Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDenomme 98-07-10 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CAMBRIAN COLLEGE ("the College") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCES OF ART DENOMME, MARGARET PERRY, JANNINE SAUVE AND SHIRLEY ST. LOUIS - OPSEU NO. 97B807 ARBITRATOR: Ian Spr/ngate APPEARANCES For the College: Susan Pratt, Staff Relations Consultant Ed LeBreton, Chair, Continuing Education Larry Bouchard, Director, Continuing Education For the Union: Bill Riess, President Local 656 Art Denomme Jannine Sauve Shirley St. Louis HEARING: In Sudbury on March 27 and June 11, 1998 AWARD INTRODUCTION On April 18, 1997 each of the ghevors filed a ghevance which alleged that she or he had been improperly classified as a Support Services Officer ("SSO") at pay band 10. The ghevors sought to have their positions reclassified to pay band 11. When they filed their ghevances the ghevors were classified as atypical SSOs and employed as employment consultants with the Career and Employment Preparation Program ("CEPP"). This program was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. The name of the program has since been changed to Job Connect. The CEPP program was designed to assist unemployed people, particularly youth, to obtain employment. The program had three components, namely information and referral; employment planning and preparation; and on the job training. In Sudbury the initial two components were offered by the YMCA Employment Service to persons below the age of 25 and by the Sudbury Vocational Resource Centre to those 25 and above. The college and College Boreal provided the on the job training component. The college offered all three components of CEPP in Espanola and Little Current but the gfievors were not involved in delivering the program in these communities. A summary on the first page of a position description form ("PDF") filed by the college refers to an employment consultant being responsible for activities related to all three components of CEPP. Since the ghevors were only involved with the on the job traimng component, however, this award does not address the appropriate classification rating for employees actually involved in all three components. On agreement of the parties the heahng focused on one ghevor, Mr. Art Denomme. The understanding, however, was that this award would also apply to the other three ghevors. Both parties accepted the appropriateness of evaluating the grievors' positions using a core point rating plan which forms part of the applicable job evaluation system. This plan involves assigning points to twelve different job evaluation factors based on factor level definitions. The CAAT support staff job evaluation manual states that illustrative classifications which exemplify the level assigned for each factor are also to be carefully reviewed. The parties agreed on the points to be assigned to eight of the job evaluation factors. The other four factors are discussed later in this award. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES Over the years the ghevors were involved with a number of govemment funded programs designed to assist youth to obtain employment. One of these was the Futures Program. During most of the time they were with this program the ghevors placed clients with employers as part of a work experience program and were paid at the pay band 10 level. As the Futures Program was winding down, however, the grievors were assigned to also deliver a pre-employment preparation component that had previously been offered by counselors in the faculty bargaining unit. While they were delivering this component the grievors were temporarily classified at the pay band 11 level. During these proceedings Mr. Denomme equated the grievors' duties and responsibilities with CEPP with their duties and responsibilities when with the pre-employment preparation component of the Futures Program.. Article 18.4.5.1 of the applicable collective agreement states that when addressing classification grievances an arbitrator is restricted to determining whether a grievor's PDF accurately reflects assigned job content "and to determining whether the ghevor's job is properly classified pursuant to the CAAT SUPPORT STAFF JOB EVALUATION MANUAL". Having regard to this statement no useful purpose would be served by determining how close the ghevors' duties and responsibilities with CEPP were to their duties and responsibilities with the pre-employment preparation component of the Futures Program. Prior to the beginning of the CEPP program Mr. Ed LeBreton, the college's Chair of Continuing Education, prepared a PDF respecting the ghevors' anticipated duties. The PDF stated that the applicable pay band was to be pay band 11. Copies of this PDF were provided to the ghevors in March 1997 prior to the document being forwarded to a college classification committee. The grievors contend that with certain modifications this initial PDF reflected the duties they subsequently performed with the CEPP program. The CEPP program began on April 1, 1997. On April 18, 1997 the grievors received a revised PDF which contained numerous changes from the one they had previously received. This PDF placed their positions in pay band 10. The grievors filed their ghevances later that same day. Due to the timing involved much of the evidence in these proceedings related to events that occurred after the filing of the grievances. Mr. Denomme contended that the PDF was rewritten to deliberately down rate the ghevors' positions to pay band 10 and it did not accurately reflect their duties and responsibilities. The spokesperson for the college contended that the PDF prepared by Mr. LeBreton had been a draft which still had to be reviewed by the committee responsible for reviewing PDFs. She argued that the draft was amended as a result of the college giving further consideration to its role in delivering CEPP in Sudbury. Mr. LeBreton testified that the changes made to the PDF were designed to accurately reflect how management, including himself, saw the grievors' job and wanted the job done. He said that at a meeting held on May 30, 1997 he reviewed the revised PDF with the grievors and advised them that this was how the college expected them to do their job and no one was expected to do anything outside the parameters of the PDF. It was Mr. Denomme's evidence that at the outset of the meeting he told Mr. LeBreton that because grievances had been filed the grievors would not discuss the content of the revised PDF with him. The spokesperson for the college stated that because the revised PDF had been based on preliminary information and little experience concerning how CEPP was to operate in Sudbury, certain duties listed in the revised PDF were not in fact performed by the ghevors and should be disregarded. She contended that the duties in question had been delivered by other agencies in Sudbury. Except for those portions which the college identified as not being applicable to the ghevors, the April 18 1997 PDF reflects the college's view as to what the grievors' duties and responsibilities were when the grievances were filed. Because this PDF was not accepted as being accurate by the union, I can only rely on the PDF as a statement of the college's views. Mr. Denomme stated that Sault College had been responsible for developing a standard employment consultant PDF that could be used throughout the north. He suggested that Sault College prepared its PDF using the PDF that Cambrian College had used for the Futures Program as the template. He described the Sault College PDF, as well as the PDF used at College Boreal, as essentially identical to the PDF Mr. LeBreton had originally prepared with respect to the CEPP program. Mr. Denomme testified that Sault College classified its CEPP employment consultants at pay band 11. Mr. LeBreton testified that employment consultants at College Boreal were classified at the pay band 10 level. He said that it was never agreed that the Sault College PDF would be used by other northern colleges. He also said that Sault College delivered the employment planning and preparation component of the CEPP program where all the counselling took place but not the on the job training component. Mr. Denomme subsequently agreed that in Sault Ste. Made Sault College delivered only the employment planning and preparation component. He added that Sault College delivered all of the CEPP components in Wawa and Elliot Lake and in those locations the same PDF was applied to all three components. As noted above, the collective agreement indicates that I am restricted to determining whether the ghevors' jobs were properly classified pursuant to the job evaluation manual. The PDFs adopted at Sault College and College Boreal cannot impact on that decision. Neither can how Sault College or College Boreal rated their staff involved with the CEPP program. AN OVERVIEW OF THE GR~VORS' DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES As already noted, the ghevors were only involved with the on the job training component of the CEPP program. The employment planning and preparation component offered by the YMCA and the Sudbury Vocational Resource Centre provided clients with one on one and group counselling, including counselling designed to identify and address possible barriers to employment. Mr. Denomme testified that while clients were still in the employment planning and preparation component they were referred to the grievors for assistance in finding a job. He said that a grievor would work with a client while he or she was still officially in the employment planning and preparation component. When a client was referred to the on the job training component the grievors received a two page action plan respecting the client's employment and training goals from either the YMCA or the Sudbury Vocational Resource Centre. Mr. Denomme testified that these action plans did not contain sufficient information to allow a grievor to get a full picture of the client. He said that references on an action plan to family issues and a criminal record might be ticked but no details provided. He indicated that an action plan would not contain sensitive information such as whether the client had a drug or alcohol problem or medical or emotional concems. According to Mr. Denomme, a grievor would meet with the client to review the action plan and try to obtain as much relevant information as possible. Mr. Denomme testified that about 50% of clients knew what sort of job they were looking for and how to go about finding a position. He said that the other 50% had severe employment barriers and took up 90% of the ghevors' time. He stated that for about 40% of placements the grievors obtained a job order; worked with a client to refer him or her; ensured that the client got to the interview; and later did a follow up. Mr. Denomme testified that when they were asked what kind of work they wanted a majority of clients would reply "anything". He indicated that if a client expressed a preference for a particular type of work he would, if appropriate, try to place the client in that line of work. He said that if a client stated that he or she wanted to work for a particular employer he might try to convince the client to the contrary if the employer had never permanently hired a client. Some clients were capable of obtaining their own positions. The grievors would provide these clients with possible leads obtained from newspaper job ads and the Human Resources Development Canada job bank. Mr. Denomme testified that clients who marketed themselves took a subsidy with them and a grievor would follow up with the employer. The gfievors contacted employers about taking clients. This included contacting employers who had previously taken clients as well as "cold calls" to other employers. Mr. Denomme testified that it was a requirement of the program that a job site be checked, primarily to ensure it was safe. He indicated that if the work place was safe and the employer had workers' compensation coverage, liability insurance and no recent layoffs, the employer would most likely be approved for a placement. Mr. Denomme testified that when marketing clients to employers the grievors would acknowledge that a client did not have the skill level normally expected by the employer. He said that they would advise the employer that a training subsidy was available and that by the end of the subsidy period the client would be as productive as any other employee. Mr. Denomme indicated that he might persuade an employer to take a type of client that it might not normally hire or accept a client who did not have a prior employment history. Mr. Denomme testified that the ghevors negotiated the amount of training subsidy payments with employers. Mr. LeBreton's evidence was that the college and College Boreal had agreed on a local standard whereby training subsidies were based on 40 hours per week for 16 weeks at $4.00 an hour for a total of $2,560. He said that the only negotiations a ghevor might engage in respecting subsidies concerned how the money would flow to an employer. He said that a subsidy need not be a flat $4.00 per hour but could be higher at the start of a contract and lower at the end. Mr. LeBreton indicated that however it was paid out the maximum subsidy was $2,560. In response to a claim by Mr. Denomme that the college's PDF did not allow for the exercise of any discretion, Mr. LeBreton on October 22, 1997 sent the grievors a memorandum, part of which read as follows: OJT reimbursement to employers entering into a contract on or after Monday, October 20th will be $4.00/hour regardless of the hourly rate paid. Whether the employer pays minimum wage or some higher amount, we will reimburse the maximum of $4.00/hour. Existing contracts will not be amended to reflect this change. - in exceptional circumstances and at the discretion of the training consultant an employer can be reimbursed for the full salary paid to a participant on an OJT placement for a period that will not normally exceed four weeks. The four week guideline is exactly that - a guideline. It could be more or less than 4 weeks, again at your discretion. The following formula would be used in calculating the contract details for what would normally be a 16 week placement: 1. Maximum subsidy payable to the employer is $4.00/hour times 16 weeks times the normal number of hours worked / week for that particular company 2. We will pay the employer 100% subsidy of the hourly rate paid for a maximum of 4 weeks 3. The rest of the contract will be based on paying the employer the balance of the subsidy owing at $4.00/hour. Mr. Denomme testified that normally a placement involved 16 weeks, 40 hours per week at $4.00 per hour, although he could offer employers a different arrangement, such as 4 weeks of fully subsidizing a client's wage and then additional weeks at $4.00 per hour. He stated that when an employer offered a client 20 hours per week he would fi'equently offer a subsidy for a shorter number of weeks than was allowed. He said that he did this not to save money but to give him the flexibility of being able to offer an additional period of subsidized payment should difficulties arise during the placement. Mr. Denomme described a situation that occurred shortly prior to the second day of heating. It involved a client who had been discharged because the employer felt he was not working out. Mr. Denomme indicated that he met with the employer and negotiated an arrangement whereby the client would be rehired and for a time the employer would receive a full wage subsidy. Employers received subsidy payments about every eight weeks. Prior to a payment being made the grievors would check the employer's payroll records to ascertain how much the client had been paid. Mr. Denomme indicated that the grievors then requested a cheque from a secretary and later received a cheque for the mount requested. He said that Mr. LeBreton would sign a form approving the mount but if Mr. LeBreton was away for an extended period a rubber stamp beating his name was used. Me. LeBreton testified that the glievors recommended payments to employers but he authorized them. It is apparent that the ghevors made effective recommendations which Mr. LeBreton relied on. Mr. Denomme testified that the grievors handed out bus tickets for clients to attend interviews and also when they started work. He said that the grievors were constantly writing to social assistance about money for tickets and clothing for clients. He also said that the ghevors could provide up to $100 for child care costs to clients not on social assistance. A training plan was developed by the ghevors with respect to each placement. The plan set out training goals, a job description and expected outcomes by the end of the placement. During each placement a ghevor would perform a monitor. This involved reviewing the placement with the employer and the client and discussing any problems and concerns. Mr. Denomme testified that negotiations might be required to persuade the employer to keep the client on or to modify the training plan, job duties, the client's schedule or hours of work. At the completion of a placement the employer was rated based on factors such as the quality of the training provided and the supervision of the client. Mr. Denomme indicated that the grievors frequently dealt with problems that arose during placements. He testified that clients called them with problems or concerns relating to their placement or the employer. He said that sometimes he could deal with these calls by clarifying an issue the client did not understand or by explaining the employer's expectations to the client. He said that at other times he would visit the employer to investigate a complaint. Mr. Denomme testified that if necessary a ghevor could terminate a placement contract if the employer was cutting hours, laying off permanent staff, falsifying payroll records, not fulfilling the contract or the workplace was unsafe. Mr. LeBreton testified that this situation rarely occurred. Mr. LeBreton's memorandum of Octol~er 22, 1997 to the ghevors stated that if an on the job training contract broke down, a ghevor could use his or her discretion to enter into a new contract with a different employer' without having to exit the client from the on the job training component. The parties disagree on the extent, if at all, to which the grievors counseled clients. Mr. LeBreton testified that the ghevors were not supposed to provide any counselling, although in his evidence he referred to them doing career counselling and he acknowledged that they gave advice to clients with respect to the appropriateness of job choices. The evidence indicates that the ghevors were expected to and did counsel clients with respect to job training related issues. Mr. Denomme gave the example of a client who wanted to work for a computer retailer but who he convinced to work for a different employer because he felt it was a better long term job prospect. Mr. Denomme indicated that the ghevors would discuss unrealistic employment goals with clients, such as when clients wanted to go into hairdressing without having taken a hair styling course or become an apprentice mechanic without having either a driver's licence or a grade 10 education. Mr. Denomme stated that the ghevors would also counsel and motivate clients who had become frustrated by a lack of results in their job search. Mr. Denomme testified that he dealt with clients with respect to their appearance and grooming in the context of making themselves more presentable in interviews. He said that he had a client with a nose ting, green hair and visible tattoos and he talked to her concerning employer expectations and the chances of her getting a job looking the way she did. Mr. Denomme's evidence was that the ghevors also counseled clients with respect to matters not directly related to finding or keeping a job placement. He referred to counselling clients who were on drags or alcohol or who had been beaten up. He said that the grievors also advised clients on issues such as life skills, housing, budgeting and bank accounts. He stated that the grievors provided much the same support to clients as did the faculty counselors in the Futures Program. Mr. LeBreton testified that the ghevors had been told on numerous occasions that counselling was not part of their job duties and that clients who required counselling were to be referred back to their employment planning and preparation counselor. He said that the ghevors had recently raised a concern that they were seeing clients too often and it was interfering with job development. He said that it came out that the grievors were counselling clients and he again told them that counselling was not part of their job and that a client requiring counselling was to be referred back to the deliverer of the employment planning and preparation component. In response to Mr. LeBreton's evidence Mr. Denomme said that if a client asked a grievor about housing or transportation issues while searching for a job he or she was usually referred to an employment planning and preparation counselor. He added that once clients were placed in a job their ties with the YMCA or Sudbury Vocational Resource Centre were ended and any counselling was done by the ghevors. He said that an employment planning and preparation counselor would only again become involved if the client was not hired by the employer at the end of the placement. Mr. Denomme testified that until a meeting about two weeks prior to the second day of heahng there had been almost no discussion about counselling. He did not, however, specifically refute Mr. LeBreton's claim that the grievors had been told that they were not to do counselling. Mr. Denomme said that during the meeting, which was attended by a consultant from the Ministry of Education, he raised the example of clients coming in who were suicidal. He testified that both the consultant and Mr. LeBreton agreed that it would be irresponsible to show such a client the door and a ghevor should try to defuse the situation, although once matters had been Stabilized they should get an employment planning and preparation counselor involved. This evidence does not suggest that it was part of the ghevors' job to counsel suicidal clients. I am satisfied that although they did so in connection with the Futures Program, it was not part of the grievors' duties to counsel clients with respect to matters not directly related to on the job training. Mr. LeBreton's evidence suggested that the grievors could at any point refer a client to an employment planning and preparation counselor. Mr. Denomme's evidence indicated that this was not the case alter a client had been placed in a job. Even if Mr. Denomme was correct, this did not create an authorization for the grievors to provide counselling. Logically an employer cannot silently stand by while employees assume job duties and then rely on the fact they were not actually assigned those duties when defending against a classification grievance. This, however, was not such a case. I am satisfied on the evidence that the grievors were told on more than one occasion that counselling was not part of their job duties. When the CEPP program was first introduced the ghevors were involved in the development of internal systems and procedures. The grievors also developed a number of forms which were approved by Mr. LeBreton. In addition, Mr. Denomme developed a computerized employer tracking system. The parties disagree as to whether this task related to Mr. Denomme's regular job or his role with computers which they agree was separate from his regular duties and responsibilities. It was not suggested that any of the other ghevors had been involved in the development of computer systems. TRAINING / TECHNICAL SKII.LS One of the factors in dispute is that of training/technical skills. The college rated this factor at level 5; the umon at level 6. The relevant factor level definitions and illustrative classifications 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 undergraduate 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 Mr. Denomme contended that a new employee would require a three year diploma or degree in a professional discipline such as social work and life skills training. He submitted that in order to fill the ghevors' position an employee required the ability to understand and apply the elementary principles of the social work discipline. The spokesperson for the college contended that the ghevors were not trained counselors and counselling was not part of their job. She also submitted that the college did not offer a three year program in either social services or counselling. Mr. Denomme's evidence indicated that none of the ghevors actually had a three year diploma or degree. Mr. Denomme did have three years of college education, but one year was in civil technology and two years in the audio visual field. Mr. Denomme suggested that the ghevors' experience made up for a lack of the educational requirements claimed by the union. Mr. LeBreton testified that the gfievors' position had twice been posted and on one occasion the vacancy was filled by a person with a two year diploma who was doing well in the job. He did not indicate what had happened on the other occasion. The focus of the relevant definitions is on required skills. The definitions indicate that employees normally will have acquired these skills through the education listed in the definition. Logically, however, employees could acquire the skills through other formal and informal education and training programs, including on the job training. Accordingly, the fact that the ghevors did not have a three year diploma or degree is not determinative. Neither is the fact that the college does not offer a three year program in social services or counselling. In order to place clients, and help them complete their placements, the ghevors required an understanding of human behaviour, particularly as it related to the work place. Thus they had to understand the elementary principles of psychology and/or social work. This fit the definition for a level 5 rating. Had the ghevors also been responsible for counselling clients with respect to matters such as drag and alcohol addictions, life skills and personal finances I would have found that they were required to apply the elementary principles of the social work discipline and met the definition for level 6. As noted above, however, I am satisfied that it was not part of the ghevors' job to do this type of counselling. Accordingly, I confirm the level 5 rating given by the college. JUDGE~NT This factor measures the independent judgement and problem-solving required on a job. The college rated this factor at level 5. The union contends that level 6 is more appropriate. The relevant definitions and illustrative classifications 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. Prog/Analyst A, B; SSO C; Technologist C The PDF relied on by the college contains the following statements respecting the factor of judgement: - Monitors job performance of clients and provides guidance or referral to another agency or another CEPP component to resolve problems. - Investigates individual client problems e.g. child care, transportation etc. and offers appropriate solutions. - Investigates and resolves conflicts between the client and the training employer. - Analyses problems and discontinues training with employers when contract commitments, program guidelines or safety regulations are not adhered to. - Terminates clients from program when deemed appropriate and refers to alternate agency or service. The investigation and resolution of conflicts between clients and employers; the analyzing of problems and, when appropriate, deciding to discontinue a placement, reasonably required the use of analytical techniques. Since the grievors dealt with a number of clients and different types of issues, I believe they likely were required to adapt analytical techniques to individual situations. The spokesperson for the college contended that the grievors were not required to develop new information on various situations. She argued that what the ghevors did was to build on and clarify the action plans for trainees that had been developed at other CEPP agencies and help match trainees with suitable training employers. The evidence, however, indicates that the grievors had to get clients to explain sensitive matters that were only hinted at on an action plan or not referred to at all. At times the grievors also investigated situations to develop new information on which to base a decision or resolve a problem. The ghevors appear to have exercised the type of judgement required for a level 6 rating a minority of the time. In her submissions the spokesperson for the college contended that my role is to focus on the predominant functions of the ghevors' job and not focus on exceptions or rare circumstances. I accept that I should not rate a position on the basis of rare or unusual events. On the other hand, where functions requiring a higher than usual degree of judgement are performed on a recurring basis, the ability to exercise that degree of judgement becomes a requirement of the position. Where this occurs, I believe credit should be given for the higher degree of judgement. Having regard to these considerations, I find that level 6 was the appropriate rating for judgement. SENSORY DEMAND This factor measures the demand on mental energy while performing tasks. The college rated this factor at level 3. The tmion claims that level 5, the highest rating possible, was more appropriate. The definitions for levels 3, 4 and 5, together with the relevant 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 5. Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. Systems Analyst; Tech Support Specialist Mr. Denomme testified that a great deal of attention and concentration was required when working with clients; preparing case notes; marketing to employers; understanding and deciphering payroll systems; and calculating and authorizing subsidy payments to employers. The definitions for the factor of sensory demand are difficult to apply. Almost all conscientious employees, regardless of their position, can claim to be exercising some visual, auditory or tactile form of concentration and paying constant careful attention to detail and accuracy such as to qualify for a level 5 rating. Accordingly the illustrative classifications are particularly important guides when rating this factor. The typical duties of employees in the illustrative classifications for level 5, namely systems analyst and technical support specialist, involve extensive periods of time narrowly focused on computer and software systems. A bus driver, one of the illustrative classifications for level 4, spends long periods of time watching traffic; a clerk general D typically spends extended periods of time assessing financial documents or student financial assistance applications; and a switchboard operator typically spends extended periods listening to people on the telephone. Apart from the matter discussed below, the grievors did not engage in similar extended periods of intense concentration. They were required to listen carefully to statements made by clients and employers and at times review and prepare documents, but these situations were apparently interspersed with other activities. The illustrative classifications for level 3 include SSO A, B, C, and D. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the demand on the grievors' mental energy was greater than that for typical employees within these classifications. As noted above, Mr. Denomme developed a computerized employer tracking system when the CEPP program was first introduced. The parties disagree as to whether this related to his regular job or his separate role with computers. Even if Mr. Denomme was asked to develop the program in connection with his role as an employment counselor, it is apparent that developing computer programs was not an ongoing part of his regular job. Accordingly I do not believe it justified a higher rating for Mr. Denomme and the other grievors. Having regard to these considerations I confirm the level 3 rating given by the college. INDEPENDENT ACTION This factor measures the independence of action and decisions required by a job. The college rated the grievors' position at level 4. The union contends that level 5, the highest rating possible, was more appropriate. The relevant definitions and illustrative examples are set out below. 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 and 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 Ministry guidelines for the CEPP program were apparently quite general in nature and allowed for local tailoring. Mr. LeBreton's evidence was that although he received input fi.om staff, he was the one responsible for deciding how the guidelines would be interpreted and implemented. He said that this was often done in consultation with the three other service providers in Sudbury. He added that the four managers met on a biweekly basis and that guidelines were often on the agenda. He also referred to the arrangement with College Boreal respecting the maximum subsidy for an individual. Mr. LeBreton met with the grievors most Friday mornings for an hour or an hour and a half. He testified that the agenda for these meetings often involved a discussion of guidelines and their implementation. Mr. Denomme testified that at times the grievors would go to Mr. LeBreton to talk about clients, usually to advise him about what was happening. He said that Mr. LeBreton liked to know the pulse of the program. Two of the grievors represented the college on a Coordinated Service Committee where along with representatives of the other local CEPP deliverers they addressed matters such as transfer procedures and standardizing inter agency forms. Mr. LeBreton testified that when this committee was unable to resolve an issue or problem the matter was brought to the four local managers for resolution. Mr. LeBreton testified that exceptions to program guidelines had to be approved by himself. Mr. Denomme referred to a situation where Mr. LeBreton made an exception to the guidelines to allow a blind and deaf client of Ms. Sauve to be placed with a business owned by her mother. The evidence suggests that the grievors operated independently when making important decisions with respect to individual clients. They did so, however, in the context of Ministry guidelines and it was Mr. LeBreton, often in consultation with other agencies, who decided how the guidelines would be interpreted and implemented. Only Mr. LeBreton could make exceptions to the guidelines. The illustrative classifications for level 5 include SSO C and D. A job evaluation guide chart respecting the SSO C classification contained in the job evaluation manual lists a typical duty as: "Analyzes requirements of groups both within and external to College and develops programmes to meet those requirements". The guide chart for SSO D lists a typical duty as being: "Identifies requirements of outside groups for college services and develops programs to meet those requirements." Unlike these typical duties the grievors did not develop programs. Rather they implemented the terms of an existing program. Having regard to these considerations I am of the view that the definition for level 4 is the better fit for the ghevors' positions. Accordingly I confirm the level 4 ,; ~ 21 rating assigned by the college. CONCLUSION The college's core point rating of the grievors' positions resulted in a total of 663 points. My finding that a level 6 rating for judgement was appropriate raises the total to 681. This is still within the point interval for pay band 10. Accordingly, I find that pay band 10 was the appropriate pay band. Dated this 10th day of July, 1998. ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION '~t Classification:' ~_ J~, ..emily and Payband Requested by Grievor: ~ ~ C~ ~'~ iF~ ~-× ~ ~ ~,c/~ ( J 1. Position Description Form Attached 2. [] The parties agree on the contents of the attached Position Description Form e Union disagrees with the contents of the attached Position Description Form, The specific details of this disagreement are as follows: (use reverse side if necessary) FACTORS MANAGEMENT UNION ARBITRATOR Level Polnt~ Level Polnt~ Level Polnt~ 2. Experience 4, Judgement 'Motor Skills 6. Physical Demand 7, Sensory Demand 8, Strain fromWork Pressures/Demands/Deadlines /_~ 9, Independent Action 10, Communications/Contacts 1 1. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions Z- JOB CLASSIFICATION ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: [] The Union [~The College FOR THE UNION FOR MANAGEMENT IGrie~r.) ~ x (Dalel ICollege Repre~e.tali~el IDetel ~tative) (Date) C. B~TRATOR~S USE: (Arbitrator's Sign~l~Jre} / (Data of Hearing) (Data of Award~' 93-12439 b:datasheet.doc