HomeMy WebLinkAboutAllan et al 99-10-18 87E23, 87E24,
87E38
Caat S
Local 415
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
between
' .ALCON u N'.idOLL CE---- OF APPLIED AR. TS AND TECHNOLOGY
...(hereinafter referred to as. the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 416
'(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
'Classification grievances of Allan, Grant, and McCormick
Board of Arbitration: G.J. Brandt',' Chair
R. J. Gallivan, College Nominee
Larry Robbins, Union Nominee
Appearances:
For the 'College:' S.L. Moate, Counsel
Dr.R. Rowland, Director, Health Services
..G. McRae, Mgr, Personnel Services
J. Ross, Supervisor, Recruitment and
Classification
For the Union: Susan Ballantyne, Counsel
Bev Allen, Chief steward and grievor
Elizabeth Grant, grievor
Margaret McCormick, grievor
Hearings:
City of Ottawa
May 28, 29, 1990
AWARD
Introduction
These grievances are classification grievances which were
originally brought before Professor Ian Hunter pursuant to the
expedited arbitration procedure which the parties have negotiated
for the resolution of classification grievances. For reasons which
will be set out shortly the grievances were referred to this Board.
The two positions are Nurse A and Nurse B. The Position
Summary for the Nurse A job reads: "The purpose of this position is
to maintain an efficient Health Service executing all routines and
procedures in the treatment of illness and injury. Provides
students and staff with health information/education to achieve and
maintain an optimum level of health."
The Nurse B performs the same duties as the Nurse A and, in
addition, performs certain other clerical and administrative
functions. Thus, the position summary for the Nurse B position
adds to the Nurse A position summary set out above the following
language: "The senior nurse works with the Director of Health
Services to co-ordinate the activities of the Health Service
personnel and provide the College Community with health
information/education to achieve their optimum level of health."
Each of these positions was the subject of an interest
arbitration award of Mr Swan following the failure of the parties
to agree fully on the classification of certain jobs at the time
that %he new classification system was introduced in 1986. Mr.
3
Swan issued a consent award placing the Nurse A position in Payband
9 instead of Payband 8 and the Nurse B position in Payband 10
instead of Payband 9. Subsequently the guide charts for these
positions (as well as the others dealt with by Mr. Swan) were
changed to reflect the findings of the award.
In view of the fact that the positions in question in these
proceedings were the same ones which were dealt with, on a system -
wide basis, in the Swan award, Professor Hunter concluded that it
would be preferable to refer the matter to a rtl-partite board of
arbitration which would be unrestricted by some of the procedural
constraints which characterize the expedited arbitration process.
In due course this board was constituted and proceeded to hear the
grievances. -
It is common ground between the parties that, to the extent
that the duties and responsibilities of the jobs in question are
accurately reflected in the guide charts, the swan award is
binding. It is the position of the Union, however, that the guide
charts do not accurately reflect the positions at Algonquin
College; that in various respects the positions in question are
atypical and should, therefore be sub3ect to independent arbitral
evaluation according to the core point rating plan. Indeed, it is
maintained that the College itself has acknowledged the atypicality
of the positions in that its evaluation of them has, in certain
respects, rated some of the factors higher than had been done by
Mr. Swan. For example, the Mr. Swan award had rated both positions
at C3 for Work Environment, the College has rated that factor at
4
C5. Similarly, while the Swan award rated the manual effort
expended by the Nurse A at B3, the College rated it at B4.
Thus, it is evident that the Swan award serves only as a
general guide. It remains open for both the Colleges and the
Union, interpreting local conditions, to evaluate factors
differently. Where disputes arise concerning those evaluations
they may be brought to arbitration for determination.
Both the Nurse A and Nurse B are engaged in the provision of
health care services to clients at the various campuses of
Algonguin College. There are four such campuses .where nurses are
employed. Woodroffe, Rideau, Heron Park and Colonel By. Mrs.
Allan, the Nurse B, works full time at the Woodroffe campus. Mrs.
Grant, one of the Nurse A s spends most of her time at the Rideau
campus but is at Heron Park for 2 mornings a week and may relieve
at Colonel By if needed. Mrs. McCormick, the other Nurse A, spends
most of her time at the Colonel By campus.
At each campus there is an out patient clinic which serves the
needs primarily of students and staff Of the College but which also
attends to the~needs of some who come in "off the street" The
clinics have an "open door" policy; clients "drop in" and are.
initially evaluated and assessed by the nurse who determines the
appropriate course of action. That may involve treatment of the
condition directly (eg. by giving non-prescription medication,
bandaging cuts, wrapping sprains, counselling etc.) or referral
either to the Director of Health Services, Dr. Rowland (who is the
5
grievors' immediate supervisor), to the patient's own physician, to
other physicians in the community, or to a hospital.
Dr. Rowland attends at the Woodroffe campus clinic on Monday,
Wednesday and Friday mornings and at the Colonel By and Rideau
campuses on Tuesday morning and afternoon respectively. [There is
no evidence with respect to his attendance, if any, at Heron Park
campus.]
Annual statistical reports indicate that, for the period April
1989 to March 1990 the total number'of visits to each of the three
clinics was as follows: Woodroffe: 8238; Rideau: 3654; Heron
Park:455. [No figures were produced with respect to the annual
number of visits to the clinic at Colonel By.]
While the nurses must see and assess all of the clients who
come to the clinic seeking some service, only about one quarter of
those are seen by Dr. Rowland. It is the nurses who make the
determination as to which clients should see Dr. Rowland and which
may be dealt with directly.
In making these decisions the nurses are guided by the
standards of nursing practice established by the College of
Nursing, by the Health Disciplines Act and the Hospitals Act. with
respect to, for example, prohibitions against "diagnosing" and
"prescribing" and the giving of in3ections except in the presence
of a physician.
In addition there are certain standing orders in place with
respect to what the nurses are permitted to do in the event of
emergencies. These permit the nurse to exercise a discretion to
6
administer certain medications (eg. anti-histamines, adrenalin.
oxygen, pain killers) which she might otherwise be prohibited from
doing.
There are a considerable variety of different conditions which
"present" at the clinic. The evidence referred to 25 separate
classes of conditions. Those classifications in which conditions
were presented most frequently included: acute upper respiratory
diseases (flu, laryngitis, sore throat, cold~ sinusitis); diseases
of the nervous system and sense organs (eg. earache, 'eye strain,
migraine, stye, con3unctivitis, neuralgia); diseases of the skin
and cellular tissue (eg.skin abscess, acne, boils, dandruff,
derma%iris, eczema, warts); diseases of the bones and organs of
movement. There is also one large miscellaneous category which
accounted for approximately 16% of all of the visits. It includes
such conditions as:headache, cramp, vertigo, nausea, insomnia and
fatigue.
This completes our outline of certain general facts which have
application to both grievances. In view of the overlap in
functions in the two positions, there are certain other respects in
which, as well, the evidence is duplicative. However, it is
desirable,' we believe, to approach each grievance as a separate
individual grievance and assess separately the evidence led with
respect to each.
Before doing so we believe that it is useful at the outset to
advert to a general difficulty which we have had in connection with
the application of the job evaluation plan to these grievors. We
7
acknowledge and recognize that the plan is and must be designed to
cover a wide variety of different job functions. As such it must
be expressed in language which is capable of adaptation to
different situations. We have found, however, that in certain
respects, that 3ob of adaptation is particularly difficult in
connection with employees who, as professionals, are regulated from
outside the College and whose work necessarily involves a
substantial element of personal initiative and judgment. Be that
as it may it remains our task to attempt to fit the language of the
plan to the 3ohs in question. It is not always the case that the
"fit" is a very good one.
Secondly, we would also note at this 3uncture that there are
severa~ r~spec~s in which there are inconsistencies in the way in
which the parties have evaluated the various factors as between the
two grievors. With respect to certain factors, although there is
no relevant difference between the duties performed as between the
two nurses, different conclusions have been reached as to how the
factors should be evaluated. In this regard we note in particular
the following: Guidance Received: Nature of Review where Mrs.
Allen claims 5 and Mrs. Grant claims 4; Communications: Purpose of
Contacts where Mrs. Allen claims E and Mrs. Grant claims D; and
Knowledge: Skill where Mrs. Allen claims 6 and Mrs. Grant claims 5.
In no one of these is the claim based on any relevant differences
in the 3ob functions or responsibilities. We shall return to these
matters again as we deal with each of the job factors.
Nurse B - The Allan grievance
The following table sets out the respective evaluations of the
College and Union:
College Union
Job Difficulty D5 194 D5 194
Guidance Received D4 150 E5 200
Communications D3 109 E3 135
Knowledge:Training/Experience D6 118 F6 145
:Skill 5 61 6 75
Working Conditions:Manual Effort B4 10 D3 24
Visual Strain A5 3 B2 5
Environment C5 21 D3 24
Total Points 666 802
Pay Band No. 10 12
We shall deal in turn with each of the factors in dispute.
a) Guidance Received
Both the factors of Guidelines Available and Nature of Review
are in dispute. There is little doubt on the evidence that the
grievor is not subject to any formal review of her work by Dr.
Rowland. She works o~ her own and makes judgments about what is to
be done based upon her own knowledge and within the standards
established by the College of Nursing, the Health Disciplines Act,
the Hospitals Act and standing orders. As indicated those
guidelines impose some restrictions on the kind of care that she,
as a nurse, is authorized to offer. Certain.other guidelines with
which she must be familiar are the policies and procedures of
ambulance companies and knowledge of student course requirements
which may require a student to have immunization shots.
9
She determines her own work assignments and sets her own
priorities. Much of the time she works alone. When Dr. Rowland is
present at Woodroffe campus (for 3 mornings a week) she rarely
receives any instructions from him and seldom seeks his advice or
assistance on any matters which call for a decision from her. The
only formal review of her work occurs through an annual performance
evaluation. Apart from that her work is only reviewed as and when
complaints may be made. Although she does meet with Dr. Rowland
approximately every 2 months the purpose of these meetings is not
to "review" her work. They are rather in the nature of meetings in
which the two people responsible for the administration of the
department "share" information with each other with a view to
anticipating and/or solving problems which may or have arisen.
The union seeks level 5 for Nature of Review and the College
has evaluated this factor at level 4. [It' may be noted that the
College has evaluated both the nurse A and nurse B at level 4
whereas the Union has claimed the higher level only for the nurse
B.]
We are persuaded that the appropriate level for the Nature of
Review factor is level 5. At best %he only review which
conducted by Dr. Rowland is review by exception, viz, when there is
a complaint which comes to his attention. We find it difficult to
conclude, in that context, that the kind of review conducted is
review for "achievement of specific objectives and adherence to
established deadlines" as level 4 demands. Rather it appears to us
that the kind of review involved is better captured by the language
10
of level 5, viz, "review for achievements of broad objectives,
effectiveness of results..." Dr. Rowland does not concern himself,
except by exception, with the quality of nursing care provided by
the Nurse B to specific individual patients. His concern rather i~
of more general kind.
For the Guidelines. Available element the union seeks level' E
and the College evaluates the position at level D. On balance it
is our view that level D best describes the extent to which the
Nurse A works under guidelines. Although it is true that Dr.
Rowland is only physically present at the Woodroffe Campus clinic
for 3 mornings a week, he is at the campus on other business on
Thursdays and may be reached by telephone at other times. He is
thus "available" to asSist. Moreover, the kinds of problems on
which his assistance might be sought need not be limited to
problems of "major importance" as referred to in level E. They can
involve matters as routine and commonplace as the proper care and
treatment of a particular condition.
The Union argued that the only relevant guidelines are those
established by the College of Nursing and the relevant statutes of
the province of Ontario, and that the nUrse as a professional works
within those guidelines rather than within guidelines established
by the College. tt is suggested that the relationship between nurse
and supervisor is one of two professionals working as a team
relating to each other not as supervisor and employee but as team
members in pursuit of a common objective. While there is some
merit in that characterization it could equally be said that, for
11
the same reasons, the work is not performed in accordance with
general instructions and policies", viz, the standard expressed in
level E. In that event it would have to be concluded that there is
no room in the matrices for considering the position of
professionals whose actions are largely regulated by persons other
than the employer.
Clearly that cannot have been intended and we must attempt to
find the best fit. First, we wOuld note that there are some
guidelines, in the form of standing orders, which are established
by the employer, through the person of Dr. Rowland. The evidence
indicates that these standing orders are quite specific and do not
qualify as "general instructions". Secondly, various procedures
and practices have been established with respect to the running of
the clinic, with respect to such matters as when the nurse, for
example, will refer a client either directly to Dr. Rowland or to
some other health 'care agency. In respect df that we acknowledge
that the nurse exercises a considerable.measure of independence and
discretion. However, we believe that that independence and
discretion brings her within level D which contemplates that the
procedures and practices may be "adapted and modified to meet
particular situations and/or problems"
While we acknowledge that there are difficulties associated
with drawing too close comparisons with positions in other Colleges.
we would note that this result accords with that reached by
Arbitrator Knopf in Re George Brown and OPSEU. Grievance of Louise
Wallace.
12
b) Communications.
The dispute regarding this factor concerns the purpose of the
communication. The grievor stated that, as part of her treatment
of the various conditions which are preSented at the clinic, she is-
frequently engaged in the counselling of students in various health
or life style issues, eg. smoking, drug/alcohol ~use, nutrition,
weight control, pregnancy/abortion counselling.· Dr. Rowland
confirmed that the grievor has to deal with clients with emotional
problems and that, in some instances, a client will "adopt" the
nurse. He also stated that at the Colonel By campus, where there
are students with social as well as health problems, the nurse
there is engaged to a greater extent of this kind of counselling.
He alSo confirmed that, given the nature of the condition, the
client is not as highly motiVated to seek assistance or treatment
than is the case with some other kinds of health problems.
Constantly it falls to the nurse' to ensure that the client
understands and accepts the advice that is being offered.
We note again that this is one of several factors in respect
Of which there appears to be an inconsistency in the Union's
evaluation of the value of the factor as between the Nurse A and
the Nurse B. The basis for the claim lies in the need of the nurse
to engage in various kinds of supportive counselling; yet there is
no 'significant difference between the two nurses in terms of their
duties in this regard.
The Union submitted that the kind of contact in which the
grievor was involved required interaction between nurse and client;
13
it was not the sort of "one-sided" contact characterized by level
D in which the nurse merely "identifies the problem" and
communicates the solution to the client. Rather it requires some
teaching, persuasion, and "supportive counselling" all of which, it
was submitted involved "securing understanding, co-operation or
agreement on sensitive matters" (eg. drug/alcohol abuse, abortion
etc.).
We are completely satisfied that, to the extent that the
grievor is involved in "supportive counselling" on these issues,
she is'engaged in contact whose purpose is captured by level E.
Dr. Rowland confirmed that when counselling on birth control, drugs
and alcohol the client is often not very highly motivated, a
circumstance which makes the job more difficult to do. However, we
are unable to conclude on the evidence that these contacts "occupy
a significant portion of time and are a regular and integral part
of the job". (See Notes to Raters for the Communications Factor).
In this connection we find support in the admission by the grievor
in cross-examination that the prime purpose of her.contacts with
clients is to identify problems and provides means of dealing with
them.
Consequently, it is our view that this factor should be rated
at level D3. In that regard she is to be evaluated at the same
level as the nurse B, a result which would appear to us to be both
logical and consistent.
c)Knowledge: Experience
14
The College evaluates the minimum experience required for this
position at level D, viz "up to 5 years experience". The' Union
seeks level F, "more than eight years of practical experience'`.
The grievor stated that she believed that more than 8 years
.was required in so far as at least 3 more years, beyond the 5 years
needed to become a Nurse A, in order to become fully, familiar with
the health service. Time was needed to sharpen skills and achieve
a broader experience base. She contrasted 'the health care delivery
setting at the clinic with that which obtains in a hospital where,
with the benefit of cardex systems and ward routines, and the
general hierarchical regime in which the nurse carries out doctor's
orders (particularly in the emergency room) the nurse was not
obliged to make as many decisions as was necessary at the clinic.
She also noted that with the wide age range of clients and a client
base which included a number of foreign students with different
diseases, a broad base of experience was necessary to do 'the job
well.
Dr. Rowland testified that the Nurse B,. as a senior nurse, had
to have more than 5 years experience; that there had to be a "gap"
between the A and the B.
Since we have concluded, for reasons set out below, that the
appropriate rating for the Nurse A for this factor is D6, we
believe that the proper rating for the Nurse B is one l~vel higher,
viz, E6. We are unable to find anything in the evidence which would
support a "gap" of more than one level.
15
d) Knowledge: Skill
The issue here is whether or not the Nurse B is required to
apply the "elementary" or the "complex" principles of a
professional discipline. The grievor testified that considerable
skill was needed in making determinations as to what course of
treatment was required.. While she admitted that nurses were not
permitted to "diagnose" she claimed that much of what she does
comes very close to that. In this regard she, unlike nurses in the
Hospital setting, lacked the kind of backup that would be of
assistance. Rather she was expected to apply the principles on her
own.
Dr. Rowland agreed that nursing was a professional discipline
and stated that he could not think of any complex principles of
that discipline which nurses did not apPly. Indeed, he went
further and admitted, on re-examination, that even if one considers
the relevant discipline to be that of medicine, there is much
overlap between the two and that to some extent the nurse is
applying both elementary and complex principles of that discipline
as well.
Again it may be noted that this is one of the factors in
respect of which the Union makes different claims as between the
nurse A and nurse B. Yet there is nothing in the evidence which
would appear to support the .conclusion that they be treated
differently. Admittedly the nurse B has certain other duties of an
administrative and clerical nature. However, these do not relate
to the degree of skill required of her as part of her professional
16
discipline. To all intents and purposes, in so far as nursing
skills are concerned, the nurse A and nurse B, should be treated
identically.
The evidence from both the grievor and Dr. Rowland would
support a finding that the proper level is level 6, viz,
understanding and application of complex principles of the
professional discipline of nursing. We reject the submission of
the College that the relevant profession is the profession of
medicine, although we note that even if that were accepted the
evidence of Dr. Rowland would still support the claim.
Consequently, we rate this factor at level 6.
Although we have stated that there is no logical basis for
rating the two positions differently we have no jurisdiction to
bring about that consistency by raising the rating for.the Nurse A
to 6. The parties agreed upon a rating of 5 and it must remain
~ndisturbed.
e) Working Conditions: Manual Effort
The College claims that the manual effort required is "light"
for between 31-60% of the time (B4). The Union claims that it is
"heavy" for 10-30% of the time. (D3)
The evidence from both Dr. Rowland and the grievor indicates
that she is required to engage in lifting of disabled wheelchair
clients, (some of whom weigh up to 200 pounds) for the purpose of
assisting them with their toiletting, feeding them, or helping them
undress. Although there have been as many as 14 such clients at
17
Woodroffe campus she testified that an average figure of 9 (which
is the current figure) would be accurate. It appears as well that
some attention to a disabled client is required for one reason or
another at least 3 times a day on average.
The grievor also is expected to be able to lift clients who
may have fainted or fallen or injured themselves in some way which
requires that they be lifted from the floor to a wheelchair and
taken to the clinic for further assessment and treatment. The
grievor stated that this kind of event occurs on average of once
every 2 days.
In addition, the grievor is required, every 2 weeks to lift
bundles of pamphlets weighing between 50 and 75 pounds and boxes~of
supplies (sheets, pillow cases, weighing 35-50 pounds, twice a
_year.
Having regard to all of the evidence it is our conclusion that
this factor should be rated at D2. We have little doubt that the
position requires the incumbent to engage in lifting which can only
be described as "heavy". In this regard we note in particular the
requirement to lift and toilet wheelchair patients. However, we
have some difficulty in accepting that this is required for more
than 10% of the time. Although it may be necessary to perform
these functions a number of times a day each individual instance
would not occupy a significant portion of time. Further we are
unable to give credit for the lifting of pamphlets and supplies
which Occurs on a very periodic basis.
18
f) Working Conditions: Visual Strain
The College rates this factor at A5: normal strain
continuously. The Union seeks B2: moderate strain for less than
10~ of the time.
The grievor is required to focus on such things as slivers,
cuts, rashes, head lice, small print on medicine bottles and fine.
needle gradations. She has various kinds of clinical equipment
(magnifying glass, auroscope, flashlight,etc.) to assist her. This
requirement to focus is a regular and recurring Dart of the 3ob.
However, the length of time during which focusing is required is
generally very brief and would not, in Dr. Rowland's estimation,
ever exceed 15 minutes.
We believe that the College rating of A5 should be confirmed.
In doing so we do not accept the College argument that, in
order to qualify for level B, it is necessary to focus on small
areas or objects for a minimum period of 1 hour. That argument
fails to acknowledge the plain meaning of the words "up to one
hour", words which clearly contemplate periods of less than an
hour~ However, the reference to a period of hour can be taken is
illustrative of what is meant by a "short period of time". It is
not a minimum standard but one which serves as a rough guide.
With that consideration in mind it becomes difficult to accept
the claim of the Union. The grievor is required to concentrate on
small areas for periods which, at the longest, would be 15 minutes.
It is our impression that for a good deal of the time the
concentration will be over a much shorter period. Moreover, it is
19
instructive to note the kind of concentration differs from that
typically required of employees who are classified at level B, viz,
typist stenos, secretaries, computer operators. It appears to us
that the kind of concentration required of the nurse is not as
constant as that which would be expected of those other
classifications. For example, the eyes of a typist steno or
computer operator move from printed or written page to printed page
or to screen with very little relief. We do not believe that can
accurately be 'said of ~he kind of concentration required of the
nurse.
g) Working Conditions: Environment
The College rates this factor at C5: disagreeable for more
than 608 of the time. The Union claims a rating of D3: very
disagreeable for 10-30% of the time.
The grievor stated that she is exposed to risks of infection
from various communicable diseases as well as from Hepatitis B and
AIDS. Nurses receive vaccinations against some such diseases
Hepatitis B, tetanus, polio, flu) but such protection is not
available for all diseases. Moreover, there are some diseases,
brought to the campus by foreign students, against which no
protection may be had. Nurses also wear rubber latex gloves to
protect against infection from AIDS.
The grievor also referred to a risk of physical injury from
clients who are emotionally upset. In this regard she testified to
personally having suffered a broken hand, to having been chased
2O
with a gun, and to having been administered a karate chop by a
client. Except for the 3 mornings when Dr. Rowland is present in
the clinic the grievor works alone. Although she wears a device
which allows her to cause an alarm to ring in the security offic~
it may not always be the case that- the security officer is present
to answer the call.
She disagreed with the suggestion that these threats.were very
rare. She estimated that, on average, she had to deal with someone
or something that was potential dangerous once or twice a month.
Dr. Rowland acknowledged that threats of this kind were a problem
although he felt that they were not frequent. He admitted,
however, that they can happen suddenly and without any warning.
As for the risks presented by exposure to infectious diseases
it was Dr. Rowland's opinion that there was a very high possibility
that a nurse will get some infectious disease although he thought
that generally it would not be very serious. He agreed that the
risk of contracting an infectious disease should raise this factor
to the D3 level, as the Union claims, if there was a distinct
possibility of injury arising from the infection.
The Union seeks a finding that. the work environment is such as
to expose the grievor to "potentially hazardous conditions where
there is a distinct possibility of injury". The College claims
that the exposure is only to "some possibility" of injury.
The parties agree that there is exposure to potential
hazardous conditions. Indeed they could not but agree to that.
The dispute is around the likelihood that these conditions will
21
lead to some injury. It should be noted that the matrix does not
speak of "probability of injury" but rather of "possibility of
injury", a far lower threshold. Moreover, the measurement of
"posSibility'' of injury is not a matter of the frequency of
occurrence, since that is taken into account in the Prevalence
element of this factor. Furthermore it does not appear from the
matrix that the severity of the injury that might be suffered is
material. However, there does remain a significant question as to'
the kind of "injury" that is intended to be covered by the matrix.
We must take care not to be overly influenced by the ordinary,
inherent risks of injury or harm which accompany the job. In
benchmarking the Nurse A and Nurse B positions at level C the
parties have expressed their view as to what kinds of injury are.
contemplated by the matrix. All nurses face a risk of infection,
or contraction of a communicable disease, etc. They are risks
which are inherent to the job and presumably have been taken into
account in rating the position at level C.
For the Union to succeed in disturbing that evaluation it must
establish that the grievor faces risks which go beyond those
ordinarily associated with the job, i.e. risks'which make the
position atypical in so far as this factor is concerned. We are
satisfied that the union has established this claim. The grievor
does face certain risks of injury from emotionally upset clients,
and certain unusual risks of infection from diseases' of foreign
students which may not be seen as risks ordinarily inherent to the
job. Finally there is the risk presented through exposure to AIDS.
22
The College appears to have recognized this atypicality in
that it has evaluated the position at C5 rather than C3, the
benchmark evaluation. We find it difficult, however, to accept
that there is exposure, even to "some possibility" of injury, on a
"continuous" basis.
In our opinion the more appropriate rating for this factor is
D2. We believe that, on the evidence, as recited above, it can be
said that there is more than 3ust ,some pOssibility" that an injury
of relevant kind might materialize. We think that it is a distinct
possibility having regard to the fact that the grievor often works
alone and in circumstances in which the security arrangements
established by the College may not be effective. Furthermore we
would note that the grievor must now wear latex gloves to protect
herself from infection from AIDS. In this respect the position can
be said to "require the use of protective equipment", one of the
elements relevant to a rating at level D.
Thus, we believe that, in terms of the Work Environment
element, the appropriate rating is at level D. However, we have
difficulty in concluding, on the evidence, that_the prevalence of
this exposure is as high as the Union maintains. Our 'assessment
would be that'the grievor is exposed to these extra risks "rarely.
Accordingly we would rate the prevalence element at level 2.
23
Summary
The following table summarizes our conclusions respecting the
Nurse B position..
Job Difficulty D5 194
Guidance Received D5 172
Communications D3 109
Knowledge: Training/Experiencei E6 131
Knowledge: Skill 6 75
Working Conditions
Manual Effort D2 ~20
Visual Strain A5 3
Work Environment D2 20
Total Points 724
Pay Band No. 11
The ultimate disposition of the grievance of Mrs. Allan
presents some difficulty.
The other two members of the board dissent from the result
herein reachehd. Mr. Gallivan would have rated the position at Pay
Band 10 while Mr. Robbins~would have rated it at Pay Band 12.
Consequently, there is no majority award on the issue of the proper
classification of the position. The collective agreement does not
explicitly require a majority decision. Although Article 18.7.7
is entitled "Majority Decision" it merely provides that the finding
of the "board" shall be final and binding. Moreover the collective
agreement does not appear to provide that, in the event that there
is no majority, the award of the chairperson is to govern.
In these circumstances section 46(2) of the Colleges
Collective Bargaining Act becomes applicable. According to that
24
clause, where the provisions of the collective agreement do not
provide a procedure for the "final and binding" settlement of
disputes by arbitration the collective agreement must be deemed to
provide, inter alia, that "if there is no majority the decision of
the chairman governs"
For the reasons set out above there is no decision of the
majority. Therefore' it is the award of the board that the
grievance of Mrs Allan succeed and that she be placed in payband 11
and compensated accordingly. The board remains seised of
3urisdiction to resolve any difficulties which may arise concerning
the implementation of this award.
Nurse A The Grant and McCormick grievances
The following table sets out the respective evaluations of
this position by the College and Union respectively
College Union
Job Difficulty C4 144 D4 171
Guidance Received D4 150 E4 177
Communications D3 109 D3 109
Knowledge: Training/Experience D6 118 E6 131
Knowledge: Skill 5 61 5 61
Working Conditions: Manual Effort B4 10 D3 24
Visual Strain A5 3 B2 5
Environment C5 21 D3 24
Total Points 616 702
Pay Band 9 11
a) Job Difficulty
The dispute between the parties is over the factor of
complexity. The union claims level D (performance of varied non-
routine tasks that normally required different and unrelated
processes and methods) and the College rates the factor at level C
(performance of various complex tasks that include rOutine and non-
routine aspects requiring different and unrelated processes and
methods).
Mrs. Grant testified that most of her day is spent in
screening patients and determining what to do about the particular
problem which is presented. In that respect she stated that there
were no routines, that it was difficult to plan her day in advance
26
since, with the open door policy of the clinic, she had to attend
to the needs of clients as they came in the door.
In this respect she contrasted her work with that of a nurse~
working in a hospital setting (where she had had some experience)
where the existence of systems (cardex, report) in Which
information and instructions are given regarding the care and
treatment of a patient establishes certain routines within which
the job functions can be carried out. Under cross examination she
admitted that there are a number of conditions which recur and that
there are certain established practices and Drocedures Which are
"routine" that have to be followed in dealing with the problem.
Dr. Rowland acknowledged that all patients are different but
claimed that there was a certain order or routine involved in the
approach to be taken to each problem. For example, the "routine"
response to a person appearing at the clinic with a head cold would
be to give.them a decongestant. At the same time he recognized
that there may be various non-routine aspects of a routine
condition; that the notion of "holistic" health care requires that
health care personnel not simply treat a person as a "headache" but
consider the whole person and all the other factors that might
contribute to the condition. It was his opinion that in terms of
routine, there was no difference between the nurse A and the nurse
B.
This factor is one in respect of which it might be said that
the Nurse A and Nurse B positions are rated inconsistently under
the benchmark ratings and by the College. On the element of
Complexity the Nurse B position is rated at level D. However, for
the Nurse A position that factor is rated at level C.
We are not troubled by that inconsistency since we believe
that a case can be made for regarding the Nurse B position as more
complex because of the added administrative and clerical duties
that are required.
The issue before us is one of assessing the extent of routine
involved. Level C refers to "complex tasks that include both
routine and non-routine aspects requiring different and unrelated
processes and methods." Level D refers to "varied non-routine
complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated
processes and methods."
It is submitted by the union that it is very difficult for the
grievor to plan her day; that she must attend to clients as and
when they appear at the clinic presenting with a great variety of
conditions. Furthermore it is submitted that, although the
conditions themselves may recur with' some regularity, each
individual client has a different history and must be treated and
assessed accordingly.
The College acknowledges that each patient is different and
will require individualized unique attention. However, it is
maintained that there remain certain routine elements to the job.
Certain common types of problems recur with some regularity; the
"approach" or "procedure" followed wi%h respect to each follows a
certain pattern; and finally, certain clerical aspects of the job
(which occupy some 10-15% of the time) are routine.
This is one of those factors whose application to persons
practising a profession is extremely difficult. However, we
believe that level C best captures this particular job. It simply
cannot be said that there are no non-routine aspects to the 3ob.-
Common sense dictates that, with respect to the administration of
certain kinds of nursing care, viz, the prescription of a
decongestant, the application of a bandage to a cut, etc. the steps
which are followed are highly routine. It overstates the
complexity of the job to claim that these kinds of functions
require an attention to the "whole patient" etc.
In this regard it may be noted that the grievor conceded that,
if you disregard the individual patient, approximately 40% of the
job is routine. In our opinion there are occasions where the nurse
does treat a "headache" or a "cut"; where she does not involve
herself in any meaningful sense in uniquely fashioned adaptation of
a treatment to a particular patient. We acknowledge that many of
her duties do involve her in such tasks. In particular we refer to
the supportive counselling involved in the areas of birth control
or drug and alcohol abuse. However, the matrix makes it clear that
where the job involves a mixture of routine and non-routine
elements the proper rating is level C. We confirm that rating.
b) Guidance Received
The factor in dispute is Guidelines Available. The College
rates this factor at level D (procedures and past practices which
may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and or
29
problems-supervisor available to assist); the Union seeks level E
(general instructions and policies involving changing conditions
and problems-supervisor involved on problems of major importance).
Mrs. Grant is located at the Rideau campus which is 20
kilometres from the Woodroffe campus. Her supervisors are Mrs.
Allan and Dr. Rowland both of whom are generally at Woodroffe
campus. Consequently, she works alone for all but 3 hours of the
week on Tuesday afternoon when Dr. Rowland is at the clinic.
She testified that she rarely calls Dr. Rowland for any
guidance concerning what should be done with a client. She stated
that she might review unfamiliar situations with him but that she
would also assess and determine whether or not to send a patient to
hospital or to some physician in the community or make an
appointment with their own doctor without consulting with Dr.
Rowland.
Like Mrs. Allan she works within the standards of nursing
prescribed by the College of Nurses, the Health Disciplines Act,
the Hospitals Ac%, and standing orders.
Dr. Rowland confirmed generally that Mrs. Grant works
essentially on her own and is not subject to any kind of formal
review of her work.
For the Nature of Review element the Union has advanced a
claim different than that advanced on behalf of Mrs. Allan. (level
4 v. level 5). As we have said in our award on the Allan grievance
we see little difference between the two positions in terms of the
30
Nature of Review. In our award in the Allan grievance we rated
this factor at level 5. However, insofar as that factor has not
been put in dispute by the Darties, we have no jurisdiction to
award grievors Grant and McCormack the same level as was awarded to
grievor Allan.
The factor which is in dispute in this grievance is the
Guidelines Available factor. In respect of the issue as to whether
or not her work is performed in accordance with "procedures and
past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular
situations and/or problems" (D) or "in accordance with general
instructions and policies involving changing conditions and
problems" (E) there are no differences between Mrs. Grant and Mrs.
Allan. Consequently, we wish to reiterate our views expressed
above in connection with those elements insofar as they apply to
the Grant grievance.
The primary relevant difference between the Nurse A and the
Nurse B in this regard is that, unlike the situation with Mrs.
Allan where Dr. Rowland is in .the clinic three mornings a week and
at the Woodroffe Campus all day Thursday, Mrs. Grant only has an
opportunity to consult with him directly for one morning a week.
It might be said that Dr Rowland is therefore "less available" to
assist in resolving problems which arise for Mrs. Grant than he is
for Mrs. Allan. We do not consider this to be persuasive. He
remains available to be contacted on the telephone. Moreover the
kind of assistance he may offer is not restricted to "problems of
ma3or importance" as contemplated by level E.
31
Having regard to the full complement of the elements which go
to make up the Guidelines Available factor we are of the view that,
on balance, the proper rating is level D. Accordingly we would
rate this .factor the same for bOth positions. -
Consequently, the Guidance Received factor is rated at D4.
c)Knowledge: Experience
The College claims that up to 5 years of experience is
sufficient for the position; the Union claims that up to 8 years
are necessary.
Dr. Rowland stated in evidence that the College was looking
for "at least" 5 years of experience. Mrs. Grant testified that
She believed that up to 8 years was needed since the position
required a mature individual with a lot of experience capable of
dealing with the problems of insecure and impressionable students.
The Union submitted that, in view of Dr. Rowland's opinion
that .the position required "at least" 5 years of experience, the
College. rating of this factor at level D, "up to 5 years" was
inappropriate. Counsel for the College argued that the phrase "up
to 5 years" includes 5 years of experience. We agree with this
submission. Levels E and F refer respectively to "up to" 8 years
and "more than" 8 years of practical experience" Reading these
together "up to" 8 years must include 8 years. Similarly, "up to"
5 years means up to and including 5 years of experience.
Consequently, Dr. Rowland's opinion that the position required 5
32
years of experience fell within the range contemplated by level D, ~
albeit at the top of the range.
Consequently, we confirm the rating of this factor at D6.
d) Working Conditions - Manual Effort
The Union seeks level D3 (heavy - 10-30%) while the College
rates this factor at B4 (light - 31-60%)
Mrs Grant testified that at least once a day she has to do one
of either lifting a disabled student (one wheelchair student and
one cerebral palsy student on crutches) or a client with a bad
back, dealing with some emergency which requires her to lift a
client,.or lifting boxes (either large (70-75 pounds) or small (30-
40 pounds) of pamphlets. In addition she may be required to lift
oxygen tanks (15 pounds empty - 20-25 pounds full) once every 2
weeks; scales (20 pounds) twice a day; and supplies twice a year.
This evidence was generally confirmed by Dr. Rowland.
For the reasons set out in the Allan award we rate this factor
at D2.
e) Working Conditions - Visual strain
The Union claims B2 (moderate for more than 10% of the time)
and the College rates this factor at A5 (normal strain
continuously)
Mrs. Grant, like Mrs. Allan, is required to focus for short
periods of time on the various conditions which are presented to
her, viz, foreign bodies in the eye, sp~inters, lice. She also has
33
to repair lacerations. She is assisted in this regard by the
availability of various clinical equipment. She admitted that she
would never be expected to focus on any one object for a period of
up to an hour. However, she maintained that it would not be
uncommon for her to be engaged for periods of more than an hour at
a time in focusing on small areas or objects as they were presented
in a succession of clients coming in to the clinic.
For the reasons set out in the Allan award we rate this factor
at A5.
e) Working Conditions -' Environment
The College rates this factor at C5 (disagreDable for more
than 60% of the time); the Union seeks D3 (very disagreeable for
10-30% of the time.
Mrs Grant claimed that there is a distinct possibility of
infection; that one can't be vaccinated against every infectious
disease. She is also exposed to the risk of needle pricks and
infection from AIDS, for which she wears latex gloves.
She too spoke of the risks of physical injury from abusive
clients one of whom threatened to shoot her. She also spoke of an
uncomfortable feeling that she had as a result of the fact that the
clinic was accessible to persons wandering in'from the street
(particularly those in winter seeking refUge from the cold).
Although there are security peoDle on the campus who are able to
deal with these kinds of problem they may not be in the area at the
time that the risk materializes. Mrs. Grant, unlike Mrs. Allan is
34
not provided by the College with an alarm device. Furthermore,
although it is possible to call the security officer at the
switchboard it is sometimes closed at times when she is still at
work, eg. during lunch hour and after 4.00 p.m.
For the reasons set out in the Allan award we rate this factor
at D2.
Summary
The following table sets out our evaluation of the Nurse A
position.
Job Difficulty C4 144
Guidance Received D4 150
Communications D3 109
Knowledge: Training/Experience D6 118
Knowledge: Skill 5 61
Working Conditions:
Manual Effort D2 20
Visual Strain A5 3
Environment D2 20
Total Points 625
Pay Band No. 9
Mrs. Grant and Mrs. McCormick are both currently in Pay Band
9. Accordingly, their grievances are dismissed.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this ~-' day of ~ , 1990
G. ~. Brand'l:, Chair
R. J. Galli'v'a~, College Nominee
Larry Robbins, Union Nominee
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
B E T W E E N: ALGONQUIN COLLEGE
Employer
ONTARIO pUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
Union
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF ALLEN, GRANT AND McCORMICK
DISSENT
I have revieWed the Award of the Chairman in this matter.
The Award allows Ms. Allan's grievance by moving her to Pay Band
11, and dismisses the grievances of Ms. Grant and McCormick,
leaving them'at Pay Band 9. I would have allowed all of the above
grievances.
More specifically, I have three areas of disagreement
with the Chairman's evaluations. They apply to both the Nurse A
and Nurse B positions, and, therefore, would affect the total
points awarded in both cases.
I would also state at the outset that I agree with the
overall approach used in the Award, that one must examine each of
the factors individually, based on the evidence presented, and that
this applies whether or not the job in question is a so-called
"benchmark" classification. I will now deal with each area of
dispute separately.
Guidance Received - Guidelines Available
In my view, Level E was by far the better fit for both
the Nurse B and Nurse A positions than Level D. The description
for Level E is as follows:
"Work is performed in accordance with general
instructions and policies involving changing
conditions and problems. Supervisor may be
involved on problems of major importance."
The Level D description does not do justice to the
independence of these Nurses or to the nature of the relationship
with Dr. Rowland. The evidence was clear that they rarely received
instructions from Dr. Rowland, and that they work more as parallel
professionals. The nurses provide professional nursing services
to the client body, and Dr'. Rowland basically provides professional
medical services, as well as carrying out certain administrative
functions. The nurses in fact determine which patients Dr. Rowland
will see. Of course, they work within their own professional
standards, and do give medications in accordance with certain
standing orders. However, the instructions the nurses would
receive from Dr. Rowland with respect to how to carry out their job
functions would only be general in nature. Moreover, in my view,
he would only be Called in to assist either of the nurses on a
problem of major importance.
I would, therefore, have rated the Nurse B position at
E5 instead of D5 for Guidance Received increasing the points
awarded by 28. Similarly, I would have rated the Nurse A position
at E4 instead'of D4, increasing the points awarded by 27.
Visual Strain
I would have rated this factor at B2 rather than A5 for
both the Nurse A ~nd Nurse B position. The description for the B
-3-
category is as follows:
"Moderate visual concentration required.
Required to focus on small areas or objects
for short periods of time. i.e. up to one
hour."
To achieve a B2 rating, it is only necessary that this
occur rarely, or less than 10% of the.time. The evidence was that
the grievors were required to concentrate on small areas for
periods of up to 15 minutes. In my view, that satisfies the test.
The reference to "up to one hour" is clearly not to be seen as a
minimum, which the Chairman does state in the Award. It cannot be
seen as a "guide" either. Clearly, the reference to one hour is
a "maximum" for the B category, and therefore, the fifteen minute
periods that the nurses spend would be sufficient to take the
activity beyond simply "normal visual concentration", which is the
Level A test.
I would, therefore, have rated both positions at B2
rather than A5, which would mean an increase of 2 points.
Environment
I would have rated this factor at D3 rather than D2. In
my view, when one considers both the risk of physical injury from
clients, and the exposure to infectious diseases, D3 (occasional)
is the better fit in terms of prevalence than D2 (rare). Dr.
Rowland, the Employer's sole witness, himself agreed that with the
risk of infectious disease D3 would be the better fit.
I would, therefore, have rated both positions at D3
rather than D2, which would mean an increase of 4 points.
There is one final aspect of this last result which is
troublesome. The College rated this factor at C5 (continuous
disagreeable) for 21 points, which is one point, higher than the
-4 -
Chairman's rating of 20, the points awarded for D2. It would seem
to me at the very least that the employee should not be placed in
a square on the matrix which is given fewer points than that
proposed by the Employer on any factor. The Union has been
prevented from achieving higher ratings than what it asked for on
certain factors, and this has clearly had a detrimental effect on-
the result for the Nurse A position. If one is to accept that,
then by the same token, the College's position of C5 (21 points)
must be seen as the absolute floor for this factor.
-5-
The following tables would summarize my conclusions
respecting both the Nurse B and Nurse A position:
Nurse B
Job Difficulty, D5 194
Guidance Received E5 200 -
Communications D3 109
Knowledge:Training/Experience E6 131
Knowledge:Skill 6 75
Working Conditions
Manual Effort D2 20
Visual Strain B2 5
Work Environment D3 24
Total Points 758
Pay Band No. 12
Nurse A .
Job Difficulty C4 144
Guidance Received E4 177
Communications D3 109
Knowledge:Training/Experience D6 118
Knowledge:Skill 5 61
Working Conditions
Manual Effort. D2 20
Visual Strain B2 5
Work Environment D3 24
Total Points 658
Pay Band No. 10
-6-
In conclusion, I would have allowed the Allan grievance by moving
her position up two levels to Pay Band 12 rather than one level to
Pay Band 11, which the Chairman has awarded. I would have allowed
the Grant and McCormick grievances in part by moving their position
up one level to Pay Band 10.
Larry Robbins
Union Nominee
DECISION OF R.J. GALLIVAN - ?'kRTIAL DISSENT
I su,nnort the Chairman's evuluation of the ~,~urse A ~osi_tion,
~l,,hou~h I No not agree that had the union not been inconsistent ~r
f.,'.~iled to make the am~romriate demand the Nature of 2evie~'; element of
the Guidance Received matrix should other;vise have been rate~!, at level
instead, of ~. For reasons which will be set out below %n respect of +.he
?,~urse B nosition, I conclude 'that the correct rating on this m~trix ~r
both nositions is 0~.
'7he =r~evances before uS raise the kev issue of the meanln~
of an "a~vnical nosition" The avnlicable Job Evaluation ':~anua! (at
Section II, ~a~%e 2) defines "at?~ical" as those "~ositions that enc~nass
~uties and resnonsibilities which are not adequately covere~] b:.; the
exis~n= .!ob Fa-il~ Definitions"
=he ~-~anua! shows a ,/ob Fa~il:,; for "Nurse" an~~. a Guide
evaluo,~fon for both ?:urse '~. and }~urse B. Thus ..the ?~urse jobs are
consiSered bT.; the marries tn the collective a.~ree~ent to be
=h~.e bein~ the case the onus is on the union to ~!e~onstr?.te ~'.'h~~ the
..%l~.onquin Nurses shou!a~ be rated differently than elsev.:here throushoua
the Co!le~e system. In ~: ju{]~ement the union has failed to ~o
excent in the relativel.v minor elements of [~ianual Effort (where ~here
no,.,~ a~nears to be a trend at :%l~on~uin towards having ~ore
students on ca~us requirin.~ nhysical assistance from the Nurses.,,
Environment (where the nossibilit? of illness or injur:' a~ee~rs to hive
incremsed in recent -.,,ears because of the chan~ed nature o~ t~e clientele).
~herefore, I disagree '.',~ith the Chairman's ratin~ of the Guidance Receive,~
and Skill factors for the ~,~urse~ ~ nosition. In m,~., ju~).~ement' evid. ence ,.,-~s.,
1.~c~-~ing that the Gui~ance Receive~.. or Skill level required was ,fifferent
at A!~onouin thnn for the benchmark Nurse jobs.
· +~ is common ground, between the marries thc~t, in the absenc~
of comvellin~ evidence of at.vnic~lit.v, the benchmarks are bin~inz. ?here
is aver?.; ~ractical reason for this. ,/ob evaluation recu%res a number
of stems ~temanding carefullM weighed judgements on each evaluation
criterion use'~ in the s!~stem. To reduce the likelihood t~at each
- 2 -
evaluator (where more than one is involved) will a~ly his or her own
standard even to agreed and straight-forward facts, the job evaluation
systeTM before us uses Job Family definitions and Guide Chart levels so
as to ensure a common standard[ The system also requires (Manual SeCtion
II, ~age 2) that a ~ro~osed evaluation be compared to other mositions
in the work unit so as to maintain consistency and internal relativity.
A third ~arty such as this Board, looking at one job in isolation, must
attempt to understand the agreed standards used by the evaluators and
must consider how the disputed job relates to others in the work~lace.
In this case the agreed standards are the benchmark jobs
which show how the ~arties intend the rating factors to be interpreted
and am~lied. Our Board, therefore, should defer to those benchmarks
except where it is abundantly clear that at~ica!ity exists. Failure to
~o so can lead 'to inconsistencies and such a hodge-~odge of evaluations
that the system itself is ~ut into chaos and disrepute. In other words,
while a third ~arty ~ieht conclude that a oarticular job warranted a
rating of "X", but the ~arties themselves either being skilled in the
evaluation Drocess or familiar with both the lob in ~uestion and w~ere
it fits into the overall work~lace rate it "Y", deference should be made
to the rating by the ~arties. We should not substitute our judgement for
those who must live with the result. The exception to that general rule
of course would be where evidence was given that the original benchmark
rating did not take into account major facts or significant ~onditions
which made the job atyDical.
This is further underscored in this case where the evidence
before us (Exhibit 10 - the "Swan Award") was that the Nurse A and B ~obs
were among those in dispute before the Swan interest arbitration board.
That evidence shows that the Darties did considerable compromising of
their mositions under that board's mediation in order to resolve the
evaluations of the fifteen or so jobs in dispute. Me~.iation involves
compromises and trade-offs and it is clear from the S,...'an award that the
~arties did that. Our Board was not made aware of what the aarties may
have conceded to one another at that time to reach the decision they did
to increase the evaluation of both the Nurse ,~ and~B classifications.
However, fairness dictates that our Bonrd should be loathe to uoset a
b~r..~ine? a~reement on ~h~ ~!urse benchmarks in the absence ,of cle~
ev.tr~ence of ~tv~ic~li~l'. ntherw[se we r~sk !e~[m~,~ .... ~r,..~" to ~
bar~ain have its ca~e anr~ eat it too.
nhose ....~ut.~ons' shoul~ be ke~t in m~n~~ar~icular' + lv. w~..~re, ~s
~nere, the umion aerees w~t~ the College ti~.'~t for a ~.,urse t'~e benchm'~rk
rt~tt~q:, for ~ture~..~ of Review in the Gu[~mnce Receive4. matrix.., shoul-~ stay
~t level ~. Even th~u~h a third ~arty mt~ht be ~nclined to rate tt ht~her
stroll;...- from reac]in~v the e.le~ent r~efini'tion tn isolation from the "~'~
m'~rt[es themselves .... ~.ave a~mlie4 [t to other ,jobs in the systat. ~_ ,, t'~a
benchmar~ ts level 4 for this tv~e of job. Uhere was no evil, once before
us that the form or review Yor the Nurse .~ was any (~ifferent than f~r
the ?urse B or that the review was different at Algonquin than tn Co!]eees
elsewhere. Both work with consi4erable indemendence as woul~ be exnecte~[
of well-traine~ and exmer~enced mrofessionals who do not need
sumerviston to achieve the s~ecific objectives of their jobs. 2otb
' _evor~s of their a. ctivittes for their
~ro~t~e re.~lar statistical ~ +
supervisor to review as ~art of his monitoring of their workloa4 and
nerformanoe .. e
. ~h re is thus si~ly no evidence to warrant rati..o one
h~her than the other. Since the union agrees the level ~ henna .~ ~. is
correct fo'~ the Nurse A, there is no justification for rating the
Nurse B any higher.
~o ensure consistency '_~n~ as a required ste~ in the
~rocess which we are mandated 2o follow, it is necessar? to stu~'~'~ the
Gui~e Chart ~escrivtions of other benchmark .~obs rated '~t the sa~e
level ~ as the ~urses,. such as Support Services ?ricer and Techno!o~ist
and C for exammle. In view of the remits and marameters of those .~obs
as set out in the Guide Charts compared to the ~furse ~ an:~ :~
a level ~ rating am~ears to mrovide more internal consistency than level
~ and so is av~romriate in my judgement for both of the ~.~urse
ilthough ~4s. Knovf in re: George Brown and O~SUE, Grievance
of ','~allace awar4s a level ~, it should be noted that 'the nurse in that
case re~orted to a non-medical supervisor unable to make technical
reviews of the nurse's job ~erformance. That is quite distin&~ishable
from '~lgon~u~n where the Yurse re~orts to a full time~*~. ~h~'siciun. ..
,~,~ho has overall resvonsibiiitM for the College's health services.
I also ~isa~ree with the a~ro~r~_ateness of a'~."~rding
Skill le~'el 6 un~.er the ~[nowledge matrix for reasons similar to those.
outlined above for the Guidance Received element. The union a~rees
the bench~ar~ level ~ is a,v~ro~riate for the Nurse A but im ~.:~
I agree '~..'ith the Chairman here) the union ~as unable to demonstr~te
an~- ~if~erence in the Skill level of the two nursin~ jobs. ~he e~.~tra
a~minis+rative,~ ~.~n~s,~, ~ ~ .... u~on ~he ?~urse _~ ~ ~osition com,~are~~ +o,~ ~ ~k~rse
are commensated through the-h'igher 'ratin~ the former receives under the
Experience element of the !~[nowled~e matrix. Care ~nust be taken
doin~ job evaluation to avoid ~!.ouble crediting for the same job function.
In my ~u~_~ement the ~romer Skill rating for both jobs is level
?~'Ty rating for the Nurse B ~osition thus would be:
job Difficult.~ D~ !9~
Guidance Received D4 1~0
Communications D3 109
~<no'~le~ge: Trainin.~/Ex~er~ ence E6 131
[fnowledge: Skill ~ 61
',~,'orkin~ Conditions:
~anual Effort D2 20
Visual Strain _-~
h~ork ?nvi ronment D2 20
Total Points
-~a.~.~ ~and No. 10
I believe that ratins best slots the Nurse B job taking
account of the ~uties described to us, the varties' a~reement on
benchmarks, internal consistenc.v with other ~ositions in the ~.~ork
unit and ~articular]..V the relationshi~ with the Nurse A ,~ob
remains a~,~ro~riatelv at ~a.vband 9. The difference between the ~,~urse A
anU B ~ositio:as is onl.v the latter's responsibility for fairll~ simmle
a~ministrative functions and ~oes not warrant a two ~avband dif~_er~n~a!
above the Nurse 'k. Accordingly, I would dismiss the Allan ~.[urse
grievance.