Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVaillancourt 94-11-14between CAMBRIAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY (hereinafter 'referred to as the College) and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 656 (hereinafter referred to as the Union) Classification Grievance of Nancy Vaillancourt Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt Appearances: For the college: Susan Pratt, Staff Relations officer Glenn Toikka, Comptroller Kim Zaroski, Manager, Purchasing Dept. For the Union; Bill Reiss, President Fred Teolis, Chief Steward Nancy Vaillancourt, Grievor Hearing: Sudbury, Ont. November 2, 1994 RECEIVED NOV 1 8 994 GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT AWARD 1. Introduction The grievor is currently classified as a Clerk General C employed in the Purchasing Department. She seeks reclassification to Clerk General D, Payband 8. Although the grievance was filed on November 24, 1993 the parties have agreed that the position should be evaluated in accordance with the new CAAT Support Staff Evaluation Manual which became effective January 1, 1994. Accordingly the grievor was invited to prepare a new PDF under the new format, which PDF was reviewed by the College. As the parties differ as to the appropriate rating of certain of the factors the matter was referred to arbitration under the exPedited process for arbitration of classification grievances. The Arbitration Data Sheet records the results of the evaluation of the various factors by the College and Union respectively. It provides as follows: Factor College Union 1. Training/Technical Skills 4 71 4 71 2. Experience 3 32 3 32 3. Complexity 3 41 4 58 4. Judgement 3 48 4 66 5. Motor Skills C2 22 C2 22 6. Physical Demand 2 16 2 16 7. Sensory Demand 3 28 4 39 8. Strain -Pressures/Demands/Deadlines 3 28 4 39 9. Independent Action 3 33 4 46 10. Communications/Contacts 2 52 3 88 11. Responsibility for Decisions/Action 3 44 3 44 12. Work Environment 1 10 1 10 Payband/Total Points 6 425 8 531 Job Classification Clerk General Clerk General C D It is evident from the Arbitration Data Sheet that the factors in dispute are Complexity, Judgment, Sensory Demand, Strain from work pressures etc, Independent Action and Communications/Contacts. 2. Duties and Responsibilities of the Position The PDF "summarizes" the position as follows: Responsible for all aspects of processing purchase orders from the requisition through to the "approved for payment" stage. Provide secretarial/clerical support for Manager of Purchasing and to a lesser extent, the Buyer. Responsible for all aspects of process to maintain inventory and charge back of supply warehouse and telephone related services. The duties and responsibilities of the position and the amount of time spent on them are set out in the PDF as follows: 1. Processes purchase requisitions in accordance with signing authority and appropriate tax status. Process and distribute purchase orders, expedite orders with vendor, expedite payment with user. 10% 2. Collect data and maintain inventory of telephone sets/features by department. 3% 3. Provide problem solving with regard to set/line operation for staff and work with software support company to ensure accurate telephone software program reporting abilities. Act as liaison with Bell technical and accounts personnel giving direction through work orders and maintaining records to reconcile with charges. 7% 4. Reconcile, verify, and balance monthly phone charges to College departments, prepare statement and enter to journal. Provide reports to departments as required. 8% 5. Determine inventory level and order supply warehouse stock, collect purchase pricing and calculate charge back cost. Prepare supply chits for charge back and calculate same through DBase program bi-monthly and enter to journal. 8% 6. Use word processor to produce department forms, memos, letters, requests for quotation. 10% 7. Provide secretarial support for the Manager of Purchasing and to a lesser degree, the Buyer. 20% 8. Answer internal and external inquiries requiring a knowledge of departmental and College policies and procedures. 14% 9. Perform duties of other clerical position during absence. Reconcile payment of various phone bills in absence of the Manager of Purchasing (i.e. holiday periods) 8% 10. Maintain MGS Standing Agreement, correspondence, purchase orders and catalogue files. 4% 11. Maintain department attendance records, collect and distribute mail. 3% 12. Complete credit applications by establishing references. 2% 13. Collect, organize and prepare and distribute the College telephone directory. 2% 14. Other duties as assigned 1%/ Although the College agrees generally with the PDF, and in particular with the above listing of the typical duties and responsibilities and times spent thereon, it takes issue with the statement by the grievor (in Section C.3.1 (Complexity)) that she "analyzes" and "evaluates" problems; with her statement (in Section D.7. Sensory Demand) that a "high" (rather than a moderate) degree of visual concentration is required in the position; and with her statement ( in Section D. 8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines) that strain from interruptions and needs to shift priorities was unpredictable rather than usually predictable as the College maintains. The major components of the position are i) the processing of purchase orders, ii) the processing of requests for supplies from the warehouse and the maintenance of warehouse inventory levels, iii) duties in connection with telephone services, and iv) secretarial/clerical support duties performed for the Manager of Purchasing, Kim Zaroski. In processing of purchase orders the grievor examines requisitions that have come to her from various departments of the College seeking to purchase some equipment or supplies externally for the purpose of determining whether the requisition complies with various requirements concerning the proper account codes, whether the item in question can be purchased on a particular account, whether the appropriate signing authority for the purchase is provided, and whether proper taxes are applied and exemptions claimed etc. Although some of the guidelines for conducting this review are set out in written manuals many are not and the grievor relies on her own experience and past practice to do the job. Once she has completed this review she passes the requisition to a clerk who then converts it into a purchase order. Supply warehouse duties essentially involve a similar process save that it involves an "in house" requisition (in the form of a chit) rather than the requisition used for external purchases. Departments obtain supplies direCtly from the warehouse by presenting a chit which is then sent to the grievor who is thereby enabled to keep track of the level of supplies in the warehouse and, where necessary, requisition the purchase of new supplies to bring inventory levels back up. The decision concerning when and how much to purchase is made on the basis of past practice and, in some cases, on the advice of the computer centre. In the course of purchasing supplies the grievor seeks competitive prices for some (though not all) supplies. Where such prices are obtained she submits them to the Buyer, Mr. Higham, for his approval. Another part of the warehouse supply duties involves keeping track of the amounts of money that need to be charged back to the budgets of user departments and recording this data in a monthly journal and preparing reports for the various cost centres. Problems experienced in this aspect of the job include resolving discrepancies appearing in the product codes recorded on the chits and those used in the ~Base program. The grievor performs various duties in connection with telephone services. The College has installed a Genesis CDR (Call Detail Recording) software system which permits it to charge back the charges for long distance calls to the departments from which they came. The grievor is responsible for ensuring that the data base accurately reflects the telephone number with the name and departmental location of the telephone user. When users change offices or departments she is responsible for recording that change in the data base and keeping it current. At month end she reviews the accounts from Bell Canada and enters the charges into the appropriate budget accounts, eg.by charging back long distance calls to the departments concerned or other charges (eg. repairs or installation of new service) to College budgets. She also assists users with certain "technical" problems that they may have with respect to the operation of their telephone sets in order to avoid, if possible, the necessity of calling Bell Canada to repair the set. She processes requests for a variety of different kinds of telephone service according to College guidelines and also liaises with Bell Canada with respect to compliance with College guidelines as to, for example, the location and number of telephone sets that may be installed. The secretarial/clerical support functions that she provides to the Manager of Purchasing, Ms. Zaroski, involve the preparation of correspondence and forms as required, answering telephone calls directed to her personally (dealing with, for example, problems concerning late shipments of supplies) or to Ms. Zaroski or a technician who reports to Ms. Zaroski and whose line is forwarded to that of the grievor. She also serves as a receptionist for people wanting to see Ms. zaroski or the Buyer, Mr. Higham. Further, since her desk is located on the route of access to the offices of the Comptroller (Mr. Toikka), the Chief Account, and the Office of the Vice-President, she may be required to provide directions to people seeking those offices. 3. Methodoloqy of Arbitral Review Before turning to the specific factors in dispute it is necessary to address a preliminary question concerning the methodology which I am to apply in dealing with the dispute. That dispute involves an issue concerning the interpretation of the general guidelines set down in Section II of the Job Evaluation Manual for the evaluation and classification of positions. It will be helpful at the outset to summarize those steps and guidelines. 1. Determine the Job Family to which the position belongs having regard to the Job Family Definitions in the manual or, where necessary, the "predominant or central duties" of the position. 2. Compare the duties and responsibilities of the position being evaluated to the Classification levels described in the relevant Job Evaluation Guide Charts and, by considering the normal activities of the position, match the position with the guide chart level which most accurately describes the actual content and responsibilities of the position. It is noted that the manual contemplates that "in most cases a reasonably close approximation to a classification level described in the Guide Chart will be possible". 3. Where the position is one of a "relatively small number of truly atypical positions" that encompass duties and responsibilities which are not adequately covered by the existing Job Family Definitions and the Job Evaluation Guide Charts, or where a typical position has duties that cannot be readily evaluated using the Job Evaluation Guide Charts, they may be evaluated according to the Core Point Rating Plan. It is the position of the College that, in the context of this case, my task is essentially one of comparing the typical duties and responsibilities of the position with those set out in the Guide Charts for Clerk General C and Clerk General D and making the appropriate determination. It is further submitted that when that it is done it should be concluded that the position is properly classified as a Clerk General C and that there is no need to conduct any core point rating of each factor. The union claims that at some time prior to (and in connection with) the sessions held to train and orient the panel of classification arbitrators on the new manual there was an agreement between the Union and the Council of Regents to the effect that all cases going to arbitration would be evaluated under the Core Point Rating Plan by the arbitrator. This is an issue which strikes a familiar chord as it arose frequently in classification grievances under the old plan. Unfortunately, it appears not yet to have been resolved at the provincial level. Typically, management sought to limit the scope of the inquiry to a comparison of the guide charts while the union sought recourse to the Core Point Rating Plan. The matter was dealt with specifically by the present arbitrator in another case between these same parties (Cambrian College v OPSEU, J. Rancourt) where, contrary to the more usual scenario, it was the union that argued that core point rating was not necessary. In that case I agreed with the submission of the union that the position should be first assessed in terms of the Guide Charts. On the evidence I found that the union had not established that the typical duties fell within those set down in the guide charts. Further, since the union did not in that case make any submissions as to the application of the core point rating plan, I reached no conclusions on that matter and the grievance was dismissed. Nothing persuades me that any different approach should be taken now under the new plan. As a negotiated document the terms of the Job Evaluation Plan deserve paramount consideration unless there is some indication that the parties to that negotiated agreement intended some different process. Unless and until I see some evidence of an agreement that all cases which go to arbitration are to be assumed to be atypical and therefore subject to core point rating, I intend to be guided by the clear language of the Plan as to the appropriate steps to be taken. In connection with this issue I find it helpful to follow the approach taken by Arbitrator Springate in an award issued under the new plan involving a dispute between these parties. (Cambrian College v OPSEU, Lu¢ille Brett) There the College, as here, took the position that the grievorperformed none of the typical duties and responsibilities listed in the Guide Chart for the classification which she claimed. Arbitrator Springate held that, until he heard the evidence with respect to the grievor's duties and responsibilities, he was unable to make that determination. Having done so he set out initially to determine the matter by reference to the Guide Charts and, having found that he was unable to resolve the matter on that basis, went on to apply the Core Point Rating Plan. It appears to me that this is the approach which best implements the terms of the Job Evaluation Manual. It places primary emphasis on the Guide Charts and reserves the use of the Core Point Rating Plan to those cases in which that approach produces no satisfactory result. The difficulty with the position advanced by the union is that it invites the arbitrator essentially to disregard the guide charts in all cases that reach arbitration; it assumes that any case that comes to arbitration must, of necessity, be atypical. That approach is not supported by the Job Evaluation Manual and is not one which I am prepared to follow. In approaching the matter in this way it must be remembered that this is a "classification" system and that the "typical,, duties set out for a particular classification need not necessarily be performed in their entirety by the incumbent in a position falling within that classification. This is made clear by the Notes to Raters at the bottom of each Guide Chart, viz, "evaluation criteria drawn from the factor level definition describing particular classifications are general statements which may or may not have total applicability to a particular position." (Emphasis added). Thus, for example, an employee who "determined student financial assistance and eligibility" but who did not "organize the clerical activities of activities such as convocation, open house, etc." (both of which are among the Clerk General D typical duties) would not, by reason of that fact necessarily fall outside of the Clerk General D classification. As a class the list of typical duties and responsibilities must be generalized and made sufficiently comprehensiVe to permit inclusion in the same class of employees whose duties, though not identical, are nevertheless sufficiently similar (or require similar judgment, etc.) to warrant similar treatment in terms of pay levels. Further, it must be remembered that it is the predominant or "core" duties that are performed that determine where a position is to be classified. To state the obvious: a peripheral function rarely performed cannot determine the outcome. Further, there need not be a perfect match between core duties performed and guide chart typical duties. The manual only requires a search for the guide chart level that "most accurately describes" the actual content and responsibilities of the position, one where there is a "reasonably close approximation to a classification level described in the Guide Chart." Where a core duty cannot reasonably be found to closely approximate those defined as typical of the classification it may not be possible to classify by reference to the guide charts and it will be necessary to core point rate the position. 4. Conclusions Based on an examination of the Position Description Form and the evidence heard it is my conclusion that this position can be evalUated by reference to the Guide Charts and that accordingly it is unnecessary to evaluate it in accordance with the various factors listed in the Core Point Rating Plan. The typical duties and responsibilities for a Clerk General C are: - Prepares payroll documentation, bank deposits, cash receipt journals and reconciles trial balances. - Expedites purchase orders and verifies invoices - Completes and analyzes documents related to student admission and registration - Disseminates detailed information in response to a wide range of enquiries - Gathers and compiles statistical data - Maintains and verifies various records The typical duties and responsibilities of a Clerk General D are: - Determines student financial assistance and eligibility - Verifies the completeness and accuracy of produced payroll - Analyzes statements to determine causes of budget variance - Conducts cost analysis studies. - Processes and controls purchase orders. - Organizes systems, procedures and paper flow. - Analyzes problems relating to clerical systems and procedures and recommends revisions. - Organizes the clerical activities such as the convocation, open house, orientation, etc. In my opinion most of the core duties and responsibilities performed by the grievor can comfortably fit within the typical duties and ~esponsibilities set out for the Clerk General C classification. The only ones which do not appear to find any close reference among those duties are the problem solving that is done in connection with telephone use and certain "technical" liaison with Bell Canada. However, according to the PDF those duties only occupy the grievor for 7% of her time (1/2 hour per day) and could not, therefore, serve as a springboard into another classification. Moreover, I note that these particular duties would also not fall under any of the typical duties and responsibilities set out in the Guide Chart for the Clerk General D. Thus, they should be considered simply as anomalous duties which take up a relatively small part of the grievor's time having virtually no impact on her classification. Of the "typical" Clerk General C duties and responsibilities there can be no question that the grievor "maintains and verifies various records" and that "she gathers and compiles statistical data". Further, it is clear that she "disseminates detailed information in response to a wide range of inquiries". According to the PDF 14% of the position ( or 1 hour a day) is spent on answering internal and external inquiries requiring knOwledge of departmental and College policies and procedures. Nor is there any doubt that she is involved in the "verification" of invoices such as the requisition forms, the warehouse chits and the Bell Canada monthly invoices. The principal controversy concerns the question as to whether the duties that she performs in connection with requisitions and purchase orders can be characterized as "expedites purchase orders and verifies invoices" as the College maintains, or as "processes and controls purchase orders" as the Union maintains. I do not believe that it can be said that the grievor "processes and controls" purchase orders. In my opinion her duties in this regard are more appropriately described as "expediting" purchase orders. The best guidance to how best'to characterize the function is the PDF which, in this case, was prepared by the grievor herself. Although duty 1 does state that the grievor does "process and distribute purchase orders" the rest of her description of that duty speaks of processing requisitions and "expediting" orders with the vendor and "expediting" payment with the user. The use of those terms suggests strongly that the Clerk General C description is the closer fit. In terms of her evidence it appears that what she does is to perform a step in the processing of a purchase order; that is, she reviews the requisitions to determine whether or not the information therein contained is correct and in accordance with College policies and, if so, she passes the requisition on to the next stage where it is converted into a purchase order. If the information on the requisition is not correct she does not possess the power to change it. Rather, she returns it to the party making the requisition with instructions as to what needs to be done in order that it can be processed. In my opinion those are actions which "expedite" the processing of the order rather than the processing itself. Further, I note that the duty of "verifying invoices" is included with that of "expediting purchase orders". I find this to be significant since one of the functions that the grievor performs when "expediting" the purchase order is to "verify" the accuracy of what is found on the requisitions. The College argues that she cannot claim to "control" purchase orders since decisions concerning the expenditure of money involve the exercise of a Management function. While that may be so it cannot be the case that bargaining unit employees can never be involved in some respects in the "control" of purchase orders since that particular duty is included among the list of typical duties and responsibilities to be performed by a member of the bargaining unit. It is unnecessary for present purposes to define what kinds of "control" of purchase orders fall within the legitimate scope of the duties of a bargaining unit member. It is sufficient to find that the duties performed by the grievor do not, for the reasons set out, involve that kind of function. The grievor's role in this connection is more one of reviewing documents placed before her for accuracy and ensuring that necessary changes are made. I do not consider that to be a "control" function. Nor can it be said that the grievor performs another of the Guide Chart Clerk General D typical duties, viz "analyzes statements to determine the cause of budget variance". Again the PDF is instructive. Duty 4 reads "reconcile, verify and balance" monthly phone charges to College Departments .... " Although section C.3.1 of the PDF states that the grievor is required to "analyze" problems with purchase orders and bring them to a proper solution", it is noted that this is one aspect of the PDF with which the College disagreed. Therefore the reference to the grievor "analysing" problems cannot be accepted without qualification. The evidence does not support a finding that the grievor is engaged in an "analysis" of statements. Rather, what she does is search for discrepancies by reviewing requisitions and purchase orders or warehouse chits. I agree with the submission of the College that the term "analysis" connotes a more in depth examination of a problem than that in which the grievor is engaged. Further, there is room for this function in the typical duties and responsibilities of a Clerk General C whose guide charts speaks of "reconciling" trial balances and "verifying" records. Finally, I note that in that portion of the written brief addressing the Guide Chart lists of duties, no claim is made by the grievor that she "analyzes" statements. I turn finally to the claim that the grievor "organizes systems, procedures and paper flow" - one of the Clerk General D Guide Chart duties. It is argued by the grievor and her union that, in view of the lack of written procedures that define and describe the manner in which "paper" is to flow and in view of the continuing need to adapt procedures to adjust to computerization of the financial system, it falls to her to propose changes and seek the input of supervisors. I do not see the grievor as having responsibility for "organizing" systems and procedures - except in the sense that she may organize her own work day and priorities. But what is required by this duty is the organizing of "systems and procedures" more generally. Nothing in the PDF indicates on its face that this is one of the grievor's duties and responsibilities. While it is the case that in practice she does offer valuable input that may result in some "systemic" change in procedures the ultimate responsibility for making that change rests elsewhere. Support for this Conclusion may also be found from consulting the Guide Chart entries for Independent Action and Responsibility for Decisions and Actions each of which attempt to evaluate functions which involve some degree of creativity and initiative and in which the incumbent works without clearly established guidelines. It is noteworthy that this factor is assigned the same level for both the C and D Clerks General. Thus the kind of initiative that the grievor was required to take is not incompatible with her being classified as a Clerk General C. Of course, it is also compatible with her being classified as a Clerk General D as is claimed. However, that would be insufficient of itself to support classification at that level where the typical duties and responsibilities performed do not generally match those listed in the Guide Charts for that position. In this latter regard it may be noted that one of the Clerk General D duties includes the "recommendation" of revisions to clerical systems and procedures. It would appear that the grievor does performthat particular function. However, it certainly is not one of her core functions and cannot, of.itself, place her in the Clerk General D classifications. Therefore, I am satisfied that the typical duties and responsibilities found in the Guide Chart for Clerk General C "most accurately" describe the duties and responsibilities of the position occupied by the grievor and that the position should accordingly be rated as a Clerk General C. Although I have not, for the reasons indicated, core point rated the position, I nevertheless set out herein the factor levels and points that correspond to the levels set out in the Guide Charts for Clerk General C. Factor Level Points 1. Training/Technical Skills 4 71 2. Experience 3 32 3. Complexity 3 41 4. Judgement 3 48 5. Motor Skills C2 22 6. Physical Demand 2 16 7. Sensory Demand 3 28 8. Strain -Pressures/Demands/Deadlines 3 28 9. Independent Action 3 33 10. Communications/Contacts 2 52 11. Responsibility for Decisions/Action 3 44 12. Work Environment 1 10 Payband/Total Points 6 425 Job Classification Clerk General C The grievance is dismissed. Dated at London, Ont. this /~day of ~~/~, 1994 G. J. Brandt ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION College: Co~k3r,'c,~._ Incumbent: AJ. Vo.,'ll~c~-f- Supervisor: ~ ~r~%~,' ~ent Classification: ~/~ ~~/ ~. and Present Payband: ~FamilyandPaybandRequestedbyGrievor: ~/~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ l ~, ~ ~ ~ c~. 1. ' Position Description Form A~ached 2. ~ The pa~ies agree on the contents of the affached Position Description Form OR ~ The ~ d{sa~ees ~{Eh lhe conlemEs of lhe a~ache4 Pos~tiom Description Form. The s~ec{fic deta{{s d~sa~reemenl ars as (use reverse side if necessary) FACTORS MAm~e£ME~T UNION ARBITRATOR Level Polnt~ Llvll ~k~ Level ~ln~ 1. Training~echnical Skills ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 7 ( 2.'. Experience ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ 3. ComplexiW /i f / 4. Judgement~ % ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ Motor Skills ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ Z~ d. Physical Demand ~ [~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ 7. Senso~ Demand ~ % ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ 8. Strain from. Wo~ Pressures/Demands/Deadlines ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9. Independent Action ~. ~ ~% ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 10. Communications/Conta~s - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11. ResponsibiliW for Decisions/Actions ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? 12. Work Environment } I ~ I ' I ~ / /~ I JOB C~SSIFICA~ON ~ ~ A~ACHED WRI~EN SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ~e College FOR THE UNION FOR MANAGEMENT (D~e) (Col~ge ~pre~ntative) (Date) 93-12~9 b:datasheet.doc