Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCummings 95-07-10IN 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 ANN CUMMINGS (OPSEU #95A046) ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate APPEARANCES For the College: Sheila Wilson, Human Resources Officer Don Forrest, Chair, Learning Centres / Academic Access Division For the Union: Jean Crawford, Local President Louise Watt, Chief Steward Ann Cummings, Grievor HEARING: In London on June 16, i 995 AWARD INTRODUCTION The grievor is employed as a technician in the College's language learning centre. The parties have agreed on a position description form which lists her duties and responsibilities. They disagree, however, on the proper classification of her position pursuant to an agreed-upon job evaluation system. The College contends that the position should be classified as technician B at the pay band 8 level. The Union contends that the position is properly that of a technician atypical at the pay band 9 level. Using the relevant core point rating plan the College rated the grievor's position as having a total point value of 511. This is the absolute minimum for a position to be placed in pay band 8, which encompasses point values of 511 to 570. The Union, however, rated the position at 628 points. This would put it near the top of pay band 9, which encompasses point values of 571 to 630. The differing point values arise out of the different values the parties assigned to the following four job evaluation factors, namely: judgement; communication/contacts; responsibility for decisions/actions; and work environment. During the hearing the representative of the College relied on certain illustrative classifications referred to on the core point rating charts. The Union representative objected to her doing so, contending that the grievor's job should not be compared with other jobs. Section VII of the job evaluation manual contains the following statements: 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 part 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. It is clear from these comments that reference can be made to the illustrative classifications. Accordingly, there was nothing inappropriate about the representative of the College relying on them. THE GRIEVOR'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The College has a language and a mathematics learning centre. The language centre, which is where the grievor works, is the smaller of the two. The only regular staff at the centre are the grievor and two instructors. The language centre is involved in testing students' skills in English and also in helping students upgrade those skills. A Support Services Officer ("SSO") is employed at the learning centres. Mr. Don Forrest, the Chair of the learning centres, indicated that the SSO is involved in testing students, including continuing education students, in areas other than mathematics and English and is also involved in certain personnel matters. Mr. Forrest testified that the SSO plays a lead hand role in assigning work. He also stated that with respect to the language learning centre the SSO's role is very small. His only reference to the SSO assigning work to the grievor was her arranging for the grievor to at times cover the front desk. The position description form indicates that the grievor spends about half of her time on the following tasks, namely: Supervise and assist students in the professors' absence and monitor students using the Centre on a drop in basis or outside of their regularly scheduled classes. Liaise with students to ascertain their need for assistance or courses and schedule professors' interviews and (sic) as appropriate and necessary. Certain of these duties relate to reading courses which students take at the language centre to improve their English comprehension. The grievor testified that the program followed by an individual student is determined by an instructor and set out in a "contract". She stated that if a student comes in when an instructor is with someone else she will work with the student based on what is in the relevant contract. The grievor indicated that she also advises students on how to use the reading machines. It was the grievor's evidence that she ensures that the reading machines are kept in running order, which involves changing light bulbs, doing minor repairs, and identifying when major repairs are required. When a film strip begins to disintegrate the grievor investigates where a replacement might be found. Students often come to the centre for assistance in writing essays assigned to them in their courses. The grievor sets up appointments for the students to meet with one of the instructors. The grievor indicated that when a class gets an assignment several students may seek assistance at the same time. She stated that if this results in a student being unable to meet with an instructor in a timely manner, she may ask that the student be given extra time to complete the assignment. Because some students were not keeping appointments with the instructors, the grievor devised a system to keep track of student attendance. She testified that she made up a form which includes a student's name; the help he or she requires; and the time of any scheduled appointments. She stated that she obtains information from the instructors about students who do not show for appointments. The grievor testified that she also made up an appointment card to give to students about their appointments. These cards contain a notation that if the student misses two appointments his or her ability to use the centre will be revoked. The grievor indicated that this does not apply to students who have good reasons for missing an appointment; and normally she is the one who decides what is a good reason. The position description form indicates that the grievor spends about 19 percent of her time organizing English proficiency tests for first year students. According to the grievor some 4,000 students are tested each year, of whom approximately 3,000 are tested in the period of June to September. Some of the students are also given a mathematics test, although it does not appear that the grievor is involved with these tests. Among the duties listed in the position description form respecting the grievor's role in testing students are the following: The incumbent must determine which divisions want which students to be tested and, from this information, determine the number of hours of testing and the number of invigilators that will be required. Train invigilators; develop, prepare and revise the script for invigilators' use liaise with them to keep them abreast of changes in testing procedures ... Test result formats are explained to students, professors, coordinators and chairpersons. Test results are forwarded to the appropriate coordinators and/or chairpersons. According to the grievor, at one time students were advised that they were to come in to write tests on a Tuesday or a Thursday. She stated that as a result of calls from students who were unable to make it on either of these days, she asked Mr. Forrest if the testing could be done on Saturdays. She stated that testing was subsequently introduced on four Saturdays in the summer, and this has proved to be very successful. The grievor testified that although for years she had no involvement with the letter sent to students by the Register's office advising them.of the testing, about three or four years ago she asked to see the letter before it went out. She stated that she made proposals which resulted in changes in the letter, including clarifying that not all students had to write the mathematics test. She indicated that every year since then she has made proposals which resulted in additional changes to the letter. Mr. Forrest testified that there has been a change in evolution respecting information from the Registrar's office and now it is an ongoing process that letters get reviewed. He stated that he assumed that letters from the Registrar's office respecting student awards get reviewed by the staff in student awards. Mr. Forrest did not, however, contradict the grievor's claim that she was the one who initially asked to see the letter relating to the testing. The English tests are marked using a Scantron machine. According to the grievor there was a time when some students were getting reading scores that were considerably lower than their writing scores. She indicated that on her own initiative she went through a few thousand names to pick out two or three hundred uneven test scores. She then recruited some employees to help her hand score the tests which indicated that the students had initially received inaccurate scores. The grievor provided the correct scores to the English Co-ordinator. The grievor testified that she called a service person in to look at the Scantron. She stated that it was discovered that the problem was with the answer forms being used by the College. These forms were supplied by a company other than Scantron. According to the grievor she advised Mr. Forrest about the matter. She stated that she also spoke with an individual whose title she believed to be Manager of Computing Services and he agreed with her that they did not want forms which could cause errors. The grievor indicated that she subsequently destroyed the old forms and ordered new ones from Scantron. The grievor stated that she had heard that the Business Division was thinking of not continuing to have the English test administered to its students. She stated that she spoke to a couple of program coordinators who indicated that they favoured keeping the testing, and on her own initiative she then discussed the matter with the Chair of Business. She testified that she advised the Chair of the number of business students who were using the centre and how it was a last chance to help them, and he made the decision to continue the testing. The grievor stated that she and Mr. Forrest were both supposed to go to Lambton College to learn about a new English test provided by the Canadian Test Centre. She described it as a shorter test than the one being used by the College. At the last minute Mr. Forrest was unable to go and accordingly the grievor went to Lambton College by herself. The grievor testified that on her return she spoke with the two instructors about what she had learned. She stated that she recommended to them that the new test be adopted and they in turn recommended its adoption to Mr. Forrest. According to the grievor the new test will be implemented during the summer of 1995. The grievor testified that because the answer sheets for the tests have small spaces for students to fill in, and the tests are administered in lecture theatres where the light is not very bright, some students had difficulties in filling in the answer sheets. She stated that she made up a booklet with enlarged answer sheets for students to use and she or the invigilator transfers the answers to the regular answer sheets. The grievor is responsible for deciding how many part-time invigilators are required to oversee the English testing. She indicated that generally there are five or six. The grievor is not involved in hiring the invigilators but is responsible for training them. The grievor testified that she made up an invigilator's work book for the invigilators to follow when giving instructions to the students. She stated that she also looked up information on standardized testing and prepared a brief memo to the invigilators explaining why it is necessary to be rigid in the testing process. The grievor testified that because she gave the test for years she knows how boring it can be for the invigilators and that they will change the instructions or forget to give all of the details. She stated that she at times listens in while invigilators give the instructions to students and advises them of any necessary corrections. The grievor spends about 8 percent of her time administering punctuation and grammar tests, scoring them, and reporting the results to faculty. She also administers vocabulary tests connected with an independent study program which she returns to the instructor for grading. The grievor spends about 14 percent of her time maintaining the language centre's materials, texts, supplies and equipment. This includes ordering material selected by the instructors. The centre has a collection of English grammar and essay writing books which students can borrow. The grievor testified that at one time some 10 to 20 books per semester were not being returned. She stated that after visiting the library and an equipment loan service at the College she prepared a sign out sheet to be used when students borrow books. She stated that at the end of each semester she sends out a form to those students who have not returned books advising them that if the books are not returned their privileges will be cut off and they will be billed for the books. The grievor indicated that up to three such notices are sent to a student before this actually occurs and usually by then the book is returned. She also indicated that in instances where she feels a student has simply forgotten to return a book, she strikes out the standard wording on the form and writes in that it is a reminder. The grievor monitors thelanguage centre's budget. This involves verifying account transactions, preparing purchase orders and initiating work orders. She also compiles statistics regarding student progress and attendance and prepares statistical reports. The grievor indicated that when she implemented changes she did so on her own initiative. She stated that she always advised Mr. Forrest during or after the process so that if he was asked a question about it he would know what it was about. The representative of the College asked Mr. Forrest how the decision making process worked. He stated that generally everyone is involved in a decision. He subsequently indicated that he might not be involved because he is very busy. Still later Mr. Forrest indicated that if a matter involves money, staff' members always check with him but otherwise they don't always need to check with him. He did not contradict the grievor's evidence that she had implemented the specific changes referred to above on her own ~mt~atlve. JUDGEMENT The College rated the judgement aspect of the grievor's position at level 4 using the core point rating plan. The Union contends that level 5 is more appropriate. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 4. Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with established analytical techniques. 10 5. Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used. Mr. Forrest testified that the grievor did not refine work methods. It was his evidence that the last refinement of work methods involved a change from paper to computers. The representative of the College contended that a level 4 rating for judgement is higher than the "bench mark" level 3 rating for the grievor's position. She submitted that a relevant consideration is that the grievor's position comes within a team which includes an SSO. The College's representative argued that the grievor handles conventional problems with established analytical techniques and does not refine work methods. She described the grievor's role in recommending a shorter test as being outside of her normal job functions. With respect to the changes implemented by the grievor, such as those designed to ensure that students return books, she submitted that while the grievor's conduct involved initiative and creativity, these factors are reflected in a separate rating for independent action. The parties agree that the grievor's job rates a level 4 for independent action. The heading for the factor of independent action, as well as the criteria for a level 4 rating, are as follows: The factor measures the independence of action and decisions required by the job. Initiative, creativity and decisions are governed by various controls. Such controls can be in the form of supervision, policies, procedures or established practices. 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. I am satisfied that the grievor's regular day to day activities fit comfortably within the criteria for a 4 rating for judgement. Her routine activities do not involve the interpretation of complex data or the refining of work methods and techniques such as to bring them within the criteria for a 5 rating. In addition to her regular activities, however, the grievor has introduced a number of changes and innovations. I do not include in this the decision to adopt the shorter test since her primary role appears to have involved providing information to be evaluated by the two instructors and Mr. Forrest. The grievor did, however, institute a process for keeping track of, and seeking to minimize, missed appointments. She also introduced enlarged answer sheets; prepared a work book for use by invigilators; and introduced a sign out system for books together with a follow-up system designed to ensure that books are returned. When test scores appeared to be inconsistent she selected two or three hundred answer sheets to be hand scored. I view these innovations as involving the refining of work methods and techniques. They went beyond the use of established analytical techniques. I do not accept Mr. Forrest's view that a refinement of work methods involves a change comparable to the introduction of computers. The word "refining" suggests a change or improvement of considerably less magnitude than what is entailed in introducing computers to store and manipulate information. I also do not accept the College's contention that the innovations introduced by the grievor should only be measured by the factor of independent action. This factor measures the independence of action and decision making required by a job. The innovations introduced by the grievor relate to this factor in the sense that they indicate that she acted independently. In acting independently, however, she exercised a significant degree of judgement. Logically this is relevant when rating the factor of judgement. 12 The grievor's involvement in refining work processes appears to be related to the fact that she is the only support staff employee in the language centre. Apart from assigning the grievor at times to staff a reception desk, and her role in hiring part-time invigilators, the evidence does not indicate that the SSO is involved in the operations of the language centre. I do not believe it is appropriate to base a factor rating on an unusual task or incident that cannot reasonably be viewed as part of an employee's regular job functions. On the other hand, if an employee exercises a higher than normal level of judgement on a recurring basis, there comes a point at which that degree of judgement is an integral aspect of his or her job. In such a situation it is appropriate that the employee receive recognition for exercising that level of judgement. I believe that the grievor has been involved in the refinement of work methods with sufficient frequency that her position should be rated at level 5 for judgement. COMMUNICATIONS/CONTACTS The College contends that a level 3 rating for this factor is appropriate while the Union argues for a level 4 rating. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 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. 13 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's routine job functions involve constant contact with students, instructors, invigilators, staff`in the Registrar's office and others. I am satisfied that these contacts fit within the criteria for a 3 rating. They involve the provision of guidance and technical advice of a detailed and specialized nature as well as the explanation and interpretation of procedures and policies. The grievor referred to a situation where a female student who apparently had psychiatric problems arrived five minutes late to take a test. The invigilator on duty refused to let her take the test. The student subsequently advised the grievor that she had not been late and Mr. Forrest had told her that the grievor was to drop everything and give her the test whenever it was convenient for the student. The grievor testified that she ascertained from other staff members that the student had in fact arrived late. She stated that she then talked to the Chair of the student's department and the Chair decided that the student did not have to write the test. This situation does not indicate that the grievor utilized sophisticated influential or persuasive techniques to resolve a problem as referred to in the criteria for a 4 rating. Instead she passed the relevant information on to the Chair who decided how to handle the situation. The grievor referred to students who are readmitted to the College on condition that they seek help fi-om the language learning centre. She explained that she seeks to change the attitude of the students from one of anger and feeling that they are being harassed to having them appreciate that the experience will be of assistance to them. She also stated that she works hard with the students to give them self-respect, to have them get along with instructors, and to get them to follow College procedures. These activities logically fit within the "need to promote participation and understanding and to secure cooperation in order to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive nature", which is referred to in the criteria for a level 3 rating. The grievor's approach to the Chair of Business when she convinced him not to discontinue the English testing for business students did come within the criteria for a level 4 rating. It involved communication for the resolution of a complex problem situation and the use of persuasive techniques to address the problem of those with special needs. The evidence does not, however, reveal any similar incidents. As indicated above, I do not believe that an unusual incident should be the basis for rating a factor. Accordingly, this incident standing by itself does not warrant a level 4 rating. The factor of communications/contacts makes reference to an employee's involvement with confidential information. The grievor has a regular involvement with confidential information in the form of the results of tests taken at the learning centre. As with marks submitted by students to gain acceptance at the College, and marks obtained in their regular courses, the results of tests at the learning centre should only be revealed to the appropriate College officials and the student involved. A note to raters in the job evaluation manual reads 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. 15 Neither party addressed the above note at the hearing. Presumably the term "communications responsibilities" relates, in part, to ensuring that confidential information is passed on only to the appropriate individuals, which the grievor does. In more complex situations it presumably involves deciding what information is confidential and/or how much confidential information should appropriately be communicated to particular individuals. These latter factors do not appear to be relevant to the handling of test results. In addition, the criteria for a level 4 rating requires not only involvement with confidential information, but involvement with confidential and sensitive information. This suggests communication responsibilities at a different level than ensuring that test results are not communicated to unauthorized individuals. The grievor indicated that students confide in her about personal problems, such as problems with alcohol, and she does a lot of "hand holding". There is nothing to indicate that the grievor has any communications responsibilities with respect to these types of confidences other than to keep them confidential. Having regard to all of these considerations I conclude that the grievor's involvement with confidential information does not meet the criteria for a 4 rating. I further find that a level 3 rating for communications/contacts is appropriate. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS AND ACTIONS The parties disagree on the proper rating for this factor. The College rated the job at level 4 while the Union submits that level 5 is more appropriate. The criteria for these two levels are as follows: 16 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. Level 5 is the highest possible rating for this factor. It requires that three separate criteria be met, namely that errors are difficult to detect; they result in a significant waste of resources; and have a continuing influence on operational effectiveness. The only example given by the grievor with respect to the impact of an error related to a time when she changed the room for a test but neglected to tell the students or leave a note on the door for them. According to the grievor on the following day she "heard about" the matter, presumably as a result of student complaints, and arranged for the students to be tested that night. This situation did not meet any of the three required criteria. The representative of the Union relied on the following statements contained in the position description form to support her argument for a level 5 rating, namely: "Because the incumbent has continual contact with students, staff and applicants, the incumbent's decisions and/or actions have significant public relations impact. Provision of test results has significant impact on subsequent decisions made by students and staff"; and "Because the incumbent deals directly with academic matters relating to students and applicants, errors can have a very significant negative impact on their future studies and, consequently, on the College's reputation as well". These statements suggest that the grievor's position can have a meaningful impact on students and the College. I do not believe, however, that the parties meant for her position to be 17 regarded as having a significant impact on the organization of the type contemplated for a level 5 rating. Part of the reason for this is that the illustrative examples given for this level are SSO D, systems analyst and technical support specialist. The job evaluation guide charts indicate that employees in these classifications typically develop and market college programs to the outside community; develop and implement computer systems for user departments; or provide advice as to software provisions best suited to user needs and design and alter software programs to meet specific requirements. Errors made by such employees will logically impact on the College to a much greater extent than any errors which might be made by the grievor. Accordingly, I affirm the 4 rating given by the College. WORK ENVIRONMENT The College has rated the work environment factor at level 1. The Union argues for level 3. The criteria for these levels, and the intervening level 2, are as follows: 1. Job duties are carried out with occasional exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous elements. 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%-3 0%). 18 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 position description form contains the following statement relating to the grievor's work environment: The Learning Centre is located in an area of A Building where the environmental controls have not been upgraded and is subject to unusual temperature and air circulation variations The grievor contended that the heating and ventilation in "A" building has never been right. She indicated that some days it gets very cold and some days very hot. She testified that at least once a month she calls to complain about the heat or the cold. The representative of the Union subsequently asked the grievor if there was a problem only once a month. She replied that it was a continuous problem over the year, but sometimes "we" just keep working since it is too embarrassing to call all the time. The grievor stated that if pieces of tissue paper are placed in the vents to see if air is coming out, the paper becomes black. She also stated that things fall out of the vents. Mr. Forrest testified that he spends about half of his time in the office. He made the comment that "In my opinion it stinks literally and figuratively." The College's representative subsequently put it to Mr. Forrest that the office is slightly disagreeable. He replied that to average it out you could probably say that it was slightly disagreeable since some days it is not bad and that some days it is extremely uncomfortable. The evidence of Mr. Forrest and the grievor when taken together indicates that the grievor's job duties are carried out in an office where she was exposed to disagreeable elements. In assessing the extent to which they were disagreeable, I believe it important to keep in mind that only three levels of disagreeable elements are referred to in the core point rating plan. These are slightly, moderately, and extremely disagreeable. While I do not wish to down play the temperature and air circulation problems experienced by the grievor, it must also be kept in mind that she does work in an office and a wide range of other employees are exposed to much more disagreeable elements. The illustrative examples given for a level 3 rating in the core point rating plan are caretaker; clerk supply; food service worker; and nurse. Having regard to the evidence I conclude that the grievor is likely exposed on a recurring basis to slightly disagreeable elements and on an occasional basis to moderately disagreeable elements. Both of these come within the criteria for a level 2 rating and accordingly I find this to be the appropriate level. CONCLUSION As indicated above, the College rated the grievor's position at 511 points, which is the very minimum for pay band 8. My conclusion that the position should have received a 5 rating for judgement raises the point total by 18. My finding that the work environment justifies a 2 rating raises it by another 22 points. This raises the point total to 551, still short of the 571 required for pay band 9. Thus while the appropriate point total for the grievor's position is considerably higher than what was calculated by the College, it remains within the point spread for pay band 8. That aspect of the grievance is, accordingly, hereby dismissed. The grievance contained an allegation that the grievor had not been paid at the pay band 8 level for the appropriate length of time. This allegation was not addressed by the parties at the hearing. Accordingly, I will remain seized of this matter in the event that one of the parties is of the view that it remains an issue. Dated at Toronto this 10th day of July, 1995. Arbitrator ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION College: f~/ciAJ ~ H~ ~0 ~ Incumbent: " -,~nt Classification: -/"~_d~/~J ~'~ Family and Payband Requested by Grievor: 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) ii I FACTO RS MANAGEMENT UNION ARBITRATOR Level Pointe Level Points Level Pointe 1. Training/Technical Skills ~,~ 2.'. Experience 3. Complexity 4. Judgement · Motor Skills ~. Physical Demand oCL / (~ ~L / ~ ~ / o-/ 7. Sensory Demand 8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands~Deadlines 9. Independent Action 10. Communications/Contacts 11. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 4 12. Wcrk Environment J JOB CLASSIFICATION ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: [] The Union [] The College FO THE NlON FORMANAGEMENT (Coj et~ge flepresentative) .r~n Representative}O i~BITRATOR'S USE: Arbitrator's ~¢'gnature) /' (Date of Hearing) ~ (D d) 93-12-O9 b:datasheet.doc