HomeMy WebLinkAboutProvenzano 04-09-30 IN THE MATTER OF A
CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE
BETWEEN:
OPSEU LOCAL 416
-and-
ALGONQUIN COLLEGE
Regarding the Classification of Elisa Provenzano
BEFORE: Kathleen G. O'Neil, Single Arbitrator
For the Union: Claude Lacelle, Chief Steward, Local 416
Elisa Provenzano, Grievor
Janet Strickland, Vice President, Local 416
For the College: Diane McCutcheon, Manager, Employee Services
James Hicks, Manager, Marketing Department
A Hearing was held in Ottawa, Ontario on September 16, 2004
AWARD
This decision deals with the classification grievance of Elisa Provenzano, whose position
as a Marketing Distribution Officer is currently classified as Support Services Officer A,
pay band 8. She seeks the reclassification of her job upwards to Support Services
Officer B, Payband 9.
Ms. Provenzano's position is essentially concerned with providing printed information
about Algonquin College, its programs, services and facilities. She leads a team of staff
and student employees who together process requests for printed materials, as well as
dealing with the stocking, storing, packaging and tracking of everything that comes in
and out.
Before turning to the specific matters in dispute in this case, it is appropriate to refer to
the Job Evaluation Manual (referred to below simply as "the Manual"), a negotiated
document, for some of the general guidelines which are intended to inform the more
detailed process of rating jobs. Prominent among these are the following:
- Job evaluation is concerned with the content of a position and not with the assessment
of an individual's performance or with the setting of an individual's pay rate. This is in
recognition of the fact that different individuals may occupy the position at different
times, and the classification, which is part of the collectively negotiated pay structure,
should not depend on the individual characteristics, strengths or weaknesses, of the
person in the position at any point in time.
- Raters are not to evaluate on the basis of a single word or phrase without assessing
the entire definition. One looks for the factor level which most accurately reflects the
integral functions of the position, not incidental or minor functions.
Issue concerning use of precedent in the expedited process
The College's brief contained an arbitration award when it was sent to me and to the
union representative prior to the hearing, as contemplated by the collective agreement.
The union objected to this, and asked me to transfer the matter to a full board hearing.
I received written submissions from both sides, with final reply given to the union. The
union's position was based on the Joint Classification Committee's June 4, 2001
guidelines as to when a matter should go to a full Board rather than the expedited
process contemplated in Article 18.4.3. This includes the indication that:
A classification grievance should be referred to a full board when:
- either party needs to bring evidence forward and that evidence is
needed to support the party's position, such as:
-arbitration awards and authorities,
- witnesses,
- preliminary objections,
- comparison to other positions, etc.
The College took the position that the award was just present for informational, rather
than evidentiary, purposes, as its argument of this case would be based on the College's
rating and the current position description form. They asked that the matter proceed in
the expedited process.
The union's reply took issue with the College's distinction between evidence and
information, and underlined that the expedited arbitration process is supposed to be a
non-legalistic means to resolve classification grievances.
It appeared to me from the College's position that the award was not needed to fully
make its arguments, and that given that the parties had decided on an expedited
process at the outset, the best result would be achieved by simply removing the award
from consideration, thus avoiding the delay, which might have been quite considerable,
and the additional expenses involved in preparing for and attending a full-Board hearing.
Therefore, I advised the parties by e-mail prior to the scheduled date of hearing of my
decision as follows:
I have reviewed both your submissions, and have decided that we should
proceed with the expedited process, without reference to the case
authority filed, on the basis that the parties had contemplated using the
expedited process and it is not intended to include argument from legal
precedent. Argument can be made on the basis of the facts of this
particular case in light of the provisions of the classification system.
The parties fully canvassed the issues without reference to the decision at the
hearing, and I have not referred to the decision filed in deciding this grievance at
all.
The PDF
The parties were in dispute on a number of items in the Position Description Form
(referred to as the PDF). I have carefully considered the parties briefs and arguments
on these matters and my decision on them is as follows:
Section B - Duties and Responsibilities
At the hearing, the parties agreed that in the section entitled "Duties and
Responsibilities, on page 2 of the PDF, the first percentage should be 50%, instead of
40%.
Section 4.2
In paragraph 4.2, on page 5 of the PDF, the union wishes to add the following text:
The incumbent must exercise good judgement in assigning work to others
and setting priorities. Work flow by others is checked, corrected and/or
modified; judgement calls must be made often to meet clients' information
needs.
Judgment must be used when arranging for filling PT positions and back
filling FT positions after receiving "sick calls".
Using good judgment to resolve client complaints. Solutions are made to
meet the needs of the client, i.e. send more materials, send different
materials, whether to track down lost shipments or resend etc.
Although the College does not dispute that these functions are part of the job in
question, it was the employer's position that these functions were adequately
covered by the language elsewhere in the PDF.
The union wished to have these examples in the PDF so that people pointing the
job would be well aware of the judgment exercised every day.
Although some of these items are referred to elsewhere in the PDF, the only
current example of the exercise of judgment in the judgment section deals with
the accuracy of inputting information. In my view, the examples the union wishes
to add give more of a flavour of the range of situations requiring judgment by the
holder of this position than the wording currently in place. As it was not disputed
that these are functions performed by the incumbent, the addition of the
examples is justified as it more accurately reflects the assigned job content of
this position.
Section 6.1
The union wishes the words "Lifting and moving heavy boxes" to replace the
current wording "Moving boxes".
The College did not see the need for this change as not all the boxes are heavy,
but agreed that lifting was involved.
Having heard the various arguments made, it is my decision that the words
"Lifting and moving boxes of a variety of weights and sizes" would accurately
describe what is required and should be added to the PDF.
Section 6.2
The union wishes to have the words "Bending to pack and unpack" replaced with
the words, "Bending, lifting, moving and unpacking." The College did not take
serious exception to this change, and it is somewhat more descriptive than the
original wording, so those words will be added to the PDF as well. However, the
aspect of packing should be retained from the original, so the wording should be:
"Bending, lifting, moving, packing and unpacking."
Section 10.1
The College had no objection to adding the words "schools, libraries", to the box
indicating the external contacts for the position. Similarly, the College had no
objection to adding the words "error, omissions" after the words, "Responds to
requests for publications". Therefore, those words should be added to the table
in section 10.1.
3
FACTORS IN DISPUTE
The four factors still in dispute will be discussed in turn:
Judqement
This factor measures the independent judgement and problem solving required on the
job. It assesses the difficulty in identifying various available choices of action and in
exercising judgment to select the most appropriate actions. It also considers mental
processes such as analysis, reasoning or evaluation.
The dispute between the parties is between Level 4, attributed by the College, and Level
5, sought by the union.
The Manual's Description of Level 4 is:
Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem solving
involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or
solutions with established analytical techniques.
By contrast, Level 5 is described as follows:
Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem solving
involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and
techniques to be used.
The union points to several examples of language in the PDF which they argue
supports the higher level for this factor, at page 8 of their brief, such as" a high
level of initiative and judgement are required in maintaining a successful liaison
with the staff", as well as in the submissions made above, about the desired
additions of examples of the exercise of judgment to the PDF. As well, it was
argued that the incumbent is constantly refining work methods to make the work
more efficient, changing the location and number of people on the work, and the
use of the space and location of work in it. Although the union acknowledges
that the data needed to be interpreted is not complex, as mentioned In level 5, it
is noted that the "or" precedes the second option of refining work methods, which
it is argued the incumbent does regularly.
By contrast, the College maintains that the tasks are cyclical in nature, recurring at the
same time each year, and that the problem-solving required in this position involves
handling conventional problems, questions or solutions with established analytical
techniques that have been developed over time. The College referred to the example of
the methods applied to distributing publications which have been constant: the
catalogues come in, labels are printed from a list of people who are to receive them, and
then they are sent to the post office.
It is appropriate to return to what is being measured by this factor as set out in the
Manual. It is the difficulty in identifying various available choices of action and selecting
the most appropriate one (See section VII, page 11). It is not essentially measuring how
often judgment must be exercised, but how hard the choices are to make. In my view
4
Level 4, which is in the upper half of possible ratings for this factor is a better fit for this
job, than Level 5. This is because the problems appear generally to be conventional
ones, although varied, as set out in Level 4, which are solved by established analytical
techniques, such as figuring out how many people should be deployed in what space,
and for which task, in order to meet a time line. For instance, in section 9.1, the PDF
provides, "A judgement has to be reached on what is at a high priority for the day and
ensure it is completed."
The manual gives no specific definition to the words "refining work methods and
techniques" which the union argues justifies level 5 here, and the wording is sufficiently
general to cover a lot of ground. However, it is not a phrase that is an easy fit for the
functions of assigning work, covering absences, deciding on how to deploy or sequence
staff and information materials, or resolving complaints about materials gone astray.
The comparator classifications given in the manual are of some use here as well. For
example, from the submissions made at the hearing, the judgment involved seemed to fit
more with the comparator classifications listed for Level 4, i.e., nurse, ECE worker, or
Secretary C than with the problem solving of the Level 5 comparators, Programmers,
Stationary Engineers or Technologists.
I would confirm the College's rating for this factor.
Motor Skills
This factor measures the fine (delicate, intricate or precise) motor movements necessary
to fulfil the requirements of the position. It considers dexterity, complexity, coordination
and speed.
The College has rated this factor at Level C2, which reads as follows:
Complex fine motor movement, involving considerable dexterity, co-
ordination and precision, is required. Speed is a secondary
consideration. Prevalence is classified as Occasional- 10% to 30% of
the time.
The union seeks Level C3, which reads as follows:
Complex fine motor movement, involving considerable dexterity, co-
ordination and precision, is required. Speed is a secondary
consideration. Prevalence is classified as Regular- 31% to 60% of the
time.
The PDF contains the following table in the Motor Skills section 5.2:
TASK / EQUIPMENT % OF TIME
Monitoring inventory on a daily basis 5%
Keyboarding (Mousing) 50%
Stuffing / Folding material and Packing boxes 15%
The College looks at the outline of the responsibilities in the PDF, which shows that 50%
of the position is overseeing and delegating work according to priorities; 25% of the
position is allocated for training programs for the Distribution Centre and responding to
problems that occur during the course of the day; 15% implementing budget plans for
CSEP students and the tracking of all OCAS applications; 5% planning, coordinating and
implementing the telephone I.V.R. system and distributing literature to various sectors
and departments; 5% requesting upgrades, changes, modifications and the training of
staff and others on the capabilities and use of this system. The heavier emphasis on
overseeing and planning functions leads them to find it appropriate to code this as
requiring "occasional" use of fine motor skills.
The union, by contrast, refers to the 50% listed for keyboarding shown in the chart under
motor skills, and suggests it cannot be reconciled with "occasional".
The PDF provides that "Most of the duties require fine motor movement, i.e. keying
information into our system". In light of this and the provisions of the chart above, I
would agree with the union that the prevalence of the use of fine motor skills is better
described as regular, rather than occasional, and that the rating should be C3, 31 to
60%.
Physical Demands
This factor measures the demand on physical energy required to complete tasks.
Consideration is given to the type and duration of physical effort, the frequency, strain
from rapid and repetitive fine muscle movements or the use of larger muscle groups,
lack of flexibility of movement that is caused to the incumbent by speed and repetitive
use of various muscles or lack of flexibility of movement.
The College has rated this at Level 2, which reads as follows:
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
While the Union seeks Level 3, which reads as follows:
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 physical effort,
OR
Recurring period of moderate physical effort,
OR
Occasional periods of heavy physical effort.
6
The College submitted that this position requires working on one or several projects at
one time, for which the incumbent may be standing for a long period of time and lifting
boxes of paper at various times. The employee has the ability to change positions and
to use tools and resources that the College has provided to aid with the physical effort
of moving the boxes.
For their part, the union maintained that the PDF makes it clear that the job requires
frequent physical demand, e.g. standing to fill out orders, kneeling to stock up on
supplies, bending to pack and unpack inventory as well as lifting heavy boxes. The
union submitted that there were no mechanical devices that prevented the employee
from having to lift and move materials by hand, and more specifically none in place at
the time of the grievance. Further, given the high volume of materials moved, especially
in the peak periods, it was argued that the work easily meets the level of recurring
periods of moderate physical effort of Level 3. The union's eslJmate of a ton of material
moved a week, 40% by the grievor was not disputed. As well, the idea that the job
requires that boxes be moved to various intermediate storage areas, and that boxes
must be lifted to shelves located in storage rooms was not disputed.
I am persuaded that the regular level of physical activity in this job is better captured by
Level 3, as the movement of materials requires recurring periods of moderate physical
effort or occasional periods of heavy physical effort when the boxes are heavy. There
was much discussion at the hearing of ways to lighten the weight of what is carried in
any given load, but overall, the "occasional moderate physical effort" of Level 2 seems to
understate the amount of physical activity in this job, whether or not any individual load
is lightened.
Here again, the comparatorjobs provided in the manual are of some useful guidance.
The level 2 comparators are jobs such as bus driver, secretary, clerk or programmer,
which appear overall more sedentary than the job in question, whereas those for level 3
include caretaker, ECE worker, switchboard operator, all of which appear to have a more
comparable physical demand.
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 manual notes that the focus is on the
manner, purpose and responsibilities involved in communicating, rather than on the
content of the information being communicated.
The College rated the job at Level 2 for this factor, which reads as follows:
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.
The union seeks Level 3, which is as follows:
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 procedure, policy or theory.
There may be 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.
The College notes that the incumbent is responsible for responding to internal and
external client requests, updating the internal Data Bases system to ensure information
is up to date, processing information requests cards, tracking and following up on
correspondence, scheduling weekly bulk mail and acting as the point of contact for
communicating system problems and updates- all contacts in which the emphasis is on
the providing of information and explanation to clients both internal and external.
The union argues that the job duties require communication for the purpose of
providing guidance or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting
procedures to others, both internal and external. It is submitted that there may be need
to promote participation and understanding and to secure cooperation in order to
respond to problems of a sensitive nature with clients, be they individuals, groups or
other organizations. As well, the incumbent has to interpret procedures to part-time staff,
look after payroll inputting, and sign payroll sheets, trouble-shooting as necessary. As to
confidential information, the union underlines that she has access to payroll numbers,
wage rates and information as to sick days.
As well, the union points out that the Benchmark Supply Service Officer A, her current
classification, receives a level 3 attribution. The College replies to this point that the
PDF in question, rather than the Benchmark SSO A job should be determinative. It is
their view that the purpose of all the communications fall within "detailed explanations",
as in Level 2. Further, the College submits that there is no requirement for specialized
or technical advice in the PDF.
The application of the two levels in question for this factor provides some difficulty. This
is partly because many of the contacts listed under section 10.1 fall readily into Level 2,
as communications for the purpose of providing detailed explanations, clarification and
interpretation of data or information, e.g. as to the state of staffing, the timeline for an
order, resolution of routine complaints, etc. The incumbent clearly has to empathize with
and understand the needs of others in order to handle problems or complaints.
However, the functions set out in the Responsibilities section of the PDF, such as
training, monitoring, assisting and motivating the Distribution Centre staff, in the College
and Marketing Data Base Entry System, and being available as an information resource
person to assist the staff during the course of the day, are major responsibilities that
justifiably fall into level 3 where the communication is required to be for the purpose of:
guidance, e.g. to staff, or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, e.g. about
the data base entry system or genesis or of explaining various matters by interpreting
procedure, e.g. those of the distribution centre, policy or theory. Other examples given
by the union which I accept would attract the Level 3 rating, are resolving problems with
the database, and explaining methodology to part time staff who have to staff events and
information booths and give tours, as the incumbent is responsible for securing people
who will represent the College with a full understanding of what they are to do.
However there are portions of level three that are less clear, such as whether the
situations or problems faced in this position are truly of a sensitive nature.
As to the area of confidential information, the descriptions of the levels are not
particularly helpful in terms of defining what "involvement with information" means.
However, the "Note to raters" in Section VII, pg. 19, is more specific. It indicates that the
focus is not on the content of the information, but on the manner, purpose and
responsibility involved in communicating the confidential information, and that raters
should "not rate the information but the communications responsibilities involved in
handling it." There can be no doubt that certain of the griever's responsibilities, for
example, in terms of signing and tracking staff hours, on forms which contain an
employee number, involve her with confidential information. However, her responsibility
is to sign and keep track of the information, not to disclose it. The aspect of
confidentiality does not feature at all in Section 10.1 which provides a grid of
communication contacts and their purpose. Nor are the consequences of disclosure of
confidential information specified elsewhere in the PDF.
In dealing with this matter, I accept the College's submission that one is not bound by
the Benchmark classifications, and the focus is on rating the PDF. Nonetheless, the
directions in Section II, pg. 3 of the manual stipulate that reference is to be made to
illustrative classifications listed in the column for the factor level points. As well, those
directions acknowledge that a precise match of any one level may not be possible, in
which case one is to determine the level which most accurately reflects the integral
functions of the position. It is my view that the combination of the major responsibilities
of the job which do properly attract a Level 3, and the fact that the cemparater
classifications of both SSO A and B attract a Level 3 for this factor, justify the attribution
of a Level 3 here.
To summarize, having carefully reviewed the evidence and the PDF in light of the
agreed classification system, I have found the rating of the factor Judgment should be
confirmed at Level 4, Motor Skills should be raised to C3, Physical Demands to Level 3
and Communications/Contacts to Level 3. The addition of the points related to the new
levels raises the job's pointing from the level of SSO A to SSO B. As a result, it is my
finding that the job should be reclassified as an SSO B at Pay Band 9.
The grievance is allowed to the extent outlined above. The griever is entitled to be
compensated accordingly. I will remain seized to deal with any problems in
implementation of the above decision.
Dated at Toronto this 30th day of September, 2004.
Kathleen G. O'Neil, Arbitrator