows is in the area (or can get there quickly) and whose current work
assignment would permit the work to be assigned to them. The grievor estimated that he
receives at least 5 calls a day of this nature.
3. Factor Evaluation and Conclusions
The parties are in disagreement over all but one of the job factors, viz,
Responsibility for Decisions/Actions. They are, however, in agreement that the position
is atypical and must, therefore be evaluated under the Core Point Rating Plan. It is also
noted that the parties are in agreement as to the content of the PDF. This is significant
since the PDF, particularly where it is agreed on by the parties, constitutes a very
valuable reference point for understanding the position in its entirety - far more reliable in
my opinion than the impressionistic view one has of a position following an expedited
arbitration hearing. Thus, where the PDF offers an answer to the question as to how a
particular factor should be rated I will give it primary consideration and regard it as the
best (although not necessarily conclusive) indication of how the position is to be rated for
the particular factor in issue. Further, I will concentrate primarily on the core functions
of the job, that is, the two groups of duties that comprise 45% and 40% of the job
respectively.
i) Training/Technical Skills
The College rates this factor at level 3 (skills acquired through attainment of
secondary school graduation or equivalent).. The Union seeks level 4 (secondary school
graduation and completion of additional job related training courses or one year
Community College diploma, or equivalent.).
The union argues that extra training is needed to give the grievor the requisite
computer knowledge to allow him to perform the various data entry functions that he is
required to perform. The College submits that the grievor is given on the job training on
these various duties which are not of the sort which would require any special courses. I
am not really in any position to evaluate the strength of either of these submissions.
However, I do note that the PDF itself provides that the minimum level of training
for this position is that of a secondary school graduate - which corresponds to level 3 in
the Core Point Rating Plan.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3.
ii) Experience
The College rates his factor at level 3 (more than one year and up to three years of
practical experience). The Union seeks a rating of 4 (more than three and up to five years
of practical experience).
The union argues the a minimum of three years of practical experience would be
necessary to allow the grievor to acquire the necessary communication, team building
and leadership skills that would allow him to do the job effectively. However, it is to be
noted that 40% of the duties involve routine duties of cleaning and portering etc. In any
event, I note again that the PDF specifically refers to "up to three years of caretaking
and/or receiving experience". In that respect it falls squarely within the factor definition
for level 3 which I so award. iii) Complexity
The College rates this factor at level 2 (performance of specific tasks involving
related steps, processes and/or methods.).. The Union seeks a rating of level 4
(performance of varied, non-routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated
processes and/or methods.
The PDF for this factor states that "incumbent assesses work activity of the team
and prioritizes to ensure deadlines and schedules are met. Performs duties of the position
using own judgment, with assistance from Manager, as needed."
9
In my opinion the College evaluation of this factor at level 2 does not sufficiently
recognize the complexities involved in the prioritization of the work to be done by
members of the team. Completion of that task requires the grievor to balance various
competing factors, viz, the urgency of the task at hand, the availability of other members
of the team, the tasks that they are engaged in at the time and the deadlines which they
are expected to meet. However, I am unable to agree with the claim of the union that the
tasks which are performed by the ghevor are "non-routine". In this regard it is important
to keep clear a distinction between tasks which are "different" and those which are "non-
routine". There is no question that the grievor is required to perform a number of
different tasks. However, that element of the position is captured by the words "various"
and "different" which appear first in the core point rating plan at level 3 for this factor.
In order to claim level 4 it must be established that there is something that is non-routine
in what the grievor does.
Nothing in the evidence suggests that any of the tasks given to the grievor are
particularly unusual or unexpected. I have reviewed samples of the work orders provided
to him and filed by the union in its brief and, in general, it can be said that they all
represent different examples of essentially the same thing, viz, a direction to carry out a
reasonably specific task (which bears some relation to level 2 language) but which also
required him to co-ordinate the activity with others.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3.
iv) Judgement
The College rates this factor at level 3 (moderate judgment, problem solving
involving the identification and breakdown of the facts and components of the problem
situation). The Union seeks level 4 (considerable judgement, problem solving involves
handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with established
analytical techniques."
The PDF for this factor refers to the responsibility for ensuring that the
"scheduling of activities are met according to deadlines", to the "prioritizing of work to
ensure that work activity runs smoothly", and to the need to "identify general problems
with team members and direct activity to ensure that the .... operation runs smoothly".
10
The union, in addition to relying on the language of the PDF argues that, insofar
as the grievor needs to deal with four different departments (Receiving, Grounds,
Caretaking, and Porters), he is required to handle a "variety of conventional problems,
questions and solutions" and needs to show "considerable" judgement. The College
argues that, insofar as the PDF indicates (under the Independent Action factor) that the
job duties are performed in accordance with specific and detailed instructions under
direct day to day supervision, to the extent that the grievor is required to exercise
judgment it is done within fairly restricted parameters.
In my view this argument of the College fails to give credit to that aspect of the
position which requires the grievor to determine how and when and by whom the
particular specific task is to be performed. While the work orders themselves are quite
specific in nature (eg. remove certain tables from a classroom), they are silent as to the
precise manner by which that is to be done. While that may not be a particularly difficult
task, it is something which which is largely left to the grievor to determine and, in the
context of this position, warrants consideration.
Nevertheless, I am unable to accept the argument of the union that the degree of
judgment required to do the necessary "prioritizing of work" or "scheduling of work to
meet deadlines" satisfies the level 4 standard of"considerable" judgment. In essence,
what he is required to do is inform himself as to who is available to carry out a particular
task, something which he is able to do by contacting team members on their 2 way radios
to ascertain their position and the activity in which they are currently engaged. I fail to
see how that involves the use of"established analytical techniques" (level 4). Rather I
am of the view that this function is better captured by the phrase "identification and
breakdown of the facts and components of the problem situation.''
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3.
11
v) Motor Skills
The College rates this factor at level B 1 (non-complex fine motor movement
involving limited (some) dexterity, co-ordination and precision - for less than 10% of the
time). The Union seeks level C 2 (complex, fine motor movement, involving
considerable dexterity, co-ordination and precision with speed as a secondary
consideration - for between 10%-30% of the time).
The union relies on that aspect of the grievor's duties and responsibilities which
require him to make daily use of a computer when accessing e-mails for work orders,
inputting data related to courier deliveries or supplies requisitions or using the mail
machine. The College does not dispute that the grievor may be required to make use of a
computer but suggests that, having regard to the grievor's other duties and the amount of
time that he spends in the receiving area where the computers are located, the frequency
of that use is rare.
Again, I cannot ignore the fact that the PDF clearly states that the grievor spends
15% of his time on computer work. That brings him within the range of activity
contemplated by level 2 - viz, occasional use- 10-30% of the time. Although no
submissions were made with respect to the question as to whether or not his motor skills
were at level B (non-complex fine motor movement - limited dexterity) or C (complex
fine motor movement - considerable dexterity) I think it fair to conclude that keyboard
use is generally regarded as fine motor movement of a complex kind that requires
considerable dexterity.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level C2.
vi) Physical Demand
The College rates this factor at level 4 (frequent physical demand, continuous
moderate physical effort OR recurring heavy physical effort). The Union seeks level 5
(constant physical demand, continuous heavy physical effort).
The PDF describes the demand on physical energy as follows:
Regular lifting of 30 kg (65 lbs) and intermittent lifting of 41 kg (100 lbs).
Position requires the incumbent to be physically fit due to the continuous
demand for moving furniture and equipment. Incumbent is regularly
involved in loading and unloading of college vehicles, hand trucks, carts
12
and dollies.
Walking is required continuously while picking up and delivering items
such as recyclables, furnishings, equipment and supplies.
Further the PDF states that the grievor is involved in the activities of standing, walking,
pulling, lifting, bending, stooping, reaching, stretching and twisting for 75% of the time.
In support of its position the union filed with its brief the results of a Job Demand
Analysis conducted of three of the full time positions in the Receiving Area, the Mail
Room/Delivery Clerk, the Delivery Clerk, and the Shipping and Receiving Desk Clerk.
That Analysis rated the Exertion Level for all 3 positions as "Heavy" with "Occasional"
carrying and lifting of weights between 22.9 and 45.6 kg.
The College argues that the Job Demands Analysis is misleading as a description
of the physical demand on the grievor insofar as it describes the demand on persons
working full time in those positions- which the grievor does not. I agree that this limits
the value of this data. However, in any event, upon examination it becomes clear that the
results of the Job Demand Analysis are not helpful to the union's case. At best they show
only "occasional" heavy lifting - which falls short of the level 5 requirement of
"continuous heavy physical effort". Similarly, the PDF describes the lifting as either
"regular" for 30 kg weights or "intermittent" for 41 kg. weights - again not meeting the
requirements for level 5. In my view the standard set down in level 4 more closely
describes the physical effort demand on the grievor.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 4.
vii) Sensory Demand
The College rates this factor at level 2 (moderate sensory demand and occasional
careful attention to detail and accuracy OR considerable sensory demand and periodic
careful attention to detail and accuracy). The union seeks level 4 (considerable sensory
demand and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy OR extensive sensory
demand and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy.
The PDF refers to the need for "concentration" when operating college vehicles
and a "need to be alert and aware when travelling from various campus locations" and
states that the grievor drives College vehicles, forklifts etc. for 14-25% of the time.
13
I am unable to find that the level of concentration and alertness that is required
when operating College vehicles approaches the relatively high standards set down in
level 4. In this regard it should be noted that the factor definitions comprise both a level
of concentration and a frequency component - each of which must be satisfied in order to
qualify at the desired level. Thus, a low level of concentration may still warrant a high
rating if is required on a frequent basis; or a higher level of concentration may be
sufficient even though it is required only on an occasional or less frequent basis.
The difficulty with the union's claim is that the sensory demands required in this
position do not meet both elements of the standard. At best the sensory demand on the
grievor is "occasional" - as the PDF indicates. But the position fails to meet the co-
requisite standard of requiring "frequent" careful attention to detail. Similarly, while it
would meet the requirement of "occasional" careful attention to detail it cannot by any
measure qualify as being "extensive" demand. Nor, in my opinion would the level of
strain be sufficient to qualify as "considerable" sensory demand so as to fit within one of
the options set down in level 3. In my opinion the language which best describes the
sensory demand required in this position is that set down for level 2.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 2.
viii) Strain from Work Pressures
The College rates this factor at level 3 (moderate - regular but usually predictable
interruptions, changing deadlines, multiple demands - occasional critical deadlines). The
union seeks level 4 (conflicting work pressures - frequent interruptions to work flow -
unpredictable work situations with shifts in priorities and occasional critical deadlines.
The grievor testified that he is frequently interrupted - up to 25-30 times a day - by
calls on the 2 way radio requesting that something be done (eg. attend to a spill, pick up
delivery some piece of equipment to be taken somewhere on campus). The PDF states
that the incumbent "may be involved in more than one project or assignment at once"
(25-50% of the time); that "meeting deadlines may be difficult depending on the
frequency of pages"; and that "interruptions with work flow (25% of the time) is not
predictable."
In my view the PDF makes it clear that the proper rating for this factor is level 4.
14
What separates level 3 from level 4 is the predictability of the work flow interruptions
and the PDF states not once but twice that there is no predictability to the interruptions in
work flow. Moreover, according to the grievor's evidence (not seriously challenged)
these occur as often as 25-30 times a day- and as such easily meet the standard of being
"frequent interruptions". Further, the requirement that he attend to emergencies as they
arise - if they cannot be postponed - results in a "shift in priorities".
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 4.
ix) Independent Action
The College rates this factor at level 3, (job duties performed in accordance with
general procedures and past practices under periodic supervision with occasional periods
of Supervisor input or verification.) The Union seeks level 4 (duties performed in
accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to
meet particular situations and/or problems.)
In my view the PDF indicates clearly that the proper rating for this factor is
certainly no higher than level 3. (Indeed, some parts of the PDF may even warrant a level
1 or level 2 rating.) Section 9.1 states that "job duties are performed in accordance with
specific and detailed instructions under direct day to day supervision". Section 9.3 states
that work is discussed with the manager "while in progress" and that the Manager is
"normally available to discuss any new or unfamiliar set-up, project or assignment which
requires additional explanation or guidance." Section 9.4 states that "written and verbal
instructions" are provided "at the start of each day or prior to each task".
This does not suggest a position with "considerable freedom to act independently"
as contemplated by level 4. Rather, at a minimum it suggests a position with only, at
most, "moderate" freedom to act independently.
Accordingly, I would rate this position at level 3.
x) Communications/Contacts
The College has rated this position at level 2 (communication for the purpose of
providing detailed explanations, clarification and interpretation of data or information).
The union seeks level 3 (communication for the purpose of providing guidance or
technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, or for the purpose of explaining
15
various matters by interpreting procedures, policy or theory.)
The PDF states in section 10 that the incumbent has daily contact with team
members for the purpose of "work direction and guidance", with his manager for
assignment direction and with customers for work order direction. Further, both in the
Position Summary and in the outline of the Duties and Responsibilities of the position,
the PDF refers to the incumbent as providing "direction and guidance" to the
Caretaking/Receiving team - accounting for 45% of his duties.
In my opinion, where the PDF itself uses terms which mirror those used in the
factor definitions in the Core Point Rating Plan it becomes very difficult to select a rating
different from that mandated by the use of such language. Thus, where the PDF, in 3
different places, characterizes the incumbent's daily communications as providing
"guidance" to others, a very strong inference arises that this particular factor should be
rated at level 3 - which specifically includes as part of the factor definition at that level
communication "for the purpose of providing guidance". Moreover, I note that the
"guidance" in question could involve removing a member of the team from one task and
having him/her do somthing else. Hence it contains elements of"promoting
understanding and securing cooperation" - which are a part of the factor definition for
level 3. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that this is not casual or occasional
communication that is to be characterized this way. Rather, it is daily communication
that reflects approximately one half of the incumbent's overall responsibilities.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3.
xi) Work Environment.
The College rates this factor at level 3 (continuous exposure to slightly
disagreeable elements OR recurring exposure to moderately disagreeable elements OR
occasional exposure to extremely disagreeable elements - moderate travel - between 31-
60%)) The union seeks level 4 (continuous exposure to moderately disagreeable
elements - extensive travel - greater than 61%).
The Unions claim for a rating of level 4 cannot be supported. The grievor clearly
does not meet the level 4 travel threshold of greater than 61%. As for the conditions in
which he works, the PDF refers to exposure to noise, variance in temperature, dirt and
dust, shovelling snow, exposure to elements when driving as the environment to which
16
the incumbent is exposed for less than 60% of the time. These conditions could, at most,
be described as moderately disagreeable. However, the exposure to those conditions is
not "continuous" in nature. Rather, it is "recurring" exposure.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at level 3.
03/19/2002 15:26 FAX 519 679 9239 BRANDT ARB SVCES ~02
2O
4. Summary
In summary I rate the various factors as follows:
Level Points
1. Technical/Training Skills 3 52
2. Experience 3 32
3. Complexity 3 31
4.Judgrncnt 3 48
5. Motor Skills 2C 22
6. Physical Demand 4 39
7. Sensory Demand 2 16
g. Strain fxom Work Pressures/Demands 4 39
9. Independent Action 3 33
10, Communications/Contacts 3 88
11, Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 3 44
12. Work Environment 3 55
Total Points 499
Pay Band 7 ,
Accordingly the grievance is allowed and the College is directed to re-classify the
grievor as Clerk Supply Atypical Payband 7 and to compensate him for any and all losses
suffered as a result of his improper classification.
I retain jurisdiction to deal with any issues arising out of the implementation of this
awaxd.
Ifi ,o,
Gregory J. Brandt, Sole Arbitrator.
03/19/2002 15:26 FAX 519 679 9239 BRANDT ARB SVCES ~03
ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION
College: F/Dd~...~_ I~UJ~ Incumben~ '*~- g-'~O~, Supervisor: r~iDd~Ol~J
Present Classification: C (_.L~.. ,=,~L/~iP(_~/ ~IN~I¢ ~ .. and Present Payband:
Job Family and Payband Requested by Grievor: . ~ ~"~.- A-I'"/~/c4A~ .~/~L~ I0
1. Position Description Form Attached
2. ~]~ The parties agree on ~he con~en~s of the ettached Position Description Form
OR
~ [] The Union disagrees with the contents of the attached Position Description Form. The specific details of ~his
disagreement are ~s follows:
(use reverse-side if nm:essary)
FACTO RS ~.~rr UNI ON ~TOR
1. Training~echnical Skills
2,'. ~Derience
5, Mmo~ S~s
7. Sens0~ Demand
8. ~in from Wo~ Pmssur~/~mands/Deadlines
9. Independent A~on
10. Communica~ons/Con~s
1 1. Res~nsibi~W ~r D~isions/A~ions
12. Work Environment
JOB C~SSIFICATION
A~ACHED WRI~N SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ~ The College
FOR ~~OR'S USE:
/
93-12~9