Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWarde 04-10-16 SUPPORT STAFF BARGAINING UNIT EXPEDITED ARBITRATION AWARD Employer Fanshawe College Grievor Geoff Warder OPSEU # 310919 Arbitrator Louis M Tenace For the Employer Sheila Wilson, Steve Andrusiak, Wendy Robertson For the Union Marg Rae Geoff Warder, Jean Fordyce Hearing Location and Date London, Ontario, September 29, 2004 Subject Classification - Expedited Nature of the Grievance The grievor has been a Technician C, Payband 9 since he began in August of 1996. He has had the same PDF, un- altered, since that date. The grievor believes that the job has changed sufficiently to warrant a reclassification to Technologist B, Payband 10. Result Denied. Complexity factor is raised from Level 4, 58 points to Level 5, 74 points. Judgement factor is raised from Level 4, 66 points to Level 5, 84 points. Revised points total is 619. Position remains within Payband 9 (571-630 points) Decision Date October 16, 2004 AWARD The grievor, Geoff Warder, is currently classified as Technician C, Payband 9, in the Music Industry Arts Program of the Communication Arts Division at Fanshawe College. He has been employed at the College in that same position since August of 1996. He is seeking reclassification to a Technologist B, Payband 10. Apart from a difference between the parties as to which job family (Technician or Technologist) the position should be allocated, they also disagree about the ratings for the factors identified on the Position Description Form (PDF) as follows: 1. Training/Technical Skills; 3. Complexity; 4. Judgement; 6 Physical Demand; 7. Sensory Demand; 8. Strain from Work Pressures/Deadlines. The first matter to be determined is the proper job family for this position. The Technician family "covers positions that are primarily responsible for the care, maintenance, set-up, operation, demonstration, distribution and security of instructional and allied equipment and materials and the preparation of materials for use in instructional programs and administrative services. This family also covers positions in plant maintenance departments involving the planning, lay-out and specifications for alterations and additions to existing facilities." The Technologist family "covers positions that provide technical services requiring the application of specialized knowledge. Major responsibilities include planning, designing, developing, selection and testing of facilities, equipment, materials, methods and procedures, etc. related to the instructional programs and administrative services. Incumbents demonstrate the principles and theories of their speciality in various learning activities and provide technical advice". Both parties have submitted identical language for the position summary as well as for the duties and responsibilities. The only variance is in relation to the percentage of time spent on each. Even here, the differences are not that significant. It seems to me that while there is some evidence that some of the grievor's duties and responsibilities tend to "spill over"into the Technologist family in certain instances, the bulk of those duties as described by the grievor himself as well as Mr. Andrusiak (Chair of the Communications Department) do not really include "planning, designing, developing, selecting and testing of facilities, equipment, materials, methods and procedures, etc., related to the instructional programs and administrative services" which are an essential component of the duties within the Technologist family. According to Mr. Andrusiak, the grievor's position is more one of a helping nature, knowledge intensive and responsive to needs. The incumbent does not fulfill a leadership role or exercise any budgetary control. Based on the evidence presented by the parties, ! am satisfied that the position as currently described is properly allocated to the Technician family. We shall now deal with those factors of the PDF's where the parties have disagreed. 1. Training/Technical The College rates this factor at Level 5, 91 points, the Union rates it at Level 6, 110 points. The College submits that the current requirement for a 2-year MIA diploma or equivalent satisfies the needs of this position; the Union submits that, in addition to this minimum requirement, the incumbent also requires an Apple Certified Technical Coordinator (ACTC) certification to perform the duties satisfactorily. The Union argued that as the Music Industry Arts (MIA) program expanded its equipment and facilities, new and greater responsibilities were placed on the incumbent requiring specialized training courses offered by Apple Canada, such as the ACTC course which the grievor completed. Management, on the other hand, submitted that while this course was excellent and useful, and, indeed, had sent the griever on it, the course was not essential for the j ob. Moreover, it was a 40- hour course and could not compare with a 1-year certificate requiring some 450 hours. The course was not a prerequisite for this position. Were the position to be advertised, the College would require a 2-year diploma. Having heard and considered both positions, I am satisfied that management's assessment of the Training/Technical Skills is reasonable and properly rated at Level 5, 91 points. 3. Complexity The College rates it Level 4, 58 points, the Union rates it at Level 5, 74 points. The College has acknowledged that change is constant in this area. It seems clear from the evidence presented that the incumbent is working with technical equipment that did not even exist when he began in 1996 when the PDF was written The position of the Union is more comprehensive and representative efwhat the griever actually does than that advanced by the College. I believe the Union's position better reflects the complexity of the work I believe that the Complexity factor should be rated at Level 5, 74 points. 4. Judgement This factor shows a major gulf between the ratings efthe parties. The College rates it a Level 4, 66 points and the Union rates it at Level 6, 102 points. The parties use identical language to describe the degree of independent judgement and problem-solving required except for the following addition by the Union: "There is no central college support for the main computing platform (Macintosh) 4 in the MIA program. If there is a problem, the incumbent must be able to resolve it himself or herself." The Union's rating places this factor at the same level as a Technologist C, a level higher than is being sought for this position. It submits that it is the only program in the College with all the specialized audio and visual components and, because it requires the use of Macintosh which the College does not support, the incumbent must solve all problems on his own in 70% of the cases. For its part, the College agrees that the grievor has a certain level of expertise with Apple and that he is acknowledged across the College for his knowledge and that he is sometimes asked to provide assistance to others. However, the grievor did have places he could go to for assistance such as Steve Malison, Professor of Music (Digital Applications) as well as another individual in the Art Design Department who has expertise in multi-media design. The College believes that the responsibilities of the grievor's position are predictable. Moreover, the College has created an Information Technology Officer and has moved to a more centralized support model. While I do not believe that the Judgement factor for this position should be rated at the 6 level, neither am ! convinced that the 4 level is a proper representation in terms of the duties and responsibilities of the position as they were described to me. The Union has made a good case that the grievor tends to be the sole support for his lab. Central Services can offer him very little in the way of support. In fact, the parties seemed to agree that he often provided support to Central Services. However, ! do not believe that this of itself is sufficient to warrant a jump from level 4 to level 6. Therefore, based on the evidence presented, ! would rate the Judgement factor for this position at Level 5, 84 points. 6. Physical Demand While there is some requirement for occasional, moderate physical effort such as heavy lifting involving the moving and installing of equipment, overhead wiring, etc., ! do not believe this occurs on a regular basis, as in the case of a caretaker. Therefore, ! accept the College's submission that the Physical Demand factor is properly rated at Level 2, 16 points. 7. Sensory Demand The Union submitted that the job required special visual and auditory skills (described as critical listening). ! believe this is simply the nature of the job. The descriptions of the parties are identical. ! see no reason to alter the College's rating of this factor at Level 3, 28 points. 8. Strain from work pressures/demands/deadlines The Union submitted that 35% of the time, the job was not predictable and that student deadlines put pressure on the incumbent and getting things ready during the summer months caused strain. Management submitted that the job was mostly predictable and that the work pressures, which were not undue, were just a normal part of the job. Again, there appears to be no valid reason for altering the rating as it currently exists at Level 3, 28 points. In summary, therefore, I have concluded that the position is properly placed within the Technical family. ! have also concluded that the Complexity factor should be altered from Level 4, 58 points to Level 5, 74 points; the Judgement factor should be altered from Level 4, 66 points to Level 5, 84 points. The result is an increase to the PDF of 34 points, bringing the total to 615 points. The point range for Payband 9 is 571-630 points. Thus, the position remains classified as a Technician 6, Payband 9. ! wish to point out that management was very generous in its praise of the grievor, Geoff Warder, not only in terms of his knowledge and ability, but also in terms of his dedication and cooperativeness. He is a well-respected and valued employee, Management stated on more than one occasion during the course of the hearing that they were rating the position and not the incumbent. While such praise is undoubtedly well-received by the grievor, it does nothing to satisfy what the grievor believes to be an improper classification. Given the fact that this PDF has been in existence and unchanged since at least 1996 and given management's acknowledgement of the rapid pace of change in this area, ! think it would behoove the parties to make an early and concerted effort to re-examine this PDF so as to satisfy everyone that it accurately reflects the work that is being performed. Dated in Ottawa, Ontario, this 16th day of October, 2004. Louis M. Tenace