HomeMy WebLinkAboutLaut 02-01-04 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL 416
(hereinafter called the Union)
- and -
ALGONQUIN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter called the College)
- and -
CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF DEBRA LAUT
(hereinafter called the Grievor)
ARBITRATOR
PROFESSOR lAN A. HUNTER
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE UNION: Mr. Claude Lacelle, Chief Steward, Local 416
FOR THE COLLEGE: Ms. Janot Ross, Director, Human Resource Services
AN EXPEDITED ARBITRATION HEARING WAS HELD IN OTTAWA, ONTARIO
ON DECEMBER 4, 2001
1
AWARD
(1) Introduction
The grievance before me is a Classification Grievance filed by Debra Laut on
January 19, 2001 (Exhibit 1). Ms. Laut is the "Job Connect Training Consultant" at the
Algonquin College Heritage Institute in Lanark, Ontario. This is an Algonquin "satellite"
campus located in Perth, and the Job Connect office is in a downtown storefront location.
Ms. Laut is currently classified as Support Services Officer 'C', Payband 11 and her
grievance seeks reclassification as Support Services Officer 'D', Payband 13.
Detailed and helpful briefs were filed with me in advance of the arbitration hearing.
The arbitration hearing was held in Ottawa, Ontario on December 4, 2001.
(2) Overview of Position
The Job Connect Training Consultant works with individuals and community
employers to identify employment opportunities and to facilitate access to the job
development placement services in the target area.
This requires:
- analysis of the local labour market to determine skills development needs
and occupational training opportunities;
- conducting outreach to employers in order to find placement opportunities;
- coordinating job development strategies for "hard to serve" clients;
2
- liaison between the employers and employees placed through the program;
- monitoring performance of employees placed through the program;
- personal visits to employers and clients to review training plan objectives and
client progress.
About twenty-five percent (25%) of the Grievor's time is spent in conducting client
interviews, assessing unemployed persons' eligible for the program, advising them on
career possibilities, attempting to assist them in obtaining employment, and then
monitoring their success if they are able to do so.
The incumbent is also involved in case file management practices that are required
to ensure that legal and accountability requirements or the program are met. Finally, she
is involved in the compilation of statistical information related to the Job Connect Program.
The mandate of the Job Connect Program is "... to help unemployed Ontarians,
primarily youth, obtain sustainable employment as quickly as possible. It bridges the gap
between individuals seeking employment and employers seeking human resources to meet
their business needs. It offers a range of services to respond to the employment needs
of both individuals and employers".
The Program operates:
(a) an Information and Referral Service (IRS) to allow individuals seeking employment
to obtain information on job opportunities.
3
(b) an Employment Planning and Preparation Service (EPP) designed to give more
structured services (interview skills, job search strategies, etc.) for individuals
seeking employment. Individuals who are assisted to find employment will enter
into employment contracts to which Job Connect is a party.
(c) Job Development Placement Support (JDPS) which is the most structured service
that the incumbent provides and is intended for individuals who would not otherwise
be successful in an open competitive job market. Here, the incumbent must
arrange for assessment of employment/training needs for both the individual and
the prospective employer, and must then monitor how these placements are
working out.
(3) The Grievor, Debra Laut
Ms. Laut commenced at Algonquin College on June 6, 1988. She was initially hired
as a Support Services Officer 'B' at the Lanark campus. On September 1, 1988 her
position was reclassified as Support Services Officer 'C', Payband 11. She reports to the
Dean of the Algonquin College Heritage Institute (Lanark campus), Mr. Nelson Rogers.
(4) Job Factors Agreed Upon
The parties are agreed on seven (7) job tactors:
1. Training/Technical Skills Level 6 110 points
2. Experience Level 4 45 points
3. Motor Skills C3 25 points
4
4. Physical Demand Level 2 16 points
5. Sensory Demand Level 4 39 points
6. Independent Action Level 5 60 points
7. Work Environment Level 3 55 points
(4) The P.D.F. (Exhibit 2)
The P.D.F. is dated May 30, 2000.
The Union submits that a more accurate summary of the position is: "Coordinates
and supervises the agency's external day to day operations, researches and writes yearly
business plan, liaises directly with managers of community agencies, maintains and
monitors an internal program evaluation system, establishes and monitors the agency's
monthly placement targets, assists with staff recruitment for summer jobs service program
and develops/implements a program marketing strategy."
The Union brief also indicated (a) that the current P.D.F. does not speak to the
amount of confidential communication that the Grievor is required to deal with in her job;
and (b) that the Grievor is the sole Ministry contact in her office.
These points were elaborated on in the Grievor's evidence and in the evidence of
her supervisor, Mr. Rogers.
It is not the function of an expedited arbitrator to determine the precise content of
the P.D.F.; however, I have considered these areas of dispute, and the evidence thereon,
in arriving at my decision.
5
(5) Job Factors in Dispute
(a) Complexity
This factor measures the amount and nature of analysis, problem-solving,
and reasoning required to perform job-related duties. This factor measures
the conceptual demands of the job as characterized by:
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 College has rated this factor at Level 5:
"Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks
involvin9 specialized processes and/or methods".
The Union has rated this factor at Level 6:
"Job duties require the investigation and resolution of a variety of unusual
conclitions involving the adaptation ~nd/~r d~v~l~pmef~t ur ~peci~li/ed
processes and methods."
6
The Grievor testified that the most difficult challenge she faces in her job is
"having to wear so many different hats". She meant, she explained, that on
a day when she planned to meet with clients, her schedule could be
disrupted by being asked to prepare a report for the Ministry.
She gave evidence indicating that she was the primary Training Consultant at the
Heritage Institute and that it was she who prepared the annual reports to the
Ministry and the annual business plan.
However, this evidence was substantially disputed by her supervisor, the Dean,
Nelson Rogers. First, Mr. Rogers testified that no particular training consultant was
designated, or had assumed, "lead hand" functions in the preparation of business
plans. Second, he greatly discounted the complexity involved in preparing the
business plans. The Job Connect business plan, he testified, is "a very
straightforward process", an operational plan that essentially involved filling in the
blanks. Mr. Rogers also said that he made "final adjustments" to the business plan
and maintained overall operational responsibility for it.
The Grievor testified that the most difficult aspect of her work was the challenge of
trying to provide service to everyone calling on Job Connect, within the detailed
parameters of (a) Ministry policies; (b) the policies and procedures of the Job
Connect Program; and (c) College policies and procedures.
This evidence suggested to me that the Training Consultant position is highly
proceduralized, that there are a minimum of "unusual conditions", and there was
7
little or no evidence of "the adaptation and/development of specialized processes
and methods".
When I asked the Grievor what was the most "unusual condition" she had
encountered in her job, she replied: "interviewing clients in my vehicle". I did not
hear, in her evidence or that of her supervisor, the complexity indices that would
warrant Level 6.
Consequently, I have concluded that Complexity is adequately addressed at Level
5.
Complexity- Level 5
(b) Judgement
This factor measures the independent judgement and problem-solving
required on the jot). It assesses the difficulty in identifying various available
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 College has rated this factor at Level 5:
"Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem-solving
involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques
to be used."
8
The Union proposes Level 7:
"Job duties require a very high degree of judgement. Problem-solving
involves originating new techniques and utilizing them in the development of
new information."
The P.D.F. (Exhibit 2) suggests to me that both of these evaluations are
incorrect.
The P.D.F. speaks of"making the necessary adjustments", "negotiate[s] subsidized
placements", "significant freedom to act independently" and "... mediates problems
between participants and employers".
I accept the Grievor's evidence that a high degree of persuasion is required in the
marketing and outreach aspects of the Job Training Consultant's position. I also
accept her evidence that considerable mediation skill is required to resolve disputes
that arise between employers and clients in the employment relationship.
The Training Consultant is extensively involved with "hard to serve" clients; these
are sixteen to twenty-one year olds who come from a background of abuse or
through the criminal law probation system. They have Iow self-esteem and often
minimal employment skills. Approximately seventy-five percent (75%) of the clients
for the EPP services fall into this category. To deal with these clients involves
adopting analytical techniques; it also requires developing novel ways of finding the
right employment "niche" for such persons.
9
Based on (a) the P.D.F. and (b) the evidence before me, I have concluded that
Level 6 is the "best fit" for Judgement.
Judgement - Level 6
(c) Strain From Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
This factor measures the strain associated with, or caused by frequency and
predictability of deadlines, interruptions, distractions and/or workloads,
multiple and/or conflicting demands and/or dealing with people in difficult
situations.
The College has rated this factor Level 4:
"Job duties involve conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in
workflow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and
occasional critical deadlines."
The Union has rated this factor Level 5:
"Job duties involve continuous work pressures and unpredictable
interruptions in workflow. Numerous conflicting demands and tight deadlines
occur frequently."
The P.D.F. indicates that the incumbent will experience numerous
interruptions and disruptions to the schedules that she devises for dealing
10
with clients and employers, that she must prioritize on a regular basis, and
that she must ensure that many reporting deadlines are met.
However, based on the Grievor's evidence, I hold that the deadlines involved are
recurrent and almost entirely predictable. The monthly and annual Ministry reports,
the business plan, and the employment contracts all have deadlines attached to
them, but they are known in advance. I heard no evidence either of "conflicting
demands" nor of "tight deadlines" which characterize Level 5. Accordingly, I have
concluded that this factor is appropriately rated at Level 4.
There is no doubt that the Training Consult must deal with people (both clients and
employers) in "difficult situations". I have taken that into account.
Strain From Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines - Level 4
(d) Communications/Contacts
This factor measures the requirement for effective communication for the
purpose of providing advice, explanation, influencing others, and/or reaching
agreement. Consideration is given to the nature and purpose of the
communication and the confidentiality of information involved.
The College has rated this factor Level 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 problem of those with special needs. Regular involvement with
11
confidential and sensitive information where disclosure implications are
significant."
The Union has rated this factor Level 5:
"Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing highly
detailed or complex explanations or instructions. There may be a need to
secure understanding, co-operation or agreement for the purpose of
concluding negotiation activities. Extensive involvement with confidential and
sensitive information where disclosure implications could result in adverse
publicity and/or litigation procedures."
This is a hard factor to apply to the particular circumstances of this position.
On the one hand, the Grievor is not involved in providing "highly detailed or
complex explanations or instructions" (Level 5). But she is clearly required
to provide more than "basic instruction" (Level 4). She is required to secure
"understanding, co-operation or agreement" from employers for the purpo~e~
of entering into employment contracts. "Negotiation" (referenced in Level 5
and absent from Level 4) is a significant part of her job. Both the Grievor's
evidence and Mr. Rogers' evidence agreed on that point. There is also a
significant "mediation" function between employer and client throughout the
duration of the employment agreement. The Grievor has minimal
involvement with "confidential and sensitive information".
While I do not find this an easy decision, the balance of the evidence tilts toward
Level 5 as the "best fit".
Communications/Contacts - Level 5
12
(e) 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 College has rated this factor at Level 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."
The Union has rated this factor at Level 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 of resources."
From the evidence, the only decisions or actions of the incumbent which
would have an impact on the organization are errors that might be made in
completing Ministry reports, more specifically the annual business plan.
Such errors would have a moderate impact on the organization and would
be quickly and easily detected. I accept Mr. Rogers' evidence that if and
when such errors occur they would be quickly corrected with a minimum
waste of resources.
Consequently, this factor is adequately addressed at Level 3.
13
Responsibility For Decisions And Actions - Level 3
(6) Arbitration Data Sheet
FACTORS LEVEL POINTS
Training/Technical Skills 6 110
Experience 4 45
Complexity 5 74
Judgement 6 102
Motor Skills C3 25
Physical Demand 2 16
Sensory Demand 4 39
Strain From Work Pressures/
Demands/Deadlines 4 39
Independent Action 5 60
Corn m u n ication s/Contacts 5 160
Responsibility For Decisions And Actions 3 44
Work Environment 3 55
Total 769
Support Services Officer, Atypical, Payband 12.
(7) Conclusion
The Training Consultant position is not a regular Support Services Officer 'C'
position. It has atypical aspects, magnified in the Grievor's case (a) because she has
clearly taken on - or been assigned (by a previous supervisor, but with the apparent
acquiescence of Algonquin College) - a major role in the business plan and liaison with the
Ministry. (b) I also find that the storefront location and the client outreach (even "cold
selling" of the Job Connect Program in laundromats and billiard halls) distinguish this from
the average College Support Services Officer 'C' position.
14
Core point rating confirms that conclusion. It produces a total of 769 points in
Payband 12.
Accordingly, the grievance (Exhibit 1) is allowed. The Grievor is to be reclassified
Support Services Officer, Atypical, Payband 12, 769 points. The reclassification is to be
retroactive to the date of the grievance (January 19, 2001).
( PrOfessor lan A. Hunter
61e Arbitrator
ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION
College: Algonquin Incumbent: Debra Laut Supervisor: Nelson Rogers
Present Classification: Support Services Officer 'C' and Present Payband: 1_!1
Job Family & Payband Requested by Griever: Support Services Officer 'D', Payband 13
- Position Description Form Attached
- __ The parties agree on the contents of the attached Position Description Form
OR
__ The Union disagrees with the contents of the attached Position Description
Form. The specific details of this disagreement are as follows:
AWARD
FACTORS Management Union Arbitrator
Level Points Level Points Level Points
1. Training/Technical Skills 6 110 6 110 6 110
2. Experience 4 45 4 45 4 45
3. Complexity 5 74 6 90 5 '74
4. Judgement 5 84 7 120 6 102
5. Motor Skills C3 25 C3 25 C3 25
6. Physical Demand 2 16 2 16 2 16
7. Sensory Demand 4 39 4 39 4 39
8. Strain from Work Pressures/
Demand/Deadlines 4 39 5 50 4 39
9. Independent Action 5 60 5 60 5 60
10. Communications/Contacts 4 124 5 160 5 160
11. Responsibility for Decisions/
Actions ;3 44 4 02 3 44
12. Work Environment 3 55 3 55 3 55
PAYBAN D/TOTAL POINTS 11 715 13 832 12 769
JOB CLASSIFICATION SSO 'C' $$O 'D' $$O, Atypical
ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: __ The Union __ The College
FOR THE UNION FOR MANAGEMENT
(Griever) (Date) (College Representative) (Date)
(Union Representative) (Date)
FOR/~BITRATOR'S USE:
(Date Hearing) (Date of Award)
ator's Signature) of