HomeMy WebLinkAboutFleming 05-07-15IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ALGONQUIN COLLEGE
("the employer")
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
("the union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF MS. LYNN
FLEMING (OPSEU #441608)
ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer: Diane McCutcheon, Manager, Employee
Services
Larry White, Contact Centre Supervisor
For the Union: Chris Boal, Union Spokesperson
Lynn Fleming, Grievor
HEARING: In Ottawa on April 7, 2005.
2
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The grievor is employed in the College's Contact Centre as a Client Service
Representative. On June 25, 2004 she filed a grievance in which she contended that she
was improperly classified as a Clerk General Atypical at payband 7. She claimed that
she should be classified as a Clerk General D at payband 8.
On September 10, 2004 the parties agreed on the wording for a revised position
description form ("PDF") respecting the grievor's position. The applicable job
evaluation manual states that: "The PDF is intended to reflect the assigned duties and
responsibilities of the position".
The employer's rating for all twelve job factors identified in the job evaluation
manual resulted in the grievor's position being awarded 483 points. This came within
the 451 to 510 point range for payband 7. As discussed in some detail below the union
contends that the ratings for the factors of physical demand, communications/contacts
and work environment should be increased and result in a new total of 553 points. This
would come within the 511 to 570 point range for payband 8.
The grievor is one of 27 Client Service Representatives in the Contact Centre.
These employees serve as a first line of contact for inquiries and requests to the
Registrar's Office. They take calls from and provide information to students, potential
students and parents. Should a request for information or a requested service be beyond
the level that the grievor can provide she will refer the caller elsewhere. For example,
the grievor testified that if someone should ask her if they could be exempted from
certain courses because they held a university degree she would provide them with the
name of a person to contact.
The PDF summarizes the overall purpose of the grievor's position as follows:
Reporting to the Contact Centre Supervisor, the Client Service
Representative responds to a wide variety of in-person, telephone, mail,
fax, e-mail and web-based inquiries and provides information on all
programs, courses and other activities offered by the College. The
incumbent performs a variety of responsible clerical services related to
admission and registration for programs and courses offered by the
College, accepts payments, assigns lockers and sells parking passes,
issues receipts and timetables, and reconciles daily transactions. The
incumbent informs clients on College policies and procedures in a
knowledgeable and comprehensive manner.
3
The incumbent operates the College switchboard and provides support to
clients regarding the College voice messaging system. The Client
Service Representative is often the first point of contact with clients for
the Registrar's Office and for the College. The Client Service
Representative must have excellent interpersonal, client service and
communication skills to effectively deal with our diverse clientele and
their needs. The incumbent is an integral team member both within the
College, the Registrar's Office and amongst the Client Service
Representatives.
The PDF lists in some detail the various functions performed by the grievor. The
list is headed up by the statement: "The Client Service Representative is the focal point
of most inquiries and requests to the Registrar's Office and listens to inquiries carefully,
providing service required or referring to the appropriate area for action".
For about 5% of her time the grievor acts as a back-up for two switchboard
operators located in the Contact Centre.
THE GRIEVOR'S ROLE AS A TEAM LEAD
In February 2003 the grievor was appointed one of several team leads in the
Contact Centre. This title is used to describe lead hands in the Centre who are paid a
premium for their additional duties. The grievor testified that she provides guidance to
other Customer Service Representatives with respect to procedures they are to follow
and who to forward calls to. She referred to communicating with other Customer
Service Representatives to promote their cooperation and participation and to guide
them. The grievor testified that even prior to when she was appointed a team lead it was
common for part-time Client Service Representatives to come to her for assistance.
The job evaluation manual contains a separate section relating to the status of a
lead hand. It notes that the support staff collective agreement provides for a premium to
be paid to an employee who has been designated a lead hand by management. It states
that the lead hand is involved in passing a supervisor's instructions on to other members
of a work group and explaining new projects and assignments. It notes that a lead hand's
functions also normally include the duties of: "showing employees how to do tasks
when difficulties arise ... explaining office routines, work procedures ... explaining
precedents and past decisions".
The job evaluation manual suggests that assisting other employees, including
explaitlitig ~vork assignments, are among the tasks for which a lead hand is paid a
4
premium and those duties are not to be taken into account when rating the job factors
associated with the individual's position. The grievor referred in her evidence to
performing duties similar to those of a lead hand before she was formally designated as
such. At the time she filed her grievance, however, she had been a lead hand for over a
year. Her functions prior to that time cannot reasonably be used to support her claim
under the grievance. Having regard to these considerations, I am satisfied that the
grievor's leadership role with respect to other Client Service Representatives fell within
her lead hand duties and should not be considered when rating her basic job functions.
PHYSICAL DEMAND
The job evaluation manual 'states that this factor is designed to measure the demand
on physical energy required to complete tasks. It goes on to say that "consideration is
given to: the type and duration of physical effort, the frequency, strain from rapid and
repetitive f'me muscle movements or the use of larger muscle groups, lack of flexibility
of movement". The employer rated this factor at level 2, which is worth 16 points. The
union argued 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
5
Occasional periods of heavy physical effort.
Caretaker A, B; ECE Worker; Switchboard Operator; Technologist A, B;
Clerk General A
The job evaluation manual indicates that the term "occasional" refers to part of a
day, "recurring" to most of a day and that "continuous" refers to all of the time.
The agreed-on PDF contains the following entries with respect to the factor of
physical demand:
The incumbent may be sitting for long periods of time, with very little
opportunity for flexibility of movement.
This position also requires the regular need for hand-eye coordination
when searching for information in the on-line director and keying in the
appropriate number of the switchboard.
Task % of Time
Prolonged sitting answering inquiries and
directing calls. More than 80%
The grievor testified that she spends 90% of her day sitting at her computer.
In response to questions from the spokesperson for the employer the grievor
indicated that over the course of a year she attends a variety of different meetings away
from her workstation although these are relatively infrequent. She acknowledged that
during the course of a day she would frequently access a printer at the other end of the
Contact Centre.
Mr. Larry White is the Contact Centre Supervisor. He noted that several times
each term the grievor would attend training sessions that would generally be held away
from the Contact Centre.
Mr. White testified that the grievor uses two printers, one in a supply room and one
by his workstation, as well as a fax located in the supply room. He said that the grievor
must "pop upstairs" to discuss wait list issues and he and she move back and forth to
talk to each other. He also made the statement that employees at the Centre are a social
6
group, "people cluster around" and this is something he encourages. Mr. White
subsequently agreed with the union spokesperson that for most of the day the grievor is
at her workstation.
In its written submissions the employer contended that the grievor has the
opportunity to move to mail boxes, files, supply cabinet, printer and fax machine. It
noted that her workstation has an ergonomic chair. The employer submitted that the
effects of prolonged physical demands resulting from the majority of the grievor's duties
best fit in the light demand category. It further contended that prolonged sitting and
answering inquiries and directing calls would qualify as recurring light physical effort,
which comes within a level 2 rating.
The employer in RRs brief and in its oral submissions referred to the assistance the
grievor provides to other Customer Service Representatives, including times when she is
at their workstations.
In support of a level 3 rating the union relied on the statement in the PDF that the
grievor might be sitting for long periods of time with very little opportunity for
flexibility of movement. The spokesperson of the union contended that the grievor's
duties are similar to those of a Switchboard Operator and Clerk General A, both of
which are illustrative examples for a level 3 rating.
The classification manual contains job evaluation guide charts that list the typical
duties of various classifications. The charts indicate that with the exception of a
Switchboard Operator the illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating all have typical
duties that require regular physical demand. This includes a Clerk General A who
.typically delivers mail and materials and distributes supplies. This contrasts with the
illustrative classifications for a level 2 rating which include Secretary A, B, C and Clerk
General B and C, all of whom typically work at a desk.
The fact that a Secretary A, B and C and Clerk General B, C and D are illustrative
classifications for a level 2 rating makes it clear that the mere fact a job primarily
involves sitting at a desk does not make a level 3 rating appropriate. Presumably a level
3 rating is appropriate for the Switchboard Operator position because someone in this
position is typically not able to get up and move around but rather must sit waRRing for
calls to arrive so that they can be directed elsewhere.
The oral evidence, particularly that given by Mr. White, suggests that the grievor
has some ability to move about. Standing alone the oral evidence would suggest that a
level 2 rating is appropriate. In the PDF, however, the parties agreed that: "the
incumbent may be sitting for long periods of time, with very little opportunity for
flexibility of movement". This agreed upon PDF language, when considered together
7
with the oral evidence, leads me to conclude that while there are times when the grievor
has flexibility of movement there are also long periods when there is very little
opportunity for her to move. The criteria for a level 3 rating refers to "some flexibility
of movement". This suggests that the fact an incumbent does at times have flexibility of
movement does not necessarily mean that a level 3 rating could not apply. Having
regard to these considerations I f'md a level 3 rating 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.
Consideration is given to the nature and purpose of the communication and the
confidentiality of the information involved.
The employer rated this factor at level 2 worth 52 points. The union contends that
the appropriate rating is level 3 worth 88 points. The definitions for these levels and the
related illustrative classifications are as follows:
2. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing
detailed explanations, clarification, and interpretation of data or
information. There may be need to empathize with and
understand the needs of others in order to handle problems or
complaints. Occasional involvement with confidential
information which has minor disclosure implications.
Clerk General B, C; Programmer A, B; Secretary A, B; Skilled Trades
Worker
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
8
The PDF entry with respect to this factor lists in summary form the purpose of the
grievor's contacts with various individuals. The PDF's listing of the grievor's duties
and responsibilities provides somewhat greater insight into her communications
responsibilities. Some, but not all, of the listed duties are:
Information Functions
explains College policy and procedures regarding registration, fees
and student records, articulates and applies College Confidentiality of
Student Records policy and provincial Freedom of Information and
Privacy Protection legislation;
- informs applicants on possible program or course choices and refers
clients to appropriate academic department for advising;
- assists clients in completing the application form electronically;
- responds to student inquiries regarding his/her academic record;
- responds to a wide range of inquiries from students, professors, staff
and the public with information regarding such activities as dates and
procedures for admissions, registration, fees payment, events (such as
Convocation, and other ceremonies);
- refers clients to other sources of information of services, as required;
- respond to inquiries regarding certification forms (e.g. Schedule II's,
Form R's, bank/pension forms, orphan's allowance forms and various
tax forms) and provides guidance as to where forms can be
completed/obtained;
- verify locker and parking information for other College departments;
- provide information and navigational assistance regarding access to
College, OCAS, OSAP and other websites;
ensures that all part-time staff are advised about upcoming deadlines
and activities;
responds to electronic inquiries related to a variety of admissions,
registration and information inquiries.
provides information and refers clients as appropriate regarding
Blackboard and IT access;
Registration
~ responds to a wide variety of inquiries received by telephone, in
person, fax, mail, e-mail and web related to programs, courses, and
other activities offered throughout the year;
- informing the students and general public of the registration policies
and procedures
Student Records
- ensures that Confidentiality of Records is applied in all transactions;
10
The grievor contended that she provides interpretations on policies and procedures
by explaining how policies work. She said that she provides interpretations to callers
when she explains to them what various numerical codes mean. She gave the example
of a code which indicates that an applicant lacks a necessary math course or had a math
mark that was too low.
The grievor contended that she guides students on procedures and policies,
including when they ask her how to do something and she tells them the steps involved.
Mr. White testified that the Client Service Representatives provide information to
clients based on existing publications. He said they paraphrase the information and put
it into words a client can understand but if the client requires guidance the
Representative refers them to someone else for assistance. Mr. White said that the
Client Service Representatives are required to follow existing policies and cannot
deviate from them. He also said that it would be beyond a Client Service
Representative's responsibilities to negotiate cooperation or promote participation with
someone.
The grievor testified that she never provides information relating to a student to a
caller unless there is a release and she will verify the release on the phone. She
indicated that if someone phones in claiming to be a student she ensures that it is in fact
the student and not their parent. She testified that she never provides grades over the
phone but instead directs students on how to access their grades on the web.
In its written brief and at the hearing the employer contended that a level 2 rating is
appropriate since the grievor's position provides information but not guidance, which is
provided by others. In its brief the union referred to the range and purpose of the
grievor's contacts listed in the PDF. It contended that "this job is all about
communications" and that it is best exemplified by a level 3 rating.
The criteria for a level 3 rating indicate that only one of the various criteria listed in
the first sentence need be present. Accordingly the fact the grievor does not
communicate in order to provide technical advice or to interpret theory does not
necessarily mean that this level does not apply. It would still be appropriate if her duties
required communication for the purpose of providing guidance or explaining various
matters by interpreting policies or procedures. The second sentence of the level 3
criteria states that there "may" be a need to promote participation and understanding and
secure cooperation to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive nature. These
considerations do not apply to the grievor's position. The fact that the word "may" is
used, however, means that this is not determinative. The grievor does have a regular
involvement with confidential information such as credit card numbers, including
11
communications responsibilities respecting that information in terms of recording and
using the information, which is suggestive of a level 3 rating.
The illustrative classifications do not provide a clear answer to the issue of a proper
rating. The grievor's communications responsibilities do, however, bear some similarity
to the typical duty listed in the guide chart for a Clerk General C at level 2 who
"disseminates detailed information in response to a wide range of enquiries", as well as
the typical duty of a Secretary B, also at level 2, who "answers enquiries that require a
complete knowledge of policies and procedures".
The grievor's evidence and the listing of her duties in the PDF indicate that she
provides detailed information to others. They do not, however, suggest that she actually
guides callers in terms of assisting them to choose between different available courses of
action. The grievor does advise callers of various policies and procedures. This would
justify a level 3 rating if she also explained matters by interpreting procedures or
policies. The procedures and policies addressed by the grievor, however, appear to be
fairly specific. The evidence does not suggest that she needs to interpret them by
explaining difficult to understand or ambiguous language or by deciding how a policy
would apply to a particularly complex fact situation.
Having regard to these considerations I am led to conclude that the grievor's job
duties require communication for the purpose of providing detailed explanations and
information but she does not provide guidance or explain matters by interpreting
procedures or policy. Accordingly her duties better fit the criteria for a level 2 rating.
WORK ENVIRONMENT
This factor measures working conditions in terms of the physical environment. The
employer gave the grievor's position at a level 1 rating worth 10 points. The union
contends that a level 2 rating worth 32 points is more appropriate. The level definitions
and illustrative classifications are as follows:
1. Job duties are carried out with occasional exposure to slightly
disagreeable and/or hazardous elements.
Clerk General B, C, D; Secretary A, B, C
2. Job duties are carried out with occasional exposure to moderately
disagreeable and/or hazardous elements
OR
12
Recurring exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous
elements
OR
There is a requirement for occasional travel (10% - 30%).
SSO C; Switchboard Operator; Technician A, B, C; Technologist A, B, C
The PDF states that the grievor works in "agreeable office conditions as those
normally found inside offices" for more than 80% of her time but there is also "exposure
to fluctuating room temperatures" more than 80% of the time. The grievor testified that
the airflow at the Contact Centre is better now than it was when she filed her grievance
but it is still not very good. She testified that the temperature at the back of the Centre
where she works is "normally" 80 degrees although it can rise to 82 or 83 degrees. She
said that she can feel a difference in temperature when she moves from the front to the
back of the center.
Mr. White testified that the grievor was right about high temperature fluctuations
and temperatures varying within the Centre. He said that people at the front of the
Contact Centre are cooler than those at the back by about 5 degrees. He did not,
however, specify what those temperatures were. He noted that within the past year
Physical Resources had increased air circulation and that within the past six months
complaints about temperature levels had dropped dramatically. He said that now
whenever a temperature issue arises Physical Resources quickly responds. He also said
that the day prior to the hearing a lack of airflow in the Centre that had been corrected
within a half-hour following a call to Physical Resources.
In response to a union request raised at the Step 1 grievance meeting a carbon
dioxide level test was performed at the Contact Centre in November 2004. The results
indicated that carbon dioxide levels were within normal comfort levels. An attachment
to the report described carbon dioxide as a surrogate for indoor pollutants. In its brief
and at the hearing the union questioned the validity of the test results. The union did
not, however, produce any other carbon dioxide readings. In the circumstances I
conclude that there was not a problem associated with carbon dioxide levels or indoor
pollutants. The results of the testing for carbon dioxide, however, did not directly
address the grievor's evidence respecting the high temperature at the back of the Contact
Centre.
In her final submissions the spokesperson for the employer noted that a report with
the carbon dioxide test results contained a graph with red, blue and green lines. At the
bottom of the graph was written "C call centre" in red, "RH Call Centre" in blue and
13
"ppm Call Centre" in green. The employer spokesperson stated that the red line
represented temperature readings and the green line carbon dioxide levels. Presumably
the blue line measured relative humidity. In addition to the graph and a lengthy
technical discussion respecting carbon dioxide testing the report contained the following
entry that was not addressed at the hearing. I note that the text of the report contained
references to total volatile organic compounds and suspended particulates.
Air Sampling Results
Sampling results for CO2, Relative Humidity and Temperature from YES
Falcon 206L Datalogger are attached.
Table 1 - Direct Reading Measurements - Building C - Algonquin College
Sampling Locations TVOC's Particulate
(ppb) (mg/m-)
C032 - beside Larry
White's Pod 123 0.009
CO32 - back right comer 98 0.012
Target Level 440 0.050
Action Level 2200 0.150
The report contained a page headed "Conclusion/Recommendations". Prior to
stating that carbon dioxide levels were well within comfort levels the text set out the
following comments about temperatures in the Centre:
The complaints received from the Call Centre are common complaints
associated with dry air and high temperatures. The results show that the
RH values are on the lower end of the ASHRAE recommendations.
These symptoms are not uncommon when there is a mix of warm
temperatures and low RH
The entry in the report reproduced above respecting air sampling results when read
together with the graph indicate that during the course of the carbon dioxide testing
temperature readings were also taken. Presumably as with the other readings they were
taken at two locations in the Contact Centre, namely beside Mr. White's work area and
14
the back right hand comer. The individual temperature readings were not recorded in
the report. It is not apparent how the red line on the graph was determined, that is
whether it reflected readings from one location, or an average of readings from two
locations. The evidence suggests that readings would have been higher at the back of
the centre than at the front. The red line on the graph fluctuates up and down with
respect to Thursday and Friday November 4 and 5, 2004 from about 22 to 25 degrees
centigrade. It rises to highs of about 26 and 27 degrees for Saturday and Sunday
November 6 and 7, 2004, which were not working days for the grievor.
In addressing the issue of heat I believe the relevant time frame was when the
grievance was filed in June 2004 rather than following subsequent improvements to
airflow in the Contact Centre.
The employer in it brief and in its oral submissions relied on the statement in the
PDF that the grievor's work environment involves agreeable office conditions normally
found inside offices. As noted above, however, the PDF also refers to fluctuating room
temperatures more than 80% of the time. The PDF does not refer to the range of
fluctuation. The grievor's evidence was that the temperature where she worked was
normally 80 degrees but could go higher. The graph suggests that when the carbon
dioxide testing was done the temperature was lower than this, especially on November 4
and 5, 2004. As already noted, however, no information was provided in the report
about how the red line on the graph was developed in light of readings apparently taken
at two different locations. Further, apart from the graph, which covered only a few days,
there was no oral or written evidence to contradict the grievor's claim that normally the
temperature at the back of the Contact Centre was 80 degrees.
The evidence leads me to conclude that that in the area where the grievor worked
temperatures were some 5 degrees higher than at the front of the Contact Centre and that
although such was not always the case they were normally 80 degrees Fahrenheit or
above. I view this temperature level as slightly disagreeable. Further, based on the
grievor's evidence that this was normally the temperature at the back of the Centre, I find
that it was "recurring" in the sense of being present most of the time. Recurring
exposure to slightly disagreeable elements is one of the criteria for a level 2 rating.
Accordingly I f'md a level 2 rating to be appropriate.
CONCLUSION
As noted above, the employer's rating of the grievor's position resulted in a total of
483 points. My findings with respect tO the factors of physical demand and work
environment raise this by 12 and 22 points respectively to a total of 517 points. This is
15
within the 511 to 570 point range for payband 8. Accordingly I find that the grievor's
position was appropriately at the payband 8 level.
I retain jurisdiction to address any issues that might arise out of this award that the
parties are unable to resolve.
Dated this 15th day of June 2005.
Arbitration Data Sheet- Support Staff Classification
1. Concerning the Attached Position Description Form:
The parties agreed on the contents;~'
~ The Union disagrees with the contents and the spec~c details are attached.
2, The Attached Writte~ Submission is from: tg'The Uni~ [] The College'
:~;~:~:~::~:~:~:~`;~;`.~?~::~.~:~A`.;:~:~.~:~::~::~:~;?;~P~::~:;~:~:~:~:::~:~;~::~:~:;~:~:;~~;~;<-~`~:" :"t~';' ,....:.~':.~×....'w..,-~.,.. ...... ,-_. ..,...,..
~.' ..v.-.v-"..'.v'-~..,' ,, ~,.."' ~t~..~. ..., ~ ~.,..'. -;"+'< ,~,~h~..'-.~ k .~ ........ :~,',~".-,'.'-'. '.'-;~'-3."' ~..,.~.,.~..,~d.~.~,, .-.~,,., -~. ~,.. ,~,..,~.~,~.~. ~..~-..,~., :~.~." ~,-.~*.... {....:-:,.., . ,.,,:-,'.,>.. -:~, ;,..~-,> ,~.. '..'.....,.w ~.. ,. - ~'... '~.,..,~
....... .~::.~`~.~:=~`~:~``:..:.~..~.~.~.~*~.~*.*~:~=~.`~=*.=~.=~>:~`.`.~.*~...`.:=~..~.:`.~".~...='*.~.~.~;~` ................. ~:,~*~..,.;~:,='~,:.=-=,,-..:.:.:=.,~f~:=. Level Points i
.,_; .............................................. ~..~. ................... ,..~..,.: .................. : ........... .~ .......... . ..................................... .,:,~ { Leve ! Pants Level Points
l,_.j Training/'Technioal Sldlls I '~ I ~'~I ,~. ,5.~ I .:~
....... 6. ~h~caIDernan~ ~ i~, ~ ~, ~' :3 2 ~
s_.:. s~in~wo~r~,ur~,~mar~a:~ea~,ne~ ~ ..~ .3. ~, ~ :~ ~
.'9. independent Action ~13~I 3 I~$I ~
For~Union:~ ,, .
~. ~,~ (Date) (College R~enlative) .
(Dm)
x, · -' '--
(Arbitratofg'Signatu~) (Date of Hesrin~) (Date of Award)