Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRiess 93-09-24IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION PROCEEDING UNDER ARTICLE 18.4.3 OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN: ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE FORM OF CAMBRIAN COLLEGE (hereinafter called the "College") ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (FOR SUPPORT STAFF EMPLOYEES) (hereinafter called the "Union") GRIEVANCE OF BILL RIESS OPSEU FILE NO. 92D540 (hereinafter called the "Grievor") EXPEDITED ARBITRATOR: Richard H. McLaren COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE: Bob Hurley COUNSEL FOR THE UNION: Nick Luczay A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT SUDBURY, ONTARIO, ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1993. AWARD Mr. Bill Riess is classified as a Technologist B at payband 10. He has been classified as a Technologist B since February 15, 1990 working in the Department of Information Systems, the title of his job being Information Systems Technologist. He seeks an evaluation of his classification that would place him in the Tectmologist family of jobs, but a- typically at payband 13. The parties agree on the Position Description Form ("PDF") except in respect of one aspect dealing with knowledge, which will be dealt with in this award when that factor is considered. Under the Core Point Rating System developed by the parties for determining job classification, their respective positions as filed with the arbitrator are set out in the table below: Management Union ELEMENTS Rating Pts. Rating Pts. CO NICATIONS c 2 h KNOWLEDGE TRAINING/EXPERIENCE ~ G ;I ~ 5~ I 5 % SKILL ~ ~ I C 7 C WORKING MANUAL 0 ~ [ ~ C ~ I ~'-- CONOIT~ONS VISUAL C 2 lC- C'3 I 3'- ENVIRONMENTAL C ~ / ~ C ~ )~-- TOTAL POINTS ~ r~--. ~¢~:~ PAYBAND NUMBER [~:::D [ 3 J 3 The parties disagree on both aspects of the Job Difficulty and Guidance Received elements. They disagree on aspects of the elements of Communications and Knowledge. The Union seeks retroactive re-classification to the date of the grievance on September 9, 1992. CORE POINT RATING AND JOB EVALUATION FACTORS 1. JOB DIFFICULTY - College D-5; Union F-7 The parties disagree in the level of Complexity and in the level of Judgement. (i) Complexity - College D: Union F The Union asserts that the complexity level is at F which is described in the matrix as: "work involves investigating and resolving a variety of unusual conditions. Problem-solving requires adapting analytical techniques and development of new information on the problem condition." In contrast, the College asserts that the Complexity element is at level D, which describes the work as involving: "work involves the performance of varied, non-routine complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated processes and methods." 4 The PDF reveals that the work of the classification involves responding to service requests by academic and administrative users of micro-computers and related equipment. Diagnosing and resolving problems constitutes sixty percent of the time involved in the duties of the job. Those activities also include repairing, calibrating, upgrading or refurbishing defective components. This is really the core function of the job. The PDF indicates that there are other activities involving assembling, testing and distributing new and existing micro- computer and related equipment, as well as maintaining proper inventory of parts and tools, and training part-time staff. Those activities comprise an additional 30 percent of the duties of the job with the remaining ten percent divided equally between providing advice to the Manager of Computer Operations and other users, and maintaining an upgrading network of VAX. In short, this individual trouble-shoots complaints that are developed by users and corrects them where possible. The PDF describes the Job Difficulty as being: "...through the use of diagnostic tools and procedures, identify which specific component has failed. This frequently is a judgement call as to the method of repair as the service manuals may not be available or accurate. Once identified, the component is replaced and the whole system is re-tested to insure no other component has failed. If cost justifiable, the defective component is refurbished, cleaned and returned to stock at a later date. Defective components are often house numbered and unavailable through normal channels. The incumbent is often expected to understand the technology well enough to safely substitute components into the devices providing equal or superior functionality." 5 The Union submits that according to the Classification Manual and the range of descriptions in D though E and F, with respect to the Complexity factor, the job being performed by the Grievor is far closer to the descriptions at level F. The typical duties of the various sample classifications set out at level D and E do not coincide with the level of work for this position. On that basis, it is submitted that the Complexity factor ought to be considered to be a close fit to the F Complexity Level. The Grievor in his discussions with the arbitrator reveals that the constant flow of new technology has placed a demand on him to continue to remain up to date and able to deal with the new equipment and the new software as it arrives at the College. He also indicates that after a period of familiarization and working out the initial problems the systems tend to settle down into a pattern after which problems and malfunctions occur less frequently. However, during these settling in periods with new systems and software, the problems and malfunctions can be widely varied, although the same problem will come up repeatedly in this period. The College submits that the core point of the Grievor's typical duties is responding to service requests on computer hardware equipment. The work involves isolating that the problem is using standard and defined diagnostic procedures and then attempting to repair the problem. The repair process may involve trial and error in using different replacement parts in determining the problem and how it may be corrected. Work methods and techniques are submitted to be the same, no matter what piece of equipment is being diagnosed. The arbitrator finds that from time to time the Grievor does originate some new 6 techniques for analyzing and determining what is causing a particular problem. The PDF and the explanations presented at the hearing do not suggest that this occurs with such regularity and frequency that it ought to be considered to be in the core of the work activity of the Grievor. The arbitrator finds that the need to deal with new technology and software does not mean that there are new techniques being originated on each occasion which might justify the conclusion of a higher level of job complexity. On the whole, diagnostic procedures are used to isolate the malfunctions or other difficulties in the operation of the technology or software. It is clear that once a particular procedure or technique has been applied a number of times, two things occur: either the technology is discarded; or, it settles into a regular operating pattern and does not raise demand for work. Also, the newer technology seems to generate less complaints. Mr. Bob Philion indicated that the number of complaints has dropped from 1,400 to 1,000 and the number of terminals in use has risen by over 200 in the past three years. It would seem that the newer technology is becoming more dependable and generating less user requests for assistance. For all of these reasons the arbitrator finds that the appropriate level of complexity is that of the College and not that of the Union, and the position is rated at level D. (ii) Judgement - College level 5; Union Level 7 The description 'of the level of Judgement sought by the Union reads as follows: "duties performed require a very high degree of judgement. Problem-solving requires originating new techniques and utilizing them in the development of new information." 7 The College submits that the appropriate level for Judgement for the position is at 5. That description reads: "duties performed require a significant degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used." The Union again puts forth in support of its position the element of change as justifying the higher level. It is asserted that the frequency with which new equipment and software is introduced into the College enhances the degree of Judgement required in determining the malfunctions and how they are to be dealt with. This requires a familiarization and settling in period where judgements about malfunctions are made while the person is still learning about the systems and, frequently, before manuals about them are available. It is argued that innovative problem-solving techniques require a greater degree of Judgement with the introduction of new technology. The argument refers to the job as requiring the development of throw-away solutions, meaning that new technology once up and running and settled in causes less problems and is in any event eliminated later as new technology replaces the obsolete equipment and technology. The College submits that the Judgement factor as illustrated by the different examples found in the PDF is more appropriate at level 5. The arbitrator finds that there is a significant degree of judgement involved in problem-solving and interpreting diagnostic procedures as they are applied to new equipment and software. However, the description in the Job Matrix at level 5 contemplates utilization of a significant degree of judgement. The thrust 8 of the Union's argument is that to say that the typical duties described in other positions in the matrix at level 5 do not fit what is done in this position and therefore level 6 or 7 is more appropriate. The Arbitrator finds that the regular core functions of the job best fit the description of Judgement as set out at level 5 as that level recognizes a significant degree of judgement and problem-solving. The Arbitrator concludes that the impact of new technology and its effect on the Grievor is over-stated. While new technologies are being introduced all the time and they do require judgement and problem-solving, they are not so complex, or of such a high degree of judgement, that they cannot be considered to be included in the description at level 5. The Arbitrator confirms the rating of the College. (iii) Conclusion The Arbitrator concludes that within the Job Difficulty matrix the appropriate level of Complexity and Judgement is that rated by the College. Therefore, the arbitrator rates the position on the Job Difficulty Matrix at level 5. 2. GUIDANCE RECEIVED - COLLEGE D-4: UNION E-5 (i) Guidelines Available 9 The Union asserts that the Guidelines Available are at level E. The Matrix describes that element as: "work is performed in accordance with general instructions and policies involving changing conditions and problems. Supervisor may be involved on problems of major importance." The College submits that the appropriate level is that of D. That description reads: "work is performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems. Supervisor is available to assist in resolving problems." The Union submits that the creeping technological changes provide an endless sequence of equipment and software, pushed by evolution and change within the computer hardware and software industry, that justify its rating at level E. The College submits that the job is one that typically ought to be at level D, where the Technologist position is sample rated. The Arbitrator finds that past practices, given the rate of change, and given that solutions which worked for one system will be disbanded or have a different diagnostic procedure in another system, are of little help, although the general experience with the prior system may be of assistance with the new one. In essence, the solutions which are found for one system may well be required to be thrown away after that system is no longer in use or is no longer generating very many user assistance calls. This factor, coupled with constantly changing technologies that require modification to work procedures justifies the conclusion that 10 the appropriate level is different than that for a typical Technologist B, and ought to be at level E. (ii) Nature of Review - College at 4: Union at 5 The Nature of Review under the Guidance Received matrix as submitted by the Union reads: "work assignments are reviewed only for achievements of broad objectives, effectiveness of results and to ensure integration with the work of others." The Nature of Review submitted by the College reads: "work assignments are subject to a general form of review for achievements of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines." The Union submits that there is a gradation of supervision with more supervision of level 1 gradually working down to very limited supervision at level 6. The College submits that the position typically falls within the level 4. The PDF perhaps does not suggest the degree of supervision, as it primarily refers to weekly meetings with the technologist. Under unusual circumstances there is overview supervision and indeed often collaboration with the Grievor and his immediate supervisor, Mr. 11 James, in discussing problems with vendors and suppliers of technology. The arbitrator concludes that the appropriate level for this position is at 4. (iii) Conclusion For the Guidance Received factor the Arbitrator rates the position in accordance with the Union submission, at level E for the Guidelines Available, but rates it at the fourth level for the Nature of Review, as submitted by the College. 3. COMMUNICATIONS - COLLEGE C-3; UNION D-3 The parties agree that the Level of Contacts is appropriately rated at level 3, consequently, there is no dispute in relation to the Level of Contacts. There is a dispute, however, as to the Purpose of Contacts. (i) Purpose of Contacts - College at C: Union at D The Purpose of Contacts as described in the level submitted by the Union reads: "work involves contacts for the purpose of problem identification and solution with respect to matters of considerable importance requiring tact, diplomacy and persuasion." The Purpose of Contacts as submitted on behalf of the College is level C. It · 12 reads: "work involves contacts for the purpose of providing guidance, instruction or technical advice or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures or policy." The arbitrator finds that the technical advice to computer users is primarily of the form of problem identification and solution as described at level D, rather than for the purpose of merely giving guidance instruction or technical advice. While the balance of the description at level D is more difficult to apply, there is no doubt that this is a trouble-shooting, problem- solving, job position. In that respect, it is perhaps atypical of other types of Technologist jobs in the College. The arbitrator finds that the more appropriate job classification is at level D. 4. KNOWLEDGE - COLLEGE D-6; UNION E-6 The parties agree on the Training factor of the A part of the Knowledge element of the matrix, but disagree on the Experience factor which also relates to a disagreement on the terms of the PDF. The parties also disagree on the B part of the matrix dealing with the Skill element. (i) Experience Element - College at D: Union at E The Union asserts that the experience required for this position is more appropriately described by the caption at level E. It reads: 13 "up to eight years of practical experience." The Union also submits that in this aspect of the Knowledge matrix the PDF is inaccurate and ought to be modified to indicate that 8 years of experience is more appropriate than the 5, which it now reads. The College submits that the appropriate level of Experience is at D. It reads: "up to five years of practical experience." In modifying the Guidance Received and also in doing so with the Communications factor the arbitrator has accounted for the degree of technological change. This element requires the minimum requirements to perform the job as submitted by the College as what would be contained and required for a job posting. While it is certainly understood that more experience makes the employee more valuable in performing the job for the purposes of rating the position, eight years of prior experience is excessive. As the Arbitrator indicated in the Fanshawe College grievance of Linda Novinka dated December 7, 1992, at pages 11 ann 12, the classification systems requires the assignment of a rating which reflects minimum entrance qualifications required to undertake the duties and responsibilities of the position. It is not desirable or de facto levels of experience. It seems appropriate that the level of Experience need only be at the D level. The 14 rating of the College is confirmed. This conclusion means that there is no necessity to alter the PDF as submitted to the Arbitrator. (ii) B. Skill Element - College at 5: Union at 6 The Skill Element in respect of the position as argued on behalf of the Grievor is described in the Knowledge matrix as: "work requires the ability to understand and apply complex principles of a discipline such as mathematics, computing science etc. Designs testing procedures for repetitive application, conducts standardized scientific studies and performs statistical and other problem analyses." The Skill level submitted as appropriate by the College is at level 5. It reads: "work requires the ability to organize complex statistical information and to understand and apply elementary principles of a science or professional discipline. May operate very complex electronic instruments, laboratory or computer equipment." As indicated in the PDF and the submissions of the parties, the Grievor is required to understand and operate very complex computer equipment. There is a demand to keep up with the frequent and constant evolution arising in the computer field. That means that diagnostic procedures, while to some degree defined, are frequently not up to the level of the technology developments in the early stages of the introduction of new technology. The Skill level requires the application of somewhat complex principles and it certainly requires that there 15 be statistical and other problem analysis of what is wrong in any given circumstance. Therefore, the arbitrator finds that the skill element of the knowledge matrix ought to be rated at a higher level than the College has done. The Arbitrator finds that the appropriate level is 6. 5. CONCLUSION The Arbitrator has rated the core function of the position and finds that the position has a core point total of 718 points. That places the position over the threshold and within payband 11. The Arbitrator confirmed the College's rating on the Job Difficulty factor and the Training and Experience element of the Knowledge factor. Adjustments in the other elements to reflect the somewhat unique position of the trouble-shooter dealing with both the hardware and software computer technology has resulted in a finding that the total points for the position, take the position outside the payband for the classification of Technologist B. It is, therefore, found that the position is one of Technologist B atypical payband 11. It is ordered that the position be re-classified in accordance with the determinations in this award. The Grievor is entitled to receive compensation from the date of the grievance to the date of this award, together with interest, as is the practice in these classification awards. The College is ordered to make the adjusting payment to the Grievor by the second pay period after the receipt of this award. The arbitrator retains jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation which may be owing to the Grievor in the event that the parties are unable to agree. Either party may reconvene the hearing by written request to the 16 arbitrator within 45 days of this award. I want to thank the representatives of the parties for the excellent job they did in presenting their positions. The submissions of the Grievor at the hearing assisted me greatly in making this determination. The parties' representatives conducted themselves in a thorough and pleasant manner which made my job much easier. I very much appreciate their thoughtfulness and courtesy in presenting their positions. They are to be commended for doing an excellent joia. DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. Richard H. McLaren, C. Arb. Arbitrator Cambrian College ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT S'fa~'~' u~oo~r~v,~v,,~ CO~.?.RGE CAMBRIAN INCUMBENT Bill Riess PRESENT CLASSIFICATION Techno] og~ ~+ ~ 10 AND PAYBAND SUPERVISOR Bob Ph] ] ~ on JOB FAMILY AND PAYBAND REQUESTED BY GRIEVOR TechnQiogist C Atypical, payband 13 POSITION DESCRIPTION FORM: 1. Position Description Form Attached 2. ~ Parties agree on contents of attached Position Description Form O_ER ~-~ Union disagrees with contents of attached Position Description Form SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THIS DISAGREEMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS: (USE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY) AWARD Management Union Arbitrator ELEMENTS Rating Pts. Rating Pts. Rating .Pts. ¢o ICATIONS PA ANo ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ~--~ The College (Optional) SIGNATURES: FOR THE]~NION .. FOR~NAG~NT ~....~riev~r) . (Date)' (Dhte) -t(Unio~Rep.) /(Date). / ~ ~ / Hearing Date w ~ Aqa~d Date