Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGrieve 95-11-18IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: FANSHAWE COLLEGE ("the College") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE OF BARB GRIEVE (OPSEU #95A412) ARBITRATOR: lan Springate APPEARANCES For the College: Sheila Wilson, Human Resources Officer Michael Hoare, Chairperson, Human Services Division For the Union: Louise Watt, Chief Steward and Presenter Jean Crawford, Local President Barb Grieve, Grievor HEARING: In London on October 26, 1995 INTRODUCTION The grievor is employed by the College as a Human Services Liaison Officer. The College classifies this position as a Support Services Officer C at payband 11. By way of a grievance dated November 21, 1994 the grievor contended that she should be classified as a Support Services Officer D at payband 13. As discussed below, the grievor's job fits the description of a Support Services Officer C in a job evaluation guide chart that forms part of the parties' job evaluation system. The job evaluation system includes a core point rating plan. Core point ratings are used to rate twelve specific factors associated with a position. A complicating factor in this case is that certain core point ratings suggested by the wording of the relevant position description form would, if adopted, produce ratings for the grievor's position that are inconsistent with the ratings of other support staff positions. THE GRIEVOR'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The grievor has a number of different duties. Eighty percent of her time, however, is taken up with the coordinating the field placement of students. This involves placing students with agencies so that they can gain practical knowledge and experience. The grievor is primarily involved in placing students in the Human Services Foundation Program although she is also involved with the Social Service Worker Program and the Early Childhood Education Program. Faculty members are responsible for the academic assessment of students with respect to their field service placements. The grievor does, however, have input into the assessments. It appears that some agencies regularly take students on placements but there is an ongoing need for the grievor to locate additional agencies for placements. The grievor indicated that she contacts agencies and personally meets with agency officials to explain the field placement program. She also provides them with a booklet she designed which contains detailed information relating to the expectations and objectives of field placements. The grievor determines the feasibility of student placements and the type of learning available for students at an agency. She testified that she engages in negotiations with agencies respecting the field experience that they will make available. She explained that a field experience can vary depending on a student's background, age, gender and career goals. By way of example she referred to a victim and witness program operated by the Ministry of the Attorney General. She stated that because the program generally deals with women and children, the Ministry requests that mature females be placed with the program. The grievor explained that the nature of a student's involvement with this particular program can vary depending on the student's past experience and computer skills. She stated that recently one student who had previous experience in a sexual assault centre was able to have direct contact with the program's clients. The grievor indicated that when judging the appropriateness of a possible placement she takes safety considerations into account. She gave the example of an agency that offered to have a student work as a liaison with street youth. The grievor stated that when she met with someone form the agency she learned that the student would be required to be on the street at night without any supervision. She stated that because she felt this would not be appropriate she negotiated to instead have a student placed with the agency's drop-in centre. At the hearing the representative of the College challenged the accuracy of the grievor's use of the term "negotiates" in explaining her role in determining field placements. The position description form, however, also uses the term negotiates in this context. It states that: "(The grievor) develops and negotiates, in consultation, with local agencies and organizations, field placements to successfully meet the educational and career needs of the students." The grievor testified that she was instrumental in negotiating a clearance procedure with the London Police Department to accommodate student placements. She stated that she explains to students, faculty and agencies how the clearance procedure operates. According to the position description form the grievor liaises with the London Police Department as required regarding clearance letters for field placement. The grievor conducts field experience information sessions with students. She gives them an updated agency list and also provides them with an overview of the agencies. She asks that the students fill in selection forms which include information about themselves, their career goals and their availability. The grievor testified that she reviews the forms and decides which students she should interview to help determine an appropriate placement. The grievor contacts agencies to discuss having them interview the students who may be placed with them. She then prepares and posts a field experience schedule which advises students who they are to contact to arrange an interview. The grievor testified that after an interview she obtains a field experience record from the student which she reviews to assess whether the student will receive the number of required hours of experience and whether the student's duties and responsibilities will meet his or her career goals. The grievor is the ongoing contact person at the College for agencies which have students from the Human Services Foundation Program and the Social Service Worker Program. As an example of the issues that agencies raise with her, the grievor referred to a teacher at a school who contacted her when three students placed at the school did not show up for their field experience. The grievor testified that she can discontinue the use of a particular agency for placements. She indicated that she can also make an interim decision not to continue a student at a particular agency, although for the decision to become permanent it must be approved by a faculty member. The grievor stated that she and a faculty member decide whether the grievor will arrange an alternate field placement for a student. The grievor testified that field experience is regarded as a course and to pass the course a student must spend 90 hours at an agency. She stated that if at the end of a semester a student does not have 90 hours the student's faculty supervisor will discuss the matter with her. The grievor stated that if the lack of hours was due to poor attendance on the part of the student, the student will receive a failing grade. If it is determined that the shortage of hours was due to the agency not offering the student enough hours, a grade of incomplete will be assigned and arrangements made for the student to complete the required number of hours. The grievor assists the Field Placement Coordinator of the Early Childhood Education practicum program. This includes updating information on all practicum centres for the faculty supervisors. She also prepares information packages relating to the practicum centres for distribution to students. If the Field Placement Coordinator is not available and a matter is urgent the grievor may deal directly with a practicum centre. The grievor gave the example of an agency wishing to locate a student about a change in practicum times. The grievor prepares statistical reports related to student field placements. She developed and maintains a computerized file concerning Workers' Compensation Board coverage of Human Services Division field placement agencies. At times she will be asked by a field placement coordinator if a particular agency is covered by the Workers' Compensation Board and will check her records for the answer. If the agency is not listed on her file she will contact the agency to ascertain its insurance coverage. The grievor represents the Human Services Division at career day activities, both in the community and at the College. This involves developing visual aids for displays, coordinating the participation of others, requisitioning equipment and transportation, and ordering material for distribution. The grievor is responsible for the coordination of all intersession activity respecting the Human Services Division and the General Studies and Health Technology Division. Dr. Michael Hoare, the Chairperson of the College's Human Services Division, described intersession as something that was created about three years ago to enable full time faculty to offer courses during May and June. Intersession activities take up about nine percent of the grievor's time. The grievor testified that in consultation with the relevant Chairperson she determines the time line for course submissions from coordinators for intersession courses. She also prepares advertisements respecting the courses for placement in College advertising vehicles. According to the grievor she resolves and negotiates changes respecting the advertising vehicles. She gave the example of recently being advised by the College's Continuing Education Department that the space for advertising intercession courses in a Department publication was to be cut by 25 to 30 percent. According to the grievor she will determine what changes to make in consultation with the Chairperson. The grievor responds to student inquiries relating to intersession courses. When an intersession course is canceled the grievor contacts students who registered for the course and discusses possible alternative courses with them. This of[en involves determining the prerequisites for other courses and whether the student meets the prerequisites. The grievor can authorize a transfer of a student to another course or to have the student's tuition refunded. Following consultations with the Manager of Student Awards the grievor prepared information for students, which she updates, explaining how they can obtain government financial assistance for intersession courses. The grievor is one of three people at the College with the authority to authorize the deferral of tuition fees for intersession courses. This involves interviewing the student, reviewing his or her financial situation and setting up a payment plan. The grievor responds to requests for information from agencies such as the Workers' Compensation Board which sponsor students who take intersession courses. Her written responses generally include a confirmation that a particular student is registered for a course as well as a description of the course. The grievor testified that she has tight deadlines when responding to these requests. The grievor monitors student enrollment in intersession courses on a daily basis. After an intersession is completed she prepares a summary report listing enrollments, the tuition generated and the cost incurred. The grievor receives suggestions from a variety of sources about possible changes to the intersession program which she raises with the Chairperson. She gave the example of Social Service Worker students asking that a course be offered in the intersession so as to allow them to lighten their course load during the following semester. According to the grievor she communicated this request to the Chairperson and the course in question was subsequently offered in intersession. THE JOB EVALUATION GUIDE CHARTS Job evaluation guide charts contained in section VI of the job evaluation system summarize the responsibilities and typical duties of a Support Services Officer C and a Support Services Officer D as follows: SUPPORT SERVICES OFFICER C SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITY Incumbems perform duties associated with developing and operating college academic/administrative programmes according to the assessment of the needs of client groups both within and outside the College. Liaison functions are normally of a proactive nature. TYPICAL DUTIES Researches and prepares presentations and reports to communicate and support college plans and objectives. Provides functional guidance and direction to others. Analyzes requirements of groups both within and external to College and develops programmes to meet these requirements. Provides liaison with government agencies in relation to the administration of projects. SUPPORT SERVICES OFFICER D SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITY Incumbents are charged with the responsibility of developing and marketing college programmes to the outside community using a high degree of independent judgement. Liaison functions are normally of a proactive nature involving generation and procurement. TYPICAL DUTIES Identifies requirements of outside groups for college services and develops programs to meet these requirements. Markets college capabilities to outside community. Develops detailed training programmes to ensure adherence to original objectives. Acts as public relations resource when representing college. While the grievor prepares advertisements respecting the intersession program, this does not reasonably fit within the Support Services Officer D responsibility of developing and marketing college programmes to the outside community. This is made clear by the typical duties of a Support Services Officer D which include identifying the requirements of outside groups for College services, developing programs to meet those requirements and marketing college capabilities. The grievor's primary duties involve placing individual students with outside agencies. She is also involved in the administration ofintersession courses. These duties require that she assess the needs of students and outside agencies. Accordingly, it can reasonably be said that she performs duties associated with developing and operating academic/administrative programs according to an assessment of the needs of client groups inside and outside the College. These are the responsibilities set out in the job evaluation guide chart for a Support Services Officer C. This indicates that she is properly classified as a Support Services Officer C. The remaining issue is whether a core poim rating of the grievor's duties and responsibilities indicates that there are specific factors relating to her position which justify a rating higher than that of a Support Services Officer C. THE CORE POINT RATING PLAN The core point rating plan comains the following statemems relating to the use of illustrative classifications on the core poim rating charts and the steps to be followed when core poim rating a position. ILLUSTRATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS Where possible, classifications defined under the Job Evaluation Guide Charts, have been included as examples in the core point rating charts to illustrate the level and point value that has been determined for that classification. These illustrative classifications are a pan of the point rating plan and are to be considered to ensure consistency in the application of the plan. Reference can be made to Summary: Factor Evaluations and Total Point Ratings contained in Section X. USE OF THE PLAN There are eight (8) steps in the application of this Core Point Rating Plan: 1. The position being evaluated by this plan is reviewed to ensure that it is a CAAT Support Staff'position (see Definition in Section 1). 2. The Position Description Form is studied in its entirety to gain an understanding of the position as a whole and of each factor used to describe the position. Its relationship to positions above and below it in the work unit and in the organization is also examined. 3. Using the predominant or core duties, determine the appropriate Job Family to be assigned to the position. Job Family definitions have been prepared and are included in Section V. 4. The position is confirmed as being truly atypical or not readily evaluated and classified by using the Job Evaluation Guide Charts. 5. The level of each factor for the position being evaluated is tentatively determined by reviewing the factor's level definitions in the core point rating charts. Uniform application of the factor's level definitions requires frequent reference to the description of the levels and the notes to raters. 6. To confirm the tentative level selected in//5 above the illustrative classifications, which exemplify the level assigned for each factor should be carefully reviewed. The description of the level above and below the tentative level selected should also be reviewed to confirm where the position being evaluated should be rated. Reference should be made to the Summary: Factor Evaluations and Total Point Ratings contained in Section X. 7. When the position has been evaluated on all factors the point values are added together to determine the total point rating. 8. The position being rated is compared as a whole to positions to which similar total point values have been assigned, as a check on the validity of the total rating. The above provisions indicate that while a position description form plays a key role in tentatively determining factor levels, in order to insure consistency reference is also to be made to illustrative classifications, to other levels and to the ratings set out in Section X of the Plan. The parties agree on the ratings for four of the core point rating factors respecting the grievor's position. They disagree on the ratings for the other eight factors which are discussed below. COMPLEXITY The relevant core point rating chart states that this factor measures the amount and nature of analysis, problem-solving and reasoning required to perform job-related duties. It also states that it measures the conceptual demands of a job. The College rated the grievor's position at level 5. The Union argues for level 6, the highest level possible. The criteria for these two levels are as follows: 5. Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods. 6. Job duties require the investigation and resolution of a variety of unusual conditions involving the adaptation and/or development of specialized processes and methods. The grievor testified that her job is complex because she is required to coordinate a wide range of concurrent activities; the number of students she deals with has been increasing; she must track down students to talk to them; she is required to be out of the office to attend to career day activities; and a number of agencies have recently closed their doors due to a lack of government funding. The position description form refers to the type and concurrent nature of the tasks performed by the grievor. In my view, however, these matters are meant to be measured by the factor of strain from work pressures/demands/deadlines as opposed to the amount and nature of analysis, problem solving and reasoning required to perform job duties. The position description form does note that creativity is required in the analysis of field placement problems and the development of appropriate solutions and recommendations. It is difficult to ascertain the dividing line between level 5 and level 6 ratings simply from the wording of the criteria for the two levels. Assistance can, however, be gained from the job evaluation guide charts. As noted above, the chart for a Support Services Officer C indicates that a person in that classification typically analysis the requirements of groups within and external to the College and develops programs to meet those requirements.- The grievor's functions related to student field placements fit within this description. Further, these appear to be the most complex aspect of her job. The job evaluation guide chart for a Support Services Officer C describes the complexity aspect of the job using the same wording as does the criteria for a level 5 rating. This being the case, I find level 5 to be the appropriate rating for the grievor's position. JUDGEMENT The core point rating chart states that this factor measures the independent judgement and problem solving required on a job. The College rated the grievor's position at level 6 while the Union argues for level 7, the highest rating possible. The criteria for these two levels are as follows: 6. Job duties require a high degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves adapting analytical techniques and development of new information on various situations and problems. 7. Job duties require a very high degree of judgment. Problem-solving involves originating new techniques and utilizing them in the development of new information. The grievor testified that the judgement she exercises is influenced by the fact that the needs of students change each year. She stated that she must develop new field experience opportunities and judge who is appropriate for the various field experiences that are available. She submitted that she uses her judgement when assessing both the general appropriateness of an agency and a student's potential involvement with the agency, such as when she decided that it would not be appropriate for a student to work as a liaison with street youth. She also indicated that when there are problems with a student at an agency she must use her judgement to try to maintain that field experience location for future years. Among the statements contained in the position description form with respect to the factor of judgement are the following: The incumbent must use judgement in determining the acceptability of field placement agencies through on site inspection and interviews with agency personnel, with regard to the quality of learning including adequate supervision, work environment and the conformance to program objectives. The incumbent decides the level of learning available within the agency and negotiates a plan for the students' involvement within the agency. Exercises independent judgement determining the plan of action re continuance, transfer or termination of students' participation in field placement agencies. The incumbent must be familiar with a wide variety of programs and services, select the most appropriate and assist members of the general public, potential students and students to access them. The grievor clearly exercises a high degree of independent judgement. She routinely develops new information on situations and problems by meeting with students and faculty and through visits to agencies. These functions fit within the criteria for a level 6 rating. The criteria for a level 7 rating requires that an employee originate new techniques and utilize those techniques in the development of new information. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the grievor originates new techniques which she utilizes to develop new information. Accordingly her position does not meet the criteria for a level 7 rating and I confirm the level 6 rating given by the College. MOTOR SKILLS The College rated the grievor's position at level C 1 while the Union argues for level C2. The agreed on C rating indicates that the grievor uses complex fine motor movement where speed is a secondary consideration. The difference between level 1 and 2 relates to the prevalence of this type of fine motor skill. Level 1 is appropriate where it is present less than 10 percent of the time. Level 2 is appropriate where it is present from 10 to 30 percent of the time. The complex fine motor skills the grievor utilizes relates to the time she does keyboarding when preparing documents and inputting field placement and other information into a computer. The position description form specifies that the grievor is engaged in this type of activity 14 percent of the time. This frequency meets the criteria for a level 2 rating. Accordingly I find level C2 to be the appropriate rating. SENSORY DEMAND This factor measures the demand on mental energy while performing tasks. The core point rating chart provides that consideration is to be given to the level or degree of concentration, i.e. visual, auditory, tactile or some other form of physical concentration or a mental process, as well as the frequency of the requirement for careful attention to detail and accuracy. The grievor testified that she reads available information about agencies. She stated that she must be aware of what she sees and hears when visiting different agencies, including the body language of their personnel. She also testified that she must be accurate with respect to police clearances, workers' compensation information, and the costing of intersession courses. The grievor stated that she deals with a number of inquiries for information on the telephone, especially inquiries relating to intersession courses, and these require a high level of concentration. She contended that a high level of concentration is also required due to various distractions related to the fact that her office is in a high traffic area and there are frequent interruptions caused by people asking her for information. The position description form contains the following statements related to this factor: Visual and auditory acuity is required. There is ongoing attention to detail and to the accuracy and tenor of oral and written communication. There is frequent intense application of mental energy in negotiation with students and agencies and in the analysis of student and agency needs and problems, and development of presentation of recommendations. Task % of Time Visual/Auditory/Communications 75% Attention to Detail 100% Mental energy 100% The College rated the grievor's position at level 3 while the Union argues for level 5, the highest rating possible. The criteria for these and the intervening level 4 rating are as follows: 3. Job duties require moderate visual, auditory or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. OR Job duties require considerable visual, auditory or sensory demand on mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy: OR Job duties require extensive visual, auditory or sensory demand on mental energy and periodic careful attention to detail and accuracy. 4. Job duties require considerable visual, auditory or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. OR Job duties require extensive visual, auditory or sensory demand on mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy. 5. Job duties require extensive visual, auditory or sensory demand on mental energy and .frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. The position description form indicates that the grievor has visual, auditory and communication related demands on her mental energy 75 percent of the time. It states that there is frequent intense application of mental energy. The form also states that the gfievor pays attention to detail 100 percent of the time. The wording of the position description form suggests that the gfievor's duties require both extensive visual, auditory or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent attention to detail and accuracy. These meet the criteria for a level 5 rating. As noted above, however, the core point rating plan provides that before a tentative rating based on the wording of a position description form is confirmed, the illustrative classifications should be carefully reviewed. The illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating include Support Services Officers A, B, C and D. The typical duties of these classifications set out in the job evaluation guide charts are as follows: Support Services Officer A Compiles data and statistics required for departmental reports. Develops and recommends policies and procedures for administration of unit. Provides data to decision makers allowing them to determine best course of action. Responds to needs of service users by coordinating administrative details of projects. B Compiles and analyzes data in order to provide recommendations as to appropriate course of action. Prepares operation plans, schedules and terms of reference. Represents College in dealing with public by attending appropriate functions. Trains, coordinates and monitors activities of others as appropriate C Researches and prepares presentations and reports to communicate and support college plans and objectives. Provides functional guidance and direction to others. Analyzes requirements of groups both within and external to College and develops programmes to meet these requirements. Provides liaison with government agencies in relation to the administration of projects. D Identifies requirements of outside groups for college services and develops programs to meet these requirements. Markets college capabilities to outside community. Develops detailed training programs to ensure adherence to original objectives. Act as public relations resource when representing college. All of the grievor's duties appear to be encompassed within these listed duties. Logically the extent to which she must concentrate and pay attention to detail is approximately the same as with other Support Services Officers who perform these duties. To give the grievor's position a higher rating than Support Services Officers A to D would give rise to an uneven application of the core point rating plan, a situation the plan indicates is to be avoided. Having regard to these considerations, I find a level 3 rating to be appropriate. STRAIN FROM WORK PRESSURES/DEMANDS/DEADLINES The College rated this factor at level 4. The Union argues for a level 5 rating, the highest rating possible. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 4. Job duties involve conflicting work pressure and frequent interruptions in work flow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and occasional critical deadlines. 5. Job duties involve continuous work pressure and unpredictable interruptions in workflow. Numerous conflicting demands and tight deadlines occur frequently. As noted above, the grievor gave evidence relating to the amount of work she performs and the concurrent nature of the different demands placed on her. The position description form contains the following comments relating to the factor of strain from work pressures/demands/deadlines. The incumbent is faced with the concurrent demands of approximately 184 students, 230 agencies, three (3) programs at any one time; each demanding the coordination of field placement and assistance to meet their deadlines. Deadlines are usually unpredictable because they arise from situations beyond the control of the incumbent. The incumbent must be able to manage a variety of external and internal projects at the same time and be able to prioritize activities according to their impact on student success and/or success of the Division in meeting its project deadlines and recommendations, i.e., Intercession, field placement, career days, W.C.B., field agency visits, student/course enquiries. Workflow is continually interrupted due to the concurrent tasks. The incumbent must analyze and direct problem solving in student and agency complaints as they relate to the placement process. Unpopular recommendations to agencies and students must be made at times. 8.2 Indicate the predictability of the strain and percentage of time that is required in performing each of the tasks discussed above. PR - Predictable TP - Tends to be Predictable LIP - Usually predictable NP - Not predictable Task % of Time Predictability Concurrent/conflicting demands 100% NP Meeting deadlines 50% PR Project management 100% TP Unpopular recommendations 25% NP Negotiations 30% TP The illustrative examples of a level 4 rating include both Support Services Officers C and D. Part X of the job evaluation plan indicates that none of the 60 classifications described in the job evaluation guide charts has been given a level 5 rating for this factor. This suggests that a senior Support Services Officer position will generally attract a level 4 rating while a level 5 rating will be an uncommon occurrence. The indication in the position description form that the grievor continually faces concurrent and conflicting demands suggests that her duties involve continuous work pressure, which is one of the criterion for a level 5 rating. Her concurrent tasks frequently result in interruptions in work flow. For interruptions in workflow to justify a level 5 rating, however, they must be unpredictable. The grievor's evidence indicates that her interruptions in work flow tend to be of a recurring type relating to student field placements and the administration of intersession courses. It is not clear that these types of interruptions meet the criteria for a level 5 rating. Other criteria for a level 5 rating are that there are numerous conflicting demands and tight deadlines occur frequently. The indication in the position description form that the grievor faces concurrent/conflicting demands 100 percent of the time suggests that she does face numerous conflicting demands. The position description form also states that the grievor meets deadlines 50 percent of the time. There are certain critical deadlines which the grievor must meet, including those relating to placing students with agencies and planning for intersession courses. The reference in the position description form to the grievor meeting deadlines 50 percent of the time, and deadlines usually being unpredictable as they arise from situations beyond the grievor's control, suggest that time constraints related to relatively routine matters are treated as involving the meeting of deadlines. Such an approach has apparently not been adopted by the job evaluation system, as indicated by the fact that none of the 60 standard classifications has been accorded a level 5 rating. The wording of the position description form suggests that the grievor meets certain of the criteria for a level 5 rating. When her duties are viewed in light of the core point rating plan as a whole, however, it is apparent that level 4 is the better fit. Accordingly, I confirm the level 4 rating given by the College. COMMUNICATION/CONTACTS The College rated this factor at level 4 while the Union contends that level 5, the highest level possible, is more appropriate. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 4. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing basic instruction or for the resolution of complex problem situations. There may be a need for sophisticated influential or persuasive techniques in order to address the problem of those with special needs. Regular involvement with confidential and sensitive information where disclosure implications are significant. 22 5. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing highly detailed or complex explanations or instructions. There may be a need to secure understanding, co-operation or agreement for the purpose of concluding negotiation activities. Extensive involvement with confidential and sensitive information where disclosure implications could result in adverse publicity and/or litigation procedures. The grievor is in frequent contact with a wide range of individuals. When giving her evidence she noted that she deals with senior people in the College and at outside agencies. The criteria for the factor of communications/contacts does not, however, refer to the positions held by individuals that an employee communicates with but the nature and purpose of the communications and the confidentiality of the information involved. The grievor testified that students share confidential information with her to assist her in making field placements. She indicated that this includes information about physical and sexual abuse. She stated that the field selection form asks students if there is any reason they could not pass a criminal reference check and those who indicate that there is often add the reason in writing or subsequently explain the reason to her. It appears that the grievor uses the confidential information she receives to assist her in placing students but does not communicate the information to others. For example, when giving her evidence the grievor referred to an incident where a student advised her that she was involved in a lesbian relationship and asked that the grievor place her with an agency which would accept her sexual preference. The grievor told the student that she would not advise the agency about her sexual preference although the student could herself advise the agency. At one point in her evidence the grievor was asked what would happen if confidential information got into the wrong hands. The grievor replied that a chairperson would be in a better position to answer that question although she thought that legal action might result. Dr. Hoare testified that the disclosure of certain information by the grievor might result in the College being charged under the Freedom of Information Act, although faculty members are more involved with confidential information than is the grievor. The core point rating plan contains a note to raters respecting confidential information which states as follows: Note to Raters Many college jobs deal with some information that is confidential. The focus in this factor is on the manner, purpose and responsibilities involved in communicating, rather than the content of the information being communicated. Therefore raters should not rate the information, but the communications responsibilities involved in handling it. This note makes it clear that a rating is not to be based on the nature of the personal information provided to the grievor. Instead the focus is to be on the grievor's communication responsibilities in handling the information. It appears that the grievor uses the confidential information she receives to assist her in deciding where to place students, but she does not pass on confidential information to others. Accordingly, her communications responsibilities are generally limited to ensuring that she herself does not disclose confidential information to others. If the grievor should disclose confidential personal information about an individual student the implications could be significant for the student, the grievor and the College. There does not, however, appear to be any basis for concluding that it would likely result in adverse publicity for the College. Further, it seems unlikely that administrative procedures provided for under the Freedom of Information Act are covered by the reference to litigation in the criteria for a 5 rating. In all the circumstances I conclude that the gfievor's involvement with confidential information fits the criteria for a level 4 rating, namely that she has regular involvement with confidential and sensitive information where disclosure implications are significant. The criteria for a level 5 rating states that job duties require communication for the purpose of providing highly detailed or complex explanations or instructions. The evidence suggests that the grievor frequently communicates with others to obtain information and also provides information to agencies relating to field placements. The evidence does not, however, indicate that she provides others with highly detailed or complex explanations or instructions. The remaining criterion for a level 5 rating is that an employee may need to secure understanding, co-operation or agreement for the purpose of concluding negotiation activities. From the wording it is apparent that this is not a mandatory requirement for a level 5 rating. As noted above, the position description form uses the term "negotiates" to describe the grievor's activities in placing students. !n trying to place students she clearly does seek to obtain the co-operation or agreement of various agencies. In all the circumstances I conclude that the gdevor's position meets this criterion. The grievor's position meets a nonmandatory criterion for a level 5 rating but does not meet the two other criteria. This being the case, I conclude that the grievor better fits the criterion for a level 4 rating and accordingly I confirm the level 4 rating given by the College. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS AND ACTIONS The College rated this factor at level 4. The Union contends that a level 5 rating, the highest rating possible, is more appropriate. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 4. Decisions and/or actions have considerable impact on the organization. Errors are detected atier the fact and may result in considerable interruption and delay in work output and waste of resources. 5. Decisions and/or actions have significant impact on the organization. Errors are difficult to detect and result in a significant waste of resources and continuing influence on operational effectiveness. The grievor testified that if she makes incorrect decisions when placing students in their field experience they may be "tumed off" by the experience and resign from their program. She also stated that if an agency concludes that she has acted inappropriately it may impact on the placement program. The position description form contains the following statements relating to this factor: Mistaken or inappropriate actions/advice by the incumbent would call into question the value and/or integrity of the Human Services Division Programs by students, potential students and community agencies. This could seriously damage the public image of the College. This could result in decreased revenue generated through Intersession, decreased enrollment in Human Services programs, and difficulty marketing Human Services Division programs for field placement. There is no formal process in place which detects errors. Errors in judgement/actions are difficult to detect but have serious repercussions. Careful attention to detail and accuracy is required by the incumbent. Students, potential students and community agencies may identify errors when they attempt to implement activities recommended by the incumbent. Inattention to documentation and data collection could result in considerable interruptions and delay in program placement impacting negatively on student progress/success and the operation of the Human Services Division programs. A review of part X of the job evaluation system indicates that only three classifications have been assigned a level 5 rating for this factor, namely Support Services Officer D, Systems Analyst and Technical Support Specialist. The job evaluation guide charts indicate that a Support Services Officer D is charged with the responsibility of developing and marketing college programmes; a Systems Analyst develops and implements computer services for college departments; and a Technical Support Specialist recommends software for specialized areas and designs and alters software programs. Logic suggests that an error on the part of an employee in one of these positions could have a significant impact and result in a major waste of resources. Should the grievor make an error, however, it would presumably impact on an individual student or agency. It might result in a student not taking an intersession course or withdrawing from a program or perhaps an agency deciding to no longer take students. It would take a number of errors on the part of the grievor, however, before there would be the type of major impact referred to in the position description form, a significant waste of resources or a continuing influence on operational effectiveness. Errors on the part of the grievor are difficult to detect which fits the criteria for a level 5 rating. Overall, however, the better fit is with the criteria for a level 4 rating. Accordingly I find that level 4 is the appropriate rating. WORK ENVIRONMENT The grievor occupies a small area enclosed by dividers in an open concept office. There are private rooms she can use when meeting students. The position description form contains the following statements with respect to the physical environment the grievor works in and the length of her exposure to particular conditions. Environment % of Time Works in a comfortable, indoor environment most of the time 70% Moderate amount of travel by car 30% Community agency visits involving varying degrees of risk and undesirable conditions (e.g. high risk neighbourhoods, correctional facilities, horse stables) 20% Late evening/night visits which involve walking on poorly lit streets and parking lots 2% Driving in all weather conditions 20% The College rated the grievor's job at level 2 while the Union argues for a level 3 rating. The criteria for these ratings are as follows: 2. Job duties are carried out with occasional exposure to moderately disagreeable and/or hazardous elements OR recurring exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous elements OR there is a requirement for occasional travel (10% - 30%) 3. Job duties are carried out with continuous exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous elements OR recurring exposure to moderately disagreeable and/or hazardous elements OR occasional exposure to extremely disagreeable and/or hazardous elements OR there is a requirement for moderate travel (31% 60%) The percentage figures set out above suggest that the grievor is in the office 70 percent of the time and out of the office, both traveling to and from agencies and spending time at agencies, 30 percent of the time. This latter figure fits the travel criteria for a level 2 rating. Presumably the ratings for varying amounts of travel take into account weather and other conditions normally associated with that frequency of travel. Since the grievor visits agencies in order to locate placements suitable for students it is unlikely that she would attend at agencies where there is a substantial safety risk. The only facilities specifically referred to on the position description form are horse stables and correctional facilities. Taking into account the security features at correctional facilities, visits to these locations do not appear to involve any measurable degree of risk. The position description form indicates that the grievor spends 2 percent of her time at night walking on poorly lit streets and parking lots. This does involve some degree of risk. Day time visits to high risk neighbourhoods, which presumably are also infrequent, would involve somewhat similar risks. The nature of the risk is difficult to quantify. It is probably overstating the matter to describe it as extremely hazardous but understating it to describe it only as slightly hazardous. The intermediate level is moderately hazardous. In the result I conclude that the grievor is occasionally exposed to moderately hazardous elements. The grievor's activities all come within the criteria for a level 2 rating. Accordingly I find level 2 to be the appropriate rating. CONCLUSION The point totals associated with the grievor's position, including the additional points related to motor skills, raises the poim total to 714. This is still within payband 11. In light of this fact, and the fact that the grievor's position fits the description of a Support Services Officer C contained in the job evaluation guide chart, I find that the grievor is appropriately rated as a Support Services Officer C at payband 11. The grievance is accordingly hereby dismissed. Dated at Toronto this 18th day of November 1995. ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION ~nt Classification: ~'~'/~/~ ~' 5'~L]IdE':50~'/c/~..E~ C and Present Payband: / / 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 ARBITP, ATOR Level Polnta Level Points level 1. Training/Technical Skills 2. Experience 3. Complexity 4. Judgement Motor Skills C~/ /~; ~. '~.. Physical Demand ~J, /(~ c~ /~ ,~L 7. Sensory Demand .~ ~). (~' .5' 5-(.b ~ 8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines 9. Independent Action ~' 1 O, Communications/Contacts ~ /~ ~- ,~- /~,~ z_/- 1 1. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 12. Work Environment PAYBAND/TOTAL POINTS JOB CLASSIFICATION ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: [] The Union [] The College FOR THE UNION.~ FOR MANA, GEMENT '~rievor) ~ate) / ,(COllege Representative) {Date) ' , 'BITRATOR'S USE: " (Arbitrator's Sign~X3re) / (Date of Hearingr {Date of Award] ' g3-12-Og b:datashee~.doc