Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVeinott 91-02-07IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CAMBRIAN COLLEGE ("the College") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY AND ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (FOR SUPPORT STAFF EMPLOYEES) AND IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE OF MARY JANE VEINOTT ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate APPEARANCES For the College: Susan Pratt, Staff Relations Officer For the Union: N. Luczay, Grievance Officer Hearing: In Sudbury on January 24, 1991. DECISION Introduction In October of 1987 the grievor was hired into the newly created position of Records Officer at the College's Ontario Basic Skills Program. She was classified as a Student Services Officer A within payband 8. Approximately one year later her classification was changed to that of a Student Services Officer'B within payband 9. On November 30, 1989 the grievor provided a faculty member with a memorandum asking that her position be reclassified to an atypical position within payband 12. This was followed by a formal grievance dated June 29, 1990. As a result of meetings held with respect to the grievance, the College reclassified the grievor's position to that of a Student Services Officer Atypical within payband 10'. The grievor was not satisfied with this change. Accordingly the Union referred the matter to arbitration in accordance with the expedited arbitration procedure set out in Article 18.4.3 of the collective agreement. The Effective Date of Presentation of the Grievor's Complaint Following the College's action in revising the grievor's classification upwards, it paid her retroactive compensation back to June 29, 1990, the date she filed her grievance. The Union contends that she should have been compensated retroactive to November 30, 1989, the date of her memorandum requesting that she be reclassified. The College submits that the memorandum did not meet the requirements of a complaint under Article 18.4.1 of the collective agreement. The re]evant portions of the collective agreement provide as follows: 18.4 Classification Complaints 18.4.1 Complaint to College Official An employee who claims, his/her assigned job is improperly classified and that he/she should be properly classified to another classification named in Appendix E (i) or should be classified as an atypical position may present a complaint in writing to the College official designated responsible for classification complaints. The written complaint must specify at least-the job family and payband claimed by the employee to be appropriate. Where the employee is claiming he/she should be classified in an atypical position, the written complaint must specify the payband requested and must specify the job family where appropriate. 18.4.1.1 Retroactive Payment It is understood that there shall be no retroactive payment prior to the date of presentation of the written complaint as specified above. 18.4.2 Complaint Process 18.4.2.1 Step 1 - Meeting and Information Provided The College Official shall arrange a meeting within ten (10) days after receiving the complaint to permit the employee and a Local Union Representative the opportunity of making representations in support of the complaint. The College Official shall ensure that the current Position Description Form (PDF), as per Article 7.2.2, is provided for the meeting. At the meeting, the employee must first indicate in writing whether he/she is in agreement with the PDF and if not what specific disagreements he/she has with it. A discussion to resolve any differences shall then take place. At this meeting, following discussion on the PDF, both parties will exchange, in writing, corepoint rating by factor for the position in dispute. 18.4.2.2 College Official's Decision Within five (5) days of the meeting, the College Official shall give his/her decision in writing. 18.4.2.4 Step II Where the complaint has not been resolved and where the grievor is not in agreement with the PDF, then he/she shall refer the complaint in writing to the President of the College within seven {7) days of the date he/she received or should have received the decision. The President or his/her designee shall convene a meeting concerning the grievance within fourteen (14) days of the presentation, at which the grievor shall have an opportunity to be present. The President or his/her designee shall give his/her decision in writing, within seven (7) days following the meeting. At all relevant times responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the Ontario Basic Skills Program rested with Ms Lynne Wallace, the co-ordinator of the program. Ns Wallace was a faculty member. On November 30, 1989 the grievor gave Ms Wallace a memorandum which read as follows: Lynne Wallace Date: Nov. 30/89 Coordinator, OBS Subject: Reclassification Per our discussion of today, I am hereby requesting that my position be upgraded to payband 12, as an A-typical position. Please respond on or before Dec. 15/89. Thanks for your attention in this matter. "Mary Jane Veinott" It was the grievor's evidence that on December 15, 1989 she raised the status of her memorandum with Ms Sonia DelMissier, the College's Dean of Academic Support Programs. In September of 1989 Ms DelMissier had temporarily assumed direct responsibility for the Ontario Basic Skills Program. Ms DelMissier informed the grievor that Ms Arlene Hakynen, a personal officer at the College, had advised her that the grievor's request to be reclassified had been referred to the Vice President of Academic Programs and that it would be considered by the College's classification committee. On January 18, 1990 Ms DelMissier advised the grievor that the classification committee had met but had not considered her request. On January 23, 1990 Ms DelNissier told the grievor that her request was now with Mr. Hurly, the College's Director of Human Resources. Early in May of 1990 Ms DelMissier advised the grievor that the classification committee had denied her request to be reclassified. On May 29, 1990 Ms Makynen told the grievor that her request had again been referred to the committee and that Mr. James, the Manager of Computer Operations, would be acting as an advisor to the committee. The grievor subsequently offered to appear before the committee. It is not clear that the committee actually reconsidered the matter of the grievor's classification. According to the grievor on June 29, 1990 Ms Makynen indicated to her that she, Mr. Hurly and Mr. James had decided that her position was properly classified at the payband 9 level. On June 29, 1990 the grievor filed her grievance. The key parts of the grievance read as follows: Statement of Grievance That my position is improperly classified in Pay Band 9 Settlement Desired That my position be upgraded to Pay Band 12, Atypical, retroactive to November 30/89 (see attached complaint) Subsequent to the filing of the grievance the parties met at steps I and II of the complaint process outlined in Article 18.4.2. It was as a result of these meetings that the College decided to raise the grievor's position to payband 10. I was not advised as to which individual or individuals the College had designated as being responsible for receiving classification complaints. Ms Wallace, the person who received the grievor's memorandum of November 30, 1989, however, was clearly not such a person. Further, the grievor would not reasonably have viewed her as having such a responsibility. Ms Wallace did not, however, return the grievor's memorandum to her with a notation that she did not have the authority to accept it. Instead Ms Wallace passed the memorandum on, as did the others who received it, until it reached officials of the College who were responsible for dealing with classification matters. These officials considered the grievor's situation over a lengthy period of time before ruling against it. Because the grievor's memorandum came to the attention of the appropriate College officials, had the grievor indicated that it was meant to be a complaint under Article 18.4.1 and that the complaint process outlined in Article 18.4.2 should be followed, I would have been prepared to regard the memorandum as a proper complaint. The grievor did not, however, give this advice to the College. She kept herself informed of how the College was handling her request to be reclassified but at no point indicated that she was dissatisfied with the procedure being followed or that her request should be considered at the type of meetings referred to in Article 18.4.2. Because the grievor did not file her memorandum in accordance with the procedures for raising a complaint under Article 18.4.1 and was content that the complaint process outlined in Article 18.4.2 not be followed, her memorandum cannot reasonably be viewed as a c]assification complaint under the collective agreement. It was only after the College's consideration of her memorandum did not produce a result acceptable to her that the grievor followed the procedure for a proper classification complaint. She did this by filing a grievance which was taken up at steps I and II of the complaint process. In these circumstances I find that the effective date of the grievor's complaint under Article 18.4.1 was the date she filed her grievance, namely June 29, 1990. Pursuant to Article 18.4.1.1 she is not entitled to retroactive compensation prior to this date. The Grievor's Job Duties At the time of the filing of the grievance the grievor was responsible for the operation of the computer systems in the Ontario Basic Skills Program and its French language counterpart. The program was designed to provide educational upgrading for people over the age of 25, many of whom were on social assistance. Records for the program were kept separate from other College records. The computers used by the staff of the program were not linked to other computers in the College. The grievor was responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the hardware utilized in the Ontario Basic Skills Program. Some problems, such as a keyboard malfunctioning or a loose or dirty connection, she dealt with herself. If there was a problem she could not fix, she would generally contact the vendors of the equipment to have them repair it. If it was something relatively minor, however, such as a printer which was not functioning properly, she might ask someone from the College's Computer Services Department to take a look at it. Subsequent to the filing of the grievance it was arranged that the grievor could call the Department with respect to all maintenance problems on most of the equipment she was responsible for. A local area network linked the computers used in the Ontario Basic Skills Program. When a problem developed with the system the grievor would be the one to correct it. It appears that she did so using instructional manuals. The grievor was responsible for assisting the staff of the Ontario Basic Skills Program with any problems they might have in operating the computer equipment. This included difficulties in entering data, accessing a data base or using a word processing program. Generally these problems arose because the staff were not using the software properly. In such a situation the grievor would discuss the problem with the staff member to determine what error he or she had made and then demonstrate the correct procedure. Students in the Ontario Basic Skills Program were required to take an introductory course in using computers. Some of them also took an optional intermediate course. Students were provided with the opportunity to work in a computer lab to practice what they had been taught. The grievor was generally available to assist them if they experienced difficulties in operating the equipment. A daily backup was done of the material contained on three hard drives. This was done by putting the information onto diskettes. On a weekly basis the information was also put on tapes. The grievor generally performed these functions. Once a month the Ontario Basic Skills Program was required to produce an activity report for the Provincial Government. Although during the hearing a reference was made to the Ministry of Education, I gather that the report was actually prepared for the Ministry of Skills Development. The required information was compiled using a spread sheet the grievor had developed. The grievor entered the information onto a diskette. The diskette along with a paper report were forwarded to the Ministry. When the grievor started in her job the computers in the Ontario Basic Skills Program office were used primarily for word processing. Most record keeping was done manually, the major exception being the use of software developed by the Ministry to keep track of student enrollments. The grievor developed several computer systems to maintain program records. Her first step in doing so was to talk with the staff to ascertain what they wanted from a new system. 8he then developed flow charts showing how the information would flow through the system. Following this she developed a data base as well as a program to access the data base and produce reports. The grievor developed a scheduling system which produced individual student and faculty schedules as well as time tables. She also developed what she referred to as a vacation/sickness tracking system which kept a record of the vacations and sick time taken by both faculty and support staff and the contact hours of faculty members. The grievor also developed a computerized catalogue of student files. This was done to make it easier to find the files of students who had left the Program and later returned. The software program also allowed a record to be kept of the last 11 person to use each file. This meant that if a file was not in the storage area it could easily be traced. The grievor testified that she revised existing software four, five or six times a year. She gave the example of a requirement that the records for a new group of clients from the Sudbury Housing Authority be maintained separately from students in the Ontario Basic Skills Program. The grievor took the existing Ministry system for recording student enrollments and developed a separate system for this group of clients. Prior to the grievor's arrival software was already being used to keep track of sPecial support allowances made to students in the Ontario Basic Skills Program.- The grievor made a number of changes to this software. She testified that she also developed a minor program to assist with month end bank reconciliations with respect to the support allowances. She also developed a sub-program to allow information from several data bases to be gathered together and automatically produce T-4 A slips which set out the amount of special support allowances received by individual students. Previously the slips had been typed using information obtained manually. After the scheduling system was operating properly, faculty members advised the grievor that because students on their class lists were not showing up for class, they wanted to know which students were on a leave of absence. The grievor modified the system so that the class lists would provide this information. dob Difficulty Matrix The parties disagree as to the appropriate rating of the grievor's position for both the complexity and judgement elements of the job difficulty matrix. The Union equates the grievor's position with that of an Programmer/Analyst. It is clear that the major portion of the grievor's job did not involve duties similar to those of a Programmer/Analyst. It was instead to oversee the operation of a computer-based record system, to use that system to produce reports and to deal with any operating problems. The grievor did, however, engage in certain duties which would normally be performed by a Programmer/Analyst. A review of the job evaluation guidance chart for the Programmer/Analyst job family suggests that many of the grievor's functions in this area were similar to those of a Programmer/Analyst A. Because she actually implemented small computer systems and sub-systems, however, she also performed some of the functions normally associated with a Programmer/Analyst B. The job evaluation guide chart contains the following summery of the responsibilities of a Programmer/Analyst B: "Positions incumbents develop systems specifications, record layouts and programs for small systems or sub-systems through the application of systems analysis/programming techniques." The College characterizes the programmer/analysis type work performed by the grievor as not being part of her regular core functions. It contends that this work should not be a factor in classifying her position. While it is true that most of the grievor's work did not involve developing or implementing computer systems, these functions did form part of her regular job duties. She appears to have been engaged in these functions for more than an insignificant amount of time. The College has obtained the benefit of the grievor's work in this area. Accordingly, I am led to conclude that this work is a proper factor to be taken into account when assessing the difficulty of her job. The College gave the grievor's job a D rating in terms of complexity and a 5 rating for judgement. The Union argues for an E-6 rating. The criteria for these ratings are as follows: Complexity D. Work involves the performance of varied, non-routine complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated processes and methods. E. Work involves the performance of non-routine and relatively unusual tasks that may require the application of specialized processes or methods. Judgement 5. Duties performed require a significant degree of - judgement. Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used. 6. Duties performed require a high degree of judgement. Problem-solving requires adopting analytical techniques and development of new information on various situations and problems. Classifying the grievor's job in terms of these criteria is not easy to do. The great majority of the grievor's time was spent performing duties which fit comfortably within a D-5 rating. Her work in developing computer systems and making revisions to existing software, however, would appear to have been unusual tasks requiring the application o~ specialized processes. This justified an E rating. I am not satisfied, however, that the grievor was required to adopt analytical techniques and develop new information. Accordingly, her job did not meet the criteria for a 6 rating. Having regard, to these considerations I find an E-5 rating to have been appropriate ~or her position. Knowledge Matrix - Skill Element Related to the issue of job difficulty is the skill required for the grievor's position. The College gave the position a 5 rating while the Union argues for the maximum 6 rating. The relevant criteria are as follows: 5. Work requires the ability to organize complex statistical information and to understand and apply principles of a science or professional discipline. May operate very complex electronic instruments, laboratory or computer equipment. 6. Work requires the ability to 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 analysis. The grievor was required to apply principles of computing science. Unlike a Programmer/Analyst B, however, she apparently did not design testing procedures for repetitive application, conduct scientific studies or perform statistical analysis. These are required for a 6 rating. Accordingly I conclude that a 5 rating was appropriate. Guidance Received Matrix Following the meetings during the complaint process, the College agreed with the grievor that she was entitled to an E rating for the guidelines available .portion of the matrix. This is the highest rating available. The College did not, however, accept her contention that her position justified the highest available 5 rating for the nature of the review of her work. The College contended that a 4 rating was appropriate. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 4. Work assignments are subject to a general form of review for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines. 5. Work assignments are reviewed only for achievements of broad objectives, effectiveness of results and to ensure integration with the work of others. As noted above, at the time of the grievance Dean DelMissier had direct responsibility for the Ontario Basic Skills Program. On a day to day basis, however, the grievor dealt with Ms Wallace, a faculty member. The grievor's evidence indicated that at times Ms Wallace advised her of specific projects to be performed, such as keeping the records of the Sudbury Housing Authority clients separate, but did not check her work. The grievor acknowledged, however, that she would go to see Ms Wallace to bring her up to date on what she was doing. Ms DelMissier testified that when she met with Ms Wallace on a weekly basis, Ms Wallace would advise her of what the grievor was doing. Ms DelMissier gave the example of being told that there were problems with the server and the grievor was trying to fix it. The grievor had a deadline for producing the monthly reports for the Ministry. Ms DelMissier received a copy of the reports. On the basis of this evidence, I am satisfied that the review of the grievor's work was not simply for the achievement of broad objectives but rather was a general form of review for the achievement of specific objectives. Accordingly, I find a 4 rating to be appropriate and uphold the E-4 rating given by the College. Communications Matrix At the hearing the Union contended that the College had initially given the grievor's job a C-4 rating with respect to the communications matrix but had later lowered this to a C-3 rating. The Union submitted that such a reassessment had been improper. This matter was not pursued, however, after the College insisted that it had always given the position a C-3 rating. The College argues for a C rating wi~h respect to the purpose of the grievor's contacts, the Union for a D rating. The criteria for these two ratings are set out below. I note that the notes to raters which accompany the matrix state that only those contacts that occupy a significant portion of time and are a regular and integral part of the job are to be taken into consideration. C. Work involves contacts for the purpose of providing guidance or instruction or technical advice or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures or policy. D. Work involves contacts for the purpose of problem identification and solution with respect to matters of considerable importance requiring tact, diplomacy and persuasion. The grievor contended that she needed tact and diplomacy when dealing with other staff in the Ontario Basic Skills Program when they encountered a problem in operating the software. A D rating, however, indicates that tact and diplomacy are required with respect to matters of considerable importance, Logically this does not relate to a consultation with staff to ascertain where they have erred in operating software. The great majority of the grievor's contacts were with other .staff in the Ontario Basic Skills Program for the purpose of providing instruction and technical advice. Having regard to these considerations I find that a C rating was appropriate. With respect to the level of the grievor's contacts, the College rated her job at level 3 while the Union argues for a 4 rating. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 3. Contacts are primarily with employees at higher levels within the College and with individuals at middle management levels outside the College. 4. Contacts are primarily with employees at senior management levels within the Colleges and outside the Colleges. At the hearing the parties took issue as to which of the grievor's contacts might properly be regarded as having been w~th individuals at senior as opposed to middle management levels, I need not decide this issue, In order to qualify for a 4 rating the grievor's contacts had to primarily be with individuals at senior management levels. The grievor's contacts, however, were primarily with staff within the Ontario Skills Development Program These individuals were clearly not senior management. In these circumstances ! confirm the C-3 rating given by the College, Working Conditions Matrix - Manual Effort Element The College assigned the grievor a B-5 rating. The grievor claimed a C-2 rating. I find the College's rating to be the more reasonable one, I note that the College's rating actually gives the grievor's job a marginally higher point total than the rating she claimed was appropriate. Conclusion In response to the grievance the College agreed to reclassify the grievor's position. In doing so it accorded the position a point total of 668. Hy finding that the grievor was entitled to an E-5 rating with respect to the job difficulty matrix adds an additional 28 points. This raises the point total to 696, which brings the position within payband 11. Having regard to all o? the above, I conclude that at the time she filed her grievance the grievor was entitled to be classified as a Support Services Officer Atypical within payband 11. I will remain seized of this matter to deal with any difficulties arising out of the implementation of my award. Dated at Toronto this 7th day of February, 1991. Arbitrator · '' ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF _CTASSIFICATIOH~ f- ¢,'0 Lf,,EGE CAMSRI ~ IN~B~ M.J. ~ ~NOTT ~' ~SE~ C~BSIFI~TIO'~ SUPP0~T SF~v~c~ mr~C~R ATYPICAL ~D PAYBAND 10 SUP~VISOR z~ ~v=N JOB F~ILY ~D PAYED ~QUESTED 3Y GRIPER SUPP6~T S~RVICES 0FFIC~R ~ ATYPICAL, PAYB~ND 12 POSITION DESCRIPTION FO]tM= 1. Position Description Form Attached ~. ~ Paz~lem agree on contents o~ attached Position Deecrigtion Form ~ Union disagrees with contents of attached Position Oescription Form SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THIS DISAGREEMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS= (USE REVER~E SIDE IF NECESSARY) . 1 AWARD ELEMENTS Rating P~s. Rating Pts. Ra~ing Pts. JOB DIFFI~LTY DS GUzD~CE ~CEZ~D E4 177 ES 200 E ~ /77 CO~1~TIONS C~ ~OW~E T~INING/BXP~ENCE C6 105' ~NDITIONS VISUAL C5 2~ C~ 21 L ~ 2/ A~AC~D ~I~EN SU~ISSIONS: ~ The Union FOR THE ~IOH FOR ~AG~~ ( Date l~FlevoF) (Date) ., Hearing Date - ~ward'Date