HomeMy WebLinkAboutPorter 04-04-23IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ST. LAWRENCE COLLEGE
("the employer")
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
("the union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCES OF EDNA PORTER
(#041803) AND SHIRLEY BOYD (#041804)
ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer: Verna Morr?w, HR Consultant
Gordon C. l~lacDougall, Vice-President
For the Union: John Molleson, President, Local 418
Shirley Boyd, Grievor
HEARING: In Brockville on February 25, 2004
2
AWARD
INTRODUCTION
On September 13, 2000 the grievors Edna Porter and Shirley Boyd filed similarly
worded grievances in which they claimed that they were wrongly classified as
Switchboard Operators at payband 5. They contended that they should be classified as
Switchboard Operators Atypical at payband 7.
The actual title assigned to the grievors' positions was that of Telecommunications
Attendant. Most of their duties, however, were those typically associated with a
switchboard operator.
The employer's initial rating of the twelve job factors under the applicable job
evaluation system gave the grievors' positions a total of 331 points. This was at the very
start of the 331 to 390 point spread covered by payband 5. During the grievance
procedure the employer altered certain of its ratings to now give the positions 347
points, still within payband 5. During the grievance procedure the union also altered its
position. It contended that the grievors' positions should have received 450 points,
which would have been at the very top of the 391 to 450 point range for payband 6.
At the hearing the parties disagreed on the proper ratings for the factors of
complexity, judgement, physical demand, communications/contacts and work
environment. Each of there is discussed separately below.
In November 2002 the parties reached agreement on the content of a position
description form ("PDF") with respect to the grievors' positions. At the hearing the
parties agreed to address the grievors' positions as they existed in November 2002. The
spokesperson for the employer contended that the positions in question have remained
unchanged since then, a contention neither accepted nor rejected by the spokesperson for
the union.
Ms. Porter retired after the filing of the grievance but prior to the hearing. At the
hearing the parties agreed that any evidence given by Ms. Boyd would apply to both
grievances.
THE SWITCHBOARD OPERATOR GUIDE CHART
The job classification manual binding on the parties contains guide charts that set
odt the typical duties of various job elassifications and indicate how associated job
factors would normally be rated. The 15/ffties agreed that the grievors' positions should
3
receive ratings higher than those on the Switchboard Operator guide chart for the factors
of motor skills, strain from work pressures/demands/deadlines and independent action.
In these proceedings the employer indicated that it was relying on the guide chart to
support its ratings for the factors of complexity and judgement. The union relied on the
guide chart to support its rating for the factor of work environment.
The portions of the Switchboard Operator guide charge that relate to the factors in
dispute read as follows:
SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITY
Incumbents operate of PBX (Private Branch Exchange) switchboard at a
main College location or satellite location for the majority of the time.
TYPICAL DUTIES
- receives and directs calls to the appropriate area or individual.
- Monitors and places long-distance calls and records information.
Coordinates telephone usage records and prepares long-distance
billings for user departments.
- Takes and relays messages.
- Acts as a receptionist and provides general information to staff,
students and visitors.
- Performs routine related clerical and typing tasks.
- May provide training, guidance anti instruction to new employees.
- Maintains and updates the telephone directory.
- Monitors all reported telephone equipment problems and arranges for
servicing repairs and ins~ailations.
Resolves general switchboard problems.
COMPLEXITY
Job duties require the performance of specific tasks involving related
steps, processes and/or methods.
JUDGEMENT
Job duties require some judgement or choice of action within limits.
Some analysis is involved in problem-solving.
PHYSICAL DEMAND
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 positP6tis for short periods of time with some flexibility
of movement. Employee uses continuous light physical effort, OR
4
recurring periods of moderate physical effort, OR occasional periods of
heavy physical effort.
COMMUNICATIONS
Job duties require communication of a routine nature for the purpose of
furnishing, exchanging or discussing factual data or information.
Personal courtesy and normal working/social relationships are required.
WORK ENVIRONMENT
Job duties are carried 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%)
THE GRIEVOR'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Both Ms. Boyd and Mr. Gordon MacDougall, the employer's Vice-president of
Education and Information Technologies, testified at the hearing. They indicated that
although the grievors were based at the College's Brockville campus they also received
calls from persons seeking to reach the College's campuses in Kingston and Cornwall.
Callers to the College would initially reach an automated attendant system which
allowed them to directly access an extension. Callers who did not know the extension
number of a person they were calling could access a directory and then connect with the
extension. Callers who either did nothing or who pushed zero were transferred to one of
the grievors.
Ms. Boyd testified that when she started in her position she was trained to answer
calls .relating to admissions and registration but these functions were subsequently
moved elsewhere.
The PDF states that the grievors spent approximately 75% of their time on the
following duties:
answers calls on incoming lines and transfers calls;
responds to general inquiries and redirects calls to specific
individuals.
5
Ms. Boyd testified that frequently callers were uncertain about who they should
talk to. She said that she would ask them questions to ascertain what school or
department to direct them to. She also testified that the grievors were required to know
whom in various departments different calls should be put through to. She said that
some departments, particularly those located in Kingston, had provided the grievors with
a chart that listed people in the department and highlighted a coordinator who could take
calls. She indicated that when departments did not provide this type of information a
grievor would make a call and ask for the information or obtain it from a college
publication.
Ms. Boyd indicated that at times people would phone seeking certain types of
information and she would know to pass on the calls. She gave the example of a student
with complaints about his or her grades. She noted that before she could pass on such a
call she would have to find out what school the student was in. She said that if the
student did not know which school it was she would access a career guide to find out.
Ms. Boyd said that she would also pass on calls from parents asking about their child's
marks or whether their child was attending class.
Ms. Boyd testified that there were certain types of calls requesting information that
the grievors would generally forward to others, although if the caller was unable to reach
someone she or Ms. Porter would provide the requested information. She said that in
those situations the grievors had acted as a backup. She gave the examples of callers
asking about the process a potential student should follow when indicating acceptance or
non-acceptance of admission as well as questions about how to obtain a transcript. She
said that Continuing Education had provided the grievors with copies of flyers listing the
dates, locations and times of courses and any course prerequisites. She noted that she
and Ms. Porter might advise a caller about where a part-time course was running and the
cost involved but they would almost always forward calls relating to full time courses to
liaison. She said that they had a career guide with information about full-time course
offerings but for them to answer one question would lead to other questions that they
could not answer.
There were certain types of information that the grievors were expected to provide
directly to callers and indeed they were listed in publications as the appropriate contact
persons. This included information about when and where convocation was to be held
for different schools and information about various events being held at the College.
Ms. Boyd testified that at times callers would ask about events the grievors had not been
told about and they would then make phone calls in order to obtain the relevant
information.
Ms. Boyd testified that she had received many emergency calls. She said that these
had involved staff wanting to contact another staff member or a student or family
6
members seeking to contact a staff member or a student. She said that when someone
called seeking to contact a student due to an emergency situation she would ask them
what program the student was in and then reach a secretary or someone else connected
with the program. '
Ms. Boyd indicated that she would try to assess whether a claimed emergency did
in fact involve an emergency. She gave the example of a caller simply wanting to make
arrangements to pick someone up. She said that she would pass on such a call but not
spend a lot of time on it.
Ms. Boyd indicated that not infrequently people would get through to a number
where the voicemail was full or they would leave a voicemail and not get a call back.
She said that in those situations the grievors would receive a complaint call. She said
that when she received such calls she tried to ensure that the individual was put through
to an actual person and to accomplish this she would stay on the line.
Ms. Boyd testified that at times the grievors received calls from people seeking
directions to one of the college campuses. She said that the grievors had developed sets
of directions to the different campuses. She also said that they used a College map to
direct people to specific rooms on the Kingston Campus.
Ms. Boyd testified that some callers were rude and some had yelled at her. She
gave the example of a former student who telephoned complaining that she had been
sent an OSAP bill for $6,000 even though she had not borrowed the money. Ms. Boyd
testified that the caller yelled at her after being told that there was no longer a toll free
number for OSAP in Thunder Bay. Ms. Boyd also referred to an institutionalized
student who could only use a phone at set times who yelled at her after she had reached
the voicemail of the person she was trying to contact. Ms. Boyd indicated that she
subsequently contacted the individual in question who then dealt with the student. Ms.
Boyd testified that when dealing with angry callers she tried to get someone to talk to
them but before she put the call through she would give the person receiving it a "heads
up" about the call.
During the hearing Ms. Boyd indicated that when a caller voiced an interest in
attending the College she would ascertain whether they would be a mature student and
whether or not they had a particular interest. She further indicated that depending on the
information she received she might refer them to liaison or to a counselor. As noted
above, she also referred in her evidence to directing callers to departmental coordinators.
Ms. Boyd testified that she found some callers whose first language was not
English hard to understand. She said that she would ask them questions in an attempt to
7
determine what they wanted. She noted that some callers would get upset when she told
them that she could not understand them.
The grievors at times received information that they viewed as confidential. Ms.
Boyd indicated that they often received this information because the caller did not
realize they were talking to a switchboard operator. She gave the example of a bank
phoning and asking questions about a staff member who had applied for a loan. She
said that she passed this call on to Human Resources. She also referred to the police
calling about students. She indicated that she forwarded such calls to others at the
College. Ms. Boyd talked about situations where callers indicated they were trying to
get in touch with a staff member or a student and then would add an explanation about
why they wanted to do so.
Ms. Boyd testified that one to three times a year the switchboard received a bomb
threat. She indicated that when this occurred she would hit certain keys in order to
capture the number where the call had originated fi.om and then call
Telecommunications Specialist Kevin Sian. She said that she would also call a second
person to advise them of the threat, although the identity of this second person had
changed several times.
The PDF indicates that the grievors spent about 25% of their time engaged in a
variety of additional duties, including updating lists of contacts and course offerings. In
addition they answered staff questions respecting use of the phone system and how to
use voicemail. The grievors also provided basic training and orientation to part-time
operators.
Ms. Boyd testified that if a code came up indicating that there was a problem with
the switchboard, or if the grievors determined that there was a problem with calls
coming into one of the campuses, she or Ms. Porter would advise Mr. Sian of the
situation.
COMPLEXITY
This factor measures the amount and nature of analysis, problem-solving and
reasoning required to perform job-related duties. The job evaluation manual notes that
this factor measures the conceptual demands of the job as characterized by the analysis
and interpretation required for problem and solution definition, creativity, mental
challenge, degree of job structure, planning activities and the variety and difficulty of
tasks.
8
The employer rated the grievors' positions at level 2 worth 25 points. The union
contends that a level 3 rating worth 41 points would have been more appropriate. The
level del'tuitions and illustrative classifications contained in the job evaluation manual
for this factor read as follows:
2. Job duties require the performance of specific tasks involving related
steps, processes and/or methods.
Clerk General B; Driver; Reproduction Equipment Operator A;
Typist/Stenographer A, B, C
3. Job duties require the performance of various routine, complex tasks
involving different and unrelated processes and methods.
Clerk General C; General Maintenance Worker; Secretary A
when discussing this factor the PDF refers to several of the grievors' duties
discussed above. It also notes that the grievors shared an average of 1000 incoming tri-
campus calls within a seven-hour period. One entry addresses the types of information
that the grievors had to be familiar with as follows:
The incumbent is a resource to the internal and external community and
must be familiar with hundreds of pieces of information, names, programs,
room locations, services and procedures in order to provide information and
direction to clients. The incumbent must trace employees often when the
caller can only give the first name or function. Often callers do not know
whom they should speak to and must be questioned to ensure the call is
routed to the proper campus and department.
In its written brief the union advanced a lengthy argument in favour of both a level
3 rating for complexity and a level 3 rating for judgement. In doing so the brief
commented that: "It is very difficult to separate these two factors from each other as they
go hand in hand. As the complexity of the job increases so does the judgement required
by the individual to do the j ob".
The union brief contended that the grievors were in a unique situation since they
were located great distances from the individuals who they dealt with. It also referred to
the various types of information the grievors had provided to callers and noted that the
grievors were required to have a very broad knowledge of the college system, the three
campuses, staffing in different departments and course offerings.
In its brief the union submitted that the employer had rated the factors of judgement
and complexity for the grievors' positions at the same level as for a Clerk Supply A who
9
performed tasks such as loading and unloading supplies and equipment from vehicles; a
Reproduction Operator A who maintained reproduction and ancillary equipment; and a
Technician A who performed a variety of technical tasks in the maintenance and
operation of facilities and equipment. The union complained that the employer wanted
to place the grievors, who dealt with real people, in the same category as employees who
dealt primarily with inanimate objects. It argued that the union's proposed ratings for
judgement and complexity placed the grievors in a category that was more fitting for the
work they did and the people they dealt with.
In its brief the employer stated that it had applied "the benchmark rating" for the
factor of complexity. It also referred to a "generic PDF" respecting a Switchboard
Operator position. There is nothing before me to indicate that this document was agreed
to by the union and I have not given it any weight.
The illustrative classifications indicate that the difference between a level 2 and a
level 3 rating for complexity does not relate to whether one is generally dealing with
people or with inanimate objects. The two level definitions indicate that the focus is on
the nature of the tasks performed and, particularly, whether or not they are complex in
nature.
The factors of complexity and judgement do have a relationship. I am familiar with
one job classification system that treats complexity and judgement as a single factor that
is awarded only one score. The colleges' classification system, however, treats them as
two separate factors and accordingly they must be evaluated separately. As noted
above, the factor of complexity is designed to measure things such as the analysis and
interpretation required for problem and solution definition as well as creativity, mental
challenge, job structure, planning activities and the variety and difficulty of tasks. As
discussed below, the judgement factor is designed to measure the difficul, ty in
identifying different choices of action and in exercising judgement to select the most
appropriate action.
The grievors performed an important role, one that required an extensive
knowledge of the College, various staff and course offerings. It is not, however,
apparent that their tasks could aPtsrOpriately be described as complex. Some analysis
was involved when determining what a caller was after and who or what office could
assist them. There was not, however, much scope for creativity or for planning. The
grievors performed a limited variety of tasks and they were generally restricted to
forwarding a call to someone else. It is not apparent how this could reasonably be said
to involve different and unrelated processes and methods, which is what is required for a
level 3 rating.
10
The wording of the Switchboard Operator guide chart reinforces this conclusion.
When listing the typical duties of the position the chart refers to the grievors' major
duties, including directing calls to the appropriate area or individual. The guideline
indicates that these functions would typically justify a level 2 rating. The grievors did
not act as receptionists, one of the duties listed in the guide chart. They did, however,
provide certain types of straightforward information to persons calling the College. The
guide chart indicates that these functions involved the performance of specific tasks
involving related steps, processes and/or methods.
Having regard to the above, I confirm the level 2 rating given by the employer.
JUDGEMENT
Thc job evaluation manual states that this factor measures the independent
judgement and problem solving required on the job. The manual goes on to state that
this factor assesses the difficulty in identifying various available choices of action and in
exercising judgement to select the most appropriate action, and that it also considers
mental processes such as analysis, reasoning or evaluation.
The employer rated this factor at level 2 worth 30 points. The union contends that
a level 3 rating worth 48 points would be more appropriate. The factor level definitions
and illustrative classifications are as follows:
2. Job duties require some judgement or choice of action within limits.
Some analysis is involved in problem-solving.
Clerk General B; Clerk Supply B, C; Technician A
3. Job duties require some moderate degree of judgement. Problem-
solving involves the identification and breakdown of facts and
components of the problem situation.
Clerk General C; Secretary A, B; Security Guard
The PDF notes that the grievors were required to deal on the spot with callers as
calls came in and also that calls had to be directed correctly. The PDF contains the
following five examples to illustrate how a grievor would identify the options available
to her and then determine the most appropriate course of action.
Clients may identify themselves as unemployed persons who are
interested in pursuing their education; the incumbent must determine
which area of the College will be the appropriate point of contact for
11
service. The incumbent must be familiar with the programs and services
offered by the College and with the individuals responsible for delivering
those services and in a frequently changing College organizational
structure.
A long distance caller asks for a specific person and indicates there is an
emergency. The incumbent is unable to get an answer and tries one or
more alternatives without success. The incumbent must decide what to
do with the caller. A callback on a local would be reasonable. Taking a
message from a long distance caller is preferred. The incumbent takes a
message which may be involved, and assures the caller it will be
delivered as soon as possible. The incumbent then enters into a series of
calls to try to contact someone to deliver the message.
Clients may say they need to speak with a College employee, identified
by the first name only. The incumbent must be able to narrow down the
scope of the request to direct the caller to the appropriate resource.
Clients may say they need to reach someone in an emergency; the
incumbent must determine whether the call should be handled or referred
to other sources.
Clients may identify a concern in trying to reach a College employee,
campus or service. The incumbent will attempt to connect the caller, and
may need to report that a technical malfunction or human error is
prohibiting proper service.
As noted above, the union brief jointly addressed the factors of complexity and
judgement. The employer in its brief stated that it had assigned the benchmark for this
factor.
The guide chart indicates that the function of directing calls to the appropriate area
or individual typically justifies a level 2 rating. The examples set out above generally fit
this level. A grievor might have to ask for information and engage in some analysis in
order to direct a call but she would not generally be involved in breaking down the facts
and components of a problem situation, which is what is required for a level 3 rating.
The first illustration in the PDF, however, might or might not involve going beyond
what is contemplated by a level 2 rating. It depends on the type of information the
emPloyee was expected to take into account, the options available and the nature of the
judgement ret~t/tred to make a selection. Ms. Boyd's evidence indicated that in order to
12
select an appropriate point of contact she would obtain information from the caller and
then match the caller's situation with a suitable person or service at the College. It
appears that at times this would have involved her identifying the relevant facts,
analyzing the situation and then making a judgement call about where to route the call.
The grievors appear to have exercised this type of judgement with respect to all callers
interested in continuing their education, not only those who were unemployed. In the
circumstances I conclude that although most of what the grievors' duties fit the
requirements for a level 2 rating, at times they did exercise the type of judgement
contemplated by a level 3 rating. Accordingly, I find that a level 3 rating was
appropriate.
PHYSICAL DEMAND
This factor measures the demand on physical energy required to complete tasks.
The employer rated the grievor's position at level 3 worth 28 points. The union argues
that a level 4 rating worth 39 points was more appropriate. The definitions for these two
levels together with the illustrative classifications are set out below. The job evaluation
manual links the term "occasional" to part of a day, "recurring" to most of a day and
"continuous" to all of the time.
3. Job duties required 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 moderate physical effort,
OR
occasional periods o,f heavy physical effort.
Caretaker A, B; Early Childhood Education Worker; Switchboard Operator;
Technologist A, B; Clerk General A.
4. Job duties require frequent physical demand. There is a frequent
requirement for repetition and speed. Employee may be in
awkward bodily positions over extended periods of time with
limited flexibility of movement.
13
Employee uses continuous moderate physical effort,
OR
recurring heavy physical effort.
Skilled Trades Worker; Clerk Supply A, B, C; General Maintenance Worker
The guide chart indicates that a typical Switchboard Operator would receive a level
3 rating. It is, in fact, one of the illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating. A
Switchboard Operator would not normally be in an uncomfortable or awkward bodily
position. Accordingly the rating presumably relates to hand movements required to
connect calls, which could only be viewed as light physical effort, as well as the fact that
an operator cannot leave his or her location.
The PDF contains the statement that "the incumbent must sit at an attendant station
during the full workday with minimal flexibility to change movement or physical
position". Ms. Boyd testified that she was physically tied to a headset and would only
disconnect when she went for lunch or was on a break.
The union took issue with the wording of the Switchboard Operator guide chart,
which indicates that typically a level 3 rating would be appropriate. It submitted that the
Level 3 rating was established in 1984 and not subsequently changed. It argued that the
demand on physical energy to complete job tasks had changed over the last 20 years. In
its brief it contended that, "in years past Switchboard Operators had the ability to move
away from their boards, they had a small numerical pad and a variety of wires to plug
into a variety of holes. As the systems became more up-to-date the wires were replaced
with Keyboards and monitors". The union submitted that at the time the grievances
were filed the grievors were required to sit for extended periods of time, sometimes in
excess of four hours and, "the operator was 'tethered' to the machine by a headset and
connecting wire of only three (3) feet." The union also noted that the employer's rating
would place the grievors in the same category as employees such as Early Childhood
Education Workers, Caretakers and Technologists who could move around for the major
portion of the day.
Apart from Switchboard Operator the illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating
involve people who can and do move around. Employees in these classifications,
however, are also frequently engaged in lifting, bending and carrying things. This is
also the case for employees in the illustrative classifications for a level 4 rating, namely
Skilled Trades Worker, Supply Clerk and General Maintenance Worker.
Switchboard Operator is a somewhat unique position in that the actual physical
effort invol*ed is relatively minimal and bodily positions are not uncomfortable or
14
awkward. There is, however, a need to stay in the same physical location over an
extended period of time. For such a unique position the ratings assigned by guide chart
and illustrative classification take on increased importance. They indicate how the
parties intended the unique aspects of the position to be rated. The union argues that
things have changed over time for operators. The technology has in fact changed. What
appears to be unchanged, however, is that a Switchboard Operator is required to sit at
the same location when receiving and forwarding calls. In addition, it would not be
appropriate for me to conclude that somehow the guide chart for a typical Switchboard
Operator is in error. If the job classification manual is to be amended it must be done by
the relevant parties, not by an arbitrator.
Having regard to the above considerations I affirm the Level 3 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
to raters in the job evaluation manual addresses the fact that many college jobs deal with
information that is confidential as follows:
Many College jobs deal with some information that is confidential. The focus
of this factor is on the manner, purpose and responsibilities involved in
communicating, rather then the content of the information being
communicated. Therefore raters should not rate the information, but the
communications responsibilities involved in handling it.
The employer rated this factor at level 1 worth 16 points. The union contends that
the appropriate rating is level 2 worth 52 points. The definitions for these levels and the
related illustrative classifications are as follows:
1. Job duties require communication of a routine nature for the purpose
of furnishing, exchanging, or discussing factual data or information.
Personal courtesy and normal working/social relationships are
required.
Caretaker A, B; Clerk Supply A, B; Driver; Food Service Worker A, B, C
2. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing
detailed explanations, clarification, and interpretation of data or
information. There may be need to empathize with and understand
15
the needs of others in order to handle problems or complaints.
Occasional involvement with confidential information which has
moderate disclosure implications.
Clerk General B, C; Programmer A, B; Secretary A, B; Skilled Trades Worker
Ms. Boyd testified that the grievors received information with respect to matters
such as convocation, admissions and campus events that they had to understand in order
to pass it on to others. She also said that the grievors had to ensure that they gave out
the right information about matters such as how students could pay their fees and how
they could order a transcript.
The PDF describes the purpose of the grievors' contacts as being to direct calls,
answer enquiries, provide instruction on the use of voicemail and other procedures and
to notify technical staff of equipment malfunctions or problems. It also contains the
statement that; "incumbent sometimes has access to sensitive information/situations and
must maintain confidentiality".
The grievors' duties involved communicating for the purpose of furnishing or
discussing information, which meets the criteria for a level 1 rating. They did not get
into detailed explanations, clarifications or interpreting data or information, which is
what is required for a level 2 rating.
As noted above, the grievors were at times provided with information they
considered confidential. The union in its submissions relied on the grievors' exposure to
this information. It contended that at level 1 employees have no involvement in
confidential matters and accordingly if confidentiality was required level 2 must apply
since it is the first level where confidentiality is referred to.
A difficulty with the union's argument relates to the note to raters, which states that
raters are not to rate information but the communications responsibilities in handling it.
The grievors seldom had any responsibilities when it came to handling confidential
information. They were given information because callers did not realize that they are
speaking to an operator or because a caller volunteered information about why they
wanted to talk to someone. The grievors did not have any communications_..
responsibilities with respect to this information other than not to tell anyone about itt,.
The only exception related to called-in bomb threats when the grievors were required t6'
advise others about the threat. It appears, however, that each of the grievors migti{
receive one or two such calls in a year, which would make it so rare an event as not to
justify basing a Yating on it.
16
Having regard to the foregoing I hereby confirm the level 1 rating assigned by the
employer
WORK ENVIRONMENT
The job evaluation manual states that "this factor measures working conditions in
terms of the physical environment while doing the work." The employer rated this
factor at level 1 worth 10 points. The union argues for a level 2 rating worth 32 points.
The definitions and illustrative classifications for these levels are as follows:
1. Job duties are carried out with occasional exposure to slightly
disagreeable and/or hazardous elements.
Clerk General B, C, D; Secretary A, B, C
2. Job duties are carried 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%)
Support Services Officer C; Swkchboard Operator; Technician A, B, C;
Technologist A, B, C
The PDF states that "job duties are carried out in a normal attendant environment
with little or no exposure to disagreeable elements". Ms. Boyd testified that the area
where the grievors worked experienced temperature changes, although, they were not
severe. She said that she had to be prepared to dress in layers in both summer and
winter. Mr. MacDougall did not take issue with Ms. Boyd's evidence but noted that the
same situation prevailed in other offices. He said that even in the College's newest
building rapid changes in the outside temperature could result in major variances in
inside temperatures.
Ms. Boyd indicated that she viewed the fact that she was isolated as the most
troublesome aspect of her work environment. She said that the grievors worked in an
internal area with two windows that faced into another office and accordingly the blinds
were generally kept closed. She noted that the grievors did not get many people coming
into their area ,or otherwise hear about what was going on. She said that this was good
in one sense because the grievors needed to be in a quiet area but it was also not good as
17
people need contact. Mr. MacDougall testified that he viewed the physical location of
the switchboard as an irrelevant consideration.
The guide chart for Switchboard Operator indicates that typically a level 2 rating
would apply. The union relied on this fact in its brief. The employer in its brief referred
to the entry in the PDF that states that job duties are carried out in a normal attendant
environment with little or no exposure to disagreeable elements. The employer's brief
also stated that the grievors worked in a temperature-controlled environment in a 266.7
square foot area with little or no exposure to disagreeable elements and no exposure to
hazardous elements and they were not required to travel. The brief went on to say that
based on these considerations "the level 2 benchmark is neither applicable to the
physical environment while doing the attendant work at St. Lawrence College nor is it in
alignment with ratings assigned to various other positions at the college with similar
physical environments".
I am bound the statement in the PDF that the grievors' duties were carried out "in a
normal attendant environment with little or no exposure to disagreeable elements".
What the phrase means, however, is not self-evident. I presume that a normal attendant
environment relates to a typical environment for a switchboard operator. Both the level
1 and level 2 definitions contemplate occasional exposure to disagreeable elements, the
only difference being whether they are slightly or moderately disagreeable.
Accordingly, I interpret the PDF language as meaning that there was little or no
exposure to disagreeable elements other than those associated with a normal attendant
environment.
A normal telephone attendant environment would logically require a quiet location
away from distractions and noise caused by other people. Because of a need to be
connected to telephone equipment and/or computer an operator would also generally not
be able to go out and mix with other staff. These are rather unique features of a
Switchboard Operator's job. The parties in fashioning the job evaluation scheme appear
to have addressed these unique characteristics in the Switchboard Operator guide chart
and also by making it an illustrative classification for a level 2 rating. Accordingly, I
propose to also adopt a level 2 rating.
CONCLUSION
The employer's rating of the grievors' positions resulted in a total of 347 points.
My finding that level 3 was the appropriate rating for the factor of judgement and level 2
for the factor of work environment increases this by 40 points to a new tot~ti of 387.
This is still within the range for payband 5. Having regard to this conclusion I find that
the grievors were properly paid at the payband 5 level.
18
Dated this 23rd day of April 2004.
Arb/trwfJon Data Sh~tt. Sup~rt $taff Classification
1. ¢onc, emi~ b~ AtlJJ~ Poellion Cl~rtptlon Form:
2. TI~ ~ Wdltefl Sul~Mion t~ from: J'Ttm Unk~
Polnl8