Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrett 94-09-30IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CAMBRIAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY ("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 LUCILLE BRETT ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate APPEARANCES For the College: Susan Pratt, Staff Relations Officer Glenn Toikka, Controller Lianne Ley, Chief Accountant For the Union: Bill Riess, President .OPSEU Local 656 Lucille Brett, Grievor Fred Teolis, OPSEU Local 656 Hearing: In Sudbury on September 12, 1994. AWARD Introduction On November 24, 1993 the grievor filed a grievance which alleged that she was improperly classified by the. College as a Clerk General C, a payband 6 position. She requested that she be reclassified as a Clerk General D. This is the highest possible classification for a Clerk General and is paid at the payband 8 level. The Union referred the grievance to arbitration pursuant to the expedited arbitration procedure set out in Article 18.4.3 of the collective agreement. The parties have agreed that the grievor's proper classification should be determined in accordance with a job evaluation manual that became effective in January 1994, as opposed to an earlier manual that was in place at the time the grievance was filed. When the grievance was filed the College had not prepared a current position description form for the grievor's position. Accordingly, the grievor prepared such a form. The College accepts as accurate the "Position Summary" and "Duties and Responsibilities" portions of the form with the exception of the claim that the grievor "controls" invoices. The College does not accept the accuracy of portions of the form which directly address the job evaluation factors referred to below. Prior to the hearing the Union filed a written brief which contained copies of the grievance, the position description form, the core point ratings adopted by the Union and a number of documents which the grievor referred to in her evidence. The representative of the College requested that I note for the record that the Union's brief did not contain a written submiesion which described the grievance and referenced appropriate sections of the position description form as required by Article 18.4.3.4 of the collective agreement. I note also that the College does not appear to have suffered any prejudice as a result of the nature of the Union's brief. THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE CONCERNING WHAT PROCESS TO USE IN EVALUATING THE GRIEVOR'S POSITION The job evaluation manual provides that a job is generally to be rated by comparing the duties and responsibilities of the position with the classification levels described in job evaluation guide charts contained in the manual. It states that the normal activities of the position are to be matched with the guide chart level which most accurately describes the content and responsibilities of the position. The manual indicates that in most cases it will be possible to reach a reasonably close approximation to one of the classification levels described in a guide chart. The manual also states that only a relatively small number of truly atypical positions are to be evaluated using the core point rating plan contained in Section VII of the manual. At the commencement of the hearing the representative of the College contended that the grievor performs the typical duties of a Clerk General C set out in the relevant guide chart and none of the duties referred to in the clerk General D guide chart. Accordingly, she submitted, there was no requirement to core point rate the position. The spokesperson for the Union took the position that the grievor performs a significant number of the duties of a Clerk General D, and in any event this was a proper case in which to use the core point rating system. Given that at the commencement of the hearing I had little familiarity with the duties and responsibilities associated with the grievor's position, I ruled that I would have to hear evidence relating to the grievor's work before deciding how her position should be assessed. THE GRIEVOR'S REGULAR DUTIES The position description form prepared by the grievor states that she spends 35 percent of her time on the duties of "Code invoice requisitions, process record and control invoices". Invoices for specific amounts are requisitioned by various departments within the College. The grievor enters data from an invoice requisition into the invoice data base. She pulls the relevant customer number or enters a new number for a new customer. She runs a program which does invoice calculations and assigns the invoice a number. The invoice is then printed and the grievor verifies the information on the invoice against the requisition. A copy of the invoice is mailed out to the customer and other copies are filed by the grievor. The grievor uses a program to transfer information from the invoice data base file to an accounts receivable data base file. The position description form states that the grievor spends 32 percent of her time on "Balance bank deposits and journal entries for accounts receivable and produce receipts for payments on account". The grievor testified that when payments arrive she attaches the cheques to copies of the relevant invoices and enters the information onto receipt screens. She uses computer programs to assign a receipt number and to put the number and the customer's number on each receipt and to print the receipt, She verifies the information on the receipt against the cheque, She then signs and mails the receipt. At the end of every month the grievor reconciles the accounts receivable subsidiary ledger to the general ledger. She prints out a month-end report listing all transactions within each receivable account. This report is kept on file for audit purposes. The grievor also generates an account summary spreadsheet and prepares journal entries for approval by a supervisor. She uses a program to prepare month end revenue reports for various departments which show outstanding accounts and any payments made during the month. The grievor indicated that at the request of clients or the College's day care centre she prepares detailed information about what a client has paid for day care services. The grievor testified that at times she looks for delinquent accounts and telephones the customers involved. Aging accounts are also reviewed on a monthly basis by Mr. Glenn Toikka, the College's controller. Mr. Toikka testified that any decision to refer a delinquent account to a collection agency or to small claims court will be made by the department involved or by himself. He stated that any delinquent account write-offs are decided by management. THE GRIEVOR'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDMENT OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS The grievor began working for the College in July 1988 and moved to its accounts receivable area in October 1990, The grievor's evidence indicated that it was after this move that the accounts receivable function was computerized, It was the grievor's uncontradicted evidence that the programs utilized for this purpose were co-designed by herself and Mr. Peter Higham. At the time Mr, Higham was a Financial Analyst and the College's dbase expert, He is now the buyer for the College, The grievor testified that neither she nor Mr. Higham could have done the programming work on their own. She stated that she relied on her experience in a previous job to prepare the necessary flow chart. The previous job was working as an accounts receivable clerk from 1980 to 1985 with a private company which utilized a computer. The evidence suggests that relying on this prior experience the grievor prepared a flow chart, outlining the steps for a computerized accounts receivable function and Mr. Higham utilized his computer expertise to develop the programs, The grievor testified that when Mr. Higham became the Col]ege's buyer he advised her that he wou]d no longer be able to assist her, and according]y she made amendments to the programs by herself. She referred to what happened when the College ceased using a pre-printed invoice form. The pre-printed form contained certain standard information, such as stating that the document was an invoice; that cheques should be made payable to Cambrian · College; as well as listing the College's address; phone number; and goods and services tax registration number. Computer generated information was then added to the form, including the invoice number; date; customer number; name and address of the person to whom the invoice was being sent; An explanation of why the money was owed; and the amount involved. When the pre-printed form was discontinued the grievor amended the program so that the computer also generated the information previously contained on the pre-printed form. Included in the Union brief is a document explaining the program for printing invoices, including the amendments made by the grievor. Also included in the brief is a copy of a completed invoice that was prepared using the pre-printed form and another invoice produced totally by the computer. The dates on'the two receipts indicate that the amendment to the program was made sometime between May and July 1993. In the Union's brief there is a document which explains the program for printing a receipt. There is also a copy of a receipt and a later document in time described as an amended receipt, Presumably the amended receipt resulted from the grievor amending the relevant program, Both receipts contain the full date on which the receipt was prepared. The earlier receipt, however, contains a second reference to the relevant month and year, On the amended receipt the date is referred to only once. The dates on the two receipts indicate that an amendment to the program was made at some point between Hay and October 1993. The position description form states that the grievor altered the program which transfers invoice data to the receivable files as well as the month end program, The College's accounting department has been implementing a ROSS Financial System, The grievor testified that she reported problems she encountered with the ROSS system to a systems analyst in charge of the project and offered the systems analyst her opinion and advice. The position description form indicates that the grievor modified data in the dbase files to expedite the implementation of the ROSS System. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE JOB EVALUATION GUIDE CHARTS As noted above, the College claims that this case can be decided by simply comparing the work performed by the grievor with the job evaluation guide charts for a Clerk General C and a Clerk General D. The following typical duties of the two classifications are listed in the relevant job evaluation guide charts: CLERK GENERAL C - TYPICAL DUTIES - 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, CLERK GENERAL D - TYPICAL DUTIES - 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 of activities such as convocation, open house, orientation, etc. The evidence indicates that as part of her routine job functions the grievor performs the following typical duties of a Clerk General C, namely: prepares cash receiPt journals; reconciles trial balances; disseminates detailed information; and maintains and verifies various records. The grievor does not appear to perform the typical duties of a Clerk General D as part of her routine duties. With respect to accounts receivable functions, however, she has at times apparently been involved in organizing systems, procedures and paper flow, analyzing problems relating to clerical systems and procedures and implementing revisions. I do not agree with the grievor that she should be regarded as performing the typical duties of a Clerk General D because the term "invoices" can be substituted for "payroll" in the second listed typical duty. There is a marked difference between verifying the completeness and accuracy of individual invoices against invoice requisitions and verifying the accuracy of employee payrolls. The grievor also contended that the duty of processing and controlling purchase orders can be regarded as the same as processing and controlling invoices. I do not know what is involved in controlling purchase orders. I do not, however, believe that the grievor's involvement in producing invoices in response to specific requisitions and maintaining records relating to the invoices and subsequent payments can properly be regarded as a control function. BecaUse the grievor has performed functions which are not reflected in the typical duties of a Clerk Genera] C, I do believe that it is appropriate to assess the grie¥or's position in accordance with the core point rating plan. EXPERIENCE The parties disagree on the proDer rating for the experience factor under the core point rating plan. The job evaluation manual indicates that the relevant consideration is the amount of practical experience in related work that is necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position. The College argues that a 3 rating is appropriate. This rating relates to more than one and up to three years of practica] experience. The Union contends that a 4 rating is more appropriate. This rating re]ares to more than three and up to five years of practical experience. As noted above, the grievor worked from 1980 to 1985 with a private company as an accounts receivable clerk using a computer. It was the grievor's evidence that she relied on this experience to do her work at the College. In the position description form she stated that the minimum experience required for the position is three years. The College relies on the fact that for the factor of training/technical skills the parties agreed upon a 4 rating. This rating indicates that the grievor's job requires skills normally acquired through secondary school graduation and the completion of additional job related training courses or a one year Community College diploma. The job evaluation manual indicates that this agreed upon educational level is one typically associated with a Clerk General D position. The representative of the College submitted that what is looked for in job related training courses is knowledge of computers and basic accounting and thus the minimum experience required to do the job is one to three years. She also-pointed to an entry on page 1 of Section III of the manual which states that the College is to determine the qualifications and skill level required to do a job. The spokesperson for the Union contended that the grieVor had brought with her greater qualifications than the Employer had originally required for her position and over time the grievor, with the College's consent, had taken on additional duties requiring those greater qualifications. It appears that his reference to qualifications was to the grievor's experience in computerized accounts receivable work. The issue in this case is not the length of the grievor's previous relevant work experience. Rather, it is the minimum experience reasonably required to fulfill the requirements of her position. Given the training/technical skills required of someone in the position, it seems unlikely that a person with the .requisite skills would require more than three years experience to perform the current aspects of the grievor's job. This includes making the type of changes to programs referred to in the evidence. I note that one to three years experience is the same level of practical experience the guide charts indicate is typically required for a Microcomputer Operator B, the highest level of Microcomputer.Operator. Somewhat different considerations apply to the period during which the accounts receivable function was being computerized. Mr. Higham, the College's dBase expert, apparently relied on the grievor's experience to help design the required programs. Presumably the fact the grievor did accounts receivable functions on a computer for five years as opposed to three was of some assistance in this regard. For the reasons set out below, however, I do not believe that the grievor's involvement in preparing the programs justifies a higher rating for experience. As the College's dBase expert Mr. Higham presumably had responsibility for preparing the programs. While the grievor's additional experience may have been helpful in the development of computer programs, such a level of experience does not seem to have been a minimum requirement of her job. A second consideration relates to the fact that the development of the programs appears to have occurred shortly after the grievor started in.the position in 1990. Any extra experience which may have been required to help develop the programs was logically not a requirement for the job when the grievance was filed in November of 1993. Having regard to the above considerations, I find that a 3 rating to be appropriate for experience. COMPLEXITY The College argues that the grievor's position deserves a 3 rating with respect to the complexity factor. The Union argues for a 4 rating. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 3. Job duties require the performance of various routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods. 4. Job duties require the performance of varied, non-routine, complex tasks.involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods. Although the grievor is involved in performing complex tasks, her work is generally routine in nature. Essentially the same steps are repeated for each invoice and receipt as well as for the procedures at the end of each month. I find that her job duties come within the criteria for a 3 rating. JUDGEMENT The parties disagree as to the proper rating.for the judgement factor of the grievor's job. The Union seeks a 4 rating while the College argues for a 3 rating. The criteria for these ratings are as'follows: 3. Job duties require some moderate degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves the identification and breakdown of the facts and components of the problem situation. 4. Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with established analytical techniques. In a vacuum it is difficult to assess where the line is meant to be drawn between the exercise of a moderate as opposed to a considerable degree of judgement. The job evaluation guide charts, however, provide some assistance in this regard. They indicate that someone in the position of a Microcomputer Operator B, with responsibility for the application of specialized microcomputer software packages and changing and manipulating information, will typically receive a 3 rating. A 3 rating will also typically apply to a Computer Operator A position where the incumbent operates computer equipment to process small jobs, or segments of more complex jobs, relating to accounting and statistical data. On the other hand, the lowest level of Programmer will typically receive a 4 rating. These considerations suggest that the grievor's regular functions are closer to a 3 than a 4 rating. In addition, it does not appear that conventional problems handled by the grievor .require the use of analytical techniques, which is a criterion for a 4 rating. Given these considerations, I believe the grievor's regular duties justify a 3 rating. THE EFFECT OF THE GRIEVOR'S INVOLVEMENT WITH COMPUTER PROGRAMS ON THE RATINGS FOR COMPLEXITY AND JUDGEMENT As i.ndicated above, the grievor's involvement with Mr. Higham in developing programs occurred well prior to the filing of the grievance and cannot reasonably be viewed as part of her job at the time the grievance was filed. Different considerations apply with respect to the revisions she made to certain programs. The evidence indicates that she made at ]east two such revisions within six months of the filing of the grievance. Although the revisions to the programs might be viewed as relatively minor in nature, if the performance of such revisions was a regular part of her job I would conclude that her position requires the performance of non-routine tasks such as to justify a 4 rating for complexity, and the exercise of a considerable degree of judgement and the use of analytical techniques such as to justify a 4 rating for judgement. This would be the case even if the revisions took only a relatively small proportion of her time provided she performed them on a regular basis. Logically duties performed on a very infrequent basis should not determine how a position is rated. The evidence suggests that the revision of programs by the grievor occurs rarely and it is not part of her regular duties. In these circumstances I do not view the fact she has performed this function as justifying higher ratings for the complexity and judgement factors. MOTOR SKILLS The parties agree that the amount of time the grievor utilizes motor skills justifies a 3 rating for prevalence. They disagree, however, as to whether the nature of the motor skills fit the criteria for a C or a D rating. The criteria for these ratings are as follows: C. Complex fine motor movement, involving considerable dexterity, co-ordination and precision, is required. Speed is a secondary consideration. D. Complex fine motor movement, involving significant dexterity, co-ordination and precision, is required. Speed is a major consideration. The grievor uses motor skills when using a calculator as well as a key board which incorporates a number pad. The grievor testified that speed is required for her job. In this regard she noted that between 1990 and 1992 there had been a 53 percent increase in the value of receivables and a 26 percent increase in the number of invoices. Hr. Toikka indicated that computerized systems were introduced to help with the volume increase. He also testified that while speed is relevant to the grievor's job, accuracy is the most important priority. The very nature of the grievor's work suggests that accuracy is a primary consideration. The grievor did not suggest that anyone in management ever indicated to her that speed is a major consideration. In the circumstances I find a C rating to be appropriate. PHYSICAL DEMAND The College argues for a 2 rating for the physical demand factor; the Union for a 3 rating. The criteria for these ratings are as follows: 2. Job duties require some physical demand. There is an occasional requirement for repetition and/or speed. Emp]oyee usually has comfortable bodily positions with flexibility of movement. Employee uses recurring light physical effort, OR occasional moderate physical effort. 3. Job duties require regu]ar physica] demand. There is a regu]ar need for speed and repetitive use of muscles. Employee is in uncomfortable or awkward bodily positions for short periods of time with some f]exibility of movement. Employee uses continuous light physical effort, OR recurring periods of moderate physical effort, OR occasional periods of heavy physical effort. The job evaluation guide charts indicate that a Clerk General C and Clerk General D will typically both receive a 2 rating. The grievor stated that she feels her job should receive a 3 rating because that is the rating typically associated with the Data Entry Operator and Computer Operator classifications. The grievor testified that she sits at her computer 80 percent of the time. She stated that her work involves repetitive finger, wrist and neck movement. She indicated that there are times when she will go to the counter, use the phone or get up and get a coffee. The amount of time an employee spends at a computer is not, by itself, determinative of the appropriate physical demand rating. It is instructive in this regard that the job evaluation guide charts indicate that employees within the classifications of Secretary A, B, C and Programmer A, B, C typically receive a 2 rating. Presumably the difference with respect to employees classified as Computer Operators and Data Entry Operators is the need for speed required of persons in these classifications as well as the somewhat less flexibility of movement associated with the nature of their tasks. The grievor does not appear to face the same constraints. Given these considerations, ! find a 2 rating to be appropriate. SENSORY DEMAND The Union argues for a 4 rating for this factor; the College for a 3 rating. The criteria for these ratings 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. 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. The grievor testified that there are visual and mental demands associated with her job. She stated that she must concentrate to ensure she does not make errors such as mistaking a 9 for a 6. The grievor is involved in entering data into the computer, running computer programs and checking completed documents for accuracy. These functions would appear to be more appropriately described as requiring a moderate rather than a considerable demand on mental energy. The type of concentration referred to by the grievor for the purpose of ensuring that she does not make mistakes is captured by the phrase "frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy". In the circumstances I find a 3 rating to be appropriate. COMMUNICATIONS/CONTACTS The College contends that a 2 rating is appropriate for this factor, while the Union argues for a 3 rating. The criteria for these ratings, as well as a note to raters contained in the job evaluation manual, state as follows: 2. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing detailed explanations, clarification, and interpretation of data or information. There may be need to empathize with and understand the needs of others in order to handle problems or complaints. Occasional involvement with confidential information which has minor disclosure implications. 3. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures, policy, or theory. There may be need to promote participation and understanding and to secure co-operation in order to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive nature· Regular involvement with confidential information which has moderate disclosure implications. Note to Raters Many college jobs deal with some information that is confidential. The focus in this factor is on the manner, purpose and responsibilities involved in communicating, rather than the content of the information being communicated. Therefore, raters should not rate the information, but the communications responsibilities involved in handling it. The grievor testified that at times customers will contact her to say that they disagree with an invoice. She indicated that she will contact the relevant department to clarify the situation and then phone the customer to explain the invoice or to advise the customer of any corrections. I am satisfied that this type of activity involves communications for the purpose of providing detailed explanations and clarification of information, and as such fits within the criteria for a 2 rating. The grievor drafted a memorandum addressed to certain staff at the College's day care centre. It advised them that clients were now required to pay their accounts at the accoUnting office and could no longer pay them at the Registrar's office. The decision that accounts could no longer be paid at the Registrar's office was made by Mr, Toikka and the Office Manager. The grievor described her role in preparing the memorandum as involving the interpretation of a policy. I disagree. She was instead engaged in passing on relatively straightforward information. The grievor testified that she is required to interpret day care policies to clients. She gave the example of two clients who were in arrears on their payments. The day care centre advised her that if the clients did not pay the matter would be taken to small claims court. The grievor wrote letters to the clients advising them of the nature of the day care centre's claim and the amount involved. In one of the letters she advised the client that if the matter was not resolved by a certain date the account would be forwarded to small claims court. In my view the grievor's actions in writing the letters did not involve any interpretation of day care centre policy. It went no further than the provision of detailed explanations and information. The grievor contended that she has a regular involvement with confidential information because the invoices she sends out deal with confidential matters such as amounts paid for day care and billings to the Workers' Compensation Board with respect to individual clients. The note to raters indicates that it is not the content of the information being communicated that is to be rated but the communication responsibilities involved in handling it. In response to requisitions from individual departments the grievor prepares and sends out invoices and later sends out receipts, While some of the information contained on the invoices is confidential in the sense that third parties should not be bold about it, the grievor is logically free to diecuss the contents of an invoice with the person who requisitioned it as well as with the recipient of the invoice. She cannot reasonably be said to have a responsible role in communicating confidential information. I am s~tisfied that a ~ rating is appropriate. CONCLUSION Having regard to my findings, and the agreement of the parties with respect to ratings for the factors not discussed above, I find the appropriate ratings to be as follows: Factors Level Points Training/Technical Skills 4 71 Experience 3 32 Complexity 3 41 Judgement 3 48 Motor Skills C3 25 Physical Demand 2 16 Sensory Demand. 3 28 Strain. from Work Pressures/Demands/ Deadlines 3 28 Independent Action 3 33 Communications/Contacts 2 52 Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 3 44 Work Environment 1 10 428 A point total of 428 comes within payband 6. Although the point total is somewhat higher than that for a typical Clerk General C position, it is still consistent with the Clerk General C classification. Accordingly, the grievance is hereby dismissed. Dated at Toronto this 30th day of September, 1994. Arbitrator A'RBITRATION DATA SHEET- SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION College: C,/J~It'J~"~I'~/,/~I"J Incumbent: ~' /~:)~:'~'T Supervisor: ~ ~"'7"OL.~T/~ 'resent Classification: C Lz~ I~ I< ~ L~ AJ ~ t~ /~ l-. ¢_... and Present Payband: ~ j Family and Payband Requested by Grievor: C.."/..~. K. ~-_~/~ ~ E.. ~/"4 L. ~ ~ ~ 1. Position Description Form Attached 2. [] The parties agree on the contents of the attached Position Description Form OR L-q The Un:,~ disagrees with the contents of the attached Position Description Form. The specific details of this disagreement are as follows: (use reverse si~ if necessa~) II I FACTO RS ~GEME~- UNION ARBi~TOR Level ~t. Level ~ Level Points 1. Training~echnical Skills 2.'. Experience ', Motor Skills C~ d. Physical Demand 7. Sensow Demand 8. Strain from. Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines 9. Independent Action 10. Communications/Contacts 11. ResponsibiliW for Decisions/Actions 12. Work Environment JOB C~SSIFICATION A~ACHED WRI~EN SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ~e College FOR THE UNION FOR MANAGEMENT ARBIT~TOR~S USE: (Arbitrator's Sight.e) (Date of Hearing) ~ (Date ~f Award) 93-12~9 b:datasheet.doc