Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPietens 92-04-24IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION FANSHAWE COLLEGE ("the College") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY AND ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (FOR SUPPORT STAFF EMPLOYEES) AND IN THE HATTER OF A GRIEVANCE OF JOANNEPIETENS SOLE ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate APPEARANCES For the College: Peter Myers, Director of Human Resources Sandra Richards, Assistant Registrar For the Union: Jean Crawford, Local President Sandra Kippen, Chief Steward Joanne Pietens, Grievor Hearing: In London on April 2, 1992. DECISION Introduction The grievor is an Admissions Assistant at the College. She is classified as a Support Services O~icer B and paid her in accordance with payband 9 under the CAAT Support Sta~ Job Evaluation Plan. By way o~ a grievance dated January 4, 1991 the grievor alleged that she should be classified as a Support Services O~icer D and paid in accordance with payband 13. During the grievance procedure this was amended to a claim that she should be classified as a Support Services O~icer-Atypical and paid at the payband 12 level. The Union and the grievor contend that the College erred when it rated the ~ollowing elements o~ the grievor's position, namely: job difficulty, guidance received, communications, manual e~ort and visual strain. As detailed below, the Union initially also disagreed with the College's rating o~ the skill element associated with the position. At the arbitration hearing the Union acknowledged the accuracy o~ most o~ the Position Description Form prepared by the College. It did, however, challenge both the accuracy o~ the College's estimate o~ the amount o~ time the grievor spent on certain tasks as well as a claim in the Position Description Form that the grievor could re,er to a procedure manual ~or guidance. Subsequent to the filing o~ the grievance certain changes were made to the admissions process in connection with the introduction of a new computer system. This decision addresses only the grievor's duties as they existed at the time she filed her grievance. The Grievor's Job Duties The grievor reported to Ms Sandra Richards, one of three Assistant Registrars at the College. In addition to a number o~ other duties, Ms Richards was responsible for the operations o~ a working group which processed applications for admission into approximately 55 of the programs offered by the College. Another working group, which came under the jurisdiction of another Assistant Registrar, performed similar duties with respect to certain other programs. Between them the two working groups processed about 18,000 applications a year. The grievor testified that her working group dealt with programs which tended to attract more mature, foreign and out of province applicants. The grievor oversaw the day to day operations of the working group which came under Ms Richards' jurisdiction. It appears that this group was comprised of four full-time admissions clerks, two part-time admission clerks and two part-time assessors. 4 Most new students were admitted into the College in September. A second, much smaller, group was admitted in January. Individuals seeking admission in September could file their applications anytime after the preceding January 1st. As long as their applications were received by March 1st, they were guaranteed equal consideration with other applicants who had applied by that date. This resulted in a heavy influx of applications in the last two weeks of February. April 15th was the target date for advising applicants as to whether they had been accepted, rejected or placed on a wait list. The College had certain minimum criteria for entry into its programs. These generally required that an applicant possess a high school diploma or be at least 19 years of age. Additional minimum criteria were established for specific programs. The appropriate Dean was responsible for establishing these criteria. Both Ms Richards and the grievor generally attended any meetings held to discuss the setting of criteria or possible changes to existing criteria. On the basis of their experience they would provide information as to the likely impact of possible criteria. The grievor gave the example of being asked about the possible impact of grade 12 English being made a prerequisite for entry into a particular program and either she or Ms Richards responding that most mature applicants for the program did not have grade 12 English. 5 Individual applicants who met the minimum qualifications for a program were rated using an admission grid form. This generally involved an assessor assigning points to an applicant ba~ed on a number of specific criteria. Ms Richards gave the example of an applicant's overall academic average over the previous two years being worth 20 points if the average was over 80 percent. A lower number of points would be awarded depending on how much below 80 percent the applicant's average was. If the completion of a particular course was a prerequisite for admission to the program, then additional points might be awarded depending on how well the applicant had done on that course. With respect to mature applicants, a guide 6et out how points were to be awarded for life experience. Applicant6 for admission into some of the programs were required to be interviewed by a member of the academic ~taff. The ~taff's rating of an applicant would result in certain additional points. The total number of points received by an applicant was fed into a computer. Responsibility for determining the criteria for awarding various points during the gridding process rested with the academic staff. Ms Richards practice was to arrange for herself and the grievor to meet with the re6ponsible Chair and/or Co-ordinator, or perhaps the Dean, to ascertain whether any change~ were to be made to the criteria, When applications were received in the work unit they would be distributed amongst the admissions clerks. A clerk would load the information from the application into the computer, including a reference to the program being applied for. The clerk would then determine what other documents were required to properly assess the application. These would include high school marks and life experience resumes. The applicant would then be asked to ensure that the documents in question were forwarded to the College. The applications from Ontario high school students were generally assessed and gridded by staff other than the grievor. The applications of mature students, however, were assessed and gridded by the grievor. She assigned points for life experience based on established criteria which took into account related work experience. It was the grievor's evidence that although it was easy to determine the number of years an applicant had worked at a particular job, she was required to exercise judgement when determining whether a job related to the program being applied for. She added, however, that she learned what types of jobs were related to various programs by meeting with the responsible Co-ordinators. The grievor was also responsible for assessing applications filed by persons educated outside Ontario. During the period leading up to March 1st she would assess about 20 applications a day from persons educated outside Canada. To assist her in this 7 regard the grievor used a Country Index which compared the education systems of various countries with those of the United 8tares. A complicating factor was that while Ontario high schools gave marks as a percentage figure, American schools used letter grades and some countries used a point system. The grievor gave the example of her determining that 18 points in a particular country was equivalent to 75 percent. When evaluating an applicant from a country not listed in the Country Index, the grievor might use the entry in the Country Index for a nearby country. The grievor testified that in other cases she might call a Ministry Evaluation Officer for assistance. While the Evaluation Officer would provide her with information, it remained the grievor's responsibility to assess the applicant's education. When evaluating applicants who had been educated in another province the grievor made use of a Student Transfer Guide. This document apparently outlines the various high school courses offered in the different provinces. The grievor used the Guide to insure that an applicant had not taken a basic level education and that he or she had taken the equivalent of any courses required for admission into a program. Applications from individuals who had taken basic level high school courses were also evaluated by the grievor. Applicants from high school students who had taken only basic level courses were rejected outright. A student who had taken some basic shop courses as well as general level academic courses would be 8 regarded as a general level student. The more difficult decisions related to students who had taken a mix of academic courses at both the general and basic levels. Mature applicants who had taken basic level courses might be admitted to a College program if this was approved by the appropriate Dean. The grievor would write to mature applicants and indicate that they were required to meet with a College counsellor and take certain tests. The counsellor would later use the test results to make a recommendation for use by the Dean. After the applications had been assessed and gridded, a list of applicants for each program in order of their grid scores was produced by the computer. The relevant files were then divided between Ms Richards and the grievor. Over about a two week period they would go through the files to ensure that nothing had been missed during the evaluation process. After any corrections had been made to the list, qualified applicants would be accepted into the various programs starting with those with the highest grid scores. Because not all applicants accepted into a program would actually register for it, Ms Richards and the grievor would discuss the extent to which particular programs should be "overbooked" This involved accepting more students into a program than there were spaces. The decision would be based on a review of the relevant statistics from previous years as well as a 9 consideration of the current economic climate as it might impact on student enrollment. The grievor testified that while she and Ms Richards worked together in setting the overbooking figures, Richards was the one who was actually responsible for setting them. The staff of programs which required an admission interview were at times unable to complete the interviews prior to April 15th. The grievor gave the example of the Tourism and Travel program where only 250 out of 300 interviews might be completed, The grievor indicated that in such a situation either she or Ms Richards would estimate how many of the 50 applicants still to be interviewed would likely be accepted so that acceptances could be sent to some of the applicants who had been interviewed, Although the grievor did not expressly say so, I gather that this decision was based on the average number of applicants who were admitted into the program and not a determination as to which of the individual applicants not yet interviewed would likely be accepted, At times an applicant would be accepted into a program on condition that he or she meet a particular entry requirement prior to September. The grievor testified that in August she would check to insure that these requirements had in fact been met, If a requirement had not been met, she would revoke the acceptance. 10 Applicants accepted into a program were required to pay their fees by July 15th. Applicants would at times indicate to the grievor that they could not do so because of financial difficulties. The grievor would advise them that they could apply for a fee deferment provided they had also applied to the OSAP program for financial assistance. The grievor testified that the decision whether or not to grant a fee deferment was made by the Student Awards Office. The grievor testified that if a staff member should make an error when using the computer, such as entering a wrong number, she would be the one to "manipulate" the system to correct the error. She also testified that at times the computer system would shut down. She indicated that if Ms Richards was available the two of them would discuss whether the registration process should continue without the computer or if they should wait until the computer was functioning again. If Ms Richards was not present, the grievor would decide what course of action to take~ In making her decision the grievor could ask the advice of an individual she referred to as a "computer person" The grievor testified that she trained new staff, reviewed the procedure manual with them and also showed them how to use a computer terminal. If staff members encountered a problem with a file, they would raise it with the grievor. Based on computer generated reports, the grievor would re-assign job duties among the staff to ensure that the necessary work was being done. At times Ms Richards would indicate to the grievor that such a reassignment of work was required. When staff members needed time off from work, such as for a doctor's appointment, they would request the time from the grievor. The grievor testified that she would only discuss a request with Ms Richards if there appeared to be a problem with it. Any overtime worm had to be approved by Ms Richards or, in her absence, by the Registrar. Ms Richards on her own initiative might decide that overtime was required or she might approve overtime on the basis of a request from the grievor. Generally the same part-time staff were re-hired every year. The Position Description Form indicates that the grievor interviewed and hired part-time staff. According to the grievor, however, she only started interviewing people for part-time positions after the filing of the grievance. At times the grievor would address groups of actual or potential applicant8 with respect to the admission process and answer any questions they might have. 12 Job Difficulty Matrix The parties disagree on the appropriate rating of the grievor's position with respect to both the complexity and judgement elements of the job difficulty matrix. The College gave the grievor's position a D rating for complexity and a 5 rating for judgement. The Union argues for an E-6 rating. The criteria for these ratings are as follows: Complexity D. Work involves the performance of varied, non-routine complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated processes and methods. E. Work involves the performance of non-routine and relatively unusual tasks that may require the application of specialized processes or methods. Judgement 5, Duties performed require a significant degree of judgement, Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used, §, Duties performed.require a high degree of judgement, Problem-solving requires adopting analytical techniques and development.of new information on various situations and problems, In support of an E rating the representative of the Union contended that many of the duties performed by the grievor were unusual. While her duties were unusual in the sense that they differed from tasks performed by most other staff, the term "unusual" when read in the context of the criteria for an E rating appears to relate to tasks which are not performed on a regular basis. While the tasks performed by the grievor were complex and non-routine, I do not believe that they can reasonably be described as having been unusual. The representative of the Union also contended that the grievor was required to apply specialized processes and methods. In support of this contention she relied on a provision in the Position Description Form which states that the grievor was required to compose "specialized letters to prospective applicants/applicants/students concerning admission." She also contended that when the grievor spoke to different groups about the admission process she would have geared her presentation to the specific group she was talking to. In my view these factors indicate that the grievor performed non-routine tasks. They do not demonstrate that she applied specialized processes or methods. Having regard to these considerations, I confim the D rating for complexity given by the College. In terms of the judgement element, the grievor was clearly required to exercise her judgement with respect to a number of different tasks. These included training and overseeing the work of staff and re-assigning work between staff members. The CAAT - Job Evaluation Guide Chart for the Support Services Officer Job Family specifies that among the typical duties of a Support Services Officer B which meet the criteria for a 5 rating are: "Trains, co-ordinates and monitors activities of others as appropriate". Given this fact, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to regard these duties as justifying a higher rating. The Union contends that a high degree of judgement was required of the grievor when establishing overbooking levels. The difficulty with this contention is that while the grievor worked on the establishment of overbooking levels, on her own evidence she did so with Ms Richards and Ms Richards was the one who was responsible for them. The Union also relied on the grievor's role in establishing the various grids used for evaluating applicants. The evidence, however, is that responsibility for determining how points were to be allocated rested with the academic staff. Since the grievor did not have responsibility for these decision making processes, I am unable to conclude that her involvement required a high degree of judgement. In its written brief the Union suggested that the grievor was involved in determining whether basic level applicants could handle a post-secondary program. The evidence is that basic level students were generally rejected as a matter of course. Mature students who had acquired a basic level of education could be admitted by the appropriate Dean who received a recommendation in this regard from a College counsellor. The grievor's role appears to have gone no further than advising the applicant that he or she would have to see a counsellor for testing. This role did not require any significant degree of judgement. 15 A more substantial level of judgement was required of the grievor when she decided whether a student who had a mix of basic and general level courses should be viewed as a basic level student. This process could be described as interpreting complex data in order to solve a problem. It cannot, however, reasonably be said to involve the adaptation of analytical techniques and the development of new information, which is what is required for a § rating. In my view the same reasoning applies to the grievor's assessment of out of province courses on the basis of the Transfer Guide. To my mind the greatest degree of judgement exercised by the grievor involved her assessment of the applications of foreign-educated students. It appears that in most cases this could be done using the Country Guide. As noted above, the Guide compares the education programs of various countries with those in the United States. The grievor was presumably required to analyse various programs and marking systems by converting them to the American equivalents and then converting them again to the Ontario equivalents. The grievor was also required to assess the academic standing of applicants from countries not included in the Country Index. At times the grievor did so by using the entry in the Country Index for a nearby country. This logically required an assessment of the factors relevant to a determination of whether the educational standards of the two countries would likely be similar. At times the grtevor contacted a government Evaluation Officer for information. In the context of the grievor's position, this can reasonably be characterized as the development of new information on various situations. I am satisfied that the grievor's involvement in assessing the education of foreign-educated applicants, especially those from countries not listed in the Country Index, met the criteria for a 6 rating. I find support for this conclusion in the statement in the Position Description Form that "A high degree of judgement is required in the assessment of eligibility of non-Ontario and non-Canadian applicants." The evidence was that at times the grievor would evaluate 20 applications from foreign-educated applicants a day. Although the evidence does not indicate how many of these involved applicants educated in countries not listed in the Country Index, the grievor's evidence suggests that it was not an infrequent occurrence. In my view, an employee is entitled to be credited with the highest 3evel of judgement required to be exercised as a regular part of his or her job. Accordingly, although the judgement associated with the majority of the grievor's duties fit comfortably within the criteria for a 5 rating, I conclude that her position should have been given a 6 rating for judgement. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that D-6 was the appropriate rating for the job difficulty matrix. This rating is worth 217 points, which is 23 points higher than the rating given by the College. 17 Knowledqe Matrix - Skill Element Related to the issue of job difficulty is the skill required for the grievor's position. The College gave the position a 4 rating. The Union initially gave the position a lower 3 rating. In its written brief, however, the Union accepted the College's rating as being correct. Accordingly, I confirm the 4 rating given by the College. Guidance Received Matrix The parties disagree as to the proper rating for both the guidelines available and nature of review elements of the Guidance Received Matrix. The College rated the grievor's position at level D for guidelines available while the Union argues for an E rating, which is the highest rating possible. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: D. Work is performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems. Supervisor is available to assist in resolving problems. E. Work is performed in accordance with general instructions and policies involving changing conditions and problems. Supervisor may be involved on problems of major importance. As indicated above, the parties disagree as to whether a procedure manual was available to assist the grievor. The grievor's evidence was that when she started her job she utilized the procedure manual although at some point she ceased doing so. 18 She added that someone new in the position would have to refer to the manual. The grievor also stated that when the computer system was introduced, she and one of the admissions clerks revised the manual. This evidence suggests that although because of her experience in the position the grievor did not need to refer to it, there was a procedure manual which could be utilized by whomever might be occupying the position. It was Ms Richards' evidence that she generally spent a little over one-third of her time dealing with admissions issues, although this could be "all-encompassing" at peak times. Ns Richards testified that if the grievor experienced difficulties with a particular application she would raise it with her. The grievor's evidence did not contradict this claim. The grievor testified that she would go to Ns Richards if she had a problem, such as being unable to meet a deadline. The evidence suggests that the grievor was required to adopt existing procedures to meet the problems before her and that Ms Richards was available to assist her in resolving these problems. This situation met the criteria for the D rating given by the College. The College gave the nature of review element of the grievor's position a 4 rating while the Union argues for a 5 rating, which is the highest rating possible. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 4. Work assignments are subject to a general form of review for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines. 5. Work assignments are reviewed only for achievements of broad objectives, effectiveness of results and to ensure integration with the work of others. It was the grievor's evidence that she kept Ms Richards informed of what was happening and also advised her of the decisions she had made. The grievor testified that Ms Richards received reports Crom the computer concerning the status o~ the admission process and on the basis of those reports would at times question her concerning what she was doing with respect to specific programs. Ms Richards' evidence was that at times she would ask the grievor to redirect staff or handle the work flow in a different manner. Ms Richards indicated that when she made admissions decisions she could tell Crom the files whether the admission clerks had been properly trained and if they were correctly handling the applications. On the basis of this evidence, I am satisfied that the grievor's work assignments were subject to a general form of review for achievement of specific objectives and not just a review for the achievement of broad objectives. Accordingly, it met the criteria for a 4 rating. Having regard to the above I confirm the D-4 rating for Guidance Received given by the College. 2O Communications Matrix The parties agree that the grievor's position rated a 3 with respect to the level of contacts portion of the Communication matrix. They disagree, however, on the purpose of the contacts. The College argues for a D rating while the Union contends that an E rating, the highest possible rating, was more appropriate. The criteria for these two ratings are set out below: D. Work involves contacts for the purpose of problem identification and solution with respect to matters of considerable importance requiring tact, diplomacy and persuasion. E. 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. Irate or demanding calls from applicants who had been rejected or placed on a waiting list, as well as such calls from parents and members of the provincial legislature, were handled by either the grievor or Ms Richards. At times an unsuccessful applicant and/or parent would come in to see the grievor. Whether over the phone or in person, the grievor would explain why the applicant had not been accepted and, if appropriate, propose that the applicant apply for a similar program that was under-subscribed. The grievor testified that her objective during these discussions was to ensure that parents and applicants went away with a good feeling about the College so that the applicant would not be lost to the College. 21 It was the grievor's evidence that at times employers who provided practical experience to Fanshawe College students would be upset because someone, presumably a family or staff member, had not been accepted into a program. When this occurred they might threaten to no longer give practical experience to students. In such a case the grievor would first obtain the applicant's permission to talk to the employer and then explain to the employer why the applicant had been rejected. She would also advise the employer that all applicants had to be treated equally. The grievor stated that at times a rejected applicant or parent would make direct contact with a Dean. The Dean would phone her so that he or she would be in a position to discuss the reason for the applicant's rejection. At other times Chairs or Co-ordinators would contact the grievor about why a particular applicant had not been accepted. The grievor's evidence was that she would explain why the applicant had been rejected but not alter the decision. The grievor's role when dealing with complaints relating to the rejection of an applicant was to explain the basis of the decision and perhaps steer the applicant towards another program. The grievor's evidence makes it clear that whether or not the person she was talking to accepted her explanation would not impact on the decision. Accordingly, nothing would directly flow from the fact that someone might fail to understand why an applicant had been rejected. In addition, during these discussions the grievor was not seeking the co-operation or agreement of anyone. Finally, while it would be in the College's best interests for an unsuccessful applicant and his or her parents to retain a good opinion of the College, I do not believe that the manner in which the grievor explained why someone had been rejected could reasonably be classified as a sensitive matter of significant importance to the College. Taking all of these considerations into account, I am not satisfied that the grievor'$ position met the criteria for an E rating. Accordingly, I confirm the D-3 rating given by the College. Workin~ Conditions Matrix - Manual Effort Element The College assessed the grievor's position at the A-5 level for the manual effort element of the Working Conditions Matrix. The Union claimed that a B-4 rating was appropriate. The criteria for these ratings were as follows: Manual Effort A. Work requires minimum manual effort and physical strain in a variety of normal positions egs. intermittent sitting, standing, walking, ordinary office tasks. B. Work requires light manual effort and physical exertion egs. prolonged standing, sitting, walking, climbing stairs, using light tools and/or handling light weight materials. Prevalence 4. Frequent - 31% to 60% of the time 5. Continuous - more than 60% of the time 23 The Position Description Form indicates that the grievor spent over 50 percent of her time sitting. The grievor testified that she would sit for a couple of hours at a time between breaks. She indicated that other people generally came to see her at her desk, although there were times when she would go to the counter or look at a computer terminal being operated by an admissions clerk. The grievor frequently spent two hours at a stretch at her desk. I classify this as "prolonged sitting" as opposed to ordinary office tasks or intermittent sitting, standing and walking. Accordingly, I rate her position at level B for manual effort. Given this rating, a 4 rating for prevalence is clearly more appropriate that the 5 rating given by the College. Having regard to the foregoing, I rate the grievor's position at the B-4 level. This rating is worth 10 points, which is 7 points higher than the rating accorded by the College. Workinq Conditions Matrix - Visual Strain Element The College gave a B-3 rating for this aspect of the Working Conditions matrix. The Union argues that a D-4 rating was more appropriate. A 3 rating represents a visual strain which is prevalent for 10 to 30 percent of the time. A 4 rating is appropriate for a visual strain which is prevalent for 31 to 50 percent of the time. 24 The criteria for visual strain at the B, C and D (the highest possible) levels are as follows: B. Moderate visual concentration is required. Required to focus on small areas or objects for short periods of time, i.e. up to one hour. C. Considerable visual concentration required. Required to focus on small areas and objects for up to two hours at a time. D. Extensive visual concentration required. Required to focus on small areas and objects for more than two hours at a time. The grievor was required to concentrate on documents, including life experience resumes which were often handwritten, as well as a computer terminal. It was the grievor's evidence that apart from situations when she worked overtime on a Saturday, she was lucky if she could work for more than half an hour without being interrupted. This situation fits easily within the criteria for a B rating. The grievor's tasks, however, suggest that a 4 rating, indicating that she was required to concentrate over 31 percent of the time, was likely more appropriate than a 3 rating. Accordingly, I conclude that a B-4 rating was appropriate. This rating is worth $ points more than the rating given by the College. 25 Conclusion The College accorded the grievor's position a total of 617 points. My finding that the grievor was entitled to a D-6 rating with respect to the job difficulty matrix adds an additional 23 points. Seven additional points result from the B-4 rating for manual effort and three more from the B-4 rating for working conditions. This raises the point total for the position to 650, which brings it within payband 10. Having regard to all of the above, I conclude that at the time she filed her grievance the grievor was entitled to be classified as a Support Services Officer-Atypical within payband 10. The grievor is to be paid on that basis retroactive to the date that she filed her grievance. I will remain seized of this matter to deal with any difficulties which may arise out of the implementation of this decision, including any disagreement as to the amount of compensation payable to the grievor. Dated at Toronto this 24th day of April, 1992 Arbitrator ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATIONS " FANSHAWE Joanne Pietens CO LLEGE INCUMBENT PRESENT CLASSIFICATION Support Services officer B AND PAYBAND Pay Band 9 SUPERVISOR Sandra Richards JOB FAMILY AND PAYBAND REQUESTED BY GRIEVOR SuPport Services Officer - Pay Band 12 (atypical) POSITION DESCRIPTION FORM: 1. Position Description Form Attached 2. ~ Parties agree on con~ents of at~ached Position Description Form ~ Union disagrees with con~ents of attached Position Description Form SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THIS DISAGREEMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS: Position summary Percentages of time for Duties and Responsibilities Guidance received - D2 (USE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY) AWARD Management . Union Arbitrator ELEMENTS Rating Pts. RatingI Pts. RatingI Pts. ~l ' D5 194 E6 I 246 DIFFICULTY GUIDANCE RECEIVED D4 150 E5 200 COM~f~NI CATIONS 'D3 109 E3 135 KNOWLEDGE TRAINING/EXPERIENCE D5 104 D5 1.04 SKILL 4 47 3 34 ~ ~ 7 WORKING MANUAL A5 3 B4 10 CONDITIONS VISUAL B3 7 D4 28 ENVIRONMENTAL A5 3 A5 3 TOTAL POINTS 617 760 PAYBAND NUMBER 9 12 ATTAC~{ED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ~ The College (,. ~--ml) SIGNATURES:  Go~rTHE UNIC~ o ~Q .. ~ MANAGEMENT Hearing Daua Xward Daue