Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJain, McEvoy 88-08-29 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CENTENNIAL COLLEGE, (the "College"), - AND - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, (the "Union"). AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF SHARDA JAIN AND VICTORIA McEVO¥ SOLE ARBITRATOR Paula Knopf APPEARANCES For the College Hazel Carson Joan White Mushin Jaffer For the Union Mary Anne Kuntz Larry Fart Larry Boloin The hearing in this matter was held in Toronto on August 22, 1988 AWARD This is a classification Grievance brought under the Colleges' Expedited Arbitration Programme. When these proceedings were first initiated, the Union had taken the position that this matter was so complex that it ought to be referred to a "regular" arbitration or, a three-person Board of Arbitration under the collective agreement. However, the Union changed its position and indicated that it was now content that the matter proceed on an expedited basis. Thus, we proceeded on consent of both parties. I heard evidence of the two Grievors as well as Muhsin Jaffer. The Grievors are Library Technicians and Mr. Jaffer is the Assistant Director of Information Management at the Bibliocentre. The Grievors work in the Bibliocentre which is responsible for the receipt and distribution of published materials for the 22 community colleges in the province as well as Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. The parties are in agreement that the Grievors' position should be classified as Atypical. The parties are also in agreement as to the wordinG of the Position Description Form. The only area of disagreement between the parties is regardinG what ratinG ought to be assigned to the job difficulty aspect of the ratings matrix. The Union asserted that a D4 ratinG was appropriate, whereas the College was assertinG that a C5 ratinG ought to be applied. The difference between the parties essentially boiled down to an assessment of the "routine" and "non-routine" aspects of the job. In a nutshell, the 9rievors' position involves the duties that are related to the acquisition and processing of bibliographic items which are housed in the resource centres of Community Colleges and Ryerson. The work involves openinG packages from suppliers and ensuring ~hat the goods received match the orders placed ~hrough the colleges. When the orders, invoices and goods received all match perfectly, the gcievors' job is relatively routine an.~ ~hey are empowered wi d% r.~ceiving the materials and processing them on to their clients. This seems to occur with about 40% of the materials received. However, the rest of the time, the grievors discover some discrepancy between the orders and the goods received. These discrepancies can.be minor and easily resolved, or they can cause major problems requiring further research and processing, including various telephone calls and correspondence with clients or suppliers to determine t~he appropriate action to be taken. The grievors and the Union described this aspect of their work as non-routine and requiring a significant amount of complexity and judgment. The Union stressed that the grievors are able to handle this very efficiently because of the expertise they have developed in their positions. It was acknowledged that the positions themselves demand a high degree of problem-solving skills to deal with the many problems that frequently arise. The position of the College was that although the grievors are entrusted with significant judgment and are requir~=d to perform very complex tasks, they are able to utilize standard procedures in order to solve many of the problems that arise. It was suggested that the methods of dealing with problems are often the same and involve the same steps of enquiry. While it was acknowledged that there were no procedures set out in a formal way for any of the problem-solving techniques, it was stressed that the processes of problem-solving were often the same when the same difficulties arose. In response, the Union strenuously argued that the grievors' expertise in the area should not serve to penalize them in this arbitrator's assessment of the duties and responsibilities of the job. In other words, the fact that - 3 - the grievors were good at their job and were able to perform complex tasks easily should not be held against them in assessinG the difficulty of their job. The Decision I am aware that the parties have worked very hard together to try to resolve this grievance. I was invited to mediate the dispute at one stage and I am aware that the parties tried to resolve the issues on their own. While they were not successful in doing this, they were able to narrow the issues to a great extent and for this they should be commended. When the Grievance finally came to hearing before me, the area in dispute between the parties was very narrow, yet the difference represented the difference between Pay Band 8 and Pay Band 9. Therefore, the differences were small but very significant. In reaching the following conclusions, I have weighed the evidence presented to me very carefully. I was impressed with the sincerity and the intelligence of all the witnesses who addressed me. I am convinced that the difference between the parties is one of perception rather than any attempt to mislead or sway this decision. I am also satisfied that the details in the agreed Position Description Form as well as the evidence presented to me present a clear enough picture upon which I can base the following conclusions. After weighing all the evidence, I am thoroughly convinced that a C5 rating is the appropriate assessment of the job difficulty for this. position. I conclude this for several reasons. First, in terms of judgment, I agree with the College that the duties performed by the Grievors do require a "signifiCant degree of judgment" and that the Grievors are called upon to interpret "complex data". Thus, on ~he judgmental aspect of their job, a ratinG of 5 is very appropriate. Indeed, this is in conformity with the agreed upon Position Description Form. In the assessment of the complexity of the job, I also agree with the College that the C ratinG is most appropriate. The grievors do perform "various complex tasks that include both routine and non-routine aspects..." The Grievors themselves admit that there are routine aspects of their job. Such routine aspects include the opening of packages and the processing of standing orders. The evidence also discloses that some of the problems they are required to solve can be done following standardized processes that set down a predictable order for enquiring into problems or resolvinG them. This aspect of their job is routine. Granted, close to 60% of their problem-solvinG may involve non-routine methods. However, the C category in the complexity matrix contemplates both routine and non-routine aspects of a job and seems to "fit" with the kind of job in question in this case. On the other hand, a D ratinG in this area deals with the performance of "various non-routine complex tasks". I agree with the Union that it is hard to conceive of a job that would not involve some routine work. However, the proportion of routine and non-routine work involvinG the Grievors' position is not such that would warrant consideration as somethinG involving virtually only non-routine tasks. Finally, and secondarily, I cannot ignore the fact that the grievors and the Union agreed to the Position Description Form in September 1985 and the form itself describes the job difficulty in terms of performinG "a variety of routine, non-routine and varied complex tasks." That language is consistent with a C rating in the job complexity matrix and is also consistent wi th the evidence which I heard. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the College has correctly assessed the positions of the grievors. I confirm t~e classification of Library Technician Atypical within Pay Band 8. Thus, the grievance is denied. DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 29th day of August, 1988. ,~~ ~m/u~~l ~~p~~ f~· - "~ Sole Arbit~Pa~or/ COLLEGE Centennial CO~E POINT RATING PLAN - SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM POSITION REPORTS TITLE Library Technician TO Support Services Officer (TITLE) CURRENT CLAS.$IFICATION Atypical EFFECTIVE DATE DATE OF OF P.D.F. September 1985 EVALUATION August 29,'1988 FACTOR COMMENTS DEGREE POINTS JOB DIFFICULTY See Award C5 166 GUIDANCE RECEIVED Agreed C4 124 COMMUNICATIONS Agreed C3 84 ~RAINING C5 91 & EXPER. Agreed KNOWLEDGE Agreed B4 47 SKILL MANUAL Agreed B4 10 EFFORT WORKING CONDITIONS VISUAL Agreed D5 33 ENVIR. B5 13 Agreed PAY BAND 8