HomeMy WebLinkAboutDowler 95-10-16IN THE MATTER. OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
FANSHAWE COLLEGE
("the College")
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
("the Urfion")
AND IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE OF GORD DOWLER (OPSEU #95A409)
ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate
APPEARANCES
For the College: Sheila Wilson, Human Resources Officer
Ken Magoon, Manager, Facilities Management
For the Union: Louise Watt, Chief Steward
Jean Crawford, Local President
Gord Dowler, Grievor
HEARING: In London on September 26, 1995
INTRODUCTION
The grievor is currently paid at the payband 9 level. On February 15, 1994 he filed a
grievance which alleged that he was improperly classified. By way of a remedy he requested that
he be classified as a Stationary Engineer atypical at the payband 12 level.
THE GRIEVOR'S JOB TITLE
The position description form agreed to by the parties refers to the grievor's position as
that of a Building Control Centre Operator. Such a position is not referred to in the job family
definitions contained in the relevant job evaluation plan. The plan does, however, make
allowance for atypical job families with respect to positions not adequately covered by the
definitions.
At the hearing the representative of the College indicated that the College views the
grievor's positiOn as being that of a Stationary Engineer C at payband 9. She stated that there is a
reasonable proximity between the grievor's position and the job evaluation guide chart for the
Stationary Engineer C position. An arbitration data sheet signed by both parties describes the
grievor's present classification as being that of a Stationary Engineer C.
The job family definitions in se(~tion V of the job evaluation plan include the following
definition of the Stationary Engineer job family:
Stationary Engineer
This family covers positions that perform tasks connected with the operation,
maimenance and repair of cemral heating and power plants and require
certification as specified under the Operating Engineers Act, administered by the
Operating Engineer and Plant Registration Branch, Technical Standards Division,
Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
The job evaluation guide chart for a Stationary Engineer C summarizes the responsibilities
of the position as follows: "Incumbents perform tasks related to the operations, repair and
maintenance of a central hearing and power plant requiring a Second Class Stationary Engineer's
Certificate".
The grievor does not hold a Stationary Engineer's certificate under the Operating
Engineers Act. It appears that none of the equipment he is involved with is covered by the
requirements of the Act. Further, many of his functions are not those typically associated with a
Stationary Engineer. Cdven these considerations I am satisfied that the grievor is not properly
classified as either a Stationary Engineer C or a Stationary Engineer atypical. Based on the
material before me I conclude that he is employed in an atypical job family which the parties in the
position description form have labeled Building Control Centre Operator.
THE GRIEVOR'S JOB DUTIES
On the day shift the grievor spends about 90 percent of his time in the College's control
centre. He is in the centre about 60 percent of the time on the afternoon shift and between 70 and
80 percent of the time on the night shift. There is generally only one operator at a time in the
centre. The centre is staff'ed twenty-four hours a day seven days a week.
One of the grievor's primary duties is to monitor mechanical, fire alarm, electrical and
security systems. This involves monitoring five computer display terminals. The grievor
indicated that he spends about 50 percent of his time on each shi~ performing this function. The
position description form indicates that this task occupies 50 percent of the grievor's time but for
very brief periods at a time.
The grievor watches closed circuit television monitors which are connected with security
cameras at 16 locations throughout the College. The position description form states that the
grievor monitors the screens 100 percent of the time. The evidence of both the grievor and Mr.
Ken Magoon, the Manager of Facilities Management, indicates that the grievor tries to monitor
the screens by glancing at them while performing other tasks. Mr. Magoon indicated that tapes
are kept of what is recorded by the cameras so that if an incident occurs the tapes can be
reviewed. He stated that the cameras cover only a relatively small part of the College and the
chances of them actually capturing an incident are small.
When requested to do so the grievor pages maintenance personnel using several paging
systems and two-way radio communications equipment. Emergency calls are directed to the
control centre as are all incoming calls to the College outside of regular business hours. Requests
for police assistance or an ambulance generally go through the centre. When he is in the control
centre the grievor is responsible for dispatching security guards employed by an outside agency to
where they might be required.
If there is a power or mechanical system failure the grievor generally contacts the
appropriate maintenance person. Should a failure occur outside of regular business hours the
grievor might do the repair himself if he is capable and has the necessary time. Alternatively he
might decide that the repair can wait until .maintenance staff are on regular duty. He can also call
in College maintenance staff on an overtime basis if he feels this is required. If he decides on this
course of action he refers to a list which indicates the amount of overtime different maintenance
staff have performed and offers the work to the employee with the least amount of overtime.
The grievor testified that Honeywell is under contract with the College to deal with the
fire system and if a problem develops with the system he will call in the finn. The position
description form contains an entry which indicates that the grievor has monthly contacts with
Chubb Security respecting fire alarms. According to the grievor if a problem develops with an
elevator he will call in an elevatorcontractor. Presumably this is because the College does not
have a qualified elevator mechanic on staff. The grievor indicated that any other calls by an
operator to an outside contractor would be unusual and would involve situations where repairs
have to be done quickly but the operator cannot get hold of a supervisor. He gave the example of
a water leak at the Simcoe campus. He stated that after making unsuccessful attempts to contact
a supervisor he arranged for a contractor to repair the leak.
The College has an an-angement whereby a snow removal service comes in whenever
there is a snowfall of two or more inches. If the grievor notices that a walkway or parking lot
area has become icy, however, he will call in a company to sand it.
The grievor is responsible for dispensing keys to maintenance staff at the start of each shift
and later receiving them back. He also issues keys for high security areas and for College
vehicles. He issues keys to outside contractors working at the College and after regular hours he
is the person they contact if they have any questions.
After regular hours certain students are entitled to enter the College. The gfievor testified
that control centre staff monitor student access after hours and try to screen those entering to
ensure that they are entitled to be in the College. If an outside door is opened after hours it will
generally trigger an alarm. The grievor will then send a security guard to check the area unless he
happens to be doing rounds in which case he might check on it himself.
When working the afternoon and night shifts the grievor does rounds which involve
checking boiler rooms, fan rooms and rooftop penthouses. While he is engaged in this task a
security guard will monitor the control centre. A round on the afternoon shif~ generally takes
about two hours to complete although in bad weather it might take three or four hours because
there are more areas to check. A round on the night shift takes much less time to complete.
The position description form states that the grievor spends approximately 10 percent of
his time performing mechanical maintenance and repairs to existing equipment and pneUmatic
systems as well as in assisting with the installation of new equipment such as control panels and
computer terminal lines.
CORE POINT RATING
The job classification system includes a core point rating plan. The plan involves rating 12
different factors or characteristics associated with a position. Each rating is worth a set number
of points. The cumulative point total determines the appropriate payband for the position. Prior
to the heating the parties agreed on the appropriate ratings for the factors of training/technical
skills, experience and judgement. At the commencement of the hearing the Union adopted the
College's level 4 rating for work environment. Previously the Union had assigned a level 3 rating
to this factor.
The parties disagree on the appropriate rating for the remaining eight factors. The nature
of their disagreement and my findings with respect to the appropriate ratings are set out below.
COMPLEXITY
The College gave this factor a level 4 rating. The Union contends that it should receive a
level 5 rating. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows:
4. Job duties require the performance of varied, non-routine, complex tasks
involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods.
5. Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks
involving specialized processes and/or methods.
At the heating the representative of the College asked the grievor what specialized
processes or methods he uses when problem soMng. He responded by giving the example of the
heating system and low water temperature in a boiler. He stated that such a situation might be
caused by one of three factors, namely 1) the boiler is not running; 2) it is very cold outside and
the College is using a lot of heat; or 3) there is a leak in the system and it is losing hot water
which might be flooding an area. He stated that he is required to analyze the problem to find a
solution and this requires a knowledge of different mechanical systems and the ability to diagnose
the problem.
The core point rating plan states that illustrative classifications referred to on the core
point rating charts are to be considered to ensure consistency in the application of the plan. It
then goes on to provide that "Reference can be made to Summary: Factor Evaluations and Total
Point Ratings contained in Section X." The summary Contained in section. X is useful because it
indicates how others who diagnose problems and perform repairs are typically rated.. In section X
the points associated with a level 4 rating are given to a Stationary Engineer C. The job
evaluation guide chart for a Stationary Engineer C indicates that among the typical duties
associated with this position are the evaluation of requests for work and emergency work orders
as well as the installation and servicing of all types of heating and air conditioning control
systems. The points associated with a level 4 rating are also given skilled trades workers. The
job evaluation guide chart for skilled trades workers indicates that these employees perform
skilled work in the installation, maintenance, repair and general upkeep of buildings, equipment,
systems and facilities. The grievor's more limited involvement with maintenance and repair
problems logically does not warrant a higher rating than that given to a Stationary Engineer C or
a skilled trades worker.
Having regard to the above considerations, I find level 4 rating to be appropriate for the
factor of complexity.
MOTOR SKII.LS
This factor measures the fine motor movements necessary to fulfill the requirements of a
position. The grievor's evidence and the position description form indicate that the grievor spends
about 40 percent of his time keyboarding. For part of this time he inputs work orders while at
other times he operates the monitoring system. Mr. Magoon testified that inputting work orders
is fairly intense but getting information from the monitoring system involves 5 or 10 keystrokes
and then waiting for the information. The grievor referred to keyboarding in order to mm on a
fan. Both the grievor and Mr. Magoon indicated that accuracy in keyboarding is more important
for the grievor than is speed.
The College rated the grievor's position at: level B2 for motor skills. The Union contends
that a level C3 rating is more appropriate. The criteria for a B and a C rating are as follows:
B - Non-complex fine motor movement, involving limited (some) dexterity,
co-ordination and precision is required.
C - Complex fine motor movement, involving considerable dexterity, co-ordination
and precision, is required. Speed is a secondary consideration.
The dispute regarding a level 2 or 3 rating relates to the prevalence of the applicable level
of motor skills. A level 2 rating relates to the use of a particular level of motor skills 10 to 30
percent of the time whereas a level 3 rating involves 31 to 61 percent of the time.
The criteria for a B and C rating are, standing by themselves, difficult to apply to the facts
of this case. It is not obvious whether keyboarding is to be viewed as involving non-complex Or
complex fine motor movement or where the line is to be drawn between limited dexterity and
considerable dexterity-. Some assistance, however, can be gained from the illustrative
classifications.
Most of the illustrative classifications respecting a level B rating, including Caretaker,
Clerk Supply and Early Childhood Education Worker, are classifications one would not normally
associate with keyboarding. The exceptions are Clerk General B and Stationary Engineer A, B
and C. The job evaluation guide charts indicate that a Clerk General B types on occasion and that
Stationary Engineers are involved in the operation of central heating and power plants, tasks
which presumably involve some computer keyboarding to access information and input directions.
These considerations suggest that occasional typing and the use of a relatively small number of
keyboard strokes to obtain information or operate equipment warrant a B rating. Accordingly, I
find that the grievor's keyboarding associated with the monitoring systems justifies a B rating.
An illustrative classification indicates that a typical Data Entry Operator is to receive a D
rating. The criteria for a D rating is similar to that for a C rating except that speed is stated to be
a major consideration. This suggests that the inputting of considerable information into a
computer through keyboarding when speed is not a major consideration warrants a C rating. The
illustrative classifications of Programmer A, B and C are rated at level C. The job evaluation
guide charts respecting these classifications indicate that speed is a secondary consideration. On
the basis of this material, and Mr. Magoon description of the work in question as fairly intense, I
conclude that the grievor's keyboarding when inputting work orders warrants a C rating.
Neither the oral evidence nor the position description form indicate how much of the
grievor's keyboarding involves inputting work orders. Cdven the full range of his tasks, however,
it appears unlikely that it would account for over three-quarters of his keyboarding time. This
means it occupies 30 percent or less of his total time. In the circumstances, I believe a 2 rating
for prevalence is appropriate.
Having regard to the foregoing, I find C2 to be the proper rating. This results in a point
total of 22 for motor skills instead of the 10 points associated with the College's rating and the 25
points associated with the Union's rating.
PHYSICAL DEMAND
As indicated above, the grievor, spends most of his time in the control centre. Generally
when in the control centre he is sitting, although he must frequently get up to deal with people at
a window, including when'giving out keys. He must also move about when attending to two
terminals and a public address system located at the back of the control centre. At the heating the
grievor agreed with the representative of the College that there is a variation in his body stances
and it is not the case that he is unable to move for extended periods of time.
As noted above, the grievor's rounds on the afternoon shift generally take him about two
hours to complete and include rooftop penthouses. During the hearing a view was held of the
control centre and a boiler room which the grievor visits during his rounds. Access to the boiler
room is by way of a long steep set of stairs.
The position description form states that 70 percent of the grievor's time is spent sitting;
20 percent walking and climbing; and 10 percent straining, pulling and lifting. Presumably this 10
percent figure relates to times when he is performing mechanical maintenance and repairs and
assisting in the installation of new equipment.
The College argues that level 2 is the appropriate rating for the factor of physical demand
while the Union argues for a level 4 rating. The criteria for these and the intervening level 3
rating are as follows:
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.
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
recurring periods of moderate physical effort,
OR
occasional periods of heavy physical effort.
4. Job duties may require frequent physical demand. There is a frequent
requirement for repetition and speed. Employee may be in awkward bodily
positions over extended periods of time with limited flexibility of movement.
Employee uses continuous moderate physical effort,
OR
recurring heavy physical effort.
The core point rating plan contains a chart and accompanying explanation with respect to
the factor of physical demand which read as follows:
The following chart represents an example of how one might Consider physical
demand over the course of "part" of a day, "most" of the day or "all the time"
(occasional, recurring and continuous), in terms of light, moderate or heavy
demand. The references to levels in the boxes represent the levels in the subfactor.
Occasional Recurring Continuous
Light Level 1 (5) Level 2 (16) Level 3 (28)
Moderate Level 2 (16) Level 3 (28) Level 4 (39).
Heavy Level 3 (28) Level 4 (39) Level 5 (50)
Although the grievor spends 70 percent of his time sitting, he generally has comfortable
body positions and flexibility of movement. These meet the criteria for a level 2 rating.
Walking and climbing take up 20 percent of the grievor's time. Given the explanation to
the chart set out above, the time involved is to be viewed as "occasional" since it is part but not
most of a day. There are only three categories of physical effort referred to in the criteria, namely
light, moderate and heavy. In this context the grievor's action in walking and climbing stairs
would appear to involve moderate physical effort. This conclusion is supported by the fact that
one illustrative classification for a level 2 rating is a security guard. According to the job
evaluation guide chart one of the typical duties of a person in this position is patrolling property
and grounds. Given these considerations I conclude that the grievor's walking and climbing
involve occasional moderate physical effort, which come within the criteria for a level 2 rating.
The position description form states that the grievor spends 10 percent of the time
straining, pulling and lifting. The words "straining" "pulling" and "lifting" all suggest heavy
physical effort. Because they account for 10 percent of the grievor's time, I find that his job
requires occasional periods of heavy physical effort. This aspect of the grievor's job accordingly
meets the criteria for a level 3 rating.
A level 3 rating results in 28 points for the factor of physical demand. This is part way
between the 16 points associated with the College's rating and the 39 points associated with the
Union's rating.
SENSORY DEMAND
This factor measures the demand on mental energy while performing tasks. The College
argues for a level 2 rating while the Union contends that a level 4 rating is more appropriate. The
criteria for a 2, 3 and 4 rating are as follows:
2. Job duties require moderate visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental
energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy.
OR
Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental
energy and periodic careful attention to detail and accuracy.
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 ~onsiderable 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.
There is a chart in the core point rating plan which helps to explain how sensory demand is
to be measured. The chart and accompanying explanation state as follows:
The following chart represents an example of how one might consider sensory or
mental demand Over the course of a day in terms of moderate, considerable or
extensive demand and the frequency of the requirement of careful attention to
detail. The references to levels in the boxes represent the levels in the subfactor.
Periodic Occasional' Frequent
(attention to (attention to (attention to
detail) detail) detail)
Moderate Concentration Level 1 (5) Level 2 (16) Level 3 (28)
Considerable Concentration Level 2 (16) Level 3 (28) Level 4 (39)
Extensive Concentration Level 3 (28) Level 4 (39) Level 5 (50)
The position description form contains the following statements relating to the sensory
demand associated with the grievor's position:
The incumbent must pay close attention to incoming data and alarms. The
monitoring of 16 CCTV screen's and 4 or 5 computer display terminals requires
considerable concentration and attention to detail and accuracy.
Task % of time
VDT's for very brief periods at a time 50%
CCTV monitors 100%
:
15
Printed notices and correspondence 10%
Because it represents the agreement of the parties I am bound by the contents of the
position description form. If taken at face value, however, this aspect of the form comains an
absurdity, namely that there are demands on the grievor's mental energy 160 percent of the time.
Accordingly I believe it appropriate to utilize the oral evidence to give a reasonable explanation to
the position description form. This evidence establishes that the grievor does not spend 100
percent of his time viewing closed circuit television monitors, but rather he glances at the
monitors when in the control centre engaged in other tasks. This logically does not involve
careful attention to detail except presumably in relatively rare cases when some movement on the
monitors arouses his suspicions.
The statement in the position description form that the grievofs monitoring tasks require
"considerable concentration and attention to detail and accuracy" suggests that his monitoring of
computer display terminals involves considerable visual, auditory or sensory demand on mental
energy of the type referred to in the criteria for a level 2, 3 and 4 rating. Accordingly, the
determining factor is whether the need for careful attention to detail and accuracy is periodic,
occasional or frequent. The position description form indicates that the grievor looks at the
display terminals for 50 percent of the time, although for brief periods each time. The above chart
does not provide any details as to how one is to distinguish between periodic, occasional and
frequent attention to detail. Fif[3, percent of the time, however, would appear to be better
described by the term "frequent", rather than "periodic" or "occasional".
Having regard to these considerations, I find that the grievor's job duties require
considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention
to detail and accuracy. This situation fits the criteria of a level 4 rating which I find to be the
appropriate rating. This results in a point total of 39 for this factor instead of the 16 points
associated with the rating assigned by the College.
STRAIN FROM WORK PRESSURES/DEMANDS/DEADLINES
The College rated this factor at level 3; the Union at level 4. The criteria for these two
ratings are as follows:
3. Job duties involve moderate work pressure or demands. Interruptions,
changing deadlines, multiple demands occur regularly but are usually predictable.
Occasionally, critical deadlines may occur.
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 position description form contains the following comment with respect to this factor:
The Control Centre Operators must deal with frequent interruptions, distractions
and difficult people. The Control Centre, by its nature, is the first point of contact
for people with problems such as security, access control, classroom conflicts and
environmental complaints. These problems are usually not predictable and happen
simultaneously.
The grievor testified that 60 to 70 percent of his work is not predictable. He stated that
he might be putting in work orders for 15 minutes and then be interrupted to deal with keys or a
security problem. He stated that at times he finds it hard to keep track of what he is doing due to
all the distractions. He indicated that the greatest strain from work pressures is on the afternoon
shift during the week and the day shift on weekends because of the large number of phone calls
and problems funneled through the control centre.
The representative of the Union asked the grievor if his priorities shift. He replied that he
makes that decision. He gave the example of a fire alarm occurring when he is on the phone
respecting a light that is out and giving the fire alarm priority. He also stated that a bomb threat
or medical emergency would be given priority.
The grievor is regularly faced with interruptions and multiple demands. Logically any
situation involving multiple demands requires that matters be handled in order of priority. The
gfievor's example of dealing with a fire alarm rather than a light that is out is a good illuStration of
this. The criteria for a 4 rating, however, refers to shifts in priorities. This suggests that
depending on the circumstances the actual order of priorities will change. It is perhaps
noteworthy that a level 4 rating is the highest rating given for any of the classifications listed in
section X of the job evaluation plan. While provision is made for a level 5 rating, no classification
listed in section X is accorded such a rating.
The oral evidence standing by itself suggests that the interruptions and multiple demands
faced by the grievor are umally predictable in the sense that they relate to the regular range of his
duties and do not necessitate a shif~ in the order of priorities. The parties in the position
description form, however, have expressly agreed that the problems associated with the frequent
interruptions and multiple demands are usually not predictable. On the basis of this agreement I
conclude that a level 4 rating is appropriate. This results in a point total of 39 for this factor
instead of the 28 points associated with the College's level 3 rating.
-. ,,
18
INDEPENDENT ACTION
The core point rating plan indicates that this factor measures the independence of action
and decisions required by a job. The College contends that a level 4 rating is appropriate. The
Union argues for a level 5 rating, which is the highest rating possible. The criteria for these two
ratings are as follows:
4. Job duties are performed in accordance with procedures and past practices
which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems.
There is considerable freedom to act independently with Supervisor input or
verification when requested.
5. Job duties are performed in accordance with general instruCtions and policies
involving changing conditions and problems. There is significant freedom to act
independently.
The position description form states that typically the grievor proceeds with his day to day
routine after being advised of any ongoing problems encountered by the operator during the
preceding shift. It also states that he may receive specific instructions from the Manager by way
of a lead hand.
The position description form indicates that when performing typical work assignments
the grievor frequently refers to safety and security policies, information memos and an emergency
procedures manual. The grievor's evidence indicates that he actually refers to this material only
about once a month because he is familiar with it. At one point in his evidence the grievor stated
that he uses policies as an outline and then makes a decision. Subsequently he referred to the
emergency procedures manual as a guideline. From this I conclude that the grievor adapts and
modifies procedures to fit particular situations.
The position description form states that the matters which the grievor typically refers to a
supervisor for solution are items such as mechanical or electrical system failures which can safely
be left for a later decision and items requiring the expenditure of money over several hundred
dollars. The position description form also contains the following entry relating to when the
grievor takes independent action which requires initiative and/or creativity:
The nature of the Control Centre requires the incumbent to take independent
action on a frequent basis. The incumbent usually relies on past practice or policy
when taking this action; however, in a few cases, the Operator must take
independent action without the benefit of such practice or policies. For example,
dealing with bomb threat, violence or fire situations.
At the heating the grievor indicated that'if a problem should develop during the off hours
which would take maintenance staff four hours to fix now but much more time to fix later he
would call someone in on overtime. He indicated that if a lot of money was involved he would try
to first contact a supervisor.
The criteria for both a level 4 and a level 5 rating refer to individuals who generally act
independently. A key difference between the two relate to the context in which an employee acts
independently. The criteria for a level 4 rating covers situations where the employee can generally
rely on established procedures and practices, although these may need to be adapted or modified
to meet particular situations. The criteria for a 5 rating indicates that because conditions are
constantly changing an employee cannot rely on procedures and past practices but only on very
general instructions and policies. The criteria for a 4 rating refers to requesting input or'
verification from a supervisor whereas the criteria for a 5 rating does not. Presumably someone in.
a job with a 5 rating could seek input or verification from a supervisor, but the fact it is not
referred to in the criteria suggest that it is not a regular occurrence.
It is apparent that the grievor's functions generally meet the criteria for a level 4 rating but
not a level 5 rating. He adapts procedures and past practices to meet particular situations and
when faced with unusual or potentially expensive situations seeks assistance from a supervisor.
There can be circumstances, however, when an operator will be required to take independent
action in a situation where he cannot rely on a procedure, past practice or advice of a supervisor.
The evidence suggests that this occurs infrequently. The grievor gave the example of calling in an
outside contractor to fix a water leak at the Simcoe campus. He also referred to a situation about
two years ago where an operator who had contacted the College President about a bomb threat
was told to look a~er the matter, following which he evacuated the College. The manner in
which the grievor described the incident suggested that he was not the operator in question. The
grievor did not refer to a circumstance when he'was required to take independent action not
covered by an established procedure when dealing with a fire or situation involving violence. In
all the circumstances I am led to conclude that the rare occurrence when the grievor is faced with
a situation where he cannot adapt a procedure or past practice to fit the circumstances, or rely on
the advice ora supervisor, is not a regular aspect of his job. Given this conclusion I find a level 4
rating to be appropriate.
COMMUNICATION/CONTACTS
The core point rating plan pro, des that this factOr measures the requirement for effective
communication for the purpose of providing advice, explanation, influencing others, and/or
reaching agreement. There is a note to raters 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.
The College gave the grievor's position a level 2 rating. The Union argues for a level 5
rating, the highest rating possible. The criteria for the ratings of levels 2 through 5 are as follows:
2. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing detailed
explanations, clarification, and interpretation of data or information. There may be
need to empathize with and understand the needs of others in order to handle
problems or complaints. Occasional involvement with confidential information
which has minor disclosure implications:
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.
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.
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 position description form lists the following contacts on the part of the grievor.
. Nature of Contact Purpose Freq
Maintenance'Supervisor Mechanical or electrical breakdown D (daily)
Group Leaders Computer malfunction D
Safety & Security Vandalism, etc. D
Caretaking Foreman/Mgr/ Cleaning and security D
Asst.
Student Body Access or other problems D
Divisional Chairs Room access for students W (weekly)'
General public Enquiries D
Police Dept. Security and vandalism W
Tow Truck Operators Parking infractions I(infrequently)
Chubb Security Fire Alarms M (monthly)
Fire Dept. Fires I
Snow Removal contractor Removal of snow Seasonal/W
The position description form also contains the following statement respecting the
grievor's impact on public relations:
Because the Control Centre is a point of first contact for many stud6nts, staff'and
contractors with problems related to security, access and other emergencies, the
way they are treated has a major impact on public relations.
The grievor testified that the people the control centre deals with are usually in a stressed
situation, whether it is about a light that is out or an assault. He stated that when accidents and
assaults occur he deals with the police and security staff and after hours he is in contact with foot
patrols who escort people to their cars. He also indicated that when the Continuing Education
Department double books a room he arranges for people to move to another area.
The grievor testified that if he becomes aware that a person is on the premises after being
barred from the College he calls the police to have the individual removed and perhaps charged
with trespass. He indicated that if there is a restraining order against a person requiring that he
stay away from a staff member as a result of a marital problem and the person comes to the
College, he asks the individual to leave and escorts him to his car.
The grievor testified that he has access to confidential information in the form of material
kept at the control centre, including photos, which identify people with restraining orders against
them as well as those who for other reasons are barred from the College.
The representative of the Union asked the grievor what he does if he is called by the day
care centre and advised that there is a drunken parent on the premises. He replied that he has
gone out and talked to the person and tried to straighten them out, but if unsuccessful he has
called the police and had them removed. The grievor indicated that usually this type of problem is
dealt with by the control centre operators rather than by security staff.
The grievor indicated that when vandalism occurs he tries to restrain those involved.
Presumably this is to allow time for the police to arrive. He stated that if the individuals in
question refuse to stay he tries to get as much information as possible and then writes a report.
The representative of the College asked the grievor what there is about his
communications that are highly detailed or complex. He replied that several times he had dealt
with the Chair of the Applied Arts area about whether students should have access to the area in
light of the expensive equipment located there. The grievor was then asked if the purpose of his
communications was to provide information or clarification. He replied that it was to get points
clarified or give information.
The note to raters indicates that it is not the content of confidential information that is to
be rated but the communications responsibilities involved in handling it. The grievor has access to
confidential information concerning who is not permitted on the College premises. Apparently at
· times he communicates this information to the police. The evidence does not indicate how
frequently this occurs and in the absence of any evidence on point I presume it occurs only
occasionally. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that disclosure of the information will
have serious implications for the College. In all the circumstances I am led to conclude that the
grievor likely has occasional involvement with confidential information which has minor
disclosure implications, a situation covered by the criteria for a level 2 rating.
The current core point rating plan does not treat the level of officials one communicates
with as an independent consideration in determining the appropriate rating. Rather it is the nature
and purpose of the communication that is critical. The grievor's evidence .suggests that his
contacts with the Chair of the Applied Arts area involved him providing information to the Chair
so that the Chair could make a reasoned decision. It is not clear how detailed or technical the
information was, but at the very highest it might justify a level 3 rating. It falls short of
communication for the purpose of resolving complex problem situations or providing highly
detailed or complex explanations or instructions of the type required for a level 4 or 5 rating.
The routine functions of the grievor's job involve communication for'the purpose of
providing detailed explanations and clarification and as such fit comfortably within the criteria for.
a level 2 rating. A level 2 rating, however, does not cover functions such as asking an individual
who is under a restraining order to leave the College and escorting him to his car; trying to
restrain individuals who have committed acts of vandalism; or trying to diffuse problems with a
drunken parent. Presumably in these situations the grievor advises the individual of how a
College policy applies to his or her situation and also seeks to secure their cooperation in
responding to a sensitive situation. These actions meet the criteria for a 3 rating. They do not,
however, meet the criteria for either a level 4 or 5 rating. The grievor is not required to use
sophisticated influential or persuasive techniques or obtain understanding, co-operation or
agreement since if he cannot get the individual involved to cooperate he simply calls the police for
assistance. If it involves individuals engaged in vandalism who refuse to stay he responds by
writing a report.
The grievor's contacts which might justify a level 3 rating are not expressly listed in the
position description form, although the list does refer to issues of security and vandalism. The
lack of an express reference in the list as well as the nature of the contacts in question indicates
that they do not occur on a regular basis.. Nevei'theless, the grievor's evidence suggests that these
type of situations are not rare occurrences and that if a sensitive situation develops he rather than
a security guard will handle it. This leads me to conclude that these types of activities are an
integral part of his job and should be reflected in the rating for communications/contacts.
Having regard to these considerations I find that level 3 is the appropriate rating. This
rating results in 88 points. The rating given by the College involved 52 points while the rating
argued for by the Union would have resulted in 160 points.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS AND ACTIONS
The College rated this aspect of the grievor's job at level 4. The Union contends that level
5, the highest rating possible, is more appropriate. The criteria for these two levels are as follows:
4. Decisions and/or actions have considerable impact on the organization. Errors
are detected after 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 position description form contains the following entry relating to this factor:
Errors in judgement/decision making can have both a serious financial and
operational impact on the College. For example, failure to follow appropriate
emergency procedures could lead to serious injury or even death. Errors are
discovered by complaints and by test like fire drills or staged mock events such as
natural disaster or violent action.
The grievor testified that mechanical damage, especially water damage, could be costly; if
he did not look after icy sidewalks people might fall and commence litigation; and a bad decision
on his part could look bad for the College.
The position description form and the grievor's evidence suggest that errors on his part are .
likely to be detected and while they might have a considerable negative impact on the College,
they are not likely to have an ongoing influence on operational effectiveness. It follows that the
grievor's position does not meet the criteria for a level 5 rating. Accordingly, I confirm the level 4
rating given by the College.
CONCLUSION
The College's rating of the grievor's position resulted in it receiving 585 points. My
finding that level C2 is the appropriate rating for motor skills; level 3 for physical' demand; level 4
for sensory demand; level 4 for strain from work pressures/demands/deadlines; and level 3 for
communications raises the point total to 679. This point total corresponds with payband 10. This
is higher than payband 9 assigned by the College but less than payband 12 claimed in the
grievance.
I will remain seized of this matter to deal with any issues arising out of my award,
including the issue of compensation owing to the grievor.
Dated at Toronto this 16th day of October, 1995.
ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION
"~ent Classification: 57'/~T~c~),~,~' EZd~//U~E~(~ ~ 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 ARBITRATOR
Level Polnte Level Polnte Level Polnte
1. Training/Technical Skills
2.' Experience '
3. Complexity
4. Judgement
Motor Skills
Physical Demand
7. Sensory Demand
8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
9. Independent Action ~/~
10. Communications/Contacts ~ .5'~ ~" i(~ 0 .~ ~-"~,/
1 1. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions
12. Work Environment
PAYBAND/TOTAL POINTS
JOB CLASSIFICATION
ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: [] Tl~e Union [] The College
FOR THE U~C)N · FOR~ANAGEMENT
?,~3J)on Representative) , . / /~J~ate)
=IBITRATOR'S USE:
(Arbitr~ator's Signature) /' ' (Date of Hearing)
93-12-09 b:datasheet.doc