Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTunks 92-12-14 FANSHAWE COLLEGE - and - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF PAUL !TUNKS JANE H. DEVLIN SOLE ARBITRATOR Appearances for the College: Sheila Wilson Jack Roberts Appearances for the Union: Jean Crawford Sandra Kippen Paul Tunks OPSEU FILE NO.: 92A917 HEARING DATE: December 1, 1992 This matter, which was dealt with in accordance with the expedited arbitration process, involves a claim by the Grievor, Paul Tunks, that he is improperly classified as a Technologist A. The Grievor seeks reclassification as a Technologist B. The parties agreed upon the content of the PDF and the factors in dispute are as follows: Factors College Rating Union Rating Job Difficulty D4 D5 Guidance Received C3 D5 Knowledge D5 D6 Working Conditions C4 C5 The job performed by the Grievor involves maintaining machinery and requisitioning materials and equipment for use in the College's construction programs. The Grievor also assists faculty and tutors students in the safe and proper use of equipment and locks out equipment which he considers to be unsafe. As well, the Grievor makes arrangements and sets up equipment for special labs. The majority of the Grievor's work is performed in the construction and concrete labs and, in addition, he services machinery and arranges for general repairs in the plumbing lab. The PDF indicates that the Grievor also 2 maintains records pertaining to the purchase of materials and equipment and assists the Co-ordinator in developing timetables for construction programs. As to the particular job duties, the evidence indicates that the Grievor generally requisitions materials in the spring of each year and in estimating the type and quantity of materials required, he takes into account factors such as the number of students and the nature of the projects assigned the previous year. The Grievor then contacts suppliers, obtains quotations and prepares the appropriate requisitions which he submits for approval by his supervisor, Jack Roberts, the Chairperson, Civil/Architectural Technology Division. Evidently, Mr. Roberts rarely questions the requisitions submitted by the Grievor although he may do so if an extraordinary item is involved. In performing his job, the Grievor also repairs machinery and, for this purpose, he is required to review various manuals. The Grievor explained that the repair process is also complicated by the fact that much of the machinery is 20 to 25 years old and replacement parts are difficult to obtain. On occasion, parts have to be machined to suit requirements. If a particular piece of machinery cannot be repaired, the Grievor may recommend the purchase of a new machine. In these circumstances, he again obtains a number of quotations and prepares the appropriate requisition which he again submits to Mr. Roberts. 3 Recently, however, due to financial constraints, Mr. Roberts may not be in a position to act upon the recommendations of the Grievor. As to other problems encountered by the Grievor in the course of his work, the Grievor explained that in response to a concern about the loss of tools, he placed all tools in one room and arranged for the tools to be counted at the beginning and end of each day. As well, he developed forms for signing out tools to be taken home by students. He also moved furniture and lumber racks to enlarge classroom space and began a recycling program in order that scrap material could be reused. As well, the Grievor endeavoured to make modifications to reduce the noise level of certain machinery. Insofar as supervision is concerned, it appears that at the present time, Mr. Roberts visits the labs twice each week for approximately 15 minutes each time. Evidently, there has been an increase in the frequency of Mr. Roberts' visits to the labs since the grievance was filed and Mr. Roberts attributed this to the emphasis which is now being placed on regular health and safety checks. However, it does not appear that during his visits, Mr. Roberts is actively involved in monitoring the Grievor's work or his interaction with faculty and students. In this regard, the Grievor explained that he generally proceeds with his duties independent of supervision and that his work is 4 not subject to regular review by Mr. Roberts. According to the Grievor, faculty members are also not involved in reviewing his work although if a faculty member noted a problem with particular piece of equipment, he would draw this to the attention of the Grievor. In the event of some difficulty relating to the Grievor or his performance, the faculty member would speak directly to Mr. Roberts who would then discuss the matter with the Grievor. Similarly, if the Grievor had some difficulty dealing with a faculty member, he would speak with Mr. Roberts who would then discuss the matter with the faculty member involved. I turn then to consider the job factors in dispute between the parties: 1. Job Difficulty In respect of this factor, the parties agree that the element of complexity is properly rated at level D which provides that work involves the performance of varied, non-routine complex tasks which normally require different and unrelated processes and methods. The parties disagree about the rating for the element of judgement and whereas the College takes the position that level 4 is appropriate, the Union claims that this element is appropriately rated at level 5. These levels are described as follows: Level 4: Duties performed require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves handling a 5 variety of conventional problems, questions or situations with established analytical techniques. Level 5: Duties performed require a significant degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used. Having considered the matter carefully, I am not persuaded that the current rating at level 4 is inappropriate. While the Grievor's job entails a considerable degree of judgement, I would not describe the level of judgement as significant. In respect of problem-solving, it is my view that when consideration is given to the Grievor's overall job duties, it must be concluded that, for the most part, he is faced with conventional problems which can be solved with established analytical techniques. While the Grievor must fashion solutions to repair problems on older equipment, this does not appear to account for a significant portion of his job duties. Moreover, although the Grievor is required to,review manuals in the course of performing repair work, I am not satisfied that this involves interpreting complex data which is characteristic of a rating at level 5. In my view, the Grievor is also not involved in refining work methods and techniques to be used to the extent required for a rating at the higher level. In the result, I find that the element of judgement is appropriately rated at level 4. 6 2. Guidance Received In respect of this factor, the parties disagree as to the rating for both elements; namely, guidelines available element and nature of the review. Dealing firstly with guidelines available, it is the position of the College that level C is appropriate as the work is performed in accordance with general procedures and past practices and unfamiliar situations are reviewed with the supervisor. It is the position of the Union that level D is warranted as the work is performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems and the supervisor is available to assist in resolving problems. As to nature of the review, the College claims that this element is appropriately rated at level 3 which provides that work assignments are intermittently or periodically checked for quality. The Union claims that level 5 is appropriate as work assignments are reviewed only for acknowledgement of broad objectives, effectiveness of results and to ensure integration with the work of others. Dealing firstly with the element of guidelines available, the PDF indicates that, in performing his work, the Grievor has recourse to College policies, internal accounting/purchasing procedures and service manuals as necessary. It is also apparent, however, that for much of the 7 time, the Grievor relies on his experience and training and performs his work without the benefit of written guidelines. Nevertheless, in my view, the evidence does not indicate sufficient involvement in adapting and modifying procedures and past practices to meet particular situations or problems to warrant a rating at level D. Accordingly, although it would appear that the Grievor rarely refers matters to his supervisor, based upon his overall job duties, I cannot conclude that the present rating at level C is inappropriate. As to the nature of the review, the evidence indicates although Mr. Roberts must approve requisitions submitted by the Grievor, this is necessary due to the expenditure of funds involved. In other respects, it appears that the Grievor carries out his duties largely without supervision and independent of any regular review by his supervisor. In this regard, the evidence indicates that at the time of the grievance, Mr. Roberts generally visited the labs approximately once each month. While the frequency of these visits has increased, this evidently has more to do with the necessity for routine health and safety checks than with monitoring the Grievor's work. Accordingly, the evidence indicates that the Grievor's work assignments are not periodically checked for quality which, in my view, is consistent with the PDF which provides that review is by exception through discussion. Moreover, although the College suggested that faculty members are available to check the quality of the 8 Grievor's work, the Grievor stated that, in fact, faculty members do not perform this function. In the circumstances, therefore, I find %hat a rating at level 3 is not appropriate. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that the Grievor's work assignments are subject only to the broad form of review provided for at level 5. Instead, I find that this element is appropriately rated at level 4 which provides that work assignments are subject to a general form of review for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines. 3. Knowledge In respect of this factor, the parties agree that up to 5 years' practical experience is required for the position. They disagree, however, as to the appropriate rating for the training element. In this regard, the PDF provides that the minimum level of academic or formalized training required to undertake the duties of the position is a carpentry apprenticeship or completion of 2-year construction technician course. In this case, the Grievor completed a 4-year carpentry apprenticeship program and, on this basis, the Union contends that, at minimum, the training element should be rated at level 6 which provides that required skills are normally acquired through attainment of a 3-year Community College diploma or equivalent. The College takes the position that level 5 is appropriate which 9 provides that required skills are normally acquired through attainment of a 2-year Community College diploma or equivalent. The "Notes to Raters" contained in the job evaluation manual provide that the rating assigned to the training element is to reflect the minimum qualifications required to undertake the duties of the position. It is also significant that, for purposes of evaluating skilled trades worker positions, the notes specify that degree 4 is appropriate for non-compulsory trades such as general carpenter. As well, it is acknowledged that the 4-year carpentry apprenticeship program involves a work experience component in addition to periods of formal instruction. In all the circumstances, therefore, and given the requirement for completion of a 2-year construction technician course, I am not persuaded that the rating proposed by the Union is appropriate. The rating for the training element shall, therefore, remain unchanged at leve~ 5. 4. Working Conditions At issue between the parties is the rating for the work environment element. While both parties agree that the job involves disagreeable working conditions, they disagree as to the prevalence with which the incumbent is exposed to these conditions. The College takes the position that the frequency of exposure is appropriately rated at level 4, or in other words, 10 between 31 - 60% of the time whereas the Union claims that level 5 is more appropriate as this level involves continuous exposure - more than 60 % of the time. Both the Grievor and Mr. Roberts agreed that the Grievor spends approximately 75% of his time in the construction, concrete and plumbing labs and the balance of his time is spent in the office. As to the time spent in the labs, the evidence that the Grievor spends between 50% and 60% of his time in the construction lab where there are two machines which were described as extremely noisy. In addition, there is a dust collector which is run when the machinery is operating which is also noisy. In the concrete lab, the Grievor is exposed to dust when shovelling sand and stone which are used for the concrete mix and these materials are delivered 3 to 4 times each year. The cement mixer is also noisy as it is operated indoors and creates a considerable amount of dust. The mixer is operated for approximately 4 hours each week during the months of November and December, February and March. As well and although a fume hood is used, the Grievor is exposed to fumes when capping cylinders. This work is performed for 1 to 1 1/2 hours once a week for a six week period, twice each year. The appropriate rating, in my view, is close to the line. Certainly, the Grievor's exposure to fumes, dust and noise in the concrete lab is intermittent rather than continuous. 11 Nevertheless, when this is combined with the noise to which the Grievor is subjected in the construction lab where he spends 50% to 60% of his time, I find that the Grievor meets the requirement of continuous exposure to disagreeable working conditions - which is more than 60% of the time. I find, therefore, that the element of work environment is appropriately rated at level 5. In summary, then, in respect of the factors in dispute, I find that the Grievor's position is correctly rated as follows: Job Difficulty D4 Guidance received C4 ~ Knowledge D5 Working Conditions C5 Based upon this rating, the total p6ints for the position increase from 556 to 579 with the result that the position falls into pay band 9. 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 14th day of December, 1992. Sole Arbitrator ARBITRATION 0ATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATIONS FANSHAWE Paul Tunks COLLEGE INCUMBENT PRESENT CLASSIFICATION Techno'logist A AND PAYBAND 8 SUPERVISOR J Rob er ts JOB FAMILY AND PAYBAND P-gQUESTED BY GRIEVOR Technologist B POSITION P~$CRIPTION FORM: 1. Position Description Form Attached 2. L~ Parties agree on contents of attached Position Description Form I Union disagrees with contents of attached Position Description Form SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THIS DISAGREEMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS: (USE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY) AWARD Management . Union Arbitrator ELEMENTS Rating Pts. Rating Pts. Rating Pts. JOB DIFFICULTY D4 17] D5 194 D4 171 GUID;tNCE RECEIVED C3 104 D5 172 C4 124. COM~[UNICATIONS C3 84 C3' 84 C3 84 KNOWLEDGE TRAINING/EXPERIENCE D5 ] 0 4 D6 1 1 8 D5 10 4 SKILL 4 47 4 47 4 47 WORKING MANUAL C4 18 I C4 18 C. 4 ] 8 CONDITIONS VISUAL B4 10 B4 10 B4 10 ENVIRONMENTAL C4 ] 8 C5 21 C5 21 TOTAL POINTS 556 664 579 PAYBAND NUMBER 8 10 9 ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ~c~ The College (Optional) SIGNATURES: (Grievor) (Date) ~ (Date) ' (Union RepZ~/ (DaTe) ARBITRATOR'S USE: December 1, 1992 December 14, 1992 ~ Hearing, Dace Award Date