HomeMy WebLinkAboutGamble 95-11-15 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BET~gEEN:
FANSHAWE COLLEGE
(Hereinafter referred to as the College)
AND
OPSEU
(Hereinafter referred to as the Union)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF S. GAMBLE
(OPSEU FILE NO. S95Abl~)
ARBITRATOR: Cai[ Brent
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE COLLEGE: Sheila Wilson, Human Resources Officer
Monte Black, Chair ESL Division
FOR THE UNION: Louise Watt, Chief Steward
Shirley Gamble, Grievor
Hearing held in London, OnL~rio on November 9, 1995.
DECI S ION
This matter arises out of a grievance filed 3uly 7, 199# alleging that the
grievor was improperly classified. There were no preliminary obiections raised
which would require this matter to be referred to a board of arbitration.
The parties are agreed that the job properly belongs in the Support
Services Officer job family. T.he College has rated the job as a Support Services
Officer (Atypical) - Payband 12. The Union has rated it as a Support Services
Officer - Payband 13. The parties have agreed on the ratings for all but three
factors: 3udgement, Sensory Demand, and Communications/Contacts.
Having examined the documents submitted to me, including the PDF, and
having considered all of the evidence and submissions made to me in the context
2
of the job classification system, I make the following findings with regard to the
factors in dispute.
Factor ## 3ud~ement
The College has rated this factor as level 6 (102 points). The Union has
rated it as level 7 (120 points).
Based on the information placed before me, I find the judgement factor is
best described by the definition for level 6. I do not find any examples of the
job requiring the incumbent to solve problems by "originating new techniques"
in order to develop "new information". Rather, the problem solving seems to be
that of dealing with new, and perhaps complex, situations and problems within
established policies.
Factor #7 Sensory Demand
The College has rated this factor as level 3 (28 points). The Union has
rated it as level 5 (50 points).
There is no doubt that job requires the incumbent to pay careful attention
to detail and accuracy. This factor is affected by the frequency with which this
requirement occurs in the job. Thus whether a job demands "periodic" or
"frequent" careful attention to detail, the need for accuracy, when it arises, is
the same, what varies is the frequency with which such a demand arises in the
job. That is, a "periodic careful attention to detail and accuracy" does not mean
that the incumbent can be careless most of the time; it means that the need for
"careful attention to detail and accuracy" only arises periodically. In this job
the incumbent spends approximately 1~% of her time (1 hour per day) being
"responsible for accuracy of program/instructor related details". A further #%
(l day per month) is spent monitoring budget and preparing budget reports.
In my view, over the course of a day, that could be described as being
3
"occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy".
The incumbent spends a significant amount of time interacting with students
in the program and listening to their problems, concerns, goals, etc. The PDF
recognizes that "significant mental energy" is required in solving the problems
which arise in the course of the work. All things considered, it is probably
reasonable to classify this "demand on mental energy" as being "considerable".
In view of the above, I find that the College's rating is probably the more
accurate one.
Factor # 10 Communication/Contacts
The College has rated the job as level q (124 points). The Union has rated
it as level 5 (160 points).
This factor is concerned, not with content of material, but with the "manner,
purpose and responsibilities involved in communicating". According to the
classification manual, the "factor measures the requirement for effective
communication for the purpose of providing advice, explanation, influencing
others, and/or reaching agreement".
Taking that into account, and looking at the definitions of the various levels
together with the job duties, it is my view that level # is a closer fit than is
level 5.
Conclusion
It is my view that the job in question is properly rated at 760 points
(Payband 12).
DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1995.
Gall Brent
ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION
College: ~"/c:)/~J5/')/3~/.~ Incumbent: 5'-~/~:}/)')/~L~ Supervisor: /'Y~-
P ~t Classification: ~'&~/0/°43~7/ .~1~01~E55 OF'~t~ and Present Payband:
J~ emily and Payband Requested by Grievor: -5'g/°~°O~'/' 5~'~0/E.,~5 O~"~"/'C,~C'-~
1. Position Description Form Attached
2. [~ The parties agree on the contents of the attached Position Description Form
OR
[] The Union disagrees With the contents of the attached Position Description Form. The specific details of this
disagreement are as follows:
(use reverse side if necessary)
FACTO RS MANAGEMENT UNION ARBITRATOR
Level Points Level Point~ Level Points
1. Training/Technical Skills
2.' Experience
3. Complexity - ~ 90 ~ ?O ~ (~'O
4..Judgement
~.Aotor Skills
6. Physical Demand
7. Senso~ Demand
· 8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
9. Independent Action ~ ~O ~ ~O ~ ~O
10. Communications/Contacts
1 1. ResponsibiliW for Decisions/Actions
12. Work Environment
I I I
A~ACHED WRI~EN SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ~he College
F01 ITRATOR'S USE: "
(Arbitrator~Signature) {Date of He,ring) , of Award}
93-12~9 b:datasheet.d~