Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeddis 04-04-29IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ALGONQUIN COLLEGE ("the employer") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF NORMA GEDDIS (#341609) ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate APPEARANCES: For the Employer: Janet Ross, Manager, Employment Services For the Union: Claude Lacelle, Chief Steward HEARING: In Ottawa on February 27, 2004 2 AWARD INTRODUCTION On April 24, 2003 the grievor filed a grievance in which she alleged that she was improperly classified as a Support Services Officer ("SSO") B. This job classification is paid at the payband 9 level. The union argues that the grievor's position should have been at the payband 10 level. In its written brief the union contended that the grievor's classification should have been that of a SSO B Atypical at payband 10. The employer's rating of twelve job factors under the applicable job evaluation plan gave the grievor's position 611 points. This was within the 571 to 630 range for payband 9. The union's rating produced 691 points, one point above the 631 to 690 point range for payband 10. Prior to the hearing the parties reached agreement on the terms of a position description form ("PDF") respecting the grievor's position. They also agreed on the appropriate rating for eight of the job factors. They disagreed on the proper ratings for the factors of judgement, physical demand, independent action and communications/contacts. Each of these is discussed separately below. It is apparent that the grievor's duties were not those of a typical SSO. This is demonstrated by a comparison of her duties discussed below with the following typical duties ora SSO B as listed in a guide chart in the job evaluation manual: SSO B Compiles and analyzes data in order to provide recommendations as to appropriate course of action. prepares operation plans schedules and terms of reference. Represents College in dealing with public by attending appropriate functions. Trains, co-ordinates and monitors activities of others as appropriate. In its written brief the employer included copies of guide charts for the classifications of SSO A, B and C as well as for Clerk General C and D. As discussed below, the grievor was involved in performing certain duties related to employee payrolls. One of the typical duties of a Clerk General C listed in the relevant guide chart 3 is to prepare payroll documentation. A typical function of a Clerk General D is to verify the completeness and accuracy of produced payroll. THE GREIVOR'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The grievor's duties included operating printers used to produce a variety of computer-generated documents. That portion of the PDF that describes this aspect of her duties and responsibilities reads as follows: Coordinates and controls the operations required to produce computer generated printed output, batch processing of corporate systems and backup tapes/cassettes/cartridges 50 % - By accessing ONET via terminal, administering the daily OCAS data transmission files and initiating a file copy for disk backup on the GENESIS system. - By submitting the on-line and batch processing runs, monitoring the jobs and responding to job control specifications, such as mounting tapes and loading data cartridges, and restoring of files. - Operates the 5 printers, mounts and aligns special forms as required, and prepares output for distribution by operating off-line facilities by decollating and bursting output before distribution to authorized users and liaison officers, ensuring confidentiality of the information is maintained. - Consults and plans with user and programmers concerning peak periods, deadlines, changes in run dates, priorities and production issues such as file transfers and suspension of printers. - By detecting and notifying the appropriate person(s) of any breakdown and malfunction of tape drive and printers, change temperature wheel chart in computer centre. - Provides documentation for all functions. The grievor testified that her duties included "mass runs" of student transcripts (some 11,000 at a time) as well as mass runs of class lists, timetables, labels and a variety of other documents. The printers were also used to print the College's payroll every second week. The grievor indicated that she was made aware of mass printings through a 4 schedule from the Registrar's office. In addition, every day she received additional printing requests from various departments throughout the College. The grievor testified that in advance of a mass run she would check to ensure that nothing else had been scheduled that would conflict with the run. She indicated that if it was a day when payroll was to be printed she would raise the issue with her supervisor. She also indicated that other users whose requests conflicted with a mass run would be told that their print jobs would have to wait because of the scheduled mass run. As discussed in more detail below, the grievor indicated that for other conflicts she would decide which print jobs would be given priority. The grievor testified that to do print runs she would obtain the required paper, put it in the printer, set up the job and give directions to the printer. She indicated that once a job started printing she would check to ensure that it was lined up properly and the ribbon had not run out. The grievor testified that whenever a new form was introduced she would advise the relevant programmer of any problems with the form, such as if not all of the required wording fit on the form. The grievor said that she had a sense of how long a mass run should be and when a run seemed to be out of the ordinary she would stop the job and discuss the matter with the user. In her evidence the grievor referred to having designed forms. She specifically spoke about having worked with the Algonquin Students' Association about two years ago to put information from two forms into one and that "years ago" she had worked with her manager to design forms for use in an optical scanner. It is clear from this evidence that designing forms was not one of the grievor's regular functions. Accordingly, I have not given it any weight. The grievor operated an optical scanner that marked multiple choice examinations. The PDF refers to this as "marks analysis". The grievor testified that a teacher would provide her with an identifier sheet, a master score sheet containing the right answers and the students' answer sheets. She said that she would ensure that the teacher had correctly entered the information on the sheets. She indicated that when a form had not been correctly filled in she would either make the correction herself or advise the teacher that it needed to be fixed. The grievor testified that more than ten times per semester she advised a staff member on how to properly fill in the forms. She said that she would also advise teachers on how questions could be weighted, for example how a question could be worth two marks as opposed to one. The grievor described the actual operation of the scanner as a fairly straightforward process. She noted, however, that at times it would get "crazy" due to the volume of 5 work. Ms. Diane Charlebois, Manager of Finance/Administration, Information Technology Services, is the grievor's supervisor. She testified that on a slow day the grievor might do three marks analysis but on a busy day she could do 50. Another distinct function performed by the grievor was backing up information from the College's computer systems onto cartridges. This included f'mancial information, student marks, purchasing information, human resource records and payroll. The grievor would then transfer the cartridges to a storage facility in another building. The grievor was involved with wage payments to approximately 29 students employed on a part-time basis in Information Technology Services. The grievor indicated that she received time sheets from the students and then checked them against a "punch clock" software program that the students used to record their time. If a student did not punch in for time that he or she had claimed on a time sheet the grievor would cross off the time unless the form had been initialed by a group leader to indicate that the student had been at work. The grievor also deducted any hours for which the student had not been scheduled unless there was a signature authorizing those hours. The grievor indicated that she would enter the students' hours into a computer system. In the union's brief there was a list of eleven problems the grievor had encountered when addressing student pay issues as well as the grievor's solution to the problem. These include the following: Problem: Any problem with time sheets. Solution: Do not correct them, highlight where the problem is and give to Dave and he could pass it back to the student and let them figure it out. It will be processed for the following pay period. Problem: Forgetting to punch in/out at lunch time or not marking it on their time sheets. Solution: Automatic half hour deduction if anything goes over 5 hours (which we already do). Problem: Not handing time sheets in at end of their last shift for that pay period or handing them in too early. 6 Solution: If they don't work Sunday and their time sheets are not in the basket by Saturday at 10 pm leave their time sheets in the basket and they will not get processed until the following pay period. If they work Sunday and their time sheets are not in the basket by Monday 6 am same as above. Repeat Offenders get a suspension. The grievor indicated that she checked overtime and expense claims for regular full-time employees to ensure that they had been filled in right, the totals were added up correctly and any required receipts were present. She said that if a payroll form was missing a budget code or a total she would add the missing information and if she did not know what budget code to use she would ask the manager. The grievor was responsible for inputting the information into a computer. The grievor also entered information into the computer about leaves taken by employees in Information Technology Services. The PDF described this as "Inspects and monitors ITS leave report forms on the HRIS system. Ensure leave balance are accurate by forwarding a report to each of the managers by using the Excel spread sheet". The grievor testified that a "good number" of staff would phone her if they were going to be absent fi:om work. She said that she would record the information and then call the employee's manager. The grievor was involved in providing security access cards for the Information Technology Services area. The cards served as keys that could unlock certain doors. A manger or director would advise the grievor of the doors in question as well as the times when the employee should be able to access them. The grievor would enter the information onto a card using a software program and then assign the card to the employee. Should the situation change, such as when an employee left the College, the grievor would deactivate the employee's card. JUDGEMENT 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 judgement to select the most appropriate action. The employer rated the grievor's position at level 4 worth 66 points. The union contends that a level 5 rating worth 84 points was more appropriate. The relevant level definitions and illustrative classifications read as follows: 7 4. Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem- solving involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with established analytical techniques. ECE Worker; Nurse; Secretary C 5. Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem-solving . involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used. Programmer B; Stationary Engineer C; Technologist B The judgement section of the PDF describes the independent judgement and problem solving required to perform the duties of the grievor's position as follows: There is a significant degree of judgement in anticipating, planning for user requirements. Problem solving is of a technical (hardware) nature. Troubleshooting for minor hardware problems. Aid clients in resolving user print problems. ITS leave, keying data on the HRIS system. Verification of time sheets against punch clock report. In its written brief the employer contended that: "Procedures exist for these (the grievor's) functions and that any deviation would fall within existing guidelines using established analytical techniques. The manager is also available for consultation when required". In a June 11, 2003 memorandum from the grievor to Mr. Lacelle that the union included in its brief the grievor described the type of judgement that she was required to exercise as follows: Judgement I must take in ch~inging or deleting hours on CSEP time sheets. Correct payroll forms if info missing (budget codes, total $) Leave Forms seek corrections. 8 Setting all printing priorities. The first three functions listed in the grievor's memorandum to Mr. Lacelle cannot reasonably be viewed as involving the interpretation of complex data or refining work methods and techniques, which is what is required for a level 5 rating. These functions appear to be covered by the typical Clerk General C duty of preparing payroll documentation. The guide chart for this classification indicates that a typical Clerk General C would receive a level 3 rating for judgement. Even if the grievor's duties could be viewed as being the equivalent of verifying the completeness or accuracy of produced payroll, that is a typical function of a Clerk General D that would justify a level 4 rating. One of the criteria for a level 5 rating is problem solving involving the interpretation of complex data. The grievor noted that when marks analysis was done some 10 different reports would be generated that some teachers, especially new teachers, would not know how to read and they would ask her for help in interpreting them. She gave the example of a report showing that 90% of the students who took an exam got a particular answer right, which meant that the question was too easy. The grievor added that if 90% of the students got the answer wrong the question would have been too hard. The grievor's role with respect to these reports appears to have been to help instructors understand the reports rather than her interpreting complex data in order to problem solve. In her memorandum to Mr. Lacelle the grievor referred to setting printing priorities. This appears to have been an on-going issue. As touched on above, pre- scheduled mass printings and payroll runs were generally given priority. Issues would, however, arise with respect to prioritizing other runs. The grievor testified that she would decide what should be done first, then second and so on, based on whom she felt should have priority. She indicated that if someone claimed to have an emergency print job she might, depending on the circumstances, explain to them why she felt other print jobs had priority. She said that if they continued to insist that their job be done first she would raise the matter with Ms. Charlebois. It was the grievor's evidence that subsequent to the filing of the grievance her ability to decide on print job priorities had changed. It was Ms. Charlebois' evidence that if two clients wanted jobs done at the same time the grievor would come to see her about it. I infer from the grievor's evidence that this reflected the situation subsequent to the filing of the grievance. When discussing the grievor's duties and responsibilities the PDF states that she consulted and planned with users and programmers concerning peak periods, deadlines, changes in run dates, priorities and production issues. In support of its claim for a level 5 rating the union relied on the statement in the judgement section of the PDF that: 9 "There is a significant degree of judgement in anticipating, planning for user requirements". The level definitions set out above differentiate between job duties that require a considerable degree of judgement, which justify a level 4 rating, and those that require a significant degree of judgement and as such justify a level 5 rating. In response to the union spokesperson's reliance on this portion of the PDF the spokesperson for the employer contended that one qualifying line does not mean that the position fits within a category, instead one must look at the whole job. When parties agree to language in a PDF that contains wording from one of the factor level definitions it is reasonable to conclude that they jointly associated the employee's duties with that rating level. In the instant case the PDF does not indicate that all of the grievor's duties required a significant degree of judgement, only "anticipating, planning for user requirements" in connection with computer generated printing. The PDF also indicates, however, that about 50% of the grievor's total time was taken up with computer generated printing and related duties. This suggests that anticipating and planning for user requirements was a regular on-going aspect of her position. From this I conclude that although most of the judgement exercised by the grievor met the requirements for a level 4 rating, on a regular basis she was at times required to exercise a significant degree of judgement which met the requirements for a level 5 rating. Based on this I find that a level 5 rating was appropriate. PHYSICAL DEMAND This factor measures the demand on physical energy required to comPlete tasks. The employer rated this factor at level 2 worth 16 points. The union argues 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 10 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 occasional periods of heavy physical effort. Caretaker A, B; ECE Worker; Switchboard Operator; Technologist ^, B; Clerk General A The job evaluation manual indicates that the term "occasional" refers to part of a day, "recurring" to most ora day and that "continuous" means all of the time. The PDF contains the following entries with respect to this factor. The incumbent works in a recurring physical demand service environment and must go from the Front Office workstation to the input/output area and the Computer Room for printer output. May be standing for a long period of time during December due to high demands. Prepares paper output for distribution by separating by user ID, bursting and decollating of special forms. Some output is daily, weekly monthly and beginning and end of semesters. Require some lifting of weighty boxes of paper. Peak periods are very hectic. Task % of Time Sitting (keying, telephone) 20% Standing 30% Bending 10% Reaching 5% Walking 30% Lifting 8% 11 In its brief the employer noted that: "The incumbent may be standing for a long period of time and requires lifting of boxes of paper at various times. There is a schedule determined according to College requirements but with it, a definite pattern of workflow. The individual may be interrupted to perform a more urgent task, however, these are usually emergency situations requested by the manager". The brief went on to state that, "this Factor is properly reflected at level 2". At the hearing the spokesperson for the employer described the grievor's physical effort as either recurring light effort or occasional moderate effort. In support of the union's proposed rating the grievor relied on the amount of time she had spent walking and standing as well as the time she had been bent over a printer. I view these as recurring periods of light physical effort covered by the criteria for a level 2 rating. The union relied on the fact that the grievor was required to lift paper. The grievor testified that she moved paper from a cabinet in the server room to printers and took finished product from the printers to a hallway. She also talked about obtaining boxes of paper from outside the room. She said that these boxes averaged about 30 pounds. In her memorandum to Mr. Lacelle the grievor listed the weights of boxes containing nine different types of forms that ranged from 24 to 39 pounds. At the hearing the grievor explained that the 39 pounds was a box of transcript paper. She indicated that twice a year she would go through 10 or 11 boxes of transcript paper over a two or three day period. At the hearing the grievor testified that she had lifted a minimum of 10 boxes of paper a day and more in peak periods. She later said that she had lifted at least eight to 10 boxes per day. In her memorandum to Mr. Lacelle she referred to lifting heavy boxes at least five to seven times per day. At the hearing the grievor indicated that initially a new box would be full but as paper was removed from the box it might subsequently be 3/4 full or ½ full. Ms. Charlebois took issue with the grievor's evidence respecting the number of times that she would lift a box of paper. In particular she contended that the grievor would lift five not 10 boxes of transcript paper over a two or three day period. The evidence was that the grievor could have used a dolly when moving boxes of paper. The grievor testified that she did not use the dolly because this would have involved her actually lifting the paper twice as often. The PDF notes that the grievor worked in a recurring physical demand environment. It also indicates that part of this recurring physical demand involved her lifting for 8% of the time. This represents an occasional function. At times boxes of 12 paper would only be partly full, although at other times they would be full and weigh between 24 and 39 pounds. Lifting weights such as these can appropriately be viewed as involving heavy physical effort. Occasional periods of heavy physical effort represent one of the situations which justifies a level 3 rating. Accordingly I conclude that a level 3 rating was appropriate. INDEPENDENT ACTION This factor measures the independence of action and decisions required by a job. The job evaluation manual notes that controls can be in the form of supervision, policies, procedures or established practices. The employer contends that a level 4 rating worth 46 points was appropriate. The union contends that a level 5 rating worth 60 points, the highest rating possible, should have been awarded. The relevant level definitions and illustrative classifications are as follows: 4. Job duties are performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems. There is considerable freedom to act independently with Supervisor input or verification when requested. Library Technician B; Secretary C; SSO A, B; Technician C; Technologist B 5. Job duties are performed in accordance with general procedures and policies involving changing conditions and problems. There is significant freedom to act independently. SSO C, D; Systems Analyst; Technologist C The language in the PDF respecting this factor reads as follows: Some documentation is available for each output process while general policies are adhered to for computer operations support. However, the complexity of the job requires the incumbent to resolve processing issues with the clients without following specific guidelines/instructions. All updated documentation is approved by the Manager. Equipment manuals are available for off-line facilities and computer printers. Procedure manuals for on-line applications and Computer Operations support area are produced by the incumbent. Other duties are performed in accordance with past practices. 13 The work is reviewed in occasional discussions with the manager to ensure that schedules are met and for a continuous productive operation. The incumbent works with minimal supervision. The position requires independent action in all aspect of the job with manager's input as required. Creativity is required in designing form, producing documentation. The incumbent is provided with verbal or written instructions by the Manager and is responsible for time management and prioritizing as to what functions should be done next. Manager is available for consultation and advice to assist in resolving issues such as time conflicts for achievement of computer processes and problems that have budget implications. The employer contended that many of the situations faced by the grievor were repetitive in nature and could be resolved in a similar fashion. Ms. Charlebois in her evidence described the grievor's job as repetitive, involving printing, marks analysis and payroll every two weeks. During the hearing the grievor was asked about the employer's contention that her job was repetitive. As part of her reply she said that in the long run she guessed that her job was repetitive but it did require determining priorities and working against time lines. Ms. Charlebois testified that she checked the grievor's work on a dailY basis for printing jams or unpleasant clients. She said that clients checked the printing produced by the grievor and would indicate when work needed to be redone. She said that management checked the payroll and would advise her if it had been done incorrectly and she would then raise the matter with the grievor. The definition for level 4 refers to supervisor input or verification when requested. There is, however, no reference to a supervisor in the level 5 def'mition. This suggests that in the normal course there is no regular involvement with a supervisor at level 5. In the instant case both the PDF and the evidence contained several references to managerial involvement. Another key difference between the two def'mitions is that while an employee at level 4 performs his or her duties in accordance with procedures and practices that might be adopted or modified, an employee at level 5 applies general procedures and policies in the context of changing conditions and problems. The grievor's functions and her 14 work environment were relatively stable. While the details were not always the same it would be stretching matters to say that she faced changing conditions and problems. Having regard to the above considerations I confirm the level 4 rating given by the employer. COMMUNICATIONS/CONTACTS This factor measures the requirement for effective communication for the purpose of providing advice, explanation, influencing others, and/or reaching agreement. A note to raters indicates that raters are not to rate the content of information being communicated but rather the communications responsibilities involved in handling it. The employer rated this factor at level 3 worth 88 points. The union contends that the appropriate rating was level 4 worth 124 points. The definitions for these levels and the related illustrative classifications are as follows: 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 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 confidential and sensitive information where disclosure implications are significant. ECE Worker; Library Technician B; Nurse; SSO C; Technologist C The union relied on the grievor's involvement with confidential information to support its claim for a level 4 rating. In her memorandum to Mr. Lacelle the grievor described this communication as follows: ~15 Working daily with confidential information such as transcripts, marks, analysis, student addresses and financial information on students and any other personal information on students, and payroll input and output (college wide salaries on the output). At the hearing the grievor indicated that the confidential information she handled was that contained in the material she had printed. The grievor clearly had access to large amounts of confidential information as it came off the printer. She did not, however, have any communications responsibilities with respect to this information other than not to tell anyone about its contents. All of the grievor's communications duties fit comfortably within the criteria for a level 3 rating of providing guidance or technical advice. Accordingly I confirm the level 3 rating given by the College. CONCLUSION The employer's rating of the grievor's position resulted in a total of 611 points. My findings with respect to the factors of judgement and physical demand raise this by 18 and 12 points respectively to 641. This is within the 631 to 690 point interval for payband 10. There is no standard SSO classification at the payband 10 level. Accordingly, I conclude that at the time the grievance was filed the grievor should have been classified as a SSO Atypical at payband 10. I retain jurisdiction to address any issues that arise out of this award that the parties are unable to resolve. Dated this 29th day of April 2004. Arb~rator ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION ?resent Classification: .~5 ~¢p~,,,~. :~,~,~f~= ~ .~ p ~ and Present Payband: ~ Job Family and Payband Requested by Grievor: ~O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~.~ ~ ~ [ .~. ~. Position Description Form A~ached 2. e patios agree on the contents.of [he a~ached Position Description Form 0R ~ ~e Union d~sagrees w{t~ ~e contents of the a~ached Position Description PS~m. The specific ~etails of ~h d~sagreement are as follows: {use reverse side if necessar~ ~ ....... AWARD FACTORS ARBI'rP, ATOI~ 6. Physical Demand 8. S~Jn from Work P.essures/Demands/De~dlines PAYBAND.OTAL POINTS JOB. C~SSlFICATION .... A~ACHED WRI~EN SUBMISSIONS: ~The Union ~ The College FOR AR~T~TOR'$ USE: .