HomeMy WebLinkAboutSinclair 05-07-02 BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
and
Centennial College of Applied Arts and Technology
Classification Grievance of Robert Sinclair
Before: Louis M. Tenace
For the Union: Larry Farr (Steward)
Larry Goldin (President)
Robert Sinclair (Grievor)
For the College: Linda Carson (Manager of Human Resources)
Gladys Watson (Director, Learning and Resource Centres)
Nancy Fisher (Manager, Labour/Management Relations)
Hearings held at Cemennial College, June 7 and June 28, 2005.
2
AWARD
The grievor, Robert Sinclair, is classified as a Technician B, Payband 8. On May 24, 2005, he
filed a classification grievance seeking to be classified as a Technician Atypical, Payband 10.
At the commencement of the hearing, I pointed out to the parties that I had been presented with
two Position Description Forms (PDF). One was dated 1994 and was put forward by the Union
as the one to be considered; the second was dated 2003 and according to management was the
official PDF. I explained that it was not the role of a classification grievance arbitrator to
determine which PDF was the appropriate one.
In this regard, I drew the parties' attention to Article 18.4.5.1 of the collective agreement which
states as follows:
"The single arbitrator or Arbitration Board is restricted to determining
whether the grievor's PDF accurately reflects his/her assigned job
content (where disagreement exists) and to determining whether the
grievor's job is properly classified pursuant to the CAAT Support
Staff Job Evaluation Manual."
I indicated further that it was the responsibility of management to provide the employee with the
appropriate PDF in accordance with Article 7.2.2 which reads as follows:
"Each employee will be provided with a copy of his/her Position Description
Form (PDF)."
In addition, pursuant to Article 18.4.2.1, paragraph 2,
"The College Official shall ensure that the current Position Description
Form (PDF) as per Article 77.2.2 is provided at least five (5) days prior to
the meeting."
After some discussion with the parties, it was agreed that I could deal with all the relevant issues
and that the union agreed to accept the 2003 PDF as the official document.
It was further agreed that the parties would reconvene after one hour at which time we would
review the PDF to determine what were the areas of disagreement and whether agreement could
be reached on wording which would be acceptable to both parties. Subsequently, the parties
would undertake a further consultation on their own and submit a single, revised PDF to me prior
to our reconvening on June 28, 2005. This was done and the hearing was reconvened on June 28,
2005.
It is also understood that the decision in this grievance will be applicable to the similar grievances
filed by the other two Media/AV Technicians in the Learning Resource Centre of the College.
For this hearing, the parties informed me that there remained two areas of disagreement with the
revised PDF in the section of Duties and Responsibilities. The first came under the heading of
Inventory Management and Use Statistics and concerned the following bullet:
Maintains equipment scheduling and tracking information using booking slips
and designated software such as booking software, database software, and spreadsheet
applications.
The grievor alleges that each individual must develop his/her own system because there is no
uniform system throughout the various areas of the College. There are some 6000 transactions
that occur and the technician does more than simply "maintain" scheduling and tracking data. The
College insists that there is a paper-based system in place but that management is looking into
purchasing a system that will meet all of its needs, not just this one. The College alleges that there
are, in fact, some 14-15,000 transactions involved. Moreover, the College indicated that the
individuals concerned have access to existing software.
It is clear that software does exist and the grievor uses it. It was also not disputed that the grievor
does "adapt" the software to meet his specific needs. Management has indicated that the purchase
of a new system is being studied. I see little to be gained by the grievor in tinkering with the
existing words quoted above in italics. The grievor's concern is that the scheduling/tracking duties
in this PDF tend to come across as little more than a paper-pushing exercise. My reading of the
PDF does not lead me to this conclusion. Clearly, the AV Technician's job has no requirement to
"develop" computer systems. There is, however, a requirement to use whatever systems are
provided. While the grievor, because of his particular expertise, may very well modify or adapt the
software with which he is provided to better suit his needs, there is no requirement for him to do
so and, consequently, no need to include words to this effect in the PDF.
A second area of dispute involves the incumbent's Security Responsibility. According to the
grievor, the incumbent is the first line of contact with Security for AV-matters related to the use
and borrowing of equipment. The grievor alleges that to do his job properly, he must discuss with
the Security personnel various arrangements that are required to address the issue of appropriate
security for the costly equipment involved. The fact that security at the College is contracted out
results in a high turnover of personnel making the need to discuss various arrangements with
Security personnel even more important.
The College insists that the first line of contact is with the borrower of equipment and not with
Security personnel. In fact, the College is trying to reduce the number of contacts involved.
Once again, the grievor's main complaint is that the current wording of this duty tends to present
it as a simple matter of exchanging pieces of paper between the AV Technician and Security.
The current wording of this duty is as follows:
"Provides security with booking information for after-hours equipment
release/return. After hours security issues related to media equipment and
bookings are referred to management. Any breach of security is reported
directly to the manager and/or security in accordance with LRC and College
policies ".
I agree with the grievor that there is more involvement with Security personnel than is evident
from the wording cited above. It seems to me that any conscientious AV Technician must be
concerned with the security of the equipment and would want to discuss with Security personnel
the conditions relating to the borrowing and return of equipment, particularly when it concerns.
outside organizations and use of the equipment on weekends and outside of normal working
hours. I would modify the current wording by adding the following words to the beginning of the
first sentence of the duty cited above:
Discusses arrangements with security as deemed necessary and provides security with
booking information for after-hours equipment release/return. (Emphasis added).
The parties have rated this position identically in terms of level and points with respect to the
following factors:
1. Training/Technical Skills - Level 5 (91 points)
3. Complexity - Level 4 (58 points)
5. Motor Skills - Level C3 (25 points)
7. Sensory Demand - Level 3 (28 points)
12. Work Environment - Level 2 (32 points)
The other areas of dispute between the parties relate to the following job factors, including both
level and point rating:
Experience:
The Union alleges that, since its inception, this job has always required two years of experience.
The job has both an administrative aspect (running an operation) and a technical aspect requiring
appropriate knowledge. It is alleged that 'more than three to five years of experience' is required
for this position. On this basis, the Union places the job at the 4 level (45 points).
Management asserts that 'more than one to three years of experience' is sufficient. It is not
regarded as an administrative position or one that involves running an office. An external
consultant was hired to do a desk audit of this job and it was determined that one year of
experience was appropriate. Moreover, there have never been any problems recruiting for these
positions. Management places the job at level 3 (32 points).
While it may me trite to say that more experience is usually better than less, I have heard nothing
to convince me that 'more than three to five years of experience' is required for this position.
I find that this position is properly rated at level 3 (32 points).
Judgement:
The Union alleges that the requirement to provide solutions to problems should enable this factor
to be rated at the 4 level, particularly in view of the fact that the job deals with many individuals
who are really transients because of the changing semesters. Thus, the factor should be rated at
level 4 (66 points).
The College believes that the problem-solving requirement described at level 3 of the rating plan
includes the need and ability to provide solutions. In any event, problems are not the norm. Most
are of a recurring nature and if they can't be resolved, they are discussed with the manager. The
PDF looks at every day work, not the exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the factor is properly
rated at level 3 (48 points).
There is no question that there is a problem-solving requirement in this position and that the
incumbent would be expected to find solutions to most of them. Much will depend upon the
individual's knowledge, experience and common sense. I was not really provided with any
instances where problems arose which were unique or required 'special analytical techniques' as
noted in the rating guide for level 4. Many of the problems appear to be of a recurring nature, i.e.
equipment breakdown, scheduling conflicts, etc. Finally, a manager was normally available by
telephone to consult with in such instances.
I conclude that this factor is properly rated at level 3 (48 points).
Physical Demand:
The Union alleges that there is continuous physical demand in the duties of this position. There is
frequent use of ladders in the installation and repair of equipment as well as the moving and lifting
of equipment. The position should be rated at level 3 (28 points).
Management questions the need to climb ladders for repairs as equipment is always sent out for
repairs. Management did acknowledge that, at times, some adjustments to equipment might
involve the use of ladders. The position is properly rated at level 2 (16 points).
The level 2 rating factor provides for some physical demand as well as the need for recurring light
physical effort or occasional moderate physical effort. On the whole, however, it appears to me
that the incumbent works in a comfortable environment most of the time and, on certain
occasions, there may be a need for moderate physical effort.
I conclude that this factor is properly rated at level 2 (16 points).
Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines:
The Union alleges that the job has constant, unpredictable disruptions with a need for immediate
solutions. Priorities are always shifting and there are booking changes. Also, the incumbent must
always react to answer a door bell because of the necessity to keep doors shut to maintain
security of the equipment. The position should be rated at level 4 (39 points).
Management responded that the Library staff provides back-up to the AV Technician and also
answers the door bell if the AV Technician is away or unable to do so. Bookings must be made at
least two days in advance. Many of them are on a semestered basis. While there are changes,
these are not voluminous and the pace is relatively stable. The position is properly rated at level 3
(28 points).
Based on the information offered, I am unable to conclude that this position is one replete with
interruptions and frequent disruptions in workflow. While there may be multiple and conflicting
demands at times, it appears that these are easily managed by the incumbent resulting in relatively
moderate work pressures, demands and deadlines with the occasional critical situation arising.
I conclude that this factor is properly rated at level 3 (28 points).
Independent Action:
During the course of the discussion of this factor, the parties agreed to amend Section 9.3 as
follows:
Replace - "Manager monitors feedback received from clients on a daily basis. Work is checked
when a problem becomes apparent".
with - "Manager monitors feedback as received from clients. Work is checked when a
problem arises.
Delete - "Errors are self-evident e.g. inadvertent double-bookings wouM be immediately
recognizable with two client users each demanding use of the equipment. The
presentation of incorrect or incomplete equipment/resources wouM be readily
identified by client user who wouM request that the situation be rectified".
The Union alleges that the supervisor does not monitor the incumbent's time management. In fact
the incumbent sees the supervisor about once every few months. There is telephone contact once
or twice a week when the situation requires it. The factor should be rated at level 4 (46 points).
The College acknowledged that there is infrequent contact between the incumbent and the
supervisor but that the supervisor is always available via cell phone when a problem arises. The
College believes that this factor is properly rated at level 3 (33 points).
There was considerable discussion about this factor but, on the whole, I am satisfied that there is
little monitoring of the incumbent in the normal course of a day or week and that the incumbent
acts pretty much independently, unless he/she chooses to contact the supervisor. Thus, it is more
consistent with the language contained in the Rating Guide for level 4.
I believe that this factor should be rated at level 4 (46 points).
Communications/Contacts:
The Union alleges that the incumbent at various times deals with outside professional
organizations or businesses which have different expectations on what should be provided to
them. They are, as a result, often quite demanding.
The College believes that the requirements here are not the same as those for level 4. This is,
basically, a service. There is little confidential information that figures into this position.
Based upon the description contained in the Rating Guide and the information provided to me by
the parties, I believe that the duties of the position are well captured by the Rating Guide
definitions for Level 3.
I believe that this factor is properly rated at level 3 (88 points).
Responsibility for Decisions and Actions:
The Union argues that many programs are directly tied to the use of various pieces of equipment.
The equipment can be very costly. There are an abundance of outside courses which employ the
equipment. There are many concerns with service, delivery and the types of equipment required
for any given booking and errors can have a serious financial impact on the College as well as on
the reputation of the College which could lead to cancellations. Errors are usually detected after
the fact.
Management alleges that cancellations are rare and that it is exceptional that something has to be
postponed. If there are any errors or slippage, Security will call management and report the
situation.
After reviewing the Rating Guide and the presentations of the parties, I believe that this factor
should be rated at a higher level than the level 3 proposed by management. It is clear frOm what I
have heard that the consequence of errors can have a considerable impact upon the College, both
in terms of costs, which could be little or great depending upon the circumstances, but more so in
8
terms of its reputation for providing good and efficient services in this area. It is obvious that even
this could have relatively serious financial implications.
I believe that this factor should be rated at level 4 (62 points).
In summary, taking into consideration the presentations of the parties and the Factor Rating
Guides contained in the CAAT Support Staff Evaluation Manual, I have found that the Union
has convinced me of their position with respect to Factor Number 9 (Independent Action) and
Factor Number 11 (Responsibility for Decisions/Actions). Thus, the new rating for Factor
Number 9 is Level 4 - 46 points (previously Level 3 -33 points) and for Factor Number 11, it is
Level 4 - 62 points (previously Level 3 - 44 points). Consequently, the total point increase is 31
points. This brings the total points for this position to 554 points from 523 points, which situates
the position within Payband 8 (511 - 570 points).
Pursuant to Section IX - Payband Determination Schedule of the CAAT Support Staff
Evaluation Manual, the Range for Payband 8 is from 511 - 570 points. The grievor's new point
total is 554 points which situates it with Payband 8. Thus, this position is properly classified as
Technician B, Payband 8.
The grievance is, therefore, denied.
I should like to thank the parties for their presentations. In particular, I was pleased with the
degree of cooperation demonstrated. Both parties understood that the process was one concerned
with the classification of a position and not related to personalities. It made my task easier.
Signed it Ottawa, Ontario, this 2na day of July, 2005
AR.~T.AT~O. DATA SUEET-SU.PO"T STAFF C~SS~F~CAT~O"
Present.Classification: _~i.~"~'CL=-~; ~ ~4 ~ j~7 and Present Payband: ~
Job Family and Payband Recluested by Grievor: '~C-~F~-J )~..L~x~_ x4FT-~ ~'lC,~,~--z- ~.. x~. ) O
.1-. Position Description Form Attached
2, [~ The parties agree on the contents of the attached Position Description Form
.d The Union dis~cjrees with the contents of the attached Position Description Form. The specific details of this
disagreement are as follows:
{use r'eve~se side' if necessary)
i I "AWARD "1
~ FACTORS MANAGEMENT ' UNION ARI~ITRATOR ~
Level ' P~int~ Level Poiuts Level P~nte-
.. . .:~' ~ -
.. ....... ,..,,,,..,.... ~.... ..... _. ..... ~ .....
· ,,. , , . t . .~ .,~" , ~ .. ~ . ~- ",, ~ ' . .
. ~ ([:)ate of H~ing)
· . {Arb~trat~~U~} /