Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZylstra 05-10-20IN 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 JULIA ZYLSTRA (OPSEU # 410924) ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate APPEARANCES: For the Employer: Sheila Wilson For the Union: Marg Rae HEARING: In London on June 13, 2005 2 DECISION INTRODUCTION The grievor is classified as a Support Services Officer ("SSO") B at payband 9. On August 4, 2004 she filed a grievance in which she contended that she should be classified as a SSO C at payband 11. At the hearing the employer spokesperson described the grievor as a knowledgeable and dedicated employee who performs her job well. She stressed that the manner in which the employer had rated her position was designed only to reflect the content of her job and not how well she had been performing it. In its pre-hearing brief the employer indicated that it rated the grievor's position as a SSO B because it feR her duties closely approximated the typical duties of a SSO B listed on a guide chart in the job evaluation manual. At the hearing the spokesperson for the employer contended that some of the grievor's duties were in fact those of a SSO A. The guide charts for the SSO A, B and C classifications set out the following typical duties of employees in these classifications: SSO A - Compiles data and statistics required for department reports. - Develops and recommends policies and procedures for administration of unit. - Provides data to decision makers allowing them to determine best course of action. - Responds to needs of service users by coordinating administrative details of projects: SSO B - Compiles and analyzes data in order to provide recommendations as to appropriate course of action. - Prepares operation plans, schedules and terms of reference. - Represents College in dealing with public by attending appropriate functions. - Trains, coordinates and monitors activities of others as appropriate. '3 SSO C - Researches and prepares presentations and reports to communicate and support College plans and objectives. - Provides functional guidance and direction to others. - Analyzes requirements of groups both within and external to College and develops programs to meet these requirements. - Provides liaison with government agencies in relation to the administration of projects. When assigning core point ratings to the twelve job factors identified in the job evaluation manual the employer assigned the same ratings that the SSO B guide chart associates with the typical duties and responsibilities of someone in that classification. This resulted in a total of 581 points under the job evaluation system. The evidence establishes that most of the duties performed by the grievor were in fact typical duties for a SSO B. These included compiling and analyzing data in order to provide recommendations and preparing operation plans and schedules. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below I am satisfied that two job factors should be rated higher than the ratings typically associated with a SSO B position. The parties agreed on the core point ratings for three of the twelve job factors. These were experience, complexity and responsibility for decisions/actions. The other nine factors are addressed separately below. THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD The grievor is employed in the employer's Manufacturing Sciences Division. In 2002 the Division was reorganized to encompass what was formerly the Electrical/Electronics Division..In a statement prepared by the grievor that was included in the union's brief and in her evidence the grievor referred to an increase in her duties and workload as a result of this re-organization. For its part the employer relied on an Academic Structure Renewal program underway at the College which either has or will result in a new Faculty of Technology that encompasses the Manufacturing Sciences, Building Technology and Motive Power Technology Divisions. At the hearing Mr. John Lidzbarski, Acting Chair of the Manufacturing Sciences Division, indicated that the employer intended to have a SSO from each of the three divisions start reporting to a single operations manager in July 2005. He suggested that there would be a balancing of workloads among the SSOs and that due to the relative size of the three divisions the grievor's workload would decrease. At the heating the union spokesperson objected to 4 any consideration of the Academic Structural Renewal program on the basis that the grievance had been filed in August 2004. In situations where changes to job duties have occurred subsequent to the filing ora grievance it is common for parties to agree to address the current rating of a position rather than how the position should have been rated in the past. In the instant case, however, the parties did not reach such an agreement. Further, changes that would impact on the grievor's position remain on-going. In the circumstances I propose to address the grievor's position as it existed when the grievance was filed. THE GRIEVOR'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The parties generally agree on the details of the work performed by the grievor. They disagree, however, on how this work should be characterized. This disagreement is highlighted by the differing position summaries advanced by the parties. A December 1994 position description form ("PDF") summarized the gfievor's position as follows: Under general direction of the Chairperson, performs a variety of functions related to the maintenance of program course/information, scheduling and timetabling, SWFs, budget, personnel files, teacher evaluations, divisional office, and liaising with other departments. In October 2004, atter the filing of the grievance, the employer prepared a new PDF that described the grievor as providing administrative and secretarial support. At the hearing the gfievor emphatically stated that she did not perform secretarial duties. The position summary in this PDF reads as follows: The incumbent, under the direction of the Chair, Manufacturing Sciences, is responsible for providing administrative/secretarial support for the day to day operations of the Division. The union put forward a proposed PDF with a position summary that characterized the grievor's duties very differently. In this documem the union contended that her role should be described as follows: The incumbent is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the division under the broad direction of the chair of the Manufacturing Sciences Division. The incumbent provides knowledge and advice to staff, faculty, students, outside agencies and liaising with other college 5 faculties. The incUmbent is frequently called upon to provide information/assistance/advice/guidance to faculty, staff, other departments and students etc. and thus troubleshooting and problem solving is a considerable component of the position. The most time consUming aspect of the grievor's duties, taking up some 25% of her time, involved scheduling and timetabling. She completed Planning and Development information requests and coordinated timetable development for the Division. She prepared timetable plans and did troubleshooting in order to resolve conflicts respecting timetables. The grievor testified that she could not rely on past history because different rooms might be available, faculty members would change and the courses taught by individual faculty members would change. The grievor spent about 5% of her time assisting with SWFs. This included sending out emails each semester to faculty members that listed the courses to be taught and asking them for their teaching preferences. The grievor testified that she would then prepare a draft list of the courses individual full-time faculty would be teaching. Mr. Lidzbarski testified that he and the coordinators made the final decision about who would teach what courses. The grievor drafted SWFs for review by Mr. Lidzbarski and the coordinators. The grievor arranged appointments to have faculty members meet with Mr. Lidzbarski with respect to their SWFs. The grievor testified that she would also run a report to see if any of the faculty members should be paid overtime. The grievor was engaged in student monitoring for 16% of her time. This aspect of her work included arranging week of welcome meetings for students by preparing operational plans and schedules, organizing orientation sessions and gathering data to be distributed to the students. The grievor testified that she was the Division's SIS coordinator and the main contact for students who wanted to register late. She also said that students would come to her if they wanted to drop a course and add another. She noted that if a student did not have a required prerequisite she would obtain approval from a coordinator prior to opening a seat for the student. The grievor testified that she was the only person who could add a seat to a section. She gave the example of a lab with a maximUm of 15 students and her increasing the nUmber to 16. She noted that she would first talk to a coordinator or a faculty member about adding a seat or Mr. Lidzbarski might tell her to add seats. The grievor said that she would advise Mr. Lidzbarski if a lab was getting overbooked and he would decide whether or not another lab section should be created. 6 The grievor testified that when a new lab was created she would go to the class and 'advise the students that some of them would have to transfer to a newly created lab time. She said that students would be unhappy about this since a number of them would have already made baby sitting arrangements and/or arranged for drives in connection with the original lab time. The grievor testified that students with problems were usually advised to see a coordinator but if a coordinator was not available the secretary would direct the student to her. She said that students would usually be agitated by the time they got to her. The grievor testified that students would tell her that they required a course offered years before in order to graduate and she would advise them to meet with a coordinator and tell them what information to bring to the meeting. She said that students would also contact her with respect to the impact of their schedules on OSAP entitlements. She gave the example of a student advising her that she had understood that a particular course was an 8 hour course but the schedule showed it to be a 4 hour course. The grievor indicated that she would discuss the matter with a coordinator before responding to the student. The grievor was involved in monitoring course hours and enrolment and updating planning projections. She testified that she would advise Mr. Lidzbarski to add or reduce course offerings. She referred to a situation when she advised Mr. Lidzbarski that ten students wanted to enroll in a particular course which they needed to graduate. She said that while Mr. Lidzbarski made the decision about offering the course he would not have been aware of the situation had she not provided him with information that she obtained from coordinators and faculty. The grievor testified that she handled most of the purchasing for a welding shop and a biotechnology program. She said that she would enter the relevant information and let Mr. Lidzbarski know about it. She also said that she kept track of goods as they were received and maintained a record when only part of an order was delivered. The grievor testified that Mr. Lidzbarski asked her to prepare a report showing who had utilized consumables in the welding lab and she had done this for the past three years. She indicated that she had obtained the relevant information from different databases and records and by asking questions of someone. The grievor spent about 10% of her time maintaining database and documentation for courses and programs by compiling data, updating records and ensuring their consistency with policies. She also kept course information and program information sheets up to date. She liaised with Planning and Development Services and the Registrar's office regarding new course documentation. 7 At the end of each semester the grievor compiled information for the coordinators to use when deciding which students would be able to continue the following semester. She also prepared reports containing information that enabled the coordinators to ascertain which students would be able to graduate. The grievor prepared and processed personnel documentation, including hiring documentation. This included letters respecting the payment of part-time faculty. The grievor contacted part-time faculty with respect to. their room requirements, photocopying needs and parking. The grievor testified that at least twice a year she was involved with key performance indicators ("KPI") and instructional surveys completed by students. The grievor testified that she picked the best time for KPI surveys, in part based on what teachers were bringing in the most students. She said that she let faculty know when instructional surveys were tentatively scheduled and faculty members could either approve or disapprove of the time. The grievor went to classes to explain surveys to students and to invigilate them. She said that the last time she did this the instructional surveys took her 30 hours to complete. Mr. Lidzbarski testified that other staff had assisted the grievor with surveys and completed surveys were taken to Planning and Development. Every three to five years programs offered by the Division would be reviewed. Mr. Lidzbarski, coordinators and the staff involved with cooperative programs would decide who from industry would be invited to serve on a review panel. The grievor would contact chosen individuals and ask them to serve on the panel. She prepared binders for panel members that contained information received from Planning and Development respecting matters such as student satisfaction and employment rates. In addition she ordered food for meetings of panel members. The union contended that in addition to the time the grievor spent troubleshooting scheduling and timetabling issues she also spent 14% of her time problem solving and troubleshooting. The union proposed that this activity be described as follows: First leVel problem and resolution resources including answering questions, providing advice, troubleshooting and follow-up to assist internal/external contacts with solving their problems. The grievor testified that she acted as a resource for students, faculty and staff within the Division. She noted that she worked with and had training on various computer systems and accordingly when someone encountered a problem with one of the systems she was able to address it. 8 The grievor indicated that at mid-term she would speak with faculty members to ensure that all students were attending class. If she ascertained that a student attending classes was not on the class list she would ask the faculty member to send the student to the Registrar's office. The grievor testified that when faculty members failed to submit marks on time she would track them down in order to obtain the marks. THE FACTOR OF TRAINING/TECHNICAL SKILLS The job evaluation manual states that this factor is designed to measure the minimum amount of independent study, formal education, training programs, professional or technical courses or apprenticeship programs necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position. It states that the application of this factor should not be confused with the educational qualifications of a particular incumbent. The employer rated the grievor's position at level 5 worth 91 points. The union contends that it should have been rated at level 6 worth 110 points. The level definitions and illustrative classifications for these two levels are as follows: 5. Required skills normally acquired through attainment of a two year Community College diploma, or equivalent. Job duties require the ability to organize simple statistical information and to understand the elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline. ECE Worker; Library Technician A, B; Programmer A, B; SSO A, B; Technician B, C 6. Required skills normally acquired through attainment of a three-year Community College diploma, or a three year undergrad University degree, or equivalent. Job duties require the ability to organize complex statistical information and/or understand and apply the elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline. Nurse; Programmer Analyst A, B, C; SSO C, D; Technologist A, B, C The grievor testified that she started with the employer after graduating from a two- year executive secretarial program and later took night courses in database management and computers. She added that she continues to take courses. The grievor said that due to the high level of computer skills, interpersonal skills and analysis of statistics associated with her job she felt that three years of post-secondary education was 9 required and a person with a two-year College diploma could not do the job. Mr. Lidzbarski indicated that he was not in a position to comment on this issue since he did not know what was covered in a two year as compared to a three year college administrative program. At the hearing the grievor acknowledged that she was not required to apply the principles of a science or a professional discipline. She contended, however, that her job required the ability to organize complex statistical data. She referred in this regard to keeping track of teaching hours, degree audits and working out the percentage use of the welding lab. Mr. Lidzbarski testified that the grievor compiled statistical information such as the use of the welding lab but did not do standard deviations or test the reliability of statistics used in reports. The December 1994 PDF respecting the grievor's position listed the following educational requirement: "Three year College diploma with appropriate experience or equivalent combination of education and experience". The October 2004 PDF prepared by the employer contained a differently worded entry namely: "The incumbent requires a two-year College diploma in such disciplines as Office Administration/Business or equivalent combination of related education and experience". The parties agreed on a level 3 rating for experience, which applies when more than one year and up to three years of practical experience is required. In her final submissions the employer spokesperson contended that the grievor was not required to organize statistical information that was complex. She also said that the proposed change in education levels was designed to achieve consistency with other SSO B positions that required a two-year program for the same level of responsibility. The union spokesperson argued that no weight should be given to this submission. Arbitrators generally give considerable deference to an employer's determination respecting the minimum level of education required for a position. A complicating consideration, however, is that after the filing of the grievance the employer reduced the stated requirement from a three year college diploma or equivalent to a two year diploma or equivalent. Although the employer spokesperson sought to establish a factual basis for this change through her final submissions there was in fact no evidence to explain or justify the change. To the contrary, Mr. Lidzbarski in his evidence indicated that he was not in a position to comment on the issue. Lacking any evidence to the contrary the reasonable presumption is that an educational requirement in place since at least December 1994 remains valid Having regard to these considerations I fmd that a level 6 rating was appropriate. 10 This factor measures the independent judgement and problem solving required on the job. It assesses the difficulty in identifying the 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 5, which is worth 84 points. The union contends that a level 6 rating worth 102 points would have been more appropriate. The applicable level definitions and the illustrative classifications contained in the job evaluation manual are as follows: 5. Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem'solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used. Programmer B; Stationary Engineer C; Technologist B 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 Both parties agree that the grievor exercised independent judgment and initiative. In her statement contained in the union's brief the grievor argued that because her position had a double workload the judgement required of her had increased to the point where there was little room for error. In its proposed PDF the union put forth the following list of examples to demonstrate the type of judgement exercised by the grievor: - Having contingency plans in place for enrolment increases/decreases, faculty absences, and students with disabilities, lab renovations, and computer system problems. - The incumbent will recommend budget efficiencies for changes in faculty assignments, decrease in labs, combining lectures, establishing new assigrunents to the Chair. - Independent and creativity judgment is required when preparing timetables for students/faculty. - Judgement used with creating SWF's. Bring to attention of the chair possible solutions to problems, loading faculty fairly and effectively and analyzing past SWF's. 11 - Judgement used when selecting class for KPI and IFS surveys. Analyzing and evaluating the most appropriate time to evaluate the students. - Judgement is used when dealing and communicating with problems for students. Must be tactful, diplomatic, persuasive and influential. - Deal with distraught, irate, frustrated students, parents, staff and faculty on a daily basis. Must interact with these groups in a professional and empathetic manner and convey decisions, outcomes, solutions that may not be well received. - Incumbent exercises considerable judg~nent based on policies, processes, probable outcomes and information specific to the problem in an attempt to respond positively. At the hearing the grievor discussed several situations when she was required to exercise judgment. She referred to a time when 80 students were registered for a class that was meant for 60. She said that because the assigned classroom was too small the instructor held the class outside, an event attended by someone from the student newspaper. She said that it took her 15 minutes to rectify the situation by switching three faculty members around in order to get an appropriate room for the class. The grievor said that on another occasion she became aware on the first day of class that a disabled student was scheduled for a classroom that could not accommodate his electric scooter. She indicated that she arranged for the student to look at several classrooms in order to find one that could accommodate his scooter and she then made the necessary room changes. The grievor testified that she used judgement when dealing with students, such as when they were upset about their class schedule or about a faculty member not showing up for classes or about the way a course was being taught. The grievor testified that she was required to adapt techniques when doing time scheduling. She also said that she had devised a spreadsheet which showed programs, prerequisites, courses, hours and labs so that when coordinators came to her she had the right information with respect to which degree audit they were looking at. It is apparent that the grievor exercised her judgment with respect to a broad range of different situations. She interpreted complex data and re£med work methods and techniques. A level 6 rating, however, also requires adapting analytical techniques and developing new information. Although the development of a spreadsheet to illustrative information relevant to degree audits might be viewed as adapting an analytical technique, the evidence does not suggest that this was a regular feature of her work. As touched on again below, preparing schedules is a typical duty of an SSO B rated at level .12 5 for this factor. The grievor worked with substantial amounts of data. The evidence does not, however, suggest that she regularly developed new information on various situations and problems in order to solve problems. One of the illustrative classifications for a level 6 rating is a SSO C. The grievor's duties were not those of a typical SSO C listed in the relevant guide chart. Her duties did, however, include the following functions of a SSO B that would typically justi~ a level 5 rating for judgement, namely "compiles and analyzes data in order to provide recommendations as to appropriate course of action" and "prepares operation plans, schedules and terms of reference. Having regard to these considerations I conclude that a level 5 rating was appropriate. MOTOR SKILLS This factor measures the fine motor movements necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position. It considers dexterity, complexity, co-ordination and speed. The employer rated this factor at level C-2 worth 22 points. The union rated it at level D-3 worth 37 points. A level 2 rating reflects a prevalence of 10% to 30% of the time. A level 3 rating applies when the prevalence is 31 to 60% of the time. The level C and D defirfitions, with D being the highest rating possible, as well as the illustrative classifications for levels C-2 and D-3 are as follows: C Complex f'me motor movement involving considerable dexterity, co-ordination and precision is required. Speed is a secondary consideration C-2 Clerk General D; SSO B D Complex f'me motor movement, involving significant dexterity, co-ordination and precision, is required. Speed is a major consideration. D-3 Secretary A, B The 1979 PDF stated that the grievor spent 50% of her time keyboarding. The employer's October 2004 PDF referred to her keyboarding 60% of the time and 13 contained the statement: "Speed and accuracy is required along with computer/keyboarding proficiency". The union's proposed PDF referred to the grievor keyboarding 60% of the time and stated that speed and accuracy were major considerations. The union's proposed PDF also referred to the grievor performing extensive toggling between several computer systems. At the heating the gfievor testified that the time lines for her job had not changed even though the volumes had. Mr. Lidzbarski testified that information entered by the gfievor had to be accurate and it was more important that she be accurate then fast. He added that speed did "kick in" because of the volume of the work involved. At the hearing the spokesperson for the employer pointed out that Secretary A and B are illustrative classifications for a level D-3 rating. She noted that during the heating the grievor said that she did not perform secretarial duties. The grievor did not perform secretarial duties. It is apparent, however, that the majority of her time was spent entering and changing information using a keyboard. Because of this her job took on certain aspects of positions that largely involve keyboarding. Accuracy in keyboarding is always important. With high volumes of work, however, speed also becomes important, as recognized by Mr. Lidzbarski in his evidence and by the employer's October 2004 PDF. Accordingly, I find that a D rating for motor skills was appropriate. The employer's October 2004 PDF and the union's proposed PDF both refer to the grievor doing keyboarding 60% of the time. This justifies a 3 rating for prevalence. Given these considerations I fred that a D-3 rating was appropriate. PHYSICAL DEMAND This factor measures the demand on physical energy required to complete tasks. The employer rated this factor at level 2 worth 16 points. The union argues for a level 3 rating worth 28 points. The criteria and illustrative classifications for these two levels are as follows: 2. Job duties require some physical demand. There is an occasional requirement for repetition and/or speed. Employee usually has comfortable bodily positions with flexibility of movement. Employee uses recurring light physical effort, OR occasional moderate physical effort. 14 Bus Driver; Secretary A, B, C; Security Guard; Clerk General B, C, D; Progratraner A, B, C 3. Job duties require regular physical demand. There is a regular need for speed and repetitive use of muscles, Employee is in uncomfortable or awkward bodily positions for short periods of time with some flexibility of movement. Employee uses continuous light physical effort, OR recurring periods of heavy physical effort, OR occasional periods of heavy physical effort. Caretaker A, B; ECE Worker; Switchboard Operator; Technologist A, B; Clerk General A The union in its brief and the griever in her evidence referred to the griever's repetitive fine muscle movements in support of a level 3 rating. They appear to have in large measure been relying on the griever's keyboarding duties. As noted above, these duties are reflected in the increased rating for the factor of motor skills. The fact that Secretary A, B and C are illustrative classifications for a level 2 rating suggests that keyboarding is not a function that is also meant to be measured by the factor of physical demand. At the hearing the griever referred to stress levels as a consideration when addressing physical demand, including stress related to interruptions. It is apparent from the job evaluation manual, however, that the physical demand factor is meant to measure only demand on physical energy. To the extent that matters such as interruptions impact on a rating it is with respect to the factor of strain from work pressures/demand/deadlines. The griever testified that she sits for 65% of the time. It is apparent from the illustrative classifications that with one exception jobs that involve extensive sitting do not because of this warrant a level 3 rating. The level 3 illustrative classifications generally involve jobs that require extensive movement. The one exception is a Switchboard Operator. This presumably relates to the fact that someone in this position traditionally had no flexibility of movement but rather had to stay connected to a switchboard, which was not the griever's situation. 15 In her evidence the grievor referred to picking up surveys from Planning and Development and moving them around the College. She also referred to spending a full weekend three times per year compiling and stapling orientation packages. The union spokesperson relied on this evidence in her final submissions. It is not apparent from the evidence what the material would have weighed. It is, however, clear that the grievor's involvement in these activities did not occur on an on-going basis. Having regard to these considerations I confirm the level 2 rating given by the employer. SENSORY DEMAND This factor measures demand on mental energy while performing tasks. It considers the level or degree of concentration and the frequency of the need for careful attention to detail and accuracy. The employer rated this factor at level 3 worth 28 points. The union contends that a level 4 rating worth 39 points would have been more appropriate. The criteria for these two ratings and the illustrative classifications are as follows: 3. Job duties require moderate visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. OR Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy. OR Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and periodic careful attention to detail and accuracy. Clerk General C; ECE Worker; Nurse; Secretary A, B, C; Skilled Trades Worker; SSO A, B, C, D; Technologist A, B, C 4. Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. OR Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy. Bus Driver; Clerk General D; Switchboard Operator 16 The grievor testified that she was required to pay high attention to detail in the context of her high workload. The union in its written brief contended that the grievor's duties required visual and auditory concentration in order to accurately interpret end- user programs and questions. It also noted that the grievor prepared material that needed to be accurate and easy to understand. Mr. Lidzbarski in his evidence indicated that he felt that the grievor's position should receive the typical rating for an SSO for this factor, namely level 3. Some of the grievor, s duties involved the typical duties of an SSO. These included preparing schedules and reports. All four SSO classifications are illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating. The illustrative classifications for a level 4 rating typically involve a quite different type of demand on mental energy. It follows that the grievor's typical SSO functions do not justify a level 4 rating. The grievor is unlike a typical SSO due to the amount of time she spends keyboarding and performing related tasks. The guide charts for classifications of employees who spend a great deal of time at a keyboard, however, including Secretary A, B, C, indicate that they are typically at level 3 for this factor. Having regard to these considerations, I conclude that the sensory demand associated with the grievor's duties was appropriately rated at level 3. STRAIN FROM WORK PRESSURES/DEMANDS/DEADLINES This factor measures the strain associated with, or caused by, frequency and predictability of deadlines, interruptions, distractions and/or workloads, multiple and/or conflicting demands and/or dealing with people in difficult situations. The employer rated this factor at level 3 worth 28 points. The union argues in favour of a level 4 rating worth 39 points. The relevant level del'tuitions and illustrative classifications are as follows: 3. Job duties involve moderate work pressures or demands. Interruptions, changing deadlines, multiple demands occur regularly but are usually predictable. Occasionally, critical deadlines may occur. Clerk General C, D; Secretary A, B; SSO A, B 17 4. Job duties involve conflicting work pressures and frequent intermptions in workflow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and occasional critical deadlines. Secretary C; SSO C, D; Tech Support Specialist In its October 2004 PDF the employer stated that "due to the nature of the position interruptions occur to daily work". It also noted that the grievor dealt with the impact of decisions made by others. It contended, however, that SWFs, timetabling, payroll, grading, KPI's and IFS's are all predictable. In its proposed PDF the union stated that the grievor faced frequent deadlines and a variety of projects being handled simultaneously. It referred to predictable deadlines 50% of the time, unpredictable deadlines 50% of the time and "dealing with people in difficult situations unpredictable 25%". It also noted that the grievor provided assistance to others. The grievor referred in her evidence to her heavy workload. She said that she was unable to predict when a teacher would phone in on a Friday to say that they would be off with a medical problem on Monday. She also said that she could not predict the number of late registering students, an increase in enrollment or that a computer system would go down. She referred to a teacher interrupting her to complain about there not being any books for a course in the bookstore and her asking if the books had been ordered. The grievor also referred to a teacher changing a course information sheet. The grievor was asked if she had encountered shifts in priorities. She said that she had. She gave the example of her focusing on something and then something else happening, such as a student not being able to get into a classroom. The grievor said that she knows her goals and what she must achieve but if something happens she will go out and deal with it, although priorities must be met. Mr. Lidzbarski testified that he, coordinators and students all interrupted the grievor with questions. He also said that while one can't predict illness or absences one can predict that SWFs would be developed three times per year. He said that SWFs and time schedules must be prepared by specific dates and the registmr's office required certain information by specific dates and "we" have to make sure those things happen. It is clear that the grievor was faced with frequent interruptions and multiple demands on her time. This type of situation is covered by the criteria for both a level 3 and a level 4 rating. The timing of interruptions and multiple demands faced by the grievor was unpredictable. The nature of these interruptions and multiple demands, however, appear to have usually been predictable, including the fact that faculty members would at times become ill. This type of situation is contemplated by the 18 criteria for a level 3 rating. The grievor appears not to have found herself in unfamiliar or unpredictable work situations. She was frequently interrupted and faced multiple demands but her actual priorities did not change. Having regard to these considerations I find that a level 3 rating was appropriate. 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 was appropriate. The union contends that a level 5 rating worth 60 points, the highest rating possible, should have been awarded. The relevant level definitions and illustrative classifications are as follows: 4. Job duties are performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems. There is considerable freedom to act independently with Supervisor input or verification when requested. Library Technician B; Secretary C; SSO A, B; Technician C; Technologist B 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 The grievor testified that she had three different chairs in the past three years which gave her significant freedom to act independently. She said that she would not usually take a problem to Mr. Lidzbarski although she might later tell him what she had done about a problem. She said that if she felt there was a need to go to Mr. Lidzbarski because he had the required power to do something she would go and see him. According to the grievor none of her work was checked except by herself. She added that Mr. Lidzbarsld might check over anything that she had done for him. She noted that there was no way that he could check time scheduling or teaching hours. The grievor was asked whether her duties had involved changing conditions and problems. In her answer she referred to having had three chairs in three years, constant changes in coordinators and changes in staff and faculty. She also said that due to her increased workload she had developed her own processes. 19 The grievor said that her independent action included her telling Helen the secretary that when a faculty member called in sick she should tell Mr. Lidzbarski and the coordinator what classes the faculty member would miss and the number of classes they had missed. Mr. Lidzbarski testified that the grievor did a great job and knew what she was to do and when. He said that she would approach him with problems she could not resolve. He gave the example of faculty members haVing to be reassigned and him doing the selecting. He said that grievor would raise with him a need to increase or decrease section sizes. He testified that he looked over all of the grievor's work with financial or staffing implications, including the number of sections, who was teaching what and the salary calculations for part-load faculty. Mr. Lidzbarski said that he had to approve payroll, overtime, degree audits, course information sheets and pUrchase orders. He stated that the grievor was told which faculty would be teaching what coUrse and then prepared SWF forms that he and faculty members signed off on. I f'md that the grievor had considerable freedom to act independently but there was regular input from her supervisor. Mr. Lidzbarski signed off on some of her work and he reviewed her work that .touched on budgetary and staffing matters. The grievor prepared schedules on her own, but the relevant guide chart indicates that this is a typical duty of a SSO B rated at level 4. The Illustrative classifications for a level 5 rating include a SSO C and D. Among the typical duties of an SSO C are to research and prepare presentations and reports to communicate and support college plans and objectives, to analyze requirements of groups in and external to the College and to develop programs to meet these requirements. The typical duties of a SSO D include identifying requirements of outside groups for college services, developing programs to meet these requirements and marketing college capabilities to the outside community. Someone performing these tasks would presumably be required to independently adjust their approaches to take into account changing college objectives and the changing requirements of outside groups. Those are not the type of changes that the grievor independently adapted to. Having regard to these considerations 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 2O 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 rated this factor at level 3 worth 88 points. The union contends that the appropriate rating was level 4 worth 124 points. The definitions for these levels 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 and 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 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 confdenfial and sensitive information where disclosure implications are significant. ECE Worker; Library Technician B; Nurse; SSO C; Technologist C In its written brief the union relied on the following list of the grievor's communications: - Advise Co-ordinators on registration practices, external/internal credit process, student petitions, grading, and graduation - Explanation of degree audit to co-ordinators - Explain to students their timetables, drop deadline dates, registration and grading process. Where to look for information. At the hearing the grievor testified that she provided instruction to people who came to her for information or assistance. She gave the example of her explaining the email system, how the' photocopying machine worked and how the grading system 21 worked and why it had to be done at a certain time. She said that she also communicated for the resolution of complex problem situations such as when complex problems arose with respect to degree audits and she communicated with the coordinators to come up with a resolution. She also referred to a faculty member who wanted a three-day work week but had not yet provided a doctor's note to justify it and she communicated with Mr. Lidzbarski about the complexities involved. The grievor testified that she used influential or persuasive techniques when communicating with other Divisions with respect to the sharing of rooms and when dealing with faculty who did not want to work at certain times. She said that she used communications to address the problem of someone with special needs when she indicated to the student with a motorized scooter, who had been upset, that she had been unaware that a special needs student was in the class. She added that usually she referred a student with special needs to the disability office. The grievor noted that she handled confidential material such as degree audits, personnel files and payroll. She said that she would know that one part-time instructor was being paid $30 per hour and another $45 per hour. She testified that Mr. Lidzbarski would be in contact with the College about program cuts and should information leak out about a program not running in the future faculty would become upset. The grievor noted that she had access to the student surveys and would hear student comments about faculty and programs. Certain of the grievor's communications responsibilities involved confidential information that could potentially have disclosure implications. She does not, however, appear to have any communications responsibilities with respect to planned cuts to programs even though she might come to learn about them. On balance her communications responsibilities better fit a level 3 rating. She provided guidance and technical advice of a detailed and specialized nature and sought to secure cooperation to respond to situations. Her provision of advice and explanations respecting matters such as a computer problem, the email system and the grading system is better described as providing technical advice rather than providing basic instruction. The provision of basic instruction implies imparting knowledge that could be applied in a variety of situations. The evidence does not suggest that the grievor used sophisticated influential or persuasive techniques to address a problem of those with special needs. Given these considerations I affirm the level 3 rating assigned by the employer. 22 WORK ENVIRONMENT The job evaluation manual states that this factor measures working conditions in terms of the physical environment while doing work. The employer gave the grievor's position a level 1 rating worth 10 points. The union contends that a level 2 rating worth 32 points would have been more appropriate. The relevant level definitions and illustrative classifications are set out below. The job evaluation manual defines occasional as "part" of a day, recurring as "most" of the day and continuous as "all the time". The manual refers to three levels of disagreeable and/or hazardous elements, namely "slightly", "moderately" and "extremely". 1. Job duties are carded out with occasional exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous elements. Clerk General B, C, D; Secretary A, B, C 2. Job duties are carded out with occasional exposure to moderately disagreeable and/or hazardous elements OR recurring exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous elements OR there is a requirement for occasional travel (10% - 30%). SSO C; Switchboard Operator; Technician A, B, C; Technologist A, B, C In its written brief the union set out the following list of the grievor's duties in support its claim for a level 2 rating. - Working with staff that are fi'ustrated over new computer systems. - Dealing with agitated students that are frustrated with faculty, timetables. - Distressed students. - Noise from office environment. - Faculty/staff troubled over new processes. At the hearing the grievor referred to the noise caused by students at registration time, phones ringing, two printers in her area, interruptions from coordinators and a lot of distress about the computer system which created agitation amongst staff and 23 students. Mr. Lidzbarski in his evidence noted that noise volumes were up and down over the year. There was no suggestion in the evidence that the grievor was required to travel as part of her position. She worked in an office enviroment as do persons in the illustrative classifications for a level 1 rating. The guide charts indicate that a typical SSO A, B and C are at level 1. The grievor dealt with other staff and students, as do employees in typical SSO A, B and C positions. The implication is that these considerations are not by themselves sufficient to justify a level 2 rating with respect to the physical work environment. Accordingly I confirm the level 1 rating given by the employer. CONCLUSION The various ratings assigned by the employer resulted in the grievor's position receiving a total of 581 points. The addition of 19 points for a level 6 rating for tra'ming/technical skills and 15 additional points for a level D-3 rating for motor skills raises the total to 615 points. This is still within the range for payband 9. Accordingly the grievance does not succeed. Dated this 20th day of October 2005. Arbitr.tlon Data Sheet. Support Staff Classification 1. Co~cemiog lhe ~d 1:~3~on De~'~o~n rom: o ~ parties agroed on the contents; 0 The Udc)n dJoigrees ~ the conten~ ady:l the spec~ details am alM(:Mcl. '). The Attachod Wfltton Submlu]on Is from: c3 The Union ct The College ~. w~..~n.~ ...... . .... ~ co,ege: