HomeMy WebLinkAboutPaterson 01-12-17In the matter of an arbitration
between
Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 109
(hereinafter referred to as the union)
Classification Grievance: Cheryl Paterson; 01C383
Appearances:
For the College: Sheila Wilson, Human Resources Consultant
For the Union: Barbara Ford, Union Chief Steward
Cheryl Peterson, Grievor
Hearing:
Fanshaw¢ College
December 17, 2001
INTERIM DECISION
The grievor is classified as a Programmer Analyst B, payband 11. She sccks rc-
classification as Systems Analyst, payband 14.
At a hearing held on December 17, 2001 the union requested an order directing
that the grievance be referred to a full board of arbitration under the provisions of the
collective agreement. After having heard submissions from the union and the College
with respect to this request I advised the parties that I was prepared to accede to the
union's request.. What follows are the reasons for that decision.
The central issue between the parties concerns the appropriateness of the particular
job family into which the grievor has been placed. Relevant to that issue is whether or
not the grievor works with College wide "systems" as a whole or whether she is involved
only in "sub-systems". The union advised that it wanted to call witnesses who could
testify as to the meaning of "systems" and "sub-systems" - how those terms are used in
the industry in general and within various Colleges in particular. Further, the union wants
to be able to introduce into evidence other PDF s, of positions within the College that
have been placed in the Systems Analyst family, but which (according to the union) have
language which is, in all material respects, identical to that found in the grievor's PDF.
Neither of these would be permitted under the expedited process.
The union has carriage of the grievance and must, at the end of the day, persuade
the arbitrator that the College's classification of the position is in error. If the union, in its
judgement, concludes that the best way of serving the grievor's interest is through referral
to a full board serious consideration should be given to such a request provided that the
union has provided a reasonable basis for so proceeding.
In this case the claim is that the position has been put in the wrong family from thc
outset. That, of itself, suggests the necessity of a wider inquiry than is normally carried
out under the expedited process. I note also that the position is one of some technical
complexity the nuances of which may not be adequately explored through questioning
from the arbitrator. Further, it is noted that the parties do not agree as to the content of
thc PDF in respect of thc factors of Technical Training and Experience - a circumstance
which also renders the expedited process a less than ideal vehicle for coming to an
informed understanding of the position. Finally, as the Job Evaluation Manual requires
that positions be evaluated according to the principle of "relative value" across the
system as a whole, it may in an appropriate case be necessary to hear evidence as to how
this or other Colleges treat similar positions. That cannot be done with any confidence
where the arbitrator is prevented from examining other positions as limited solely to
interpreting the language of the Classification Guide Charts.
There is also one other factor that is worthy of brief mention. I am advised that the
parties are in the process of conducting a general review of the classification of computer
related positions across the system. There is, therefore, a context to this dispute that
conceivably goes beyond the narrow question of the propriety of the classification of this
position at one of the Colleges in the system.
While no one of these factors, in and of themselves, would necessarily constitute a
good reason for referring a grievance to a full board of arbitration, when taken
cumulatively do they do, in my opinion, warrant such an order being made.
It should be added that nothing said here should be taken as ruling on the
admissibility or relevance of any evidence that either party may wish to present to the full
board. The scope of the evidence to be heard falls entirely and exclusively within the
province of flint board.
Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the grievance be referred to a full board of
arbitration for hearing and determination at a time and place to be determined.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this t '~ day of ~. c'o,.-..x ~v...~..% ,2001
Gregory J. Brandt
I