Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutScott 93-02-19 FANSHAWE COLLEGE - and - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF JOYCE~SCOTT JANE H. DEVLIN SOLE ARBITRATOR Appearances for the College: Peter Myers Sheila Wilson Saskia Gingrich Appearances for the U~ion: Jean Crawford Sandra Kippen Joyce Scott Opseu File No.: 92E632 Hearing Date: February 5, 1993 The Grievor, Joyce Scott, claims that she is improperly classified as a Clerk General D at pay band 7 and seeks reclassification as a Support Services Officer at pay band 10.. The parties agreed upon the content of the PDF and the factors in dispute are as follows: Factors College Rating Union Rating Job Difficulty C4 D5 Guidance Received D3 E4 Communications C3 E3 Working Conditions Manual Effort A5 B4 Environment A5 B5 The Grievor's position entails responsibility for administration of the Sun Life and Confederation Life benefit plans. In particular, she maintains documentation, including individual employee records and policy manuals, for three employee groups in connection with these plans. She also responds to inquiries concerning benefit coverage and assists employees in processing benefit claims. In this regard, she may ~ act as an employee's advocate or provide advice as to the appropriate appeal procedure. As well, the Grievor acts as a liaison with the insurance carrier for retirees and employees on long term disability and arranges for the payment of premiums by 2 such employees. Upon the death of an employee, the Grievor also assists the family in ensuring that necessary documentation is completed and that appropriate benefits are paid. In addition, she interprets memoranda from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities in connection with changes to benefit coverage and prepares material concerning such changes for release in a College publication or in the form of a handout. The Grievor is also responsible for maintaining records of appointment for sessional, partial load and part-time faculty. As.well, she tracks months of service for partial load and sessional faculty and advises departments as to whether a particular appointment will contravene the collective agreement. Finally, the Grievor pre~ares certain information lists and assists the Support Services Officer with projects such as tracing payments through payroll documentation. Prior to considering the factors in dispute, it is necessary to deal with the Union's contention that the Grievor's position is more appropriately covered by the Support Services Officer, rather than by the Clerk General, job family. In this regard, there is no doubt that the Grievor performs certain administrative duties in connection with the Sun Life and Confederation Life benefit plans. Nevertheless, when account is taken of her overall responsibilities, relating both to the benefit plans and to faculty appointments, I find that the 3 Grievor's predominant duties are clerical in nature. In the result, I am unable to conclude that there should be a change in job family. It is necessary then to consider the factors in dispute: 1. Job Difficulty In this case, the parties disagree as to the rating for the elements of both complexity and judgement. In respect of the element of complexity, the Union contends that the Grievor's position is appropriately rated at level D, which provides that work involves the performance of varied non-routine complex tasks which normally require different processes and methods. It is the position of the College that the element of complexity is properly rated at level C in that work involves the performance of various complex tasks that include both routine and non- routine aspects requiring different and unrelated processes and methods. Having considered the matter, I am not persuaded that a rating at level D is warranted as this level essentially excludes the performance of non-routine tasks. In this case, however, both the evidence and the PDF indicate that while some of the tasks performed by the Grievor are non-routine, much of the work, 4 particularly as it relates to maintaining records in connection with benefit plans and faculty appointments, can fairly be described as routine. It is apparent, therefore, that the Grievor performs complex tasks which have both routine and non- routine aspects which is consistent with a rating at level C. As to the element of judgement, the Union claims that the position ought to be rated at level 5 which provides that duties require a significant degree of judgement and problem- solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used. The.College, on the other hand, contends that level 4 is appropriate as the duties performed require a considerable degree of judgement and problem- solving involves handling conventional problems, questions or situations with established analytical techniques. The rating in this element is not without difficulty as certain duties performed by the Grievor, such as acting as an advocate for employees in processing benefit claims, may require the exercise of significant, rather than considerable, judgement. The Grievor may also exercise the higher level of judgement when called upon to interpret memoranda from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities although it would appear that matters of substance relating to benefit entitlement are referred to the Human Resources Department. In any event, I find that a significant portion of the Grievor's job, including maintaining 5 records relating to benefit plans and faculty appointments and answering routine inquiries concerning benefit coverage, does not require the exercise of judgement at the higher level. As well, there was no suggestion that the Grievor is involved to any real extent in refining work methods, nor do I find that she is generally required to interpret complex data. In the result, I am not persuaded that a rating at level 5 is warranted. Accordingly, the rating in the factor of job difficulty shall remain unchanged at level C4. 2. Guidance Received Again, there is a dispute concerning the elements of both guidelines available and nature of the review. Dealing firstly with guidelines available, the Union contends that the position is properly rated at level E whereas the College submits that the position is appropriately rated at level D. The description of these ratings is as follows: Level E Work is performed in accordance with general instructions and policies involving changing conditions and problems and supervisor may be involved on problems of major importance. Level D Work is performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems and supervisor is available to assist in resolving problems. The PDF indicates that by way of guidelines, the Grievor has recourse to the collective agreement, benefit manuals 6 and D memos from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. Admittedly, there are changes in this documentation from time to time resulting from changes in remuneration or benefit coverage. While these changes may require some modification of existing practices or procedures, nevertheless, I am unable to conclude that the Grievor's work is performed in accordance with "general instructions and policies involving changing conditions and problems" which is characteristic of a rating at level E. Accordingly, the rating in this element shall remain at level D. As to nature of the review, the Union submits that the position ought to be rated at level 4 as work assignments are subject to a general form of review for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines. The College contends that the position is properly rated at level 3 in that work assignments are intermittently and or periodically checked for quality. The evidence indicates that while some limited aspects of the Grievor's job duties are periodically reviewed by her supervisor, Saskia Gingrich, for the most part, the Grievor's work assignments are not subject to intermittent or periodic checks for quality. For this reason, I find that a rating at level 3 is inappropriate. Instead, as the bulk of the Grievor's work assignments are subject to a general form of review for 7 achievement of specific objectives, the position is properly rated at level 4 as proposed by the Union. 3. Communications While the parties agree that the Grievor's contacts are primarily with employees at higher levels within the College and with individuals at middle management outside the College, they disagree as to the rating in the element of purpose of contacts. In this regard, it is the position of the Union that the ,appropriate rating is leVel E in that work involves contacts for the purpose of securing understanding, co-operation or agreement on sensitive or technical matters of significant importance where more than average tact, diplomacy and persuasion is required. It is the position of the College that level C is appropriate in that work involves contacts for the purpose of providing guidance, instruction or technical advise or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures or policy. In this case, the Grievor deals with employees and their families with respect to a variety of matters pertaining to benefit coverage. In particular, she acts as a liaison with the carrier for retirees and those on long term disability and she assists employees in processing benefit claims. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that she is called upon to do more than provide instruction or explanations concerning policies or 8 procedures which is characteristic of a rating at level C. Instead and while I am not satisfied that a rating at level E is warranted, I find that much of the Grievor's work involves contacts for the purpose of problem identification and solution with respect to matters of considerable importance as provided at level D. In carrying out her duties, the Grievor is also required to deal with a variety of sensitive issues requiring tact, diplomacy and persuasion. In the result, in the element of purpose of contacts, the Grievor's position is appropriately rated at level D. 4. Working Conditions It is the contention of the Union that as the Grievor frequently engages in light manual effort and prolonged sitting, her position ought to be rated at level B4. It is the submission of the College that as the Grievor's work requires minimum manual effort and physical strain, her position is properly rated at level A5. As to manual effort, the evidence indicates that once a month, the Grievor receives a box of supplies which weighs approximately 25 pounds 'which she carries to the storage room. Intermittently, boxes of forms and cards are also delivered and carried by the Grievor to the storage room. In my view, however, this activity does not occur to a sufficient extent to justify a 9 rating at level B. Moreover, although the Grievor spends a considerable portion of her time sitting, the evidence indicates that she frequently leaves her desk to go to the photocopier or to obtain files and, in my view, it cannot be said that her job entails prolonged sitting which is required for a rating at level B. In the result, the rating in the element of manual effort shall remain unchanged at level A5. As to work environment, the evidence indicates that the Grievor works in an open office and that her desk is located across from the reception area. Both the Grievor and Ms. Gingrich agreed that there is a lot of activity in the office and the Grievor explained that, at times, the noise created both by those who attend the office as well as by other staff members makes it difficult to concentrate. In my view, some noise distraction can be expected in any office setting. Moreover, in the circumstances, I find that it is not practical to rate the noise created by other staff as this could result in a rating which would fluctuate based upon the individuals working in the office at any given time. In my view, the Grievor's position entails exposure to generally agreeable working conditions such as those found in offices or equivalent work areas which is descriptive of a rating at level A. In the element of work environment, therefore, the appropriate rating is level A5. 10 In summary, then, in respect of the factors in dispute, the Grievor's position is correctly rated as follows: Job Difficulty C4 Guidance Received D4 Communications D3 Working Conditions Manual Effort A5 Environment A5 Based upon this rating, the total points for the position increase from 497 to 543 with the result that the position falls into pay band 8. Compensation shall be payable from the date of the grievance and I shall remain seized for purposes of implementation of this award. DATED AT TORONTO, this 19th day of February, 1993. Sole Arbitrator ~ITRATION 0ATA SHEET - SUPPQRT STAFF CLASSIFICATIONS " COLLEGE FANSHAWE INCUMBENT Joyce Scott PRESENT CLASSIFICATION Clerk General D AND PAYBAND 7 SUPERVISOR Saskia GinKrich JOB FAMILY AND PAYBAND REQUESTED BY GRIEVOR Clerk - Pay Band ]0 POSITION DESCRIPTION FORM: i. Position Description Form Attached 2. ~-~ Par~ies agree on ¢on~en~s of a~ached Position Description Form ~-~ Union disagrees ~i~h conten~s of a~ached Position Description Form SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THiS DISAGREEMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS: (USE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY) AWARD Management Union Arbitrator ELEMENTS Ra~ing Pts. Ratingl Pts. Ra~ing Pts. JOB DIFFICULTY I 'C4 144 D5 I 194 C4 144 GUIDANCE R~CE!VED r D3 129 E4 I 177 D4 150 COM/~JNI CATIONS 'C3 84 E3 135 D3 109 KNOWLEDGE TRAINING/EXPERIENCE D4 90 D4 90 D~ 90 SKILL 3 34 3 'l 34 3 34 WOP~ING I ~ma~UAL A5 3 B4 I 10 A5 3 CONDITIONS VISUAL B4 l0 B4 I 10 B4 10 E.N-~!RO N-MENTAL A5 3 B5 ~ ] 3 A5 3 TOTAL POINTS 497 663 543 PAYB~D ~BER 7 ]0 8 A~ACHED ~!~EN SUB~SSIONS: ~ The Union ~ The College (Op~iona!) $ IGNAT~ES: ARSIT~TOR'S USE: February 5, 1993 February 19, 1993 ~ Hearing Oaua Award Daua