HomeMy WebLinkAboutPaterson 03-02-10In the matter of an arbitration
between
Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 109
(hereinafter referred to as the union)
Classification Grievance: Cheryl Paterson; 01 C383
Board of Arbitration: Gregory J. Brandt, Chair
Ron Hubert, College Nominee
Sherril Murray, Union Nominee
Appearances:
For the College: Margaret Szilassy, Counsel
Sheila Wilson, Human Resources Consultant
Gord Worrall, Manager, Information Systems Services
Julie McQuire, Human Resources Consultant
For the Union: John Brewin, Counsel
Barbara Ford, Union Chief Steward
Cheryl Paterson, Grievor
Hearings:
London, Ontario
May 21, 30, 2002
October 21, 23, 28, 2002
2
AWARD
1. Introduction
The grievor is classified as a Programmer/Analyst B, payband 11. She works in
the Administrative Systems section of the Information Systems Services Department
under the direction of Mr. Gord Worrall, Manager, Information Systems Services. Also
employed in that section at the time of the grievance were 2 Systems Analysts Atypical
(Payband 13), 5 other Programmer/Analysts B (Payband 11), 1 Programmer B (Payband
8), and 1 Programmer (Co-op student).
In February of 2001 Mr. Worrall conducted a review of the PDF s of all of the staff
in the Administrative Systems section of the department. He took the then current PDFs
for each position (which had not been revised for some time) and invited the incumbents
to make such changes as they thought were necessary to make the PDF an accurate
reflection of the position as it then was and, after reviewing those comments, he re-wrote
the PDFs and submitted them to Human Resources for review of their appropriate
classification by the Classification Committee. As a result of that process 2 employees,
Ms. Marne Foster and Mr. Mike Paterson, then classified as Programmer/Analyst C,
Payband 12, were re-classified as Systems Analyst Atypical, Payband 13. None of the
other positions including that of the grievor were re-classified.
On March 27, 2001 the grievor filed her grievance claiming that she is improperly
classified and seeking to be reclassified as Systems Analyst Payband 14. It is the position
of the College that the position is properly classified as a Programmer Analyst B,
Payband 11. Thus, the parties disagree as to both the Job Family for this position as well
as the appropriate level at which the various job factors should be rated.
That grievance came before me by way of Expedited Arbitration and, on
3
December 17,2001, at the request of the union and following submissions from the union
and the College, I ordered that the case be heard by a full board of arbitration according
to the provisions of the collective agreement.
In due course a hearing was held and evidence heard from the grievor, Mr. Worrall,
Ms. Foster, Mr. Mike Paterson as well as from Ms. Sheila Wilson, a Human Resources
Consultant who, as a member of the Classification Committee, participated in the
decision that is challenged in these proceedings.
Before turning to that evidence it is necessary to deal with one evidentiary issue
which arose during the proceeding. When the College sought to call Ms. Wilson to
testify the union objected to her evidence on the ground that, to the extent that she was
being called to testify as an expert in classification matters, her evidence was, in the
circumstances of this case, inadmissible. Following submissions the board ruled that it
hear Ms. Wilson's evidence. Counsel asked that the reasons for that ruling be
incorporated into the award. What follows is those reasons.
The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 114 D.L.R. (4th)
419 set down the following criteria for the admissibility of expert opinion evidence.
1. The evidence must be relevant to some issue in the case.
2. The evidence is necessary to assist the trier of fact.
3. The evidence does not violate an exclusionary rule; and
4. The witness is properly qualified as an expert.
This case has been adopted by an arbitrator in Re: Ministry of the Attorney General
and BCGEU (1996), 57 LAC (4th) 391 (Greyell) where it was stated that:
In my view the necessity criteria enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in
Mohan is founded on sound policy reasons that are equally applicable in the field
of labour arbitration. It is not only not necessary but is unseemly and contrary to
4
labour relations policy to permit opinion evidence on a topic within the common
experience of arbitrators. [See also Re: Bulmoose Operating Corporation and
CEPW, Local 443 (2000), 88 LAC (4th) 317 (Larson).
Counsel for the union conceded that, for the purposes of this case, Ms. Wilson was
an expert and that her evidence would be relevant. However, it was argued that, in the
somewhat unique circumstances surrounding the litigation of classification grievances
between these parties, her evidence would not meet the standard of necessity. Counsel
argued that, having regard to the fact that chair of this board has been trained by the
parties in the application of the Job Evaluation Manual and to the fact that each nominee
is highly experienced and has sat on a number of boards dealing with classification
grievances under this collective agreement, there is no necessity for an expert to instruct
and inform the board as to matters that are not within its own expertise.
We accept the principle as set down in Mohan. However, what is unique about
this case is that, while Ms. Wilson may have expertise in the operation of the Job
Evaluation Plan, she is also the College official who made the decision that is the subject
of this grievance. The College is entitled to answer that grievance by the best evidence
that is available to it and we see no basis for preventing the College from calling her as a
witness to testify as to the reasons why the College took the action that it did.
Accordingly, we admit her evidence, not as an expert witness offering opinion
evidence, but rather on the basis indicated. To the extent that her evidence expresses an
opinion as to how the Job Evaluation plan should apply in the grievor's case, it has little
evidentiary value. While Ms. Wilson can testify as to the process that was followed and
as to the considerations that led the College to its decision, the question as to whether or
not the College correctly classified the grievor's position according to the Job Evaluation
Plan is an issue which is for the board and the board alone to decide.
2. The Classification Process
Essentially our task is to examine the duties and responsibilities of the position and
to follow the process as set down in the Job Evaluation Manual. That process begins
with the preparation of a PDF which serves to ensure that those charged with evaluating
the position fully understand the basic function of the position in the context of those
factors that are relevant to its evaluation. As the Manual indicates (Section III, page 1)
the PDF "identifies and defines the jobs to be performed, assigns the level of
responsibility to the position and determines the qualifications and skill level required to
do the job" and "provides valuable source data for .... classifying the position within the
organizational structure of positions."
The process is one of"systematically analyzing the duties and responsibilities of a
position in order to determine its relative value to an organization" and to assign the
position to a pay band "that is internally equitable with other...positions in the college
system" (Manual, Section II, page 1) and, to that end, contemplates a number of steps that
are to be followed.
1. Determine the appropriate Job Family to which the position belongs by
reference to the "predominant and central duties" of the position.
2. Compare the duties and responsibilities of the position to the Classification
levels described in the relevant Job Evaluation Classification Guide Charts and,
considering the "normal" activities of the position, match it with the guide chart level
which "most accurately describes the actual content and responsibilities of the position"
and which bears a "reasonably close approximation" to a classification level described in
the Guide Chart - thus ensuring that positions are evaluated and classified in comparison
with a common standard.
6
3. Core Point rate the position where its duties and responsibilities are not
adequately covered by the existing Job Family Definitions and the Job Evaluation Guide
Charts.
3. The grievor's position.
The grievor's PDF provides, inter alia, as follows:
A. POSITION SUMMARY
Provides programming and systems analysis expertise in the development and support of
the College's Information systems, website and IVR system.
B. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Develops and tests computer programs and webpages from user requests or system
specifications. 40%
2. Designs improvements to processes to meet user requirements. 20%
3. Provides assistance to users who encounter system problems or questions. 20%
4. Maintains the College's IVR system and vocabulary files. 5%
5. Provides user training 4%
6. Prepares and maintains system documentation 2%
7..Keeps current on new technologies 7%
8. Keeps current on payroll contract requirements 2%
C. SKILL
1. Training/Technical Skills
Diploma/Certificate in computer science or data processing
2. Experience
Up to five years data processing experience with up to three years COBOL and relational
database programming experience and at least one year experience in systems analysis,
system s design, Visual Basic, HTML, Active Server Pages, VBScript, JavaScript,
Access, UNIX, SOL, Frontpage, InterDEv, VRAM and PeriStudio.
3. Complexity
This position requires a high degree of analysis, problem-solving and reasoning.
As an example, based on a brief description of a new process that has been requested by a
user, the incumbent must ensure a good understanding of the need and requirements;
identify viable options and select the most appropriate option.
The incumbent needs the ability to multi-task with accuracy and attention to detail with
minimum supervision and minimal job structure (i.e. routinely required to work on more
than one project at a time using different programming languages/techniques/machines
with attention to accuracy. This requires the ability to quickly adjust thought processes
from one task to another.)
4. Judgment
4.1 The incumbent makes use of a high degree of independent judgment and problem
solving to determine the best way to program a new process or resolve a problem with an
existing process.
5. Motor Skills
This position requires the incumbent to type using a computer keyboard. (40%) A well
the incumbent must use a computer mouse (40%)
D. EFFORT
6. Physical Demand
This position requires a lot of sitting, (90%) but the incumbent is not required to remain
sitting for long periods without a break.
7. Sensory Demand
This position requires a high degree of visual, auditory, and tactile concentration. The
incumbent is required to concentrate on a VDT for long periods of time (70%) looking
closely at individual characters. The position requires the incumbent to interact
frequently (35%) with users to identify their needs and to resolve their problems. The
position requires a lot of mental concentration to solve problems.(60%) It also requires a
high level of attention to accuracy and detail.
8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
This position requires the incumbent to meet tight deadlines and deal with many
interruptions from users at the same time.
The incumbent must try to introduce changes that could be resisted by some users.
There are conflicting demands from various projects.
Problems that can arise due to the unavailability and/or co-operation of project contacts
while trying to meet deadlines.
E. RESPONSIBILITY
9. Independent Action
9.3 How work is checked
Work is reviewed by discussion as problems and questions arise.
As well, work assignments are reviewed for achievement of specific objectives and
adherence to established deadlines on a regular basis.
9.4 Duties requiring independent action that requires initiative/creativity
Independent action is required with systems, software and hardware where no other staff
member has the knowledge or expertise to assist.
The incumbent must design web pages, screens, reports, and processes to suit user needs
within the limitations of the computer environment. These duties are a regular part of the
job and would take 15-25% of the incumbent's time.
9.5 Typical problems normally referred to supervisor for solution.
Problems in meeting deadlines
Problems with programs that can't be resolved.
Problems with the availability/cooperation of project contracts
Problems encountered in designing systems.
10. Communications
Senior Management Discuss systems issues Infrequently
Managers/Chairs Discuss systems issues Daily
I.T.S Discuss hardware and operational needs Daily
9
Co-workers Discuss system, programming, data,
project issues. Daily
Support staff Discuss system issues and provide trainingDaily
Gov/t agencies Discuss system requirements Infrequently
Vendors Discuss hardware/software requirements Infrequently
11. Decisions/Actions
11.1 Impact of decision/actions
The incumbent's decisions and/or actions can have a significant impact on all areas
identified. The incumbent has the potential to affect internal relations positively or
negatively based on attitude and service. The incumbent can affect public relations based
on the timeliness, accuracy and clarity of system generated correspondence. The
incumbent can affect system response time and the accuracy of information and records
through system and program design. These factors can also affect the need to purchase or
delay the purchase of computer equipment.
11.2 Processes used to detect errors - effect of errors
Errors are detected through program and system testing by the incumbent and users. If
errors are not detected the result could be significant financial loss to the College and
excessive manpower requirements to recover from a problem and damage to public
relations.
F. WORKING CONDITIONS
12. Work Environment
Normal open office environment.
There are a number of respects in which the grievor disagrees with her PDF. In
particular she believed that the Position Summary should contain greater reference to her
responsibilities in connection with Project Management and to Systems Design. While,
she confirmed that she did perform all of the duties and responsibilities set out in section
B she believed that her PDF did not adequately reflect and describe her duties in
connection with the providing of guidance to junior staff.
10
In support of her claim the grievor gave evidence with respect to a number of
projects in which she was involved in the years immediately prior to the filing of her
grievance in March, 2001.
1. The FIRST project: Fanshawe Interactive Registration System. This is an
interactive voice response system which was created in 1994 and which allows users to
complete various transactions over the telephone, eg. check on admission status, register
for continuing education courses, book student award appointments, and obtain general
college information etc. Mr. Gord Worrall (the grievor's supervisor) designed the shell of
the system and set up the initial vocabulary, selected the vendor of the software
(Periphonics) and took training on the use of the equipment and the software. He trained
the grievor on the use of the system and she then, at different times and as requested by
the Registrar's Office or Continuing Education Department, wrote the programming for
the different modules or menu items (12 in number) which are used to provide the various
functions, eg. fee payment, course registration, post secondary graduation, check on
admission status, etc. In doing so she would meet with personnel in the department
requesting the module (or an enhancement to a module) and based on their needs, wrote
the programming to help achieve the desired objective.
The grievor has been responsible for the functioning of this system since its
creation and, in that regard, has had to contact Periphonics technical support about
problems encountered and has offered assistance to the Information Technology
Technical Support Specialist in the College when contacted for direction as to how to
proceed with various problems in the system. The grievor stated that she is fully
responsible to make sure that this system runs properly, is not supervised by her manager
on what is done on the system and has had no assistance from any of the systems analysts
with respect to this system.
11
Mr. Worrall was of the opinion that, although the functions performed by this
program were important (as was evidence by its wide use - 96,500 phone calls made to
the system in the past year), it was not, comparatively speaking, a large system. In his
view, the design and analysis required on the project could not be considered to involve
work on a "large" program; rather it consisted of work on several small projects not all
introduced at once. In terms of its breadth and complexity he considered it to be smaller
and more focussed, involving an individual process dealing with one area of activity and
in respect of which there may have already been a parallel process already in place for the
achievement of the function (eg. registration or payment of fees at the front counter). In
his opinion the assignment of the task of designing this system was work that would
typically be assigned to a Programmer Analyst B.
2. Re-design of existing Career Services web site and design of new Career
Services statistics system.
The grievor stated that in completing this project - which was designed to permit
jobs to be posted on the College's web site - she met on numerous occasions with Career
Services management and support staffto discuss their needs and to determine the
limitations for the new system and that she wrote programming specifications and
supervised and reviewed the work of and gave guidance to a co-op student on a daily
basis. She worked independently without supervision and had no assistance from any
System Analyst.
Mr. Worrall testified that the web site was originally designed and developed by
Mr. Colin Patterson, a faculty member seconded by Mr. Worrall, and that the work done
by the grievor largely involvement making improvements and streamlining the process
through meeting with the manager and some clerical staff in the career services area and
12
determining what was required and then doing the analysis for the enhancement or
improvement and writing the appropriate programming. Mr. Werrall did not consider
this to be a large project as it had a fairly narrow focus and did not involve a lot of
different programs.
Similarly, in her work on the Career Services Statistics System, the griever met
with staff in that section to understand their needs and determined the best way to achieve
those objectives and, with the assistance of a coop student whom she directed, wrote the
programming specifications. Mr. Werrall agreed that the griever did design the statistics
web site and that she was not working from an existing parallel system. Further he
agreed that she was responsible for the implementation of both the enhancements to the
career services web site and for the career services statistic system and that his
involvement in supervising her was limited to a couple of meetings initially with the
manager efthat area and the coop student to discuss the best way of collecting the
statistics but that beyond that she took over responsibility for the project. However, he
did not consider these to be large or a complex systems as they dealt with only one
department.
3. Administration Payroll Earnings and Classification System.
The work done by the griever on this system involved enhancements to an
existing system that had been originally designed around 1988 by Roland Sterling, then
Director of Administrative Services, and Gwen Moon, a Programmer Analyst. After Ms.
Moon left the College in 1990 the griever was given responsibility for the maintenance of
the program which involved her in responding to requests from Human Resources to
effect changes in the program as and when they were required. Around 1997-98 a new
system for classifying and paying administrators was put in place and the griever was
required to change the payroll system and existing data bases to accommodate that
13
change. She needed to examine how the classification system worked, identify what
changes would be needed, identify the programs that would need to be changed and then
make the necessary program changes. The grievor stated that to effect the conversion
from a Hay system to a pay band system she had to "start from scratch" and re-write and
modify about 25 programs that could no longer be used under the new system. In this
regard she was not supervised and did not have the assistance of any System Analyst and
was fully responsible for the implementation of the project from start to finish.
The system affected approximately 25 computer programs in the Human
Resources and Payroll system and over 50 computer screen layouts. However, Mr.
Worrall did not consider it to be a large project in comparison with some of the projects
worked on by the Systems Analysts. Nor did he consider the level of analysis required to
be complex in that the nature of the changes made were fairly repetitive
4. Support Staff Earnings Structure.
Prior to the grievor's involvement with this project the payroll system for support
staffhad been designed by Mr. Sterling and Ms. Moon in 1998 - similar to the
Administrative staff payroll. It was a point band system and, in September, 2000, as a
result of changes in the support staff collective agreement, the grievor was assigned a
project which required her to redo the data base structure in such a fashion as to allow for
the addition of an extra pay band to the system - a task which required a considerable
amount of programming. The grievor was fully responsible for the implementation of
these changes from start to finish without supervision from her manager and without any
assistance from a Systems Analyst - all of which had to be completed within a 3 week
deadline. Implementation of the project required her to meet with management and
support staff to determine what was required according to Ministry guidelines and under
the collective agreement and to train Payroll and Human Resources staff in the use of the
14
new system.
The project affected approximately 25 computer programs in the Human
Resources and Payroll systems and over 50 computer screen layouts. Mr. Worrall
acknowledged that the size of the project would depend on the nature of the changes in a
new collective agreement; that it could involve no changes to an existing program or it
may involve changing programs to allow for the addition of an extra step or pay band. He
did not consider this project to be a large one - in comparison with the projects
undertaken by the Systems Analysts.
5. Continuing Education Course Registration System.
The grievor was involved in the conversion of an existing system of registration
for Continuing Education courses into one which would appear on the college web site -
and which would operate much like the FIRST system - and allow students to register for
Continuing Education courses on the web. However, although much of the programming
on the conversion was done, the project was never implemented (through no fault of the
grievor) owing to certain hardware problems. The grievor stated that this project
required her to meet with various administration and support staff to develop and design a
new system and to have discussions with external vendors about the possible purchase of
new software that would allow the College to convert the existing Periphonics systems
code to be used on the College web site with no supervision from her manager on the
design and development of the system and no assistance from a Systems Analyst.
However, Mr. Worrall claimed that her work on this project involved very little
interaction with users of the system or meetings with administration and support staff to
develop and design the system.
Mr. Worrall did not consider this to be a large project as it was confined largely to
15
his department and did not involve a lot of interaction with other areas of the College.
Moreover, he did not consider it to be complex as there were parallel processes - both in
FIRST and in the Registrar's Office; and the level of analysis in his view was not as high
as would be required for the FIRST program. Although it might, unlike FIRST, require
some analysis of security and encription, that was restricted to only one process. In terms
of its breadth and complexity he considered this project to be one that would be typically
assigned to a Programmer Analyst B.
6. Development of new College web site systems and maintenance of existing
systems.
Although the College web site was created by Colin Patterson, the grievor is
responsible for the maintenance of those parts of the web site that interact with data bases.
4. The Systems Analyst position
Since the grievor seeks re-classification to the position of Systems Analyst is
instructive, for comparative purposes to examine the PDFs for that position as well as to
review the types of projects worked on by a Systems Analyst
The PDFs for the position of the two Systems Analysts (Ms. Foster and Mr.
Paterson) provide, inter alia, as follows:
A. POSITION SUMMARY
Provides project management, systems analysis, systems design and computer
programming expertise for the development and support of the Colleges Information
System.
B. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Plans, coordinates, analyzes, designs, programs, tests and documents computer
information systems to meet the needs of the college. 55%
2. Provides assistance to users who encounter systems problems or questions 20%
16
3. Provides technical support and guidance to other Information Systems
Services staff 10%
4. Interviews, selects, supervises and evaluates co-op students 10%
5. Provides training to user departments. 3%
6. Other duties as required 2%.
C. SKILL
1. Training/Technical Skills
3 year diploma/degree in computer science or information systems.
2. Experience
Up to eight years information systems experience with up to five years COBOL
programming experience; three years project management, systems analysis and design
experience; one year experience using relational databases, Visual Basic, HTML, Active
Server Pages, VAX OpenVMS and Windows NT.
3. Complexity
The incumbent requires a significant amount of analysis, problem-solving and reasoning
skills: eg.
a. interview users to determine system problems and help define system requirements
b. identify alternative solutions to user's requirements
c. determine best system tools to use for the project
d. define data requirements
f. write programming specifications
j. coordinate the implementation of the system between several areas
Other- interpreting Ministry regulations/requirements; evaluating proposed systems; and
providing feedback
to senior
management on
system proposals.
4. Judgment
Incumbent has a lot of latitude to judge a situation and determine the best course of
action. Position requires extensive problem solving, eg. determining best tools to use to
for the development of the system and resolving a problem with a computer program. As
17
senior staff member in department incumbent assists with problems they encounter
[With respect to the factors of Motor Skills, Physical Effort, Responsibility for Decisions
and Actions and Work Environment, the Foster/Paterson PDFs are identical to that of the
griever. With respect to Sensory Demand the language is also identical save and except
for the fact that the mental concentration for Ms. Foster and Mr. Paterson is described as
"extensive" rather than "a lot oF' as was the case for the griever. The language for Strain
from Work Pressures is quite similar and for Independent Action is identical except that
the statement in section 9.3 of the griever's PDF that work is reviewed for achievement of
specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines on a regular basis does not
appear in the Foster/Paterson PDF. As for the factor of Communications/Contacts, save
for the fact that the Foster/Paterson PDF (unlike the griever's PDF) includes contact with
Other Colleges to "investigate their current systems" on an infrequent basis the list of
persons contacted is the same in both the griever's PDF and the Foster/Paterson PDF.
Similarly, the purposes of these contacts is essentially the same. However, there are some
differences in the frequency of the contacts - differences generally indicating that the
griever has less frequent contact than Ms. Foster or Mr. Paterson with Senior
Management and government agencies.]
The griever stated that the PDF s of Ms. Foster and Mr. Paterson were a better
description of her duties than her own. In particular she stated that the words - "plans, co-
ordinates, analyzes, designs programs, tests and documents computer information systems
to meet the needs efthe college" (which accounted for 55% efthe duties efthe Systems
Analysts) was a more accurate description efher work than the first two duties that
comprised 60% of her work, viz, "develops and tests computer programs and webpages
from user requests or systems specifications" and "designs improvements to processes to
meet user requirements." She also thought that her PDF should, like theirs, make
reference to the provision of "technical support and guidance to other Information
18
Systems Services staff' and to "interviewing, selecting, supervising and evaluating co-op
students".
Both Ms. Foster and Mr. Paterson testified with respect to their own PDF s and
with respect to the various projects that had been assigned to them in the period prior to
the date of the grievance in late March, 2001.
The most extensive system worked on by Ms. Foster and for which she has overall
responsibility is the Student information System (SIS). She described it as "massive"
and one that was used by all academic divisions, by the Registrar's Office, by Student
Awards, Counselling, Accounts/Receivable. She took responsibility for the design of
this system in the mid 1990s and, although she wrote the programming for some of the
more complicated parts of the system, she provided specifications of the department who
did the programming from her specifications. Her responsibility for this system also
involved her in training various levels of staff on the use of the system and in responding
to calls from users with problems in the use of the system. Over the last 5 years she has
been involved more in the maintenance of the system although from time to time it has
become necessary to add some new functionality to the system, eg. advanced standing.
Her other work involved her in designing and creating sub-systems of the SIS, eg..
the enrolment audit in which information from the SIS is put into a format required by the
Ministry and auditor - a system she described as "fairly small" (dozen programs) but with
a wide ranging impact and in which she did all of the programming. She also made
enhancement to existing systems such as the timetable by adding extra functionality - a
project about half the size of the enrolment audit project. She re-designed an
Appointments system (allowing students to book appointments with Student Awards) for
the VAX mainframe - a project about the same size as the timetabling system. For these
19
project she did some of the programming and other staff members, i.e. programmer
analysts or coop students do the rest. She was also involved in the design of a number of
other smaller stand alone systems for single departments, viz, international students,
counselling, bus passes, student elections ) where her only programming involvement was
to provide others with help with the "tricky things" when needed.
She also, in the company of Mr. Paterson, was regularly involved in interviewing
and selecting coop students from a pool of candidates, in assigning them their tasks and
directing their work and in evaluating them at the end of the coop term.
Further, she was involved in two other projects:
1. The acquisition of a new computer administrative system for the College to be
purchased rather than designed in house; a process that had her involved in site visits and
evaluation of various vendors, in the preparation of the RFP and the negotiation of the
contract - a project which she stated occupied a good portion of her job over the last year
(and which represents a part of the reason why she is seeking a review of her own
classification).
2. Participation in a collaborative academic project with the University of Western
Ontario in connection with the nursing program in which College grades and student
records were provided to the University in a different format - work which involved her
in communicating with Registrar, the chairs of departments and the VP Academic at the
College as well as people at the University.
With respect to her own PDF she stated that in recent years less of her time has
been spent on programming and more on co-ordination, analysis and design -
approximately 60% of her time (which included her involvement in the acquisition of a
20
new administrative system) devoted to that and only 5% to programming.
Mike Paterson also described the various major systems that he had been involved
in designing, analyzing and implementing over the period 1995 - March, 2001 (the date of
the grievance)
He re-designed the data base structure of an existing payroll system working with
programs (approximately 250 in number) that dealt with EI, CPP deductions, Revenue
Canada etc. He was involved in the computerization and enhancement of an existing 200
program Accounts Receivable system; in the re-design of an Accounts Payable system
(10-15 programs) used by all departments in the College; the completion and later re-
design of a General Ledger system used by all departments in the College; the re-design
of portions of a Planning and Budget system that was used by all departments of the
College.
Mr. Paterson stated that, with respect to these systems, the amount of time spent on
them varied according to what is demanded by the user; that once the system is in place
and is working all that is required is to deal with issues as they come up.
In addition to these major systems Mr. Paterson also worked on subsystems that
are attached to the HR system, viz, WHMS, Sick and Vacation, Grievances, and some
other small (no more than 20 tables) independent systems; i.e. keys, parking, ombudsman,
English proficiency, Math proficiency.
In these various systems Mr. Paterson either did all of the programming (eg.
General Ledger, Planning and Budget, English proficiency) or a portion of the
programming (eg. Payroll- 50%, Accounts Receivable - 60%) or he wrote programming
21
specifics and had a programmer analyst or a coop student do the programming (eg.
Accounts payable, keys, parking, ombudsman, Math proficiency.)
He agreed that the portions of times assigned to his duties and responsibilities in
his PDF were "roughly correct" although he maintained that, at around the time of the
grievance, he was doing more analysis (60%) than programming(40%).
The grievor was asked to compare her work with that done by Ms. Foster and Mr.
Paterson. She considered the work that Ms. Foster did on international students to be
comparable to her career services project and the student counselling system designed by
Ms. Foster to be even smaller than her career services web site project and to involve only
one department of the College. Similarly she did not consider the work done by Ms.
Foster on a bus pass system to be any more complex than the systems that she was
worked on. As for the projects worked on by Mr. Paterson she regarded the WHMS
system as "relatively small" although admittedly used by departments around the College.
She also stated that his system for taking deductions from pay did not require the use of
as many modules as the "front end" system for payroll that she designed. Similarly, she
considered her work on payroll to compare favourably in size with Mr. Paterson's work
on the General Ledger accounts.
Generally, it was her view that her position was comparable to theirs in terms of
complexity of work, level of independence and the amount of time spent on systems
design as compared to programming.
5. Decision
i) Identification of the job family.
As noted above the first task is to identify the proper job family for the position in
22
question. That task requires an examination of the Job Family definitions for the position
of Programmer Analyst and Systems Analyst respectively and an assessment of which
family is the more appropriate one for the position occupied by the griever. The difficulty
which we face is that the jobs in the Computer Services Occupational Group, viz,
Programmer, Programmer/Analyst, Systems Analyst are all on a continuum and to a
certain extent the incumbents in these positions all are involved in computer programming.
What differentiates them one from the other is the particular context in which those skills
are employed. Our task is to locate the griever's job on that continuum.
The Job Family Definitions for the position of Programmer Analyst is as follows:
This family covers positions that are involved in the analysis of the College's
Information requirements and the development of computer systems to meet these
requirements.
The Job Family Definition for the position of Systems Analyst is:
This family covers positions that develop or revise systems for the College and
prepare system proposals, provide technical direction and guidance to staff
assigned to the systems development project and to staff in the Community; and
assume responsibility for all phases of the project.
It is our conclusion that the griever's position does not fall within the job family
definition for Systems Analyst. There is no evidence that she ever prepared any systems
proposal and that, save and except for the one example in which she provided
programming specifications to a coop student and oversaw the programming done on the
development efthe statistics function on the career services web site, she did not in any
significant way provide "technical direction and guidance to staff assigned to the systems
development project". Further, given the fact that in all efthe significant projects that
she worked (save and except for her work in the design of the statistics function on the
career services web site), her work essentially involved taking over and maintaining or
23
enhancing projects that had been designed by others (Werrall, Sterling, Moon), it could
not be said that the griever had "assumed responsibility for all phases of a project" from
beginning to end - within the meaning of that phrase in the Job Family Definition of
Systems Analyst.
There is no question that the griever has been involved in the design and
maintenance and to some extent development efvarieus "systems" or projects. However,
that of itself is not conclusive since the Programmer Analyst family definition
contemplates that members of that family will be involved in "the development of
computer systems" to meet the College's information requirements. Thus, work on
"systems" may, depending on its nature fall either within the Programmer Analyst Family
or the Systems Analyst family.
We have outlined at some length the different systems for which the griever on the
one hand and Ms. Foster and Mr. Paterson on the other hand had some responsibility. A
comparison between their respective projects and the nature of their involvement in those
projects reveals a number of differences between the two positions.
First, we refer to the comparative breadth and complexity of the systems on which
they did work. While systems like the Student Information System and the various
accounting systems designed by Mr. Paterson intersected with a large number of different
departments across the College, those in which the griever was involved tended to be
limited in their scope - confined essentially to the principal users efthe system. Thus,
there is a stronger sense in which it can be said that the work of the Systems Analysts
involves more "system-wide" concerns and issues.
Secondly, while Ms. Foster and Mr. Paterson in general were involved in the basic
24
design of the systems for which they had responsibility, the griever generally took over
and maintained and added enhancements to already designed systems or systems for
which there was a parallel process already in place - which required to be computerized.
Third, there is a difference in the nature efthe work done by Ms. Foster and Mr.
Paterson on their systems as compared to that of the griever. As noted above Ms. Foster
was involved in the original design of the Student Information System, wrote some of the
programming for more complex parts but provided programming specifications for
others. Similarly, Mr. Paterson did some of the programming but provided programming
specifications for others - whom he supervised. This is to be contrasted with the systems
on which the griever worked in which, with the exception of the statistics function on the
career services web site, she did all of the programming.
Fourth, Ms. Foster, in the company of Mr. Paterson, was regularly involved in
interviewing and selecting coop students from a pool of candidates, in assigning them
their tasks and directing their work and in evaluating them at the end of the coop term.
Although the griever was invited to provide recommendations on the performance of
coop students her role went no further than that.
Finally, it may be noted that there is nothing in the griever's list of projects on
which she worked which compares with the work of Ms. Foster in the acquisition of a
new computer administrative system for the College or per participation in a collaborative
academic project at Western.
It is fair to conclude from these differences between the duties of the griever and
those of Ms. Foster and Mr. Paterson that, leaving aside the differences in the PDF s -
which are persuasive enough alone - the position occupied by the griever falls more
25
comfortably into the Programmer Analyst family than the Systems Analyst Family. The
predominant and central or "core" duties of her position involve the analysis of user needs
and the design of a program to meet those needs. While that has led her to work on
"systems" that will meet those user needs, that is not conclusive since jobs in the
Programmer Analyst family also work on systems.
The validity of this conclusion may be tested by a brief examination of the typical
duties set out in the Guide charts for the Programmer Analyst and Systems Analyst
positions. The Typical Duties of a Systems Analyst are as follows:
designs and develops computer systems required to meet information needs of a
college
plans and co-ordinates projects to implement systems
provides liaison with user departments to ensure effective utilization of systems
provides training and guidance to programming staff on a per project basis.
With the possible exception of the first of these duties (depending on the system) it is
very difficult to see how any of the other described typical duties come would at all
capture the work done by the grievor.
By way of contrast the Guide Chart for the Programmer Analyst B position state as
follows:
Summary of Responsibility:
Incumbents develop systems specifications, record layouts and programs for
small systems or sub-systems through the application of systems
analysis/programming techniques.
Typical Duties
analyses problems in terms of applications, systems and programming requirements
develops codes and tests programs to meet requirements
implements small systems or sub systems
It is clear from this that the mere fact that a programmer analyst performs work on
26
systems does not remove it from the Programmer Analyst family. To qualify as falling
within the Systems Analyst family the work done "on systems" must involve greater
breadth and depth and complexity than is exhibited by the systems worked on by the
griever.
Thus, we conclude that the griever's position properly falls within the Programmer
Analyst jeb family
ii) Classification within the Programmer Analyst family
We mm to the question of the appropriate classification of the position within the
Programmer Analyst family; viz, whether the position should be classified as a
Programmer Analyst B or a Programmer Analyst C. As outlined above the next step in
the classification process is to review what is contained in the PDF (as expanded upon by
the evidence in this proceeding) and to compare it with the classification guide charts for
the Programmer Analyst family.
The guide charts for Programmer Analyst C provide, inter alia, as follows:
Summary of Responsibility
Incumbents develop solutions to business(scientific) problems through the
application of systems analysis programming techniques of the highest order.
Typical Duties
Analyses effectiveness of existing system: effects changes as required
Develops logic and procedures to provide more efficient machine operations.
In our opinion the duties performed by the griever fall comfortably within the
typical duties of a Programmer Analyst C. Although she was not involved in the design
27
of any systems (which is the principal reason why she is unable to qualify as a Systems
Analyst) a good deal efthe projects that she worked on involved designing enhancements
to existing systems. In short, she "analyzed the effectiveness of existing systems" and
"effect changes as required.". We would also consider this to be the "application of
systems analysis programming techniques of the highest order" within the meaning of the
Summary of Responsibility of a Programmer Analyst C.
In examining the extent to which the griever's position meets the standards set
down in the remaining 12 evaluation criteria set down in the classification guide charts it
is useful to note at the outset that the levels for Programmer Analyst B and Programmer
Analyst C are similar with respect to a number of those criteria; viz, Complexity, Motor
Skills, Physical Demand, Strain from Work Pressures, Communications, Responsibility
for Decisions and Actions and Work Environment. Thus, given her existing
classification as a Programmer Analyst B, the griever meets the standards for a
Programmer Analyst C with respect to those criteria with identical ratings. In and of
itself, that would not be sufficient to warrant guide charting the position as a Programmer
Analyst C as it would not be a "reasonable close approximation" to that position.
However, when an analysis is conducted of certain efthe other job factors it
becomes clear that the "best fit" for the griever's position is that of Programmer Analyst
C.
We deal first with the factor of Judgment. It is helpful to compare the griever' s
PDF for this factor with that of Ms. Foster. Although Ms. Foster is a Systems Analyst the
factor description for Judgment in the Systems Analyst guide chart is identical to that for
Programmer Analyst C. Therefore, Ms. Fester's PDF offers some insight into the kind of
judgment which the College considers would qualify at this level. The griever's PDF
describes the problem solving involved as determining "the best way to program a new
28
process or resolve a problem with an existing process". Ms. Foster's speaks of
"determining the best tools to use for the development of a system and resolving a
problem with a computer program." Further, the illustrative examples set down in section
4.2 of how the incumbent determines the most appropriate course of action, are (leaving
aside some unimportant differences in wording) to all intents the same; viz, based on user
needs and requirements the incumbent identifies the solution to the problem. Admittedly,
Ms. Foster did this with respect to systems with greater depth and of more complexity.
However, the issue is not whether or not the grievor's position requires the judgment of a
Systems Analyst but whether she meets the levels expected of a Programmer Analyst C.
In our view, having regard to the similarity between the grievor's PDF and that of
Ms. Foster and Mr. Paterson, in respect of the factor of Judgment, the grievor meets the
standard set down in the classification guide charts for Programmer Analyst C for this
factor.
We turn next to the factor of Sensory Demand
The grievor maintained that the position required an extremely high level of
concentration as a result of having to find an error in a system, looking at a VDT screen
most of the day - while besieged by constant interruption. It was Mr. Worrall's view that
most of the sensory demand associated with the programmer analyst position and the
systems analyst position was related to the programming work and meeting with users. It
was his view that, while a Systems Analyst or a Programmer Analyst C might spend less
time than a Programmer Analyst B looking at a VDT screen, the sensory demand arising
from interaction with the users on a project would be more significant as there tends to be
more interaction with more people and a greater need to understand their different needs
and requirements. The difficulty with that position is that it is not reflected in the PDFs
of the grievor and that of Ms. Foster and Mr. Paterson. Whereas the grievor's PDF
29
indicates that she spent 35% of her time listening to users, only 20% of the time in
Foster's and Paterson's PDF is spent on that function and it is really no answer to say, as
Mr. Worrall did in cross examination, that Systems Analyst PDF description for this
factor was in error.
Once again, it may be noted that, save and except for the description in the
Foster/Paterson PDF of the mental concentration required as "extensive" rather than an
lot of", the narrative in each of the PDF s is identical. Thus, in both there is reference to
the need for a "high degree" of concentration; a need to concentrate on a VDT for long
periods of time: and a need to interact frequently with users to identify their needs and to
resolve their problems. If that degree of mental concentration is sufficient to permit Ms.
Foster and Mr. Paterson to qualify as Systems Analyst under this factor, we fail to see
how it should not also be the case that the grievor qualify as a Programmer Analyst C, the
standard for which in the Classification Guide Charts is identical to that for a Systems
Analyst.
We mm next to the factor of Independent Action.
The grievor disagreed with the statement in her PDF that her work was reviewed
for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines on a regular
basis. While agreeing that from time to time her manager might ask how things were
going, she did not consider that to be a "review" of her work.. Similarly, with respect to
the quality of her work, she stated that she was given freedom to design and implement
her projects without review; that when she designed something she was responsible for
implementing it. She also disagreed with the indication in her PDF that she spent 15-25%
of her time on the design of web pages, screens, reports and processes to suit user needs -
claiming that this work occupied her for "most of my time." As for the referral of
problems to her supervisor she said that it happened "very rarely - a conversation in
30
passing.".
Mr. Werrall stated that the difference between the griever's position and that of a
Systems Analyst lay in the fact that, whereas her work projects may have been associated
with some past practice in which it was fairly well known what was involved, the type of
project that would be, and was, assigned to a systems analyst would require them to
proceed without having the benefit of a past practice to guide them.
In cross examination Mr. Werrall agreed that the PDF for the Systems Analyst
more accurately described how the griever gets her work assignments, viz, a work order
or project request identifying briefly the work needed to be done than did her own PDF.
Further, he agreed that the systems analyst PDF was more accurate than her PDF in
describing how her work was reviewed, viz, :by the manager by discussion as problems
arise."
In view of the evidence and having regard to Mr. Werrall's admission it would
appear that the griever's PDF is inaccurate in its description of the Independent Action
factor. Accordingly, we direct the College to re-write the griever's PDF in a manner that
better describes this factor and remain seised efjurisdictien to deal with any issues arising
out of that direction.
Thus, since the College treats Ms. Foster and Mr. Paterson as meeting the standard
for Independent Action prescribed for the Systems Analyst - which standard is identical
to that for the Programmer Analyst C, and given the admission that their PDF better
describes this factor than does the griever's own PDF, it follows that the griever meets
the standard set down for Programmer Analyst C.
31
Accordingly, it can be concluded that, in all factors except the Experience Factor,
the grievor meets the standards set down for Programmer Analyst C as described in the
Classification Guide Charts.
In our opinion, meeting the standards in 11 of the 12 evaluation criteria as well as
performing the Typical duties of the classification warrants a finding that the Programmer
Analyst C position is a "reasonably close fit" within the meaning of the Job Evaluation
Plan.
Thus, the grievance is allowed.
The College is directed to re-write the appropriate sections of the PDF to properly
reflect the grievor's job as indicated in this award.
The College is further directed to reclassify the grievor as a Programmer Analyst
C, payband 12 and to compensate her in respect of the losses suffered as a result of her
improper classification.
The Board remains seised of jurisdiction to deal with any and all issues arising out
of the interpretation and/or implementation of this award.
04/03/2003 11:44 FAX 519 679 9239 BRANDT ARB SVCES ~03
33
Gregory L Brandt, Chair
I concur/_~h~ t t
Ron Hubert., College Nominee
Sherril Murray, Union Nominee