Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMcIntosh 95-11-02 s) BETWEEN. · ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL 109 (hereinafter called the Union) - and - FANSHAWE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY (hereinafter called the College) - and - CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF MS. LESLIE MCINTOSH (hereinafter called the Grievor) SOLE ARBITRATOR PROFESSOR IAN A. HUNTER APPEARANCES: FOR THE UNION: Ms. Louise Watt, Chief Steward FOR THE COLLEGE: Ms. Sheila Wilson, Personnel Officer AN EXPEDITED ARBITRATION HEARING WAS HELD IN LONDON, ONTARIO ON OCTOBER 18, 1995 1 AWARD (1) IntrOduction The grievance of Leslie McIntosh is dated December 2, 1994 and alleges improper classification as Support Services Officer B (Exhibit 1). An expedited arbitration hearing was held in London, Ontario on October 18, 1995. At that hearing, the following Exhibits were entered: Grievance (Exhibit 1); P.D.F. (Exhibit 2); Arbitration Data Sheet (Exhibit 3). (2) Overview of The Position Ms. McIntosh, the Grievor, is currently classified as a Support Services Officer B in the Government and Community Partnerships division of the College. The P.D.F. (Exhibit 2), on which the parties are agreed, provides a generally accurate description of the position. The core functions of the position (approximately sixty percent .(60%) of the incumbent's time) are researching and preparing training program proposals for consideration by public funding agencies. A subsidiary aspect (one-fifth (1/5th) to one- sixth (1/6th) of the incumbent's time) is spent assisting in program submissions, and related marketing and publication of 2 programs, from international funding sources. These core duties include contact with departmental personnel (the academics in various departments who will actually deliver the training programs), departmental chairs and managers, and personnel at various government funding agencies (federal and provincial). In on era of cutbacks to all post-secondary institutions, the revenue- generating aspects of the position grow ever more important. Approximately %eh percent (10%) of the incumbent's time is spent in budget preparation. This function requires the incumbent (a) to explain the requirements of the funding agency to those who are developing, and will eventually deliver, the training program (eg. what are allowable expenses); (b) applying Fanshawe's pricing policy to the component elements of the proposal; and (c) structuring the content of the proposal. Approximately five percent (5%) of the incumbent's duties relate to marketing training programs. Marketing is done by brochure, news release, newsletter, etc. and the incumbent uses a print graphics computer program. The incumbent also has information sessions, primes teachers on what questions might be anticipated, checks that classroom facilities are adequate, and assists in evaluating people who attend the training sessions %o determine how they heard of the program so that future marketing may be appropriately targeted. 3 The incumbent also fulfils a number of related ancillary functions: eg. maintaining and using the departmental resource library; attends meetings either with the department Manager (Wendy Curtis) or in her absence. The Government Community Partnerships division is located in "A" Building, and the Grievor works in close physical proximity to her Manager, Wendy Curtis. Ms. McIntosh estimated that the department might generate twenty to thirty training proposals on average annually; of these approximately seventy percent (70%) receive favourable consideration, and eventual support, from the government financing agency to which they are submitted. A relatively low cost training program (eg. Career Planning) might have a budget of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000); a relatively expensive training program, involving shop time and complex equipment (eg. Automotive Power Program) might have a two hundred thousand dollar ($200,000) budget. (3) Job Family I have examined the Job Evaluation Guide Chart for the Administrative Services: Support Services Officer B position. I have compared that Guide Chart to (a) the P.D.F. (Exhibit 2) and (b) to the oral evidence .at the arbitration hearing. I am 4 satisfied that the position in question falls within the Support Services Officer Guide Chart. On at least one factor (i.e. Experience) I am satisfied (and, indeed, the College conceded) that the position in question is Atypical. Accordingly, I turn next to the Evaluation Criteria and the Job Factors Agreed and the Job Factors in Dispute. (4) Job Factors Agreed As the Arbitration Data Sheet submitted to me in advance of the hearing indicates, the parties are agreed on the appropriate rating of four job factors. They are: Training/Technical Skills Level 5 91 points Motor Skills Level 2 22 points Independent Action Level 4 46 points Responsibility for Decisions/ Actions Level 4 62 points (5) Job Factors in Dispute (a) Experience The College has evaluated this factor Level 3: 1 - 3 years practical experience. The Union has evaluated this factor Level 4: 3 - 5 years practical experience. 5 The P.D.F. itself (Exhibit 2) calls for "a minimum of five years related experience". The College conceded that this requires Level 4. On this basis, Ms. McIntosh's position is Atypical. I hold that Experience is properly evaluated at Level 4. (b) Complexity The College has evaluated this factor Level 5: "Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods." The Union has evaluated this factor Level 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." I find nothing in the P.D.F. (Exhibit 2) which would support Level 6. I asked the Grievor what was the most unusual task required in the position? She replied: "Balancing the different needs of different client groups" and she elaborated by providing examples. Nothing here suggested 6 to me "... investigation and resolution of a variety of unusual conditions" (Level 6) . Nor was there any evidence, either from the Grievor or her Supervisor, that the position "adapts" specialized processes or methods. There was evidence that the Grievor uses print graphics software (eg. Page Maker). But she does not "adapt or develop" specialized processes or methods which is characteristic of Level 6. When I asked Ms. Curtis about the complexity of the position, she reiterated, on several occasions, "It requires basic common sense". Complexity is correctly rated Level 5. (c) Judgement The College has evaluated this factor Level 5: "Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used." The Union proposes Level 6: 7 "Job duties require a high degree of judgement. Problem- solving involves adapting analytical techniques and development of new information on various situations an problems." The description in the P.D.F. specifically refers to "... independent judgement and problem-solving ... personal good judgement ... moderate freedom to act, especially in the absence of the manager ... good judgement". In my reading, the P.D.F. supports a Level 5 rating. This was confirmed by the evidence both of the Grievor and her Supervisor. I asked the Grievor what areas required the greatest exercise of judgement on her part? She replied: "Two areas; (a) marketing strategies and (b) relationships and sensibilities in dealing with clients". As she elaborated on these areas it was clear to me that a "significant" degree of judgement is an accurate, indeed generous, rating. Nor did I hear any evidence of "adapting analytical techniques, (Level 6). In a sense, the research aspects of the position require the Grievor to develop some new information (eg. on labour trends in London and adjoining counties) but this information is readily available. Also the research aspect is not the core of the position. 8 Ms. Curtis testified that "common sense" was what was required, and that the Manager's guidance would be sought in resolving any unusual or novel problem. Judgement is correctly rated 5. (d) Physical Demand This factor measures the physical energy required to complete tasks. The College has rated this Level 2: "Job duties require some physical demand. There is an occasional requirement for repetition and/or speed. Employee usually has comfortable bodily positions with flexibility of movement. Employee uses recurring light physical effort, OR occasional moderate physical effort." The Union has proposed LeVel 3: "Job duties require regular physical demand. There is a regular need for speed and repetitive use of muscles. Employee is in uncomfortable or awkward bodily positions for short periods of time with some flexibility of movement. Employee uses continuous light physical effort, OR 9 recurring periods of moderate physical effort, OR occasional periods of heavy physical effort." It is not clear to me (and it remained unclear to me after the evidence) how this factor can be in dispute. The Grievor testified that she spends approximately sixty percent (60%) of her time at the computer. These periods are not continuous, but interrupted by telephone calls, getting up, moving around, seeing people, etc.. This seems to me squarely embraced (a) by the narrative description of Level 2, and (b) by the illustrative classifications. The College's ranking (Level 2) already equates the Grievor's position to a Secretary A, B, or C who, presumably, spends at least sixty percent (60%) of her time keyboarding. There was not a scintilla of evidence of "uncomfortable or awkward bodily position ... moderate ... heavy physical effort". This factor is correctly rated Level 2. (e) Sensory Demand This factor measures the mental energy required. The College has rated this Level 3: 10 "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." The Union has proposed Level 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." The P.D.F. (Exhibit 2) refers to "considerable ... visual and auditory mental energies". This is consistent with Level 2. Nothing in the oral evidence, either of the Grievor or her Supervisor, suggested Level 4. Sensory Demand is properly rated Level 3. 11 (f) Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines The College has rated this Level 3: "Job duties involve moderate work pressures or demands. Interruptions, changing deadlines, multiple demands occur regularly but are usually predictable. Occasionally, critical deadlines may occur." The Union proposes Level 4: "Job duties involve conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in workflow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and occasional critical deadlines." The Grievor testified that eighty-five to ninety percent (85% - 90%) of her work was governed by "tight deadlines". However, Ms. Curtis, while acknowledging that deadlines exist, suggested that two to eight weeks was the average project deadline. I do not consider that "tight". Moreover the evidence clearly established that most deadlines are recurrent and predictable (governed by the dates when government funding agencies receive proposals). Sometimes, important deadlines are considerably shorter and are unanticipated. Priorities on projects may be changed but they are changed by Ms. 12 Curtis' direction. There was little or no evidence of "conflicting work pressures" or of "frequent inter- ruptions in work flow". Based on the evidence I heard, this factor is correctly rated 3. (g) Communications/Contacts The College has rated this Level 3: "Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures, policy, or theory. There may be need to promote participation and understanding and to secure co-operation in order to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive nature. Regular involvement with confidential information which has moderate disclosure implications." The Union proposes Level 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." The Grievor communicates, both within the College and externally, essentially as a "go-between" between (a) 13 the funding agency, and (b) those academics who will be responsible for delivering the training program. She interprets the policy of the funding agency and Fanshawe College's policies on training. She promotes participation by individuals in the training program (i.e. the marking aspects of the position), and she secures co-operation between the funding agency and the training-providers. All of this is specifically embraced in Level 3. I am not satisfied, from the evidence, that the Grievor has any involvement in "confidential" information. If she does it is in College pricing policies, and disclosure implications would be "moderate" not "significant". Communications/Contacts is correctly rated 3. (h) Work Environment The College has rated this Level 1: "Job duties are carried out with occasional exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous elements." The Union proposes Level 2: 14 "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%)." In my view, this ought not to have been a factor in dispute. The Grievor works in an ordinary office environment. The Grievor testified that there had been recurrent complaints about air quality in "A" block. This is apparently being reviewed by the Health and .Safety .Committee. The most hazardous element the Grievor deals with is printer toner. Even if I were to give some weight to the unsubstantiated reference to air quality in "A" building (and I do not - at least not until there is some definitive evidence from the Health and Safety Committee), Level 1 would be the appropriate rating. Work Environment is properly rated Level 1. 15 (6) Core Point Rating Support Services Officer, Atypical FACTORS LEVEL POINTS Training/Technical Skills 5 91 Experience 4 45 Complexity 5 74 Judgement 5 84 Motor Skills 2 22 Physical Demand 2 16 Sensory Demand 3 28 Strain from Work Pressures/ Demand/Deadlines 3 28 Independent Action 4 46 Communications/Contacts 3 88 Responsibility for Decisions/ Actions 4 62 Work Environment 1 10 Total 594 (7) Decision The position in question is correctly classified Support Services Officer, Atypical, 594 points, Payband 9. The grievance of Leslie McIntosh is therefore dismissed. 16 Dated at the City of London this ~a~ day of ~do~'~_ , 1995.