HomeMy WebLinkAboutLemieux 03-08-01IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
CAMBRIAN COLLEGE
("the employer")
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
("the union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF MR. MICHEL
LEMIEUX (OPSEU #2002-0656-0011)
ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer: Andre Durette, Coordinator, Staff Relations
Leo Oman, Manager, Building Maintenance
and Property Services
For the Union: Mary Jane Veinott, Union Representative
Michel Lemieux, Grievor
Tony Skopyk
HEARING: In SudburyonMayl4,2003
2
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On May 10, 2002 the grievor prepared a grievance in which he alleged that he was
incorrectly classified as a Skilled Trades Worker at payband 9. He asked that he be paid
as a Skilled Trades Worker Atypical at payband 11.
On or about May 17, 2002 the employer reclassified the grievor's position to that of
Skilled Trades Worker Atypical at payband 10 effective March 12, 2002. There still
remained an issue of whether the grievor should appropriately be paid at the payband 10
or the payband 11 level.
Both prior to and subsequent to the filing of the grievance the parties advanced
several different versions of a position description form for the grievor's position. In
March 2002 one version, which included core point rating scores, was signed by the
grievor, his immediate supervisor Mr. Leo Oman and Mr. Oman's supervisor. The
employer's Support Staff Classification Committee, however, reviewed the form and
concluded that it should be re-written. The union did not contend that the committee
could not adopt this approach but did argue that the March 2002 document accurately
described the grievor's position. The employer prepared a final position description
form (referred to below as "the PDF") on or about June 14, 2002. The union accepts the
accuracy of much but not all of this document.
The applicable job evaluation plan assigns points to twelve different job factors.
Positions with a point total of 631 to 690 fall within Payband 10. Those with 691 to 750
points come within Payband 11. In the instant case the parties agree on the appropriate
points for six job factors. They disagree on the ratings for the remaining factors of
training/technical skills, experience, judgement, motor skills, sensory demand and
independent action. Each of these factors is discussed separately below.
The grievor is a licensed electrician. He testified that he was in an apprenticeship
program while employed at Domtar. He said that since 1992 he has held a "ticket" as a
construction and maintenance electrician and that he also obtained a certificate as an
industrial electrician while employed at Denison Mines. He indicated that he has taken
a number of electrical, code book interpretation, mine rescue, aerial lift, asbestos, fire
fighting and safety related courses. He did not claim to hold a college diploma. The
employer hired the grievor as a Skilled Trades Worker in May 2001.
Mr. Oman, the grievor's supervisor, is Manager of Building Maintenance and
Property Services. He testified that he holds an engineering degree in civil and
3
mechanical engineering. He indicated that he is not an expert in electronics but did take
two electronics courses while in university.
THE GRIEVOR, S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The employer has designated the grievor as a lead hand for several maintenance
employees. Certain of the grievor's evidence related to his duties as a lead hand. The
relevant collective agreement, however, provides, for a premium to be paid to an
employee who has been designated a lead hand. Accordingly I have not taken the
grievor's lead hand responsibilities into account when assessing the proper ratings for
the various job factors in dispute.
Most of the grievor's work involves maintenance and repair duties. He performs
preventative maintenance, addresses problems with the electrical system and does
repairs on a wide variety of electrical equipment. This includes parking pay gates. The
grievor's evidence indicated that some of his projects can be fairly major. He referred to
a faulty turbine used for a dental hygienist program. He indicated that he managed to
get a back-up turbine operating, laid out the installation of a new turbine and then he and
"my group" performed the installation work.
The grievor testified that he always puts safety first. He said that if he feels
something is unsafe he tags it, brings it to Mr. Oman's attention and issues himself a
work order to correct it.
The grievor testified that he performs a wide range of non-electrical maintenance
work. He referred to helping with the setting up of a stage, identifying areas with
asbestos to contractors and staff, replacing a stained ceiling tile, performing garbage
detail, assisting plumbers/gas fitters with furnace repairs by identifying the source of a
problem and guarding the door of a women's washroom while a plumber works inside.
The grievor monitors a building automation system that can change the activity of
certain electrical equipment and also identify malfunctioning equipment, such as a fan
that is not operating. The grievor testified that he has been learning how the system
operates from an outside building instrumentation technician who works with the system
so that he can learn how to program it. Mr. Oman testified that he does not want college
employees doing any actual programming of the system, although he does want them to
learn how to change set parameters, such as the timing and speed of a fan. He added
that the grievor has been picking up this function.
In addition to maintenance and repair work the grievor performs wiring and
electrical installations related to new construction. This requires that he at times work
4
from ladders and scaffolds. The union contended that such work represents 10% of the
grievor's time. The union took issue with the employer's PDF, which indicates that it
takes up only 2% of the grievor's time. I note that the parties have agreed on the ratings
for the factor of physical demand, which among other matters relate to awkward bodily
positions, as well as the factor of work environment. Accordingly the dispute about the
amount of time that the grievor spends on ladders and scaffolds does not directly relate
to the issue of the appropriate payband.
Mr. Oman testified that the employer's staff perform one or two small construction
jobs a month although on occasion they also do large construction jobs such as a new
parking system. The grievor testified that "last summer", presumably meaning the
summer of 2002, he spent 8 to 10 weeks installing new parking pay gates. He testified
that this involved pulling wires, installing cables, making cement forms and bolting
down pay gates.
Most electrical construction work on campus is performed by outside contra6tors.
Mr. Oman testified that he assigns the grievor to obtain quotations from contractors and
then the two of them discuss the quotes. The grievor testified that he oversees electrical
installation work performed by contractors and if he is unhappy with the quality of their
work he raises the matter with Mr. Oman.
The grievor testified that at times he does layouts. He said that this involves
planning the routes contractors are to follow when installing phone lines and electrical
conduit. Mr. Oman testified that the grievor takes him into the field to discuss his
routing recommendations.
The grievor testified that he has implemented a new storage system for keeping
inventory and maintaining a record of it. He said that he has an on-going program for
identifying electrical devices, including identifying equipment and ascertaining where it
is fed fi.om and what it operates. He indicated that he is also involved in identifying and
mapping the employer's lighting systems. He said that he worked with an employee of
Sudbury Hydro to prepare a document showing transmission lines into the College. He
also testified that he is currently working on an electrical lockdown system required by
the Ministry of Labour to ensure that equipment is safe when someone is working on it.
He indicated that he will be presenting the proposed system to Mr. Oman for approval.
At times a representative of the Electrical Safety Authority will identify an
electrical deficiency and raise it with the grievor to correct. Work performed by the
grievor is checked by the Electrical Safety Authority representative to ensure that it
complies with the electrical code. The grievor testified that he is one of the employer's
more scrutinized employees.
5
THE FACTOR OF TRAINING/TECHNICAL SKILLS
The job evaluation manual states that this factor measures the minimum amount of
independent study, formal education, training programs, professional or technical
courses or apprenticeship programs necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position. It
states that the application of the factor should not be confused with the educational
qualifications of a particular incumbent. The general instructions to raters contain the
comment: "Keep in mind that it is positions that are being evaluated and not individuals.
Raters must make a conscious effort not to let knowledge of a particular incumbent
influence evaluation decisions"
The employer rated the grievor's position at level 5, which is worth 91 points. The
union contends that it should be rated at level 6, which is worth 110 points. The level
def'mitions and illustrative classifications for these two levels are as follows:
5. Required skills normally acquired through attainment of a two year
Community College diploma, or equivalent. Job duties require the
ability to organize simple statistical information and to understand the
elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline.
ECE Worker; Library Technician A, B; Programmer A, B; SSO A, B; Technician
B,C
6. Required skills normally acquired through attainment of a three-year
Community College diploma, or a three year undergrad University
degree, or equivalent. Job duties require the ability to organize
complex statistical information and/or understand and apply the
elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline.
Nurse; Programmer Analyst A, B, C; SSO C, D; Technologist A, B, C
A note to raters in the job evaluation manual states that a level 5 rating is to be
assigned when the application of the skill and knowledge of a compulsory certified
trade, such as electrician, is required. This note indicates that the job evaluation
program treats the skills and knowledge associated with the typical duties of an
electrician as being equivalent to the skills normally attained through a two-year college
diploma.
The employer's PDF states that the grievor's position requires: "Two-year college
diploma and/or Ontario Journeyman Construction and Maintenance Electricians Licence
and/or Ontario Industrial Electricians Licence". The employer in its written brief
acknowledged that earlier drafts of the PDF had called for a three-year college diploma
6
and/or an electrician's licence. The brief noted that there had been some controversy in
management ranks on this issue but the matter had now been settled. The union's
position is that someone in the grievor's position requires an electrician's licence as well
as the skills normally acquired through a three-year community college diploma. It
expressed its position as follows in the union's brief:
The two year technician's diploma definitely does not provide the college with
the expertise required to do this job safely and efficiently nor does the three
year technologist diploma by itself. The safety of the college community and
facilities must be the overriding factor here and this can only be assured with
the specialized training and experience associated with the trades licences.
At the hearing the grievor testified that a three-year college certificate or equivalent
is needed since it represents the type of background required to understand the
employer's operations. He added that he deals with electrical engineers and outside
technicians and is expected to display professionalism when dealing with health and
safety issues and with the Electrical Safety Authority. He also noted that he does a lot of
troubleshooting on non-typical equipment and is asked to give his opinion on equipment
in the machine shop, which requires that he understand pneumatics and hydraulics.
In its written brief the union contended that the size, scope and complexity of the
employer's facility and the grievor's use of computer monitoring software must be taken
into account with respect to this factor as well as the fact that any mistakes could cause
serious damage, injury or even loss of life. It also contended that the grievor takes a
leadership role in training and directing other employees and contractors and the level of
independent decision-making and initiative required is indicative of a Technologist
classification, which requires a three-year diploma.
Mr. Oman testified that a person can become an electrician in five years but
someone in the grievor's position must be more than just an electrician. He said that he
wants someone who can think, make reports and prepare spread sheets. He also said
that he wants someone who can challenge his views and put things on paper for him to
review later. He noted that the grievor has provided him with paperwork that aided his
decision-making.
Mr. Oman testified that he believes the grievor's position requires a two-year
college diploma. In response to a question from the representative of the union he said
that his agreement to a three year college diploma in an earlier proposed PDF had been
in error since at the time he did not know how to complete a PDF. He added that he was
trying to get across what more education means. He testified that he wanted an extra
?
year in school since more education allows someone to express themselves verbally and
more formally in .writing.
Mr. Oman testified that the grievor as an individual exceeds what the job
description requires. He added that he gives the grievor leeway and he is not a person
who tells an employee not to do something because it is not part of his job.
As noted above, the job evaluation manual states that the factor of
training/technical skills is to measure the minimum amount of education and/or training
necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position. In the normal course it is open to an
employer to set the minimal acceptable level of performance required of someone in a
position. Accordingly it can generally set the minimum level of education and training
that it will accept. This is subject to an arbitrator concluding that a greater education
level is required to meet the minimum requirements of the job or that the job evaluation
manual mandates a higher rating.
The employer's PDF suggests that someone without an electrician's licence but
with a two-year community college diploma might be able to meet the requirements of
the grievor's position. I have concerns about whether an individual lacking an
electrician's licence could actually perform the grievor's job. I need not decide that
issue, however, since he does hold electrician licences. I believe I can take notice of the
fact that apprenticeship programs for mandatory trades, including electrician, typically
involve a combination of progressively more advanced in-class instruction and on-the-
job training. The job evaluation manual equates the education and training involved
with a two year community college diploma for rating purposes. At issue is whether the
grievor's position requires something higher, namely the skills and knowledge usually
acquired by a three-year community college diploma or a three year undergraduate
degree.
Because the job evaluation manual treats the skills and knowledge associated with
the typical duties of an electrician as being equivalent to the skills normally attained
through a two-year college diploma it is not open to me to equate them with a three-year
college diploma. Further, the grievor's evidence did not establish that a licenced
electrician with eight years of practical experience would also require a three-year
college diploma or equivalent to perform the technical aspects of his job. As noted
above, the grievor did not claim that he holds such a diploma.
I accept the view implicit in Mr. Oman's evidence that the more formal education
an individual has generally the better able they are to express themselves orally and on
paper. (Under the job evaluation system the manner, purpose and responsibilities
involved in communicating are measured by the factor of communications/contacts.) It
is apparent that the grievor performs all of his job duties at a very high level of
competence. This includes clearly articulating his views orally and in writing. How
well the grievor performs the job, however, is not the determining factor. The issue is
what minimum amount of education and training is required to perform, not excel at, the
requirements of the position.
Officials of the employer who are responsible for setting educational and training
requirements have set the minimum of an electrician's licence or a two-year college
diploma, which for rating purposes amounts to the same thing. I do not believe it
reasonable to conclude that anyone who might hold the grievor's position would as a
minimum require not only the skills associated with an electrician's licence but also
those normally acquired through a three year college diploma as alleged by the union.
Accordingly I confirm the level 5 rating given by the employer.
TIlE FACTOR OF EXPERIENCE
The job evaluation manual indicates that the factor of experience is designed to
measure the amount of practical experience in any related work necessary to fulfill the
requirements of a position. As with the factor of training/technical skills it is generally
open for an employer to set the minimum level of experience required for a position.
This is subject to an arbitrator concluding that someone with the level of experience set
by management could not, in fact, perform even the minimum requirements of the job.
The employer rated this factor at level 5, which is worth 57 points. The union
claims that the correct rating is level 6, the highest rating possible, worth 70 points. The
relevant factor level de£mitions as well as illustrative classifications read as follows:
5. More than five years and up to eight years of practical experience.
Programmer/Analyst C; SSO D; Technologist C
6. More than eight years of practical experience.
Systems Analyst; Tech Support Specialist
Mr. Oman testified that the issue of experience relates not just to the number of
years worked by an employee but also the variety of their experience. He said that
someone with only construction work experience could not cut it at the College and
someone with just maintenance experience would be hard pressed to do so. He added
that eight years allows for someone to have worked in a variety of different areas. Mr.
Oman indicated that when both the grievor and another electrician were hired he was
looking for someone who had worked in a variety of work places.
9
In its PDF the employer expressed the minimum required practical experience as
follows:
Minimum eight (8) years experience beyond apprenticeship period in
electrical experience, with a solid working knowledge of facility systems,
electrical, mechanical, HVAC and fire alarm. Preferably in' an
institutional environment, super regional shopping center, office tower or
other mixed-use facility.
In the employer's step 2 response to the grievance Mr. Glenn Toikka, Vice
President, Finance and Administration, stated that he personally felt that the minimum of
8 years noted in the PDF was an overstatement. In these proceedings the employer did
not seek to disavow the entry in the PDF. In its written brief, however, the employer
argued that "it is a well-established principle that five to eight years includes eight years
as a minimum". At the hearing the employer's representative submitted that there is
jurisprudence to the effect that a requirement of five to eight years includes eight years.
I am not familiar with the claimed principle that a requirement of eight years'
experience fits within the range of five to eight years. The employer appears to be
saying that a minimum of eight years' experience can appropriately be described as
more than five and up to eight years experience. I recognize that someone might
potentially possess precisely eight years of practical experience. I believe, however, that
the employer's requirement of a minimum of eight years' experience more logically
meets the criteria for a level 6 rating, namely "more than eight years" of practical
experience rather than the criteria for level 5 which is "up to eight years". Accordingly,
I find a level 6 rating to be appropriate.
JUDGEMENT
This factor measures the independent judgement and problem solving required on
the job. It assesses the difficulty in identifying various alternate 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 employer rated the grievor's position at level 4, which is worth 66 points. The
union contends that a level 5 rating worth 84 points is more appropriate. The relevant
level definitions and illustrative classifications are as follows:
10
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
An entry in the PDF respecting the judgement required for the grievor's position is
set out below.
Electrician must continually assess/judge changing symptom or
parameters or data (visual, audible, touch, smell and sometimes taste) to
modify the approach to solving a system problem such as low flow,
oscillating temperatures/pressures/vacuums and understand the many
possible causes. Substantial judgment is required in the interpretation of
regulatory code to perform calculations for allowable installations,
modifications or corrections done on a regular basis to assist in making
judgments of what is possible, practical and feasible.
The union objects to the omission from the above entry of a comment contained in
an earlier version of the PDF that an error in judgement could result in death or serious
injury and/or significant damage to related equipment or structures. The very nature of
an electrician's duties, however, involves a serious risk of injury to persons or property
if work is not done properly or with sufficient care. The guide chart for Skilled Trades
Worker indicates that level 4 is the appropriate rating for the typical duties of an
electrician.
In its brief the employer contended that the majority of the grievor's problem
solving, "fits within the conventional variety within the trade as it progresses". It argued
that the grievor must be able to eliminate causes of difficulty through elimination and
calculation, two established analytical techniques. The union in its brief contended that
the degree of judgment required of the grievor is demonstrated by the examples of,
"rigging large equipment; starter contactors blew up due to catastrophic failure which
caused flashing arcing and a large gas-fired boiler to burn". The union brief also noted
the possibility of a wiring job being compromised to save time and this in turn causing a
fn'e. It contended that "decisions regarding such repairs are made independently by this
11
position and the employee is held responsible as a licenced tradesman for any critical
incidents".
As an example of the judgement he must exercise the grievor referred to the
process he would follow to ascertain why there are temperature fluctuations in an area.
He also referred to repairing non-typical equipment. He contended that his reading
schematic diagrams involves the interpretation of complex data and referred to drawings
of a generator on which he had found that certain switches were in the wrong place.
The grievor testified that he is refines work methods and techniques when he
develops new operating procedures. He gave the example of developing operating
procedures to deal with new pay gates as well as procedures for reading gauges for
exhaust levels in a welder's shop and the steps to be taken should an alarm go off.
When discussing this factor Mr. Oman referred to the judgement required of the
grievor when he performs tasks such as troubleshooting an electrical problem. He also
said that the grievor's duties include refining work methods and techniques. He added
that the grievor comes to him and proposes ways to do things better and then writes a
procedure respecting the new approach and trains other staff in the new procedure.
As already noted the guide chart for Skilled Trades Worker indicates that a level 4
rating is appropriate for someone performing the typical duties of this position.
Accordingly, I conclude that the typical duties of an electrician performed by the
grievor, including troubleshooting electrical problems, justify a level 4 rating. At times,
however, the grievor goes beyond typical electrical installations, repairs, and
maintenance work. He proposes changes in operating procedures and then prepares new
written procedures that he and others will follow. This indicates that the grievor is at
times responsible for refining work methods and techniques. This meets the criteria for
a level 5 rating. Accordingly I find a level 5 rating to be appropriate.
MOTOR SKILLS
This factor measures the fine motor movements necessary to fulfill the
requirements of a position. It considers dexterity, complexity, co-ordination and speed.
The employer rated this factor at level C-4 worth 28 points, the union at level D-1 worth
31 points. The difference between a 4 and a 1 rating relates to prevalence and would
only be relevant if the union is correct in its contention that the grievor's position
warrants a D rating for the type of motor skills involved.
The level C and D defmitions, with D being the highest rating possible, as well as
the various illustrative classifications for both levels are as follows:
12
C. Complex f'me motor movement involving considerable dexterity, co-
ordination and precision is required. Speed is a secondary
consideration.
Nurse; SSO A, B, C, D; Clerk General C, D; Programmer A, B, C; Switchboard
Operator
D Complex fine motor movement, involving significant dexterity, co-
ordination and precision, are required. Speed is a major
consideration.
Secretary A, B, C; Typist Stenographer A, B, C; Microcomputer Operator A, B;
and Data Entry Operator A, B
The union argued that speed must be a major factor when emergency situations
occur for the college to remain open and/or for there not to be serious damage or injury.
The union referred in this regard to a possible power outage caused by a main breaker
failure, an electrical malfunction of the pay parking gates or a failure of a dishwasher in
the kitchen. The grievor in his evidence also referred to problems with a projector when
it is to be used for a presentation, a contractor who requires information or the grievor
responding to a fire alarm as part of the fire response team.
Mr. Oman testified that speed is not a primary consideration in the grievor's job.
He said that he does not encourage speed when dealing with electrical problems. He
said that he gives little weight to claims by others that something must be done quickly.
He added that he would rather take flak because of a lack of speed than risk an injury.
In response to a question from the representative of the union about problems with the
parking gates Mr. Oman said that while the grievor must attend to such a problem now
rather than later he should not rush through the troubleshooting steps.
The dispute about motor skills relates to fmc motor movements. The grievor
rushing off to attend to an emergency, including responding to a fire alarm, does not
involve fine motor movements.
It is clear that the grievor is expected to deal as expeditiously as possible with
problems, particularly those that might negatively impact on the employer's operations
in a major way. It is also clear, however, that speed is a secondary consideration to the
grievor performing the work safely. The type of work where speed is a major
consideration is highlighted by the illustrative classifications for a level D rating,
namely: Secretary, Typist-Stenographer, Microcomputer Operator and Data Entry
Operator. Individuals in these classifications may be called upon to keyboard or
otherwise handle large volumes of information where a key requirement is that they do
so quickly. The grievor's functions are not at all similar.
13
I confirm the level C-4 rating given by the employer.
SENSORY DEMAND
This factor measures the demand on mental energy while performing tasks. It
considers the level or degree of concentration and the frequency of the need for careful
attention to detail and accuracy. The employer rated this factor at level 3 worth 28
points. The union contends that a level 4 rating worth 39 points would be more
appropriate. The criteria for these ratings and the illustrative classifications are as
follows:
3. Job duties require moderate visual, auditory, or sensory demand on
mental energy and l~equent careful attention to detail and accuracy.
OR
Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on
mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy.
OR
Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on
mental energy and periodic careful attention to detail and accuracy.
Clerk General C; ECE Worker; Nurse; Secretary A, B, C; Skilled Trades Worker;
SSO A, B, C, D; Technologist A, B, C
4. Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand
on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and
accuracy.
OR
Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on
mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy.
Bus Driver; Clerk General D; Switchboard Operator
The union in its brief and the grievor in his evidence referred to the grievor
spending time in areas where there are high noise levels, vibrations, and fumes. The
union contended that when working in electrical / mechanical rooms and trades shops a
high level of mental energy is required to overcome challenges to the senses and to
maintain concentration on detail in order to get the job completely safely and efficiency.
The grievor referred to a welding class being held in an area where he was
troubleshooting and the impact of this on his concentration. The union brief contended
that electrical repairs and installations by their very nature involve a high element of
danger and require constant attention to detail and accuracy to prevent serious injury or
fire damage. The brief went on to state that: "Although the Core Point Chart indicates
14
Level 3 for the Skilled Trades Classification, the Union maintains that these guide charts
are quite dated (1994) and do not allow for current higher levels and complexity of
duties performed".
The issue of exposure to disagreeable elements is dealt with by the factor of work
environment. The parties agreed to a level 4 rating, one that covers recurring exposure
to extremely disagreeable and/or hazardous elements.
The level definitions for sensory demand require reference to the illustrative
classifications in order to understand what constitutes a moderate, considerable or
extensive demand on mental energy. Skilled Trades Worker is an illustrative
classification for a level 3 rating. This indicates that someone performing the typical
duties of the classification is to receive a level 3 rating. If the job evaluation manual is
out of date as alleged by the union it is up to the parties to up-date it. I do not have
jurisdiction to re-write or ignore any portion of the manual.
All of the situations relied on by the union to argue for a higher rating relate to the
typical duties of a Skilled Trades Worker. Other tasks performed by the grievor, such as
dealing with outside bodies and preparing recommendations and procedures, are similar
to tasks performed by the Support Services Officer classifications, which are all
illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating. The grievor's duties differ considerably
from the three illustrative classifications for a level 4 rating, namely Bus Driver,
Switchboard Operator and Clerk General D.
Having regard to these considerations I confirm the level 3 rating given by the
employer.
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 is appropriate. The union contends that a level 5 rating worth 60 points, the
highest rating possible, should be 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
15
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 grievor testified that he had never brought an issue to Mr. Oman because of an
inability to deal with a problem. He indicated that he does keep Mr. Oman advised of
safety issues, major projects and matters that require the involvement of an outside firm.
Mr. Oman testified that he couldn't check the grievor's work because he is not an
electrician. He indicated that generally he is not even aware of what maintenance work
the grievor has performed. He said that generally the grievor does not come to him
about scheduling although he will at times raise with him a question about priorities. He
also said that the grievor comes to him about matters that involve an outside contractor.
As noted above, Mr. Oman testified that the grievor discusses routing
recommendations with him. Mr. Oman's evidence indicated that while the grievor
makes recommendations respecting the issuance of contracts to outside fzrms the final
decisions are made by Mr. Oman. It was the grievor's evidence that he raises issues
about the quality of contractors' work with Mr. Oman. The evidence given by Mr.
Oman about the grievor writing new procedures indicated that the grievor would initially
come to him with a proposal.
By the very nature of the position a skilled trades worker works without direct
supervision. The guide chart for Skilled Trades Worker indicates that someone in this
position typically receives a level 4 rating. Accordingly, the grievor's typical work as an
electrician logically justifies a level 4 rating. The grievor is also involved in decisions
about the issuing of contracts, raising concerns about the quality of a contractor's work,
recommending changes to the way things are done and writing new procedures. In all of
these instances, however, he discusses the issues with Mr. Oman. It is apparent that for
duties outside his role of electrician the grievor is not free to act independently of Mr.
Oman.
Given these considerations I confirm the level 4 rating given by the employer.
CONCLUSION
The grievor initially complained about being paid at the payband 9 level.
The employer subsequently raised his position to payband 10. The employer
rated the grievor's position at 659 points. My findings with respect to the factors
16
of experience and judgement raise this by 13 and 18 points respectively to 690
points. This is at the very top end of the 631 to 690 point interval for payband
10. Although the result must be a disappointing one to the grievor, I conclude
that when he filed his grievance the grievor's position should have been paid at
the payband 10 level.
Dated this 1st day of August 2003.
Arbitration Data Sheet- Support Staff Classification
College: Cambrian Incumbent: Michel Lemieux Supervisor: L. Oman
Present Classification: Skilled Trades Worker Atypical Preset Pa)band: 10
.lob Family and Payband Requested by C-ricvor: STW Atypical PB 1 I
1. "" C-~~g the Attached Position Description Form:
~] The Parties agreed on the content.
[~] The Union disagre~ with the contents and the specific details are attached.
2. The Attached Written Submission is from: ~ The Union [~The College
...: '. Level , Poims i Level Poims! Lew.1 [ ~oi~...
2. p_,q,~i~e 5 57 6 70 ~ 70
~. complexly 5 74
4. 1~lsement 4 66 5 84
5. Motor Skills 4C 28 lO 31 /4
6. Ph~ical Dt~mnd 4 39 4 39
?. Savory Demad 3 28 4 39
S, Strain from Wore Pressures / Demands / Deadlines 4 3g 4 39
~. hdependent Action 4 46 5 60
10. Coi~mzicatio~ / Contacts 2 52 2 52
11, P. espons~ilit~ for Decisiom / Actions4 62 4 62
12. Work Bnviroam~nt 4 77 4 77
Total Pants 659 737
(Grievor) (Date) (College Representative) (Date)
(Union Representative) (Date)
For Arbitrator's Use:
Resulting Classification: 5 7' ~ ,,~ r//~ ~/ Payband:
(Arbifrator's l~/gnature) (Date of Hearing) (Date of Award)
R¢~i.~l June 2002