HomeMy WebLinkAboutLeach 04-06-26IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
FANSHAWE COLLEGE
("the employer")
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
("the union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF STEVEN
LEACH OPSEU FILE #2033-0109-0018
ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer: Sheila Wilson, Human Resources Consultant
Doug Busche, Manager, Technical Support
Services
For the Union: Marg Rae, Presenter
Steven Leach, Grievor
Jean Fordyce, Local President
HEARING: In London on April 19, 2004
2
AWARD
INTRODUCTION
On May 5, 2003 the gfievor filed a grievance in which he alleged that he was
improperly classified as a Technologist B at payband 10. He contended that he should
instead be classified as a Technical Support Specialist Atypical at payband 12.
At the hearing the spokesperson for the union submitted that the union's ratings for
the twelve factors measured under the applicable job evaluation system actually resulted
in a point total within payband 13. Accordingly, she asked that the grievor be classified
as a Technical Support Specialist at payband 13. In the alternative, she asked that he be
classified as an Atypical Technologist at payband 13.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
At the commencement of the hearing the parties addressed a number of issues
related to the scope of these proceedings. They also considered whether an expedited
classification heating was an appropriate way to address the grievance or whether the
matter should be referred to an arbitration board.
One issue related to the employer's reliance on events relating to classification
grievances submitted by the grievor and fellow employee Mr. Dwight James on April 9,
1998. In their grievances they asked to be reclassified from Technologist Bs at payband
10 to Technical Support Specialists at payband 12. The grievor's 1998 grievance was
not referred to arbitration. Mr. James' grievance, however, came before Arbitrator
Gregory Brandt. On October 1, 1999 Arbitrator Brandt issued an award in which he
concluded that certain of the ratings awarded by the employer to Mr. James' position
should be increased but nevertheless the position had properly been rated as that of a
Technologist B at Payband 10. In the instant proceedings the spokesperson for the
employer contended that the parties had agreed to apply the results of Mr. James'
arbitration to the gfievor's position. She further argued that Arbitrator Brandt in his
award had addressed the issues raised by the grievor's current grievance. The union
disputed both contentions.
Another issue between the parties related to the appropriate Position Description
Form ("PDF"). The employer prepared a PDF with respect to the grievor's position.
The union drafted a differently worded PDF; one it contended more accurately describes
the grievor's current duties. A related issue concerned the union's contention that a
number of statements set out in the employer's written brief are inaccurate.
3
Another factor was that the grievance procedure had not unfolded in the manner
contemplated by the collective agreement. As a result the parties did not have the
advantage of fully understanding each other's positions. The parties' written briefs
indicate that prior to when they exchanged their briefs the employer was not aware that
the union was challenging the ratings it had assigned for the factors of experience and
responsibility for decisions/actions. For its part the union was unaware that the
employer had raised its ratings for the factors of judgement, sensory demand and strain
from work pressures/demands/deadlines to match the ratings awarded by Arbitrator
Brandt in his award respecting Mr. James' grievance. As a result, the latter two factors
were no longer in dispute.
After a discussion concerning the most appropriate way to proceed, the parties
agreed to have the grievance heard by way of an expedited hearing. As a necessary
result the employer did not pursue its arguments related to the impact of Mr. Brandt's
award. I indicated to the parties that I would not rely on disputed statements in the PDFs
or the challenged portions of the employer's brief.
The ratings that remain in dispute concern the factors of experience, complexity,
judgement, independent action, communications/contacts and responsibility for
decisions/actions. Each of these is addressed separately below. Also addressed below is
the issue of the appropriate job family for the grievor's position.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE GR1-EVOR'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The grievor oversees four computer labs that contain some 200 student
workstations and eight printers. The union's proposed PDF contends that 70% of the
gfievor's time is taken up by the following duties and responsibilities:
Performs customized installation, configuration, maintenance and debugging
of network computer operating systems and application programs to ensure
maximum computer availability and reliability. Resolves local network
communication problems and optimizes systems, identifying potential
problems and improving preventive techniques. Researches, updates,
patches, utilities and new trends, and recommends improvements to
computer labs. Ensures backup and recovery systems are in place and
maintained in case of data corruption or loss.
The PDF advanced by the employer uses different language to describe the
grievor's duties. It indicates that 70% of the grievor's time is taken up with he following:
4
Custom installation, configuration, maintenance and debugging
network/standalone hardware and software to ensure maximum computer
availability and performance. Tuning systems, identifying potential
problems and improving preventative techniques.
Assisting lab users with difficulties encountered in using lab facilities.
Assisting students and faculty who are involved in self-directed use of
applications and computer based learning (CBL) packages. Assisting
students, faculty and staff in the detection of defective disks and the
recovery of corrupted files.
The grievor testified that at least 10 different divisions and 50 different instructors
use the four labs. He said that he has sole responsibility for installing operating systems
and software in the labs and for testing and debugging them. He indicated that he might
install software on a prototype machine, take an image of it and then copy the image to
each student workstation. He said that should an image be corrupt the error would be
duplicated on between 50 and 200 machines, depending on the number of labs in which
it was installed. He testified that one instructor asked him to install the new version of a
dental program but because it would corrupt Intemet Explorer he decided to stick with
the original version.
The grievor testified that when he is asked by an instructor to install particular
software several issues must be addressed. These include whether the College has a
license to use the software and on how many computers, whether the available
computers can mn the software, whether the software will conflict with any other
already installed software, whether only part of the software actually needs to be
installed for teaching purposes and also how much loosening of security is required for
the software to work. The grievor indic ated that instructors select the software to be
used and are responsible for providing him with proof of licensing.
The grievor testified that security is a key concern of his. He explained that this
involves protecting computers from accidental or intentional corruption by students and
also protecting computers from hackers outside the College who might seek to take
control of the machines. He said that he must maintain a balance between security and
allowing the applications to work properly.
The grievor testified that a key part of an operating system is the system registry.
He indicated that a registry is very large and organized in such a way that when changes
are required it is difficult to isolate what needs to be changed and to then change it. He
said that great judgement and care is required when working within the registry.
5
The grievor testified that one big issue he faces concems the storage of student
data. He noted that many programs are designed to have data stored on the local hard
drive. This, however, is not feasible in a lab since a student will not always be working
on the same machine and he or she might want to work at home. Accordingly, data
must be stored on a zip disk or diskette. The grievor said that some programs need a lot
of space and would not normally fit on a disk or diskette and accordingly he has written
programs to compress and uncompress the information.
The gfievor testified that he had developed a number of programs from scratch in
order to automate a wide variety of functions. The union's written brief listed some of
these functions as follows:
- allows using a single diskette to create unlimited number of different
named sessions used for hard drive cloning.
- shuts down (ie. resets) a single computer, whole lab, or all the
(grievor's) labs - used with a 'timer' program to run every day at
closing with a 10 minute warning.
- checks to see which computers are running in a lab, multiple labs, or
all labs.
- copies new files with correct permissions to a single computer, whole
lab, or all the labs.
- automatically: creates students data diskette, copies data to hard drive
from diskette and decompresses it, runs the program, after program
ends compresses data and copies it back down to students diskette.
- checks to make sure student saved their work properly before ending
program, will display message, and then re-mn program so that
student can save their work the correct way - otherwise they would
lose it.
The gfievor provides a data recovery service for staff, instructors and students
throughout the college who experience trouble with a diskette or zip disk. The gfievor
testified that the process might take him several minutes or a couple of hours. He noted
that he uses a number of different programs to recover data but first must analyze the
problem to decide which program to use.
6
Mr. Doug Busch, Manager of Technical Support Services, is the grievor's
supervisor. He estimated that there are some 20,000 academic computer labs in Canada.
He said that a lot of technicians and technologists use utilities to recover data from
movable media. He acknowledged, however, that the grievor is exceptionally good at
performing this task.
The grievor indicated that instructors are generally present during the computer
labs to address questions from students. He noted, however, that there are "free times"
when instructors are not present and when students ask either him or Technician Mr.
Brian Pearson for assistance. The grievor testified that instructors ask for help when
they mn into a problem with a lab machine related to security issues. He gave the
example of a land registry program where problems were experienced when printing out
information about individual lots. He indicated that he had resolved the problem by
going in and fixing a setting.
The grievor testified that he is responsible for supervising, training and assigning
tasks to Mr. Pearson. The grievor said that Mr. Pearson is supposed to split his time
50:50 between working with him and working with Mr. James. Mr. Busch testified that
technologists are not supervisors but they do provide technical leadership to technicians,
including setting priorities, and almost always indicate to them how work is to be done.
The grievor explained that he looks after a machine that scores multiple-choice
examinations. He said that he guides instructors through the steps required to get the
results they want. He indicated that instructors frequently have problems operating the
machine due to things such as an added mark or folded comer on one of the documents
or because they have put in documents improperly. He said that if them is a problem
with the machine that he cannot fix he calls the vendor, although the last time this
occurred the repair person could not come out right away and accordingly advised the
grievor over the phone about the steps to take to fix the machine.
THE APPROPRIATE JOB FAMILY
As indicated above, the grievor is currently classified as a Technologist B. The
union contends that he should not be classified as a Technologist but as a Technical
Support Specialist. The Technologist job family definition contained in the job
evaluation manual reads as follows:
This family covers positions that provide technical services requiting the
application of specialized knowledge. Major responsibilities include
planning, designing, developing, selecting and testing of facilities,
equipment, materials, methods and procedures etc. related to the
7
instructional programs and administrative services. Incumbents
demonstrate the principles and theories of the specialty in various
learning activities and provide technical advice.
The guide chart for a Technologist B lists the typical duties of that classification as
follows:
- Designs and/or develops equipment, systems, facilities, materials, etc.
to meet user output requirements.
- Plans, organizes and conducts experiments and demonstrations
explaining correct procedures and theoretical principles involved.
- Evaluates equipment and other resources and makes recommendations
prior to purchase. Controls supply inventories and budgets.
- May assist in student evaluations in relation to learning activities in
which the Technologist B takes part.
The definition of the Technical Support Specialist job family, a job family with
only one classification, as well as the typical duties of that classification are as follows:
This family covers positions that manage and are directly responsible for
software in one or more specialized areas (e.g. operating systems, data
communications, data base systems) and provide technical information
and guidance related to the systems software and/or data base software
on a College-wide basis.
TYPICAL DUTIES
- Assesses user needs and determines the software appropriate to meet
those needs.
- Alters and/or designs software systems where required.
- Provides advice and guidance on the most effective utilization of
software systems.
- Implements systems designed for College.
- Acts as technical resource for entire College.
In its brief the union noted that the Technologist job family definition does not use
the terms "software" or "program". It argued that the Technologist classifications
8
involve more physical or "hands-on" positions and that the typical duties of a
Technologist would fit someone working in a chemistry lab. The union compared this
with the family definition for Technical Support Specialist, which refers to managing
and responsibility for software in operating systems and providing information and
guidance related to systems software.
The union in its brief contended that "... sole responsibility for the computer
operating system is a major part of the position. In fact, since all system security is
controlled by the operating system, any changes made to the system security that enables
an application program to function is in effect a modification to the operating system,
and specialized application program installation is the main function of the position".
The union further contended that the grievor's position is College wide because his four
labs are used by 10 different divisions, he provides a data recovery service to students,
instructors and staff throughout the College and because he is responsible for the test
scoring machine. The union in its brief also listed the fvllowing instances where the
grievor had been sent to "outside" departments to provide technical support:
Network Services (trouble with re-installing an old DOS (Disk Operating
System) based Credit Card Authorization program.
Design Division (Windows 2000 Operating system security issues)
Office and Administrative Studies (on-going installationand
maintenance of several specialized legal programs)
Alumni Office (computer operating erratically)
Student Awards (student information database corruption)
Athletics (computer malfunctioning)
Tourism & Hospitality (computer vires)
Continuing Education (various problems)
Mr. Busch testified that with one exception employees classified as Technical
Support Specialists operate at the "enterprise" or College level. He described the three
major enterprise systems as the financial, human resources and student records systems.
He said that Technical Support Specialists also deal with about 150 other enterprise
applications. He gave the example of a College-wide email system. He said that there
are 124 computer labs at the College, of which all but about a dozen are used by students
9
from only one division. He also said that there are probably between 10 and 20 other
employees at the College with duties similar to those of the grievor.
The one exception referred to by Mr. Busch in his evidence concerns Mr. Bojan
Kosarc, a Technical Support Specialist who spends most of his time supporting the IT
Academic Division. Mr. Busch testified that this division teaches students how to
program and set up networks and in many aspects it must replicate enterprise services.
He said that Mr. Kosarc is responsible for designing enterprise-type services for the
division.
The technologist job family definition does not contain any reference to computers,
software or indeed to any specific type of equipment. It is clearly meant to cover a wide
range of technical services requiring the application of specialized knowledge. Relevant
to these proceedings is that it encompasses designing, developing and testing of
facilities, equipment, materials, methods and procedures related to instructional
programs. As noted by the union, this job family would cover staff performing
functions in a chemistry lab. It would also cover staff in other lab settings, including in
computer labs, unless they are more appropriately included in another job family.
The grievor's position clearly does not fit the Technical Support Specialist job
family definition. He does not manage software in a specialized area and provide
information and guidance related to the systems software or data base software on a
College-wide basis. On occasion he has been asked to address a specific problem
elsewhere in the College but the reality is that on an on-going basis he is responsible for
four student labs. Given these considerations I conclude that the grievor's position does
not meet the Technical Support Specialist job family definition. I find that his position
fits within the more broadly worded Technolo gist job family definition.
THE FACTOR OF EXPERIENCE
The job evaluation manual indicates that the factor of experience is designed to
measure the amount of practical work experience necessary to fulfill the requirements of
a position.
The employer rated this factor at level 4, which is worth 45 points under the job
classification system. The union claims that a level 5 rating worth 57 points is more
appropriate. The relevant factor level definitions and illustrative classifications set out
in the job evaluation manual read as follows:
4. More than three years and up to five years of practical experience.
Clerk General D; Secretary B, C; Technician C; Technologist B
10
5. More than five years and up to eight years of practical experience
Programmer/Analyst C; SSO D; Technologist C
According to the union's brief the grievor started with the employer in 1985 after
having obtained a Business Data Processing Diploma and a Business Information
Systems Diploma from the College. He initially started as a part-time Technician B at
payband 8 and became full-time in 1989. He was reclassified as a Technician C at
payband 9 in 1991 and as a Technologist B at payband 10 in 1997.
The grievor testified that more than five years' experience is required for someone
in his position because of the range of problems that arise. He said that it takes a while
to learn the various operating systems, which are all unique. He also noted that error
codes are often inaccurate due to security on the computers. The spokesperson for the
union contended that the sheer number of applications, which are specialized and come
from 10 different divisions, means that experience with the programs is vital. She
argued that vast knowledge and experience with operating systems is a necessity.
In its written brief the union set out a number of submissions, including the
following:
Since an application program cannot be changed other than by the limited
settings that were designed within to be altered, the operating system
must be manipulated instead; therefore experience with every single
program is vital to being able to recognize how to provide the conditions
necessary for each program to work while not compromising the overall
security of the system, and to provide proper support. Also, it takes
several months of working "hands on" with any new operating system
before becoming familiar enough with the major changes and some of the
peculiarities to be able to manage it (but it takes at least
several years to become really knowledgeable). There have been very
many operating systems the grievor has implemented in his various
assigned labs over the years including the following "stand-alone" (i.e.
non-network) operating systems: DOS (Disk Operating System) version
3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 5.0, 6.0, 6.2, 6.22; and then there are these network
operating systems: PCNet 1.0, Novell 2.0, 2.1, 3.11, Windows 3.1,
Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Windows NT4.0, and now Windows
2000 and Windows XP. For your information, there have always been at
least a few labs networked ever since the gfievor's primary area of
responsibility was opened in September 1985.
11
In view of the aforementioned, plus that it takes many years of
experience to be able to adapt quickly to and keep on t)p of constantly
changing conditions, and especially that everything is learned by the
grievor on his own, the conclusion must be that a minimum rating of
level 5 is justified.
Mr. Busch in his evidence contended that when the grievance was filed the grievor
was working with two operating systems, namely Windows NT4 and DOS, and
accordingly these were what a newly hired employee would need to know. He said that
the employer commonly hires technicians and if they show initiative and have a broad
enough experience, once a technologist position opens up there is a good chance they
will be ready for it.
The spokesperson for the employer noted that the parties have agreed that the
grievor's position justifies a level 6 for the factor of training/technical skills. This rating
is appropriate where a position requires the skills normally acquired through a three-year
college diploma or university degree. The level definition goes on to state that 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.
The employer's spokesperson contended that what is relevant is the minimum level
of experience required for a job. The PDF form used in the job evaluation system
indicates that what is to be measured is the minimum amount of practical experience in
any related work that is necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position.
The grievor performs his job exceedingly well, in part due to his extensive
experience. As already indicated, however, the issue is the minimum amount of related
work experience a new employee in the position would require to perform the
requirements of the position. Logically that relates to performing the requirements of
the position at an acceptable level and not some higher and more preferred level.
Technologist C is an illustrative classification for a level 5 rating. The job
evaluation manual lists the typical duties of someone in this position as including
planning for the provision of technical services and the utilization of resources based on
an independent assessment of the College's needs, co-coordinating projects involving
overall planning, development, purchasing and testing of equipment and resources,
developing procedures for the administration of a fimction, and solving a wide range of
complex problems associated with a specialization. These are not the types of functions
performed by the grievor.
12
As noted by the spokesperson for the employer the parties have agreed on a rating
for training/technical skills associated with a three-year college diploma or university
degree. It does not seem reasonable that a person with a three-year college diploma or
university degree related to computers would necessarily require more than five years of
related experience to meet an acceptable level of performance in the position.
Additional years of experience would logically allow for better and more efficient
results, such as those achieved by the grievor. As hdicated above, however, that is not
the applicable test.
Having regard to the foregoing I confirm the level 4 rating given by the employer.
THE FACTOR OF COMPLEXITY
The job evaluation manual indicates that this factor is designed to measure the
amount and nature of analysis, problem solving and reasoning required to perform job-
related duties. It measures the conceptual demands of a job as characterized by the
analysis and interpretation required for problem and solution definition, as well as
creativity, mental challenge, degree of job structure, planning activities and the variety
and difficulty of tasks.
The employer rated the grievor's position at level 4, which is worth 58 points. The
union argued for a level 6 rating, the highest rating possible, worth 90 points. The
criteria for levels 4, 5 and 6 as well as the associated illustrative classifications read as
follows:
4. Job duties require the performance of varied, non-routine, complex
tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods.
Clerk General D; Library Technician B; Programmer A, B
5. Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively
unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods.
Programmer/analyst A; SSO B, C; Technologist C
6. Job duties require he investigation and resolution of a variety of
unusual conditions involving the adaptation and/or development of
specialized processes and methods.
Programmer/Analyst B, C; SSO D; Technical Support Specialist
The grievor in his evidence and the union in its written and oral arguments focused
on the various tasks performed by the grievor and noted that they are complex in nature.
13
The initial portion of the union's brief is set out below. It is followed by a discussion
about operating system security, the system registry, the need for portability of files and
the large quantity of software the grievor had working properly in the fall of 2001.
The task of keeping computers functioning is a very complex one. As
shown in the first Problem Determination Scenario (3.1) of the PDF,
installing a new application program and having it work properly in a
student environment is not simple. Considering the first wide-release
Windows operating system (version 3.1) started out around 3 million Source
Lines of Code (SLOC), the operating system in use at tme of grievance
filing (NT4) is 16 million SLOC (and the currently used Windows XP is at
least 40 million SLOC) it is plain to see that operating systems alone are
growing exponentially (figures from the attached (Complexity - Doc l
"Source Lines of Code" from the Wikipedia website). When new features
and capabilities are added, there is obviously more to go wrong. And as
software gets more complicated, instead of "reinventing the wheel" more
software developers are incorporating programs from other developers into
their own - sometimes you can tell when this has happened but other times
you can't, it depends on the individual program; thus when something goes
wrong it makes it even more difficult to root out the cause. The personal
computer operating systems used today are more powerful than mainframe
operating systems of yesterday.
The union's proposed PDF contains the following scenario to illustrate the
complexity associated with the grievor's position:
A new application program has just been installed but only works when
the user has unrestricted rights on the computer workstation.
The incumbent must determine which files and/or directories must be
allowed greater access than the standard User right of Read-Only, or if
registry settings and/or permissions need changing, or if there is some
other problem. The creation of customized control programs are
sometimes required to make application programs usable for all students
- especially those with limited computer skills and/or special needs - and
also for administrative or maintenance functions.
It is apparent that the grievor's tasks are complex, both in the sense of being far
from simple and also in the sense of involving a number of inter-related issues. The
criteria for levels 4, 5 and 6, however, all cover complex tasks. The real issue is which
14
is the "better fit" taking into account the various illustrative classifications. The gfievor
faces a myriad of different problems. Given the number of academic computer labs
generally, and the 124 such labs at the College, however, his duties do not appear to
involve either relatively unusual tasks or a variety of unusual conditions. They do
require the application of different and unrelated processes and methods.
A review of the typical duties of the illustrative classifications for a level 6 rating
indicates that this level addresses positions that deal with a range of issues, such as
Programmer/Analyst B and C who analyze problems in terms of applications, systems
and programming requirements or who analyze the effectiveness of existing systems and
effect changes as required; or a Support Services Officer D who identifies the
requirements of outside groups and develops college programs to meet those
requirements. The typical duties of the level 5 illustrative classifications are closer to
those performed by the grievor. The closest fit, however, appears to be certain of the
illustrative classifications for a level 4 rating. Individuals in those classifications are
faced with fairly narrow issues or problems but must consider a number of potentially
relevant details. For example, the relevant guide chart indicates that a Clerk General D
typically determines student financial assistance and eligibility, verifies the
completeness and accuracy of produced payroll, analyzes statements to determine causes
of budget variance and conducts costs analysis studies. A Programmer B's typical
duties include "codes, tests and debugs complex programs" and "revises and refines
existing programs, tests debugs and documents changes". The detailed complex issues
addressed by the grievor, including the need to do some programming in connection
with existing software, appear to involve the same general kind of considerations.
Having regard to the above, I affirm the level 4 rating assigned by the employer.
This factor measures the independent judgment 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 6, which is worth 102 points.
The union argues for level 7, the highest rating possible worth 120 points. The
definitions and illustrative classifications contained in the job evaluation manual for
these two levels are as follows:
15
6. Job duties require a high degree of judgement. Problem solving
involves adapting analytical techniques and development of new
information on various situations and problems.
Programmer/Analyst A, B; SSO C, Technologist C
7. Job duties require a very high degree of judgement. Problem solving
involves originating new techniques and utilizing them in the
development of new information.
SSO D; Systems Analyst; Technical Support Specialist
In support of its claimed rating the union referred to specific problems addressed by
the grievor and the various decisions he makes. The following excerpts from the union
brief illustrate the nature of the union's claim:
Hardware problems usually just require the replacement of a part or parts
but the majority of problems are related to the software and are not
anywhere near that simple. Aside from the fact that it is sometimes hard
to tell where the problem really is (flaky memory or hard drive can
appear to be malfunctioning software), most software - and particularly
special purpose-software, for example accounting, legal, medical, etc.-
was written with the expectation that most (if not all) of the computer's
resources would be available for it to use as it wants. It takes advanced
reasoning to develop an understanding of the way software works in
order to be able to 'peel back' just enough of the security restrictions for
it to get what it needs. And since every program is different in its needs,
this must be done every time software is installed or updated. Also since
most patches and updates introduce new mistakes while fixing old ones,
the risk must be evaluated and the decision made as to whether it is
"better to stick with the devil you know than the one you don't."
Next, there is user diskette or ZIP disk errors. There are numerous
reasons why users can't access the flies on their disk, including the
following: logical corruption in the system area, physical scratches,
contamination of the media surface, damaged access floors, media
separation from the center spindle, corruption of magnetic encoding, and
heat exposure. The problem most occurring is that of logical corruption
in the system area. Analytical tests are performed with various programs
(no one program does everything needed) to determine specific problem
area and to determine the best course of action for recovering as much
user information as possible. If the right tools aren't used for the right
16
job in the right sequence, a whole semester's worth of work done by the
user could be lost.
As demonstrated by the gfievor's attached ... "Software Permissions and
Notes" each of those programs had unique security requirements that had
to be discovered through deductive reasoning and testing. The decisions
regarding software security are not easy because the more secured a
computer is, the harder it is to get it working properly; however, once it
is functioning correctly, the longer it stays that way. There is judgement
call between how much 'up-front' time is utilized versus maintenance
time all the while remembering that it must be usable to the faculty and
students.
Error messages present an interesting subject matter. Aside from being
cryptic even when they are accurate, the vast majority of the time they
are wrong and misleading. This is again caused because most software is
not designed to be used on a 'secure' computer so the program doesn't
know how to handle errors caused by that, therefore the message
displayed almost always has nothing to do with the actual problem.
It is apparent that the grievor must adapt analytical techniques and develop new
information to address the problems he faces. There is no suggestion in the evidence or
the union's argument, however, that he originates new techniques and utilizes those
techniques to develop new information. Further the issues he addresses do not relate to
the wide scope of judgement required for the illustrative classifications for a level 7
rating. These include a SSO D who as already noted typically identifies requirements of
outside groups and develops and market programs to meet those requirements, a
Systems Analyst who would typically design and develop computer systems required to
meet the information needs of a college and a typical Technical Support Specialist who
also works on a college-wide basis.
Having regard to the above considerations I confirm the level 6 rating assigned 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, the highest rating
17
possible worth 60 points, should be awarded instead. 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 instructions and
policies involving changing conditions and problems. There is
significant freedom to act independently.
SSO C, D; Systems Analyst; Technologist C
It is clear from the evidence that there is minimal contact between the grievor and
Mr. Busche. The gfievor is able to order routine budgeted supplies and later give the
receipts to Mr. Busche. When he is to be away from work the gfievor arranges coverage
for himself and then advises Mr. Busche. The grievor said that he will give Mr. Busche
a "heads up" should a political situation arise, such as if two instructors are disagreeing
with each other.
The grievor testified that he makes recommendations to Mr. Busche regarding the
upgrading of computers and the purchase of new equipment. Mr. Busche's evidence was
that he seeks advice from the grievor and others about upgrading computers and he and
other managers then decide what is required, after which they may or may not get the
financial resources required to obtain the equipment.
The grievor in his evidence and the union in its brief referred to Mr. Busche as
someone with limited technical knowledge. Mr. Burke has been involved with
computers for over 40 years, including some 30 years with the employer in a variety of
computer related positions. For the past 10 years his responsibilities have included
overseeing planning for computer projects on a College-wide basis. Mr. Busche did,
however, acknowledge that he has not worked in a comPuter lab and does not have the
same type of technical expertise as does the gfievor.
One of the criteria for a level 5 rating is that job duties involve changing conditions
and problems. The gfievor contended that each operating system is a condition and they
are different from each other. He also noted that there are always new programs and
new versions of programs that instructors want to use.
18
The grievor has a wide freedom to act independently when addressing the technical
problems that arise in the computer lab. He does not ask for or require assistance with
his duties. I do not, however, view the changes associated with the on-going
introduction of new software and operating systems in the computer labs as involving
changing conditions and problems of the type contemplated by a level 5 rating. The
illustrative classifications for a level 5 rating and associated typical duties indicate that
the types of changes contemplated include matters such as: (1) changing demands in the
community for various College programs which require the development and marketing
of new programs, (2) changes in the College's information requirements that require the
development of new computer systems or (3) changes in the requirements for technical
services that require an indePendent assessment of the College's needs followed by
planning based on that assessment. The grievor works independently, but not in the
context of those types of changing conditions.
Having regard to the foregoing I confirm the level 4 rating assigned 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
in the job evaluation manual states that raters are not to rate the content of confidential
information but rather the communications responsibilities involved in handling it.
The employer assigned a level 3 rating for this factor worth 88 points. The union
contends that the appropriate rating is level 4 worth 124 points. The definitions for these
level 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 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
19
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 grievor testified that he deals with many people, from students who know
nothing about computers to on rare occasions vendor support people. He noted that he
provides advice to Mr. Busche, including about possible changes to the labs. He said
that he provides basic instruction to new instructors with respect to the lab facilities,
including how to log on, how to use the printers and with respect to any particular
applications they will be using. He contended that he provides instruction on the test
scoring equipment when instructors have difficulty operating it and also when he advises
them about how they can obtain student scores, such as alphabetically or by increasing
or decreasing score. He said that he also provides instructions to students during free
times when instructors are not in the lab.
The grievor testified that he uses influential or persuasive techniques when students
act up. He said that he tells them to settle down and if they do not he asks them to leave
the lab. He said that he deals with students with special needs such as a physical
impairment or blindness by f'mding out what they need and providing it, including the
installation of special software. He noted that he has access to some student marks
The evidence indicates that the grievor provides guidance and technical advice to
instructors and to students when instructors are not present. The instructors, however,
are logically responsible for instruction. Showing instructors how to use a marking
machine is more accurately described as providing technical advice rather than
providing basic instruction, which is what is referred to in the criteria for a level 4 rating.
The grievor does not communicate for the purpose of resolving complex problem
situations. He is involved in telling students to settle down and providing assistance to
students with special needs. These are not, however, the same as using sophisticated
influential or persuasive techniques in order to address the problem of those with special
needs, which is what is referred to in the criteria for a level 4 rating. He has access to
certain student marks but has no communications responsibilities with respect to that
information.
The grievor's duties and responsibilities do not meet the criteria for a level 4 rating.
Accordingly, I confirm the level 3 rating given by the employer.
20
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS AND ACTIONS
This factor measures the impact on intemal and public relations, the responsibility
for information management, equipment, assets and records, and the consequences of
decisions and/or actions. The College rated the grievor's position at level 4 worth 62
points. The union rated it at level 5, the highest rating possible, worth 80 points. The
factor level definitions and illustrative classifications for these ratings are as follows:
4. Decisions and/or actions have considerable impact on the organization.
Errors are detected after the fact and may result in considerable
interruption and delay in work output and waste of resources.
ECE Worker; Stationary Engineer C; SSO B, C; Technologist B, C
5. Decisions and/or actions have significant impact on the organization.
Errors are difficult to detect and result in a significant waste of
resources and continuing influence on operational effectiveness.
SSO D; Systems Analyst; Technical Support Specialist
The union in its brief described the relevant considerations for this factor as
follows:
As you can see on the Union's Position Description Form (section 11),
the decisions and actions of the grievor have a significant impact on the
college - financially and otherwise. The gfievor's area of responsibility
is worth approximately $500,000 and therefore security of the equipment
is always a factor in his decisions. Up to 200 students per hour from
many divisions would be affected if all lab classes had to be cancelled
because a critical mistake is made by the grievor or major key-equipment
failure; in addition to the wasting of students and instructors time, their
personal schedules would be disrupted by the class (or classes) having to
be rescheduled. Continuing Education courses might have to be
extended a week to make up for the time lost (thus disrupting the
instructor's and student's personal plans) and this would also interfere
with the next courses scheduled to start. Also, students would not be able
to graduate until their marks are entered into the central system
As the grievor has full responsibility for the operation of the assigned
computer labs and since this factor in complementary to the one of
Independent Action, the best choice would be a level 5 rating.
21
At the hearing the grievor contended that if students became frustrated by problems
in the lab and were unable to do their work they could get a failing grade and go to
another school. He indicated that the longest one of his labs has been shut down was for
two hours due to a software program. Mr. Busche testified that the gfievor's labs are
among the best in terms of down time, although down time at the College is rare. The
spokesperson for the union contended that the fact the grievor does not make errors
should not be held against him. She also contended that the low amount of down time in
the grievor's labs is due to his experience and expertise.
The spokesperson for the union contended that the employer would be severely
affected should the grievor's labs be down since it could impact on 10 different
divisions. She further submitted that how students feel about computer facilities impacts
on the College's key performance indices, which in mm are a determinant of funding for
the College. The spokesperson for the employer argued that it would only be an
inconvenience should a lab go down. She further contended that it would have the same
impact on the key performance indices as a student having a problem with his or her
residence, it is one of many components.
The criteria for a level 5 rating requires that errors be difficult to detect. The
evidence, however, suggests that should the grievor make an error students or instructors
would likely detect it because the computers or software would not work properly.
Other requirements are that an error must result in a significant waste of resources and a
continuing influence on operational effectiveness. An error on the part of the grievor
might result in a waste of resources in the sense of lab facilities going unused. The
union in its brief contended that a cancellation of lab classes as a result of a critical
mistake by the grievor might result in an need to extend courses by a week to make up
for the time lost which would then also interfere with the next courses scheduled to start.
Such a result flowing from an error on the part of the grievor seems far fetched and not
supported by any evidence. It appears unlikely that an error on the grievor's part after it
had been corrected would have a continuing influence on operational effectiveness.
The grievor's position does not meet the criteria for a level 5 rating. Accordingly, I
confirm the level 4 rating assigned by the employer.
CONCLUSION
As noted above, prior to the hearing the employer increased certain of the ratings it
had assigned to the gfievor's position to bring them into line with the ratings assigned by
Arbitrator Brandt when addressing Mr. James' Grievance. I have concluded that no
other increases are appropriate.
22
The evidence establishes that the grievor is experienced and knowledgeable. He is
also conscientious and hardworking. He performs his job at a exceedingly high level.
The applicable classification system, however, is expressly designed to rate a position
and not to rate how well the incumbent is performing the duties of the position.
I affirm that the grievor is properly classified as Technologist B at payband 10.
Dated this 26th day of June 2004.
Arbitrator