Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWright 90-09-24IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Caat S BETWEEN: Local 416 ALGONQUIN COLLEGE 88C388 (the "College") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (the "Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE OF KEITH~.WRIGHT SOLE ARBITRATOR: lan Springate APPEARANCES For the College: Janet Ross, Supervisor, Recruitment and Classification Pauline B]ais, Manager, Human Resource Planning and Staffing Parminder Bajaj, General Manager, Administration For the Union: Bev Allan, Chief Steward, OPSEU Local 416 Keith Wright, Grievor Billy Kelly, Part-time Employee HEARING: September 7, 1990 in Ottawa A~ARD INTRODUCTION Prior to the filing of his grievance the grievor was employed by the College as a Reproduction Equipment Operator "B" By way of a letter dated May 11, 1988, he grieved that he had been improperly classified. The grievance was subsequently re-filed on an official Union grievance form on August 23, 1988. Article 18.4.1 of the collective agreement provides that an employee can challenge his/her classification by way of "a complaint in writing" The grievor's letter of May 11, 1988 met this requirement. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the effective date of the grievance ~as May 11, 1988. The position description form in place on May 11, 1988 with respect to the grievor's job was dated July 7, 1986. On November 1, 1988, subsequent to the filing of the grievance, the College prepared a new position description form. The Oollege also advised the grievor that he was being re-classified to a Reproduction Equipment Operator "0". The grievor was not satisfied with this classification. His grievance was accordingly referred to arbitration pursuant to the expedited arbitration procedure set out in Article 18.4.3 of the collective agreement. The Union contends that at the time the grievance was filed the grievor should have had an atypical classification and been paid in accordance with payband 11. The College contends that he was only'entitled to be paid in accordance with payband 7. The dispute between the parties arises out of the different manner in which they rated his job under the job evaluation system referred to in the collective agreement. They disagree as to the proper rating for the job difficulty matrix, the guidance received matrix, the communication matrix and the knowledge matrix. Procedural Issues The parties raised two procedural issues at the outset of the arbitration hearing. The first related 'to the presence of Mr. William Kelly. At the time of the filing of the grievance Hr. Kelly was the grievor's immediate supervisor. He was involved in meetings where management considered some of the issues raised by the grievance. In May of 1989 Hr. Kelly retired. He subsequently took a part-time position in the College's Physical Resources Department. Mr. Kelly attended at the hearing as a representative of the Union along with Hs Bev Allan, the Chief Steward of Local 41§, and the grievor. Ms Allan, who served as the Union's spokesperson, indicated that Mr. Kelly was present as her advisor, but that he was also available to answer any questions I might put to him. Hiss Janet Ross, the College's Supervisor of Recruitment and Classification, and its spokesperson at hearing, objected to Hr. Kelly playing any role in the hearing. Article 18.4.3.6 of the collective agreement provides that both Management and the Union may be represented by Up to three persons at an expedited arbitration hearing and that the arbitrator may ask questions of any of these representatives. The general practice is for an arbitrator to put questions respecting factual issues only to the grievor, who attends as one of the Union's representatives, and the grievor's supervisor, who attends as one of management's representatives. In place of the grievor's immediate supervisor, the College had in attendance Mr. Parminder Bajaj, its General Manager of Administration. When the grievance was filed Mr. Bajaj had been Mr. Kelly's immediate superior. Having regard to the particular circumstances of this.case, and the general practice referred to above, I advised the parties that I would be restricting my questions only to the grievor and Mr. Bajaj and that I would not be asking any questions of Mr. Kelly. The second preliminary issue related to the appropriate position description form. The College filed the form dated November 1, 1988. The Union objected to this form on the basis that it was prepared subsequent to the filing of the grievance. According to the Union the appropriate description form was the one dated July 7, 1986. The College took the position that at the time the grievance was filed the 1986 position description form was no longer accurate, but that the November 1, 1988 form reflected what the grievor was doing at the relevant time. The Union disputed the accuracy of both position description forms on a number of grounds. I ruled that although both sides acknowledged that it was inaccurate, the operative position description form was the one in place when the grievance was filed, namely the one dated July ?, 1988. I also indicated that I would regard the November 1, 1988 form as setting out what the College claimed to be the grievor's duties and responsibilities when he filed his grievance, while keeping in mind the Union's contention that the form was inaccurate. During the hearing the parties did not rely on either of the position description forms but only on the oral evidence given at the hearing. The Grievor's Duties as Lead Hand and Actin~ Suoervisor The grievor was one of three equipment operators'employed in the College's Printing shop, Another employee did the related binding work. The employees were supervised by Mr. Kelly. In either 1983 or 1984 the grievor was appointed lead hand. He received a premium for performing this role. One of the grievor's main duties as lead hand was to distribute work between himself and the other two equipment operators, Both the grievor and Mr, Bajaj testified that another of the grievor's lead hand functions was to make recommendations as to how to improve the operations of the Department, Mr. Kelly was absent from work on a number of occasions, Some of these absences related to his position as a trustee on a local school board, Although meetings of the school board were generally held in the evening, Mr. Kelly was at times required to attend meetings during his working hours. The grievor estimated that this generally happened about once a month, although at the School Board's budget time Mr. Kelly might be away two days a week. Mr. Kelly was also away on a number of occasions on account of illness and vacations. Whenever Mr. Kelly was away from work for five days or more, the grievor was appointed acting supervisor and paid accordingly. From 1986 to 1988 he served as acting supervisor on 7 separate occasions for periods of between 7 and 30 days. The collective agreement contemplates that an, employee may be appointed to serve as lead hand and/or in a higher position on an acting basis. The agreement provides that an employee is to be paid extra for performing these tasks. It follows that the lead hand and acting supervisor duties performed by the grievor could not justify a higher classification or a higher regular rate of pay. Mr. Kelly's absences at times other than when the grievor was appointed acting supervisor do not appear to have reached the point where the grievor was performing Mr. Kelly's functions as part of his regular job duties. THE JOB DIFFICULTY MATRIX As indicated above, the grievor was one of three equipment operators in the College's printing shop. The copying equipment in the shop consisted of electronic copiers, most of it manufactured by Xerox, as opposed to offset presses. At one point in his evidence the grievor testified that he did not normally operate the equipment. It is clear, however, that in making this statement he was only referring to the times when Mr. Kelly was not present. Indeed, subsequently in his evidence the grievor stated that he spent a good part of his time operating equipment. The grievor testified that'he received the work to be performed and then priced it using a set price list. Subsequently, however, he indicated that Mr. Kelly performed this task when he was present. According to the grievor, Mr. Kelly would price the work and then give it to him to delegate it out. This was a function the grievor would have performed ~n his capacity as lead hand. Mr. Kelly assigned the grievor the task of ordering supplies for the print shop. This involved ordering certain standard items from central supplies and also signing purchase orders for other items to be obtained from outside suppliers. The grievor testified that in 1987 and 1988 he prepared an average of 15 1/2 central store vouchers and purchase orders a month. He added that the cost of an order might go as high as $3,000.00. The grievor testified that he ordered stock whenever the supply of a particular item was getting low. When the College's purchasing department purchased the wrong quality of a particular type of paper or card stock, the grievor followed-up on the matter to ensure that it was replaced with proper quality stock. It appears that each year Mr. Kelly advised the grievor that in order to ensure that certain budget documents were ready on time for the College President's office, he could assign overtime work to the printing staff. Mr. Bajaj testified that before allowing any overtime work, Mr. Kelly had to first ensure that the department ordering the work would pay the related overtime costs, and that this requirement applied to work done for the President's office. Mr Bajaj testified that in 1984, when he became responsible for the printing shop, he was not getting any reports.as to the shop's activities and that when he asked questions he did not always receive satisfactory answers. In the result, Mr. Bajaj developed a form for use in compiling statistics respecting the shop's operations. The grievor kept the statistics. They were very detailed in nature, showing not only the total number of originals copied and the volume of copies, but also the breakdown by type of document. The grievor also kept a record as to the number of books either glued or cerloxed in the shop as well as the number of books sent out for binding. The grievor indicated that he obtained the relevant information from copies of work requisitions kept in the shop. According to the grievor, there were about 25,000 requisitions per year. The grievor also kept track of the downtime of individual pieces of equipment. He did so using a form which he developed. The grievor testified that at intervals he provided Mr. Kelly with the statistical data he had compiled. Mr Bajaj's evidence indicated that Mr. Kelly had, in turn, passed on the information to him. The decision to purchase new printing equipment was made by Hr. Bajaj. The grievor, however, was asked to evaluate the equipment. On one occasion Hr. Bajaj asked him to attend a demonstration of a particular Xerox machine. The grievor went to the demonstration and subsequently reported favorably on it. The grievor could not recall if he had made his report to Mr. Kelly or directly to Hr. Baja3. On another occasion Hr. Baja3 arranged for a Kodak machine to be bought into the print shop so that it could be evaluated. Hr. Bajaj asked Nr. Kelly, the grievor, and another equipment operator for their opinion of the machine. On yet another occasion Hr. Bajaj raised the possibility of the College purchasing a Cerlox binding machine. Mr. Stone from the College's purchasing department arranged for himself and the grievor to visit a local computer company which owned such a piece of equipment. The grievor later discussed the equipment with Mr. Kelly and Hr. Bahai. This evidence suggests that although the grievor did not make any actual decisions with respect to the purchase of new equipment, his evaluation of equipment was relied on by Hr. Bahai. The parties are in agreement that the type of judgement required of the grievor justified a rating of 4 on the 3udgement portion of the 3ob difficulty matrix, This rating recognizes that the job required a considerable degree of judgement, and that problem-solving involved handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or situations with established analytical techniques. The parties disagree as to how the job should have been rated on the complexity portion of the matrix. The College argues for a C rating, the Union for a D rating. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: C. Work involves the performance of various complex tasks that include both routine and non-routine aspects requiring different and unrelated processes and methods. D. Work involves the performance of varied non-routine complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated processes and methods. A C rating is appropriate where an employee performs complex tasks which include both routine and non-routine aspects. A D rating is appropriate only in situations where the tasks are essentially non-routine. The grievor performed a variety of complex tasks. Some, such as evaluating new equipment, were decidedly non-routine. Others, however, such as operating the equipment in the shop and compiling data from requisitions, can only be regarded as routine in nature. Accordingly, I find that a C rating was appropriate for the grievor's Having regard to the forgoing, I agree with the C4 rating assigned by the College with respect to the job difficulty matrix. 11 THE GUIDANCE RECEIVED MATRIX Although the College initially gave the grievor's job a C-3 rating on the guidance received matrix, this was later raised to a D-3 rating. The Union contends that a E-5 rating would have been more appropriate. The difference between a D and an E rating relates to the guidelines which were available to the grievor. An E rating is the highest possible rating. The criteria connected with a D and E rating are as follows: D. Work is performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adopted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems. Supervisor is available to assist in resolving problems E. Work is performed in accordance with general instructions and policies involving changing conditions and problems. Supervisor may be involved in problems of major importance. It appears that when he was not serving as the Acting Supervisor, most of the grievor's work was relatively routine. He °perated copying and similar equipment, ordered supplies when a particular item started to get low, compiled information from invoices and dealt with customer enquiries. Any difficulties with the equipment which could not easily be corrected were referred to a service representative from the company which supplied the equipment. There is nothing to suggest that particular situations or problems could not adequately be dealt with by adapting or modifying established procedures and practices. Mr. Kelly was generally available to deal with problems. When Mr. Kelly was not available the grievor would raise particularly difficult problems with Mr. Bajaj. Taking all of these considerations into account, I am satisfied that a D rating for the guidelines available portion of the matrix was appropriate. The parties disagree as to the appropriate rating for the nature of review portion of the guidance received matrix. The College assigned a 3 rating while the Union argues for the maximum 5 rating. The criteria for these ratings, as well as the intervening 4 rating, are as follows: 3. Work assignments are intermittently and or periodically checked for quality 4. Work assignments are subject to a general form of review for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines. 5. Work assignments are reviewed only for achievements of broad objectives, effectiveness of results and to ensure integration with the work of others. No one checked the quality of the reproduction work produced by the grievor or the other operators. When errors were made however, they were caught by customers who raised them with Mr. Kelly. When an operator completed a job he was required to sign the relevant requisition. This allowed Mr. Kelly to ascertain who had incorrectly performed the work. According to the grievor, there were times when Mr. Kelly came to him and noted that he had made errors such as forgetting to staple the pages of a copied document or to punch holes in the copiee. Mr. Bajaj testified that on an on-going bass Mr. Kelly kept him advised as to how the grievor and the other operators were doing. According to Mr. Bajaj, Mr. Kelly had a good overview of what was going on in the department because of the department's small size and the fact that all of the work flowed through him. Mr. Bajaj testified that at times Mr. Kelly performed formal written appraisals of the grievor's work for Mr. Bajaj's signature. In response to a question from Ms Allan, however, Mr. Bajaj acknowledged that there may have only been one such written appraisal. Mr. Bajaj stated that in addition to the verbal reports he received from Mr. Kelly, his practice was to go to the print shop and to informally evaluate employees, including the grievor. According to Mr. Bajaj it was these visits which made it easy for him to decide to select the grievor as the acting supervisor following Mr. Kelly's retirement. Although any errors made by the grievor when operating the equipment were caught by customers, his work was not checked by Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bajaj reviewed the statistics he compiled, and presumably would have questioned any figures which appeared out of the ordinary, but there is nothing to suggest that either of them actually double checked the grievor's figures for accuracy. There is also nothing to suggest that Mr, Kelly checked the grievor's actions when ordering supplies and ensuring that any errors on the part of the purchasing department were corrected, although presumably he would have quickly become aware of any situation where there were not sufficient quantities of a particular item on hand. These considerations lead me to conclude that it was not accurate to say that the grievor's work assignments were checked intermittently or periodically for quality, which is what the College's 3 rating suggests. I cannot, however, accept the Union's contention that the grievor's job rated the maximum 5 rating. It was not the case that there was only a review for the achievement of broad objectives and ensuring the integration of work with others. Rather, there were procedures which allowed problems with the grievor's work, including a failure to achieve specific objectives, to be identified by management. This being the case, the nature of the review of the grievor's work best justified a 4 rating, mid-way between the two ratings argued for by the College and the Union. Having regard to the foregoing, I rate the grievor's former job at the D-4 level on the guidance received matrix. COMMUNICATION MATRIX The parties also disagree on the proper rating of the grievor's position with respect to the communication matrix. They disagree both with respect to the level of the grievor's contacts and the purpose of those contacts. The College gave the grievor's job a 2 rating with respect to the level of contacts. The Union argued for a 4 rating, which is the highest rating available in this category. The criteria for these two ratings, as well as the intervening 3 rating, are set out below: · 2. Contacts are primarily with employees at comparable or lower levels within the College or with individuals below middle management levels outside the College. 3. Contacts are primarily with employees at higher levels within the College and with individuals at middle management levels outside the College. 4. Contacts are primarily with employees at senior management levels within the Colleges and outside the Colleges. Set out below are certain "Notes to Raters" which are meant to assist in the rating of employees' jobs with respect to the communication matrix: 1. Only those contacts that occupy a significant portion of time and are a regular and integral part of the job should be taken into consideration. 2. Oral and written communications are to be considered. 3. Contacts with students are to be rated at degree 2. Contacts with teaching staff are to be rated at degree 3. 4. Contacts with the general public are to be rated at degree 2. The grievor testified that he generally dealt with secretaries and teaching staff who either wanted material copied or were seeking information about a particular order. He indicated that at budget time he dealt with the Executive Assistant to the President with respect to a budget highlight document. He also indicated that on occasion he would deal directly with the College President or Vice-President if Mr. Kelly was not available. The first note to raters stipulates that only contacts which occupy a significant portion of time and are a regular and integral part of the job are to be taken into account. This means that a rating is not to be based on occasional contacts of the type the grievor had with the President, Vice-President or Executive Assistant. In terms of regular contacts the grievor dealt with secretaries and teaching staff. The notes to raters indicate that contacts with teaching staff are to be rated at level 3. Contacts with secretaries, no matter what their level, would not justify a 4 rating, since this level is reserved for contacts with employees at senior management levels within the College. With respect to individuals outside the College, the grievor at times dealt with members of the general public'about the possibility of the print shop doing work for an outside club. The notes to raters indicates that this by itself would only justify a 2 rating. The grievor also dealt with salesmen about binding and laminating supplies as well as with service representatives. These also would have only justified a 2 rating. The grievor indicated that on occasion he dealt with a service manager at Xerox or Kodak. Logically a local service manager would be considered a middle management person as opposed to the type of senior management person required for a 4 rating. The evidence does not clearly indicate whether the grievor's contacts were primarily with individuals referred to in the criteria for a 2 rating or those referred to in the criteria for a $ rating. It is clear, however, that his contacts with the latter group were a regular and integral part of his job. In these circumstances I conclude that a 3 rating was appropriate. The parties disagree as to the proper rating with respect to the purpose of the grievor's contacts. The grievor dealt with 'service representatives concerning problems with the equipment, with salesmen about certain supplies, and with teachers and other College employees about work orders. The grievor indicated that when dealing with the latter two groups he would give advice as to the type of paper that could be used or the best way of achieving a particular result. The grievor testified that if anyone asked for a particularly complex job to be ready for the following day, he might explain that the job could be ready by then if it were simplified, such as using one or two colours instead of the requested five or six, but that otherwise it would not be ready on time. The College rated the purpose of the grievor's contacts at a C level. The Union contends a D rating would have been more appropriate. The criteria for a C and a D rating are as follows: C. Work involves contacts for the purpose of providing guidance, instruction or technical advice or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures or policy. D. Work involves contacts for the purpose of problem identification and solution with respect to matters of considerable importance requiring tact diplomacy and persuasion. 18 I am satisfied that the nature of the grievor's contact with others did not warrant a D rating. His advice to secretaries and teachers concerning how copying work could best be performed and making other related suggestions can be classified as providing instruction and giving technical advice, conduct which fits comfortably within a C rating. Contacts with service representatives presumably involved the grievor outlining difficulties encountered with a particular machine and the service representative was then responsible for identifying and solving the problem. Having regard to these considerations, I am satisfied that a C rating was appropriate. Accordingly, I rate the grievor's job as 0-3 on the communication matrix. KNOWLEDGE MATRIX Part of the disagreement between the parties with respect to the knowledge matrix relates to the training required for the grievor's job. The grievor has a grade 12 education. He also attended three half-day training courses offered by Xerox, each relating to the operation of a specific piece of equipment. In addition, a trainer from Kodak spent two days at the print shop helping the grievor and other employees with any difficulties they encountered with a new piece of equipment from that company. The College rated the training required for the grievor's job at level 3, while the Union argued for a 5 rating. The criteria for a rating of 3, 4 and 5 are as follows: 19 $. Required skills normally acquired through attainment of secondary school graduation or equivalent. 4. Required skills normally acquired through attainment of secondary school graduation and completion of additional job related training courses or equivalent. 5. Required skills normally acquired through attainment of a two year Community College diploma or equivalent. At the hearing Ms Allan on behalf of the Union contended that the grievor's position justified a 5 rating since the grievor had been called upon to make business decisions of the type which would be covered by a Community College business course. I disagree. There was nothing about the grievor's regular work duties which required a two year community college business. course. I note in this regard that the grievor was able to successfully perform his job without having taken such a course or anything resembling it. While the grievor did take certain half-day courses from Xerox concerning the proper operation of specific pieces of equipment, these do not appear to be the type of courses contemplated by the criteria for a 4 rating. What is required for this rating in addition to the skills normally acquired through secondary school graduation are job related academic or technical courses offered by a Community College or similar courses of some substance. I base this conclusion on the fact that all of the other training categories referred to on the matrix expressly refer to a formal education program, namely elementary school, secondary school, Community College, University and courses at the 20 post graduate level. With this in mind, it appears unlikely that a 4 rating was meant to apply to half day courses concerned.with the operation of a particular piece of equipment. I find that the grievor's job rated a 3 on the training portion of the knowledge matrix. The parties agree that his job rated a D on the experience portion of the matrix, In the result I confirm the College's D-3 rating with respect to the training/ experience portion of the knowledge matrix. The knowledge matrix contains a separate component for "skill element" The College rated the grievor's job at level 3, the Union argues for level 4. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 3. Work involves the ability to apply specialized technical or clerical skills based upon a sound knowledge of established procedures. May be required to operate moderately complex computer, laboratory or office equipment. 4, Work requires the ability to organize statistical information and to understand elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline. May operate complex computer, electronic instruments or laboratory equipment.. The grievor contended that some of the pieces of equipment he operated could be classified as computers because they have aspects of a computer. He noted in this regard that by using various buttons he could select the features he wanted, such as the number of copies desired, whether they were to be stapled, whether the paper was to be printed on one side or both, and that the selected features would then show up on a display panel, The grievor acknowledged that the system was very easy to operate, I have serious doubts as to whether the pieces of equipment operated by the grievor could properly be classified as computers, Even assuming they could be, however, they were not complex computers of the type required for a 4 rating, At the very most they were moderately complex computers of the type referred to in the criteria for a 3 rating, The Union contended that the skills required by the grievor met the requirements for a 4 rating because he dealt with statistics. Even if the grievor's work with statistical data did fit the reference in the criteria to organizing statistical information, the criteria indicates that this is not sufficient for a 4 rating. An employee is also required to have an understanding of the elementary principles of a science or professional discipline. There is nothing in the evidence which suggests that this type of skill was required for the grievor's job, or that the grievor possessed such a skill. In the result I confirm the 3 rating for the skill component of the knowledge matrix given by the college. Conclusion The College's rating of the grievor's job resulted in a point total of 501, My finding that a D-4 rating rather than a D-3 - 22 rating was more appropriate for the guidance received matrix results in the job receiving an additional 21 points. An additional 13 points also results from my finding that C-3 was the proper rating for the communication matrix. This raises the total for the grievors job to 535 points, which is within payband 8. This is higher than the payband. 7 contended for by the College, although lower than the payband 11 claimed by.the Union. In the result the grievance succeeds in part. I will retain jurisdiction to deal with any issues arising out of this award which an arbitrator appointed under. Article 18.4.3 of the collective agreement may deal with. Dated at Toronto this 24th day of September, 1990 ;_~iTRATION DATA SHEET o SUPPORT STAFF C~SSIFICA?IONS COLLEGE ALGONQUIN INCUNBENT I~RI?~ WRIGHT PRESENT CLASSIFICATION REPRODUCTION EOUIPNENT OPERA~OR C AND PAYBAND 7 SUPERVISOR P. BAJAJ JOB F~IL¥ AND PAYBAND RE(~UESTED BY SRIEVOR A?¥P. ICAL, PAYBAND ~1! .... ~ .... POSITION DESCRIPTION FORIi: 1. Position Description Fors Attached 2. ~ Parties agree on contents of attached Position Description For~ ~-~ Union disagrees with contents of attached Position Description For~ SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THIS DISAGREENENT ARE AS FOLLOWS: (USE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY) AWARD Management Union Arbitrator ELEMENTS Rating Pts. Rating Pts. Rating Pts. 'JOB DIFFICULTY C 4 144 D 4 191 ~_ ~ /~!~i GUIDANCE RECEIVED D 3 129 E 5 200 >~ --. COMMUNICATIONS C 2 71 D 4 123 KNOWLEDGE TRAINING/EXPERIENCE D 3 76 D 5 104 SKILL 3 34 4 47 WORKING MANUAL B 5 13 B 5 13 CONDITIONS VISUAL B 5 13 B 5 13 ENVIRONMENTAL C 5 21 C 5 21 ~L <,-' '*'" TOTAL POINTS 501 712 PAYBAND NUMBER ~ 7 % 11 '-, ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: ~--~ The Union ' ~ The College (Optional) SIGNATURES: FOR THE UNION (Grievor) (Date) (Date) (Union Rep. ) (Date) Hearing Date Award Date "