Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBaron 88-06-06 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 LAWSON BARON SOLE ARBITRATOR: Paula Knopf APPEARANCES: For the Colleg~ Hazel Ann Carson Joan White For the Unio~ Nancy Coughlan Larry Fart The hearing in this matter was held on May 19, 1988 in Toron to AWARD This is an arbitration under the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Support Staff Expedited Arbitration Proceedings for classification grievances. The case involves the position of a technician, Lawson Baron, who is presently classified as a Technician III at Pay Band 7. The Union is seeking a reclassification to Technician -Atypical and an elevation to Pay Band 9. The Board was presente~ with briefs prior to the hearing and listened to evidence and submissions from both parties at the hearing. On the basis of all that has been received, I am able to come to the following conclusions. The grievor's main function is to repair audio-visual equipment in the College. He also does maintenance of the equipment, requisitions cleaning and maintenance supplies and parts, arranges for specialized repairs and installs cables and audio-visual equipment on occasion. The repair work constitutes approximately 65% of his functions. This involves det~rmininG the cause of any malfunctions, r_=quisitioning the appropriate parts required for the repairs and effecting the necessary repairs himself. In the course of this, he will also perform preventative maintenance and assess the state of the equipment. No one was able to give an exact number of the different Kinds of equipment with which the grievor deals. But while there appeared to De 10 to 13 basic items, such as TV's, projectors, and video cameras, there appeared to be hundreds of different kinds of models and makes of such equipment in the College's inventory. When the grievor determines he cannot or should not repair the eguipment himself, he solicits information on estimates on the repairs and makes. recommendations to supervisors about the feasibility of the repairs. He instals some equipment and r~pairs cables. He is also responsible for updating inventory records. Job Difficul t~ The first area of dispute between the parties is in the context of job difficulty. The College rat~=s the position at C3 and the Union seeks a D4 rating. The main focus of this dispute is over the complexity element of the matrix and specifically over the "routine versus non-routine" aspect of the rating. ?he Union asserts that whil~ some mechanical failure may be routine, they are "normally non-routine" due to the various different types of equipment and types of mechanical failures that arise. ?he College agrees that some of the repair and work performed by the griever is not routine, but the College contends that the tasks involve related processes and that much of the work is routine. Therefore, the position involves Doth routine and non-routine aspects. But the difference between a C and D rating on the job-difficulty matrix is that the D rating covers a position that involves only non-routine tasks that normally require different and unrelated processes. The C rating includes both routine and non-routine aspects requiring different and unrelated processes and methods. There is no question that this position often requires the performance of complex tasks on a large variety of equipment. But I cannot ignore the evidence that there are also routine aspects to the position. It is apparent that some mechanical failure is routine, the inventory work .would be recurring or routine and so too would' De the maintenance of service records. Therefore, a C3 rating ·is the most appropriate. Guidance Received _ The parties disagree over the nature of review and the guidelines available in the position. The College would rate the position at C3 whereas the Union is seeking a D4 evaluation. The Position Description Form admits that "no specific guidance from supervisor on technical matters is available." But the College argues that the position enjoys a daily routine which rarely changes and that there are established procedures for most things or consultation with supervisors on special projects. The College admits that there is very little documentation available to assist the grievor in the repair of equipment, but the College relies on the experience and expertise of a person in this position to be able to function. The Union argues that great significance should be placed on the fact that there is no supervisor available to assist in the r~solution of technical problems. The Association strongly disputes any suggestion that the position's routine does not change. Instead, it is submitted that the routine changes depending on the machine required to be repaired each day. The College also argues that the review of the position is effected by the supervisor's responsibility to co-ordinate the grievor's work with others who might be involved in special projects. But there appears that there is very little contact between the grievor and his supervisors. The evidence suggests to the Board that the grievor is the only one in the College performing the type of work he is called upon to perform. He has no technical assistance from a supervisor and he has little or no documentary material available to assist him in repairs. Thus, in terms of nature of review, LevEl D seems the much more appropriate rating level because it would acknowledge that repair work, in particular if carried out in accordance with procedures and past practice, could be adapted and modifie~ to meet any particular situation or problem. A supervisor may be available to assist him in resolving some problems, but not any technical problems. This is far beyond what is contemplated by Level C. Similarly, in terms of nature of review, it would be incorrect to state that work assignments are "intermittently or periodically checked for quality". There was no evidence that any such checks are undertaken. Instead, it is clear that the work assignments are g~n~rally subjected only to review for the purposes of insuring that work is performe~ efficiently and that sufficient stocks are available for the users of the materials. For all these reasons, a D4 rating would be applicable with respect to the guidance received. Training The parties disagree over the level of experience required in this position. The College assesses .that up to three years of practical experience is required, whereas the Union states that up to five years of practical experience is necessary as a minimum qualification for the position. The Union argues that as a result of the large inventory of different items which must be prepared and the specialized tasks required, a minimum of five years' experience is required. On the other hand, the College argued that it appeared that up to three years' experience would be sufficient. It is obviously difficult for this arbitrator to assess the relative positions of the parties. However, the best person who was available to give me an estimate on this was the grievor himself because the College's spokespersons did not have any technical expertise in the field. While I am sure that all the evidence I received was honest and well meaning, I am quite able to prefer the evidence of the grievor over that presented by the College, simply because the grievor was the only person I heard from who had the technical knowledge and expertise available to make such an assessment. Thus, I accept the grievor's evidence when he says that up to five years of practical experience is required to perform the job at a minimal level. Thus, a D5 rating is appropriate. Skill In order for the grievor to perform his work he must understand and apply electrical and electronic theory. He is also called upon to operate complex electronic instruments and to repair them. While this Board was very impressed with the skills of the incumbent and his ability to repair and keep functional so many different kinds of machines, it seems much more consistent with our rating of job difficulty and complexity that the rating of 4 would be most applicable. Thus, we would retain the B4 evaluation by the College on this item. Conclusion As a result of this arbitrator's re-evaluation of the guidance received and training and experience categories, the total number of rating points increases to 544 for the position. This would put the position within Pay Band 8. Thus, the incumbent should be reclassified to De a Technician Atypical in Pay Band 8. His wages should be adjusted to reflect the reclassification, effective the date of the grievance. The Board remains seized with any issues of implementation tha~ may arise. DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 6th day of June, 1988. / CORE POINT RATING PLAN - SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM POSITION REPORTS Technician TITLE TO CamDus Librarian (TITLE) CURRENT CLASSIFICATION Technician EFFECTIVE DATE DATE OF OF P.D.F. May 28, 1986 EVALUATION June 6, 1988 FACTOR CO~U~4ENTS DEGREE POINT JOB DIFFICULTY See Award C3 122 GUIDANCE RECEIVED D4 150 See Award COMMUNICATIONS Agreed C3 84 TRAINING & EXPER. See Award D5 104 KNOWLEDGE 4 47 SKILL See Award MANUAL EFFORT Agreed C3 15 WORKING· CONDITIONS VISUAL Agreed B3 7 ENVIR. Agreed C3 15 EVALUATEDpaula BY:_ ~~ ~ KnoDf TOTAL POINTS 544 Arbitrator / PAY BAND