Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutElgie 89-06-25 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION between FANSHAWE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY (hereinafter referred to as the College) and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE UNION, LOCAL 109 (hereinafter referred to as the Union) Classification Grievance of~David Elgie Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt Appearances: For the College: Doug Busche, Assistant Director Human Resources Department Jack Roberts, Chairperson, Civl/ Architectural Technology Division For the Union: Jim Philips, President Jean Crawford, Chief steward David Elgie, Grievor Dean Coutu, Observer Hearing: London, Ontario June 2, 1989. 2 AWARD I. Introduction The grievor is classified as a Technologist B, Pay Band !0 and seeks re-classification as Technologist Atypical, Pay Band 13 retroactive to October 7, 1986. The following are the respective College and Union ratings that have been attached to the various job factors under the job evaluation plan. College Evaluation: Union Evaluation Degree Points Degree Points Job Difficulty D5 194 F6 275 Guidance Rec'D D4 150 E5 200 Communications C3 84 E3 135 Knowledge Training/Exp D6 118 E6 131 Skill 5 61 6 75 Working Cond'ns Manual Effort B3 7 C3~ 15 Visual B4 10 C4 18' Environment B3 7 C3 15 Total Points 631 864 Pay Band No. i0 13 It should also be stated that the parties are not agreed as to the contents of the position description form. During the grievance procedure the form was revised somewhat to reflect some of the concerns of the union. However, the documentation filed wit}] the board indicated a number of further changes sought by the grievor and the union. I must register, at the outset, my frustration at the extent of the disagreement of the parties on the appropriate ratings to be attached to the job factors. No fewer than 10 job factors are in dispute! I assign no blame or responsibility nor do attribute bad faith to either party for this state of affairs. .However, I believe it should be stated that the procedure for resolving these matters by arbitrator driven expedited arbitration cannot function well where the disagreement between the parties is as profound as it is in this case. II The Duties and Responsibilities of the Position I turn now to the position description form and the evidence led at the hearing. The Position Summary and the Duties and Responsibilities of the position as set out in the Position Description Form are set out below. The portions which have been added by the Union and with which the College does not agree are underscored. Many of those additions are matters of semantics and do not have a significant bearing on the general description of the position. Similarly the differences of the parties relative to the amount of time spent on various duties is not so great as to be significant. Position Summary Under bro~d direction of the Chairperson, Civil/Architectural Technology Digision, provides technical support, assistance and advice to faculty and students in Civil/Survey programs by providing demonstration of principals and theory in supervision of laboratory segments of courses. Plans, develops and controls utilization of resources, including acquisition and maintenance of equipment, supplies and computer programs and timetable development for Civil/Architectural Technology Division. Acts as a system manager for a multi user P.C. Duties and Responsibilities 1. Managing the soils, hydraulics, survey photogrammetry and drafting equipment inventory, including the requisitioning of new equipment, maintenance and repair of existing equipment, procuring or manufacturing of replacement parts and other supplies, distributing equipment and maintaining files dealing with information regarding equipment and its location. 2. Providing advice and assistance to faculty on the use of department laboratory and computer equipment, making recommendations on. equipment to be used or developed to demonstrate various phenomena and assisting in the development of new laboratory procedures. 3. Collecting, setting up and dismantling equipment for use in demonstration and laboratory periods. 4. Generating and updating divisional faculty, and program timetables based on approved teaching and program schedules. Following the academic collective agreement to Provide effective utilization of class rooms. 5. ?resenting laboratory demonstration and assisting faculty in the supervision of student laboratories and 'tests on a fairly regular basis, including field work. 6. Performing assorted clerical and support duties including preparation of purchase requisitions and follow-up delivering of printed materials etc. Providing overall co-ordination of departmental operations related to the daily utilization of laboratories, equipment and supplies. 7. Acts as a system manager for a multi user P.C. which 5 involves the maintenance of a hard disk drive and giving advice to the teachers and students on different hardware and software problems they encounter. Also including problems on a main frame multi-user computer network. Software varies from word processing to Auto Cad and Project scheduling time management to Basic. The griew)r spends a ~ubstantial portion of his time working in various labs at the College. In that regard he is responsible for the set up of the lab and for effecting minor repairs to malfunctioning equipment in which connection he is, on occasion required to "improvise" a solution. Where it is necessary to send parts out for repairs the grievor makes the Judgment whether or not such repairs are necessary although approval for such repairs would be subject to the availability of funds in the budget. Such decisions are made by his supervisor, Mr. Roberts. One of his more significant duties in connection with the lab is t6 explain not only the practical steps that are required to be completed in connect.ion with a particular lab assignment but also, on occasion, the theory behind the experiment. This is necessitated as a result of the fact that, because of scheduling difficulties, some students, who would normally be instructed in theory in the classroom by a member of the faculty, may not have had that instruction. Where that occurs it falls to the grievor to provide the necessary theoretical background to the experiment. In connection with his contacts with students the grievor is also expected to be able to answer student questions concerning computer use, to assist them in the use of computers 6 for the purposes of preparing their lab reports and generally to explain to students why they are required to do particular lab assignments. Although the grievor is no longer involved in marking lab assignments he is called upon occasionally by students for advice and assistance on how they can improve their grades. The grievor testified as to the physical environment in the labs. He testified that when he is working in the drafting lab he is required on occasion to obtain parts from a mezzanine. That involves him in climbing a rung ladder, which is not tied down, while carrying objects weighing approximately 5 pounds. The soils labs also may require him to go outside in inclement weather to assist in checking student's survey work. The grievor estimated that this might be necessary for approximately 10 hours in the year. The principal evidence respecting working conditions in the labs related to the Concrete labs. Concrete cylinders, each weighing 30 pounds, are made with different mixtures of aggregate etc. and subject to testing by crushing in a large bowl. In this connection the grievor is required to carry the cylinders a distance of about 30 feet to the bowl. In any one semester either 24 (or if there are two groups of students) 48 such cylinders are manufactured .and each cylinder would ]De subjected to a number of different testu (although it should be noted that a number of them would break during the tests and that fewer would need to be carried in 3ubsequent tests. 7 The crushing process produces dust, flying splinters (for which the grievor is supplied with safety glasses) and noise, described by the grievor as a "screeching" sound and by Mr. Roberts as a grinding sound. Each admitted that the sound was significantly louder than the sound of an ordinary rotating cement mixer. The grievor is also supplied with safety boots to guard against injury to his feet from falling cylinders. No fans exist to extract the dust from the air. The testing process lasts approximately 5 minutes for each cylinder. Although a Technician is'present in the lab to assist the grievor has never asked him for help. The grievor is also required (either 4 or 8 times a year) to lift a testing head weighing 108 pounds from floor to chest level. Although a hoist is available to lift this head it is not suitable for putting it in place and consequently the grievor does not make use of the hoist. A second major duty of the grievor involves him in . the preparation of the timetable. Prior to October 1986 the grievor co-ordinated the timetable for the Civil Area of the Civil Division. In October 1986 he was assigned responsibility for all post secondary programs in the Civil/Architectural Division. Later he was assigned timetabling responsibilities in connection with adult training and apprentices. The process followed was one in which the grievor took various data, relating to faculty course assignments, room availability etc. and, throu~h the use of a colour coded magnetic 8 board, produced a timetable which would accommodate the physical restraints of the college, the preferences of faculty, and the interests of students. In that regard he was required to deal with the complaints and concerns of faculty concerning the timetable. While attempts were made to accommodate the requests of faculty concerning timetable this was not always possible and it fell to the grievor to explain why the timetable had been prepared in a particular way and to convince faculty of the need to accept their particular timetable. This process, which generally had to be completed within a 4 week period, was conducted 3 times a year for post secondary programs, 5 times a year .for apprentices and relatively infrequently for adult training. In the fall of 1986 the procedure was changed slightly with the introduction of the VAX computer by which timetabling became computerized. However, the introduction of the computer did not alter the practice of composing the timetable by the use of the magnetic board. Rather the computer became, as the grievor described it, a "glorified printer". In other words, once the timetable was determined by the magnetic board process, the grievor entered that data into the computer. This required the grievor to spend a period of time, which varied according to the stage of the timetabling process, at a video display terminal, calling forth data .~nd entering othe~ data i~to !.he computer. The grievor was u~ab!e to say precisely how much tim~ he ~pcnt at th~ terminal at a stretch a]th~_~ugh he ~tated that, 9 toward the end of the timetabling period, it was "a lot". Mr. Roberts estimated that the amount of time required at the end the timetabling cycle could vary from 2 to 4 hours although he would not expect the grievor to work at the terminal for any more than 2 hours at a stretch without a break. He also stated tt~at any adjustments to the timetable could be entered quickly. The grievor testified as to certain difficulties he experienced with the image on the screen of the VAX computer. That was confirmed by Mr. Roberts who admitted that the image was blurred if looked at from a particular angle. A third major duty, which the grievor, in the amendments which he sought to introduce into the Position Description Form, estimated .to occupy him for 20% of the time, concerns certain functions he has performed in connection with an IBM PC which was located just outside of his office. [This is duty number 7 listed above in the amended Position Description Form.] This computer was one of four such computers which were installed in the fall of 1987 at various places in the College. They were intended for faculty and student use and this particular computer was located outside the grievor's office as this was thought to be a convenient place of access. Since the grievor was the person closest to the computer he found that he was being asked by both faculty and students for assistance with respect'to the operation of various kinds of software. He also found it necessary from time to time to empty the hard disc information, such as student resumes, which had become outdated. 10 In addition he prepared a menu which would provide for easier acces~ to the software on the computer. Mr. Roberts testified that these duties were never formally assigned to the grievor. For his part the grievor stated that, as the computer was installed near his office, the Division expected him to assist with any problems that might arise concerning its use by faculty and students. Mr. Roberts was aware of the activities of the grievor in this regard but never formally instructed him that the work he was doing in connection with the c~mputer was not a part of his assigned duties. The grievor receives very little in the way of direct supervision from his supervisor, Mr. Roberts. He knows what his job requires and generally sets his own priorities, subject of course, to certain constraints such as those imposed by the need to have the timetable ready by a particular deadline. His supervisor does not become involved in dealing with any of the problems which may arise in the labs. Nor does he deal with ~aculty complaints which might arise in connection with timetabling. Although there may be consultation with Mr. Roberts on the matter of timetabling the relationship is essentially one in which the grievor is given the information which he requires to prepare the timetable and he goes ahead and does the job. The one area where there is some direct supervision by Mr. Roberts is in connection with the acquisition of equipment which requires the expenditure of money from the budget. 11 The last area to be dealt with on the evidence concerns the question of the experience required to perform the functions of the position. It was the grievor's evidence that, considering the fact that it is necessary to be familiar with a number of different labs, and considering the fact that such breadth of experience would not be obtainable through working in a single industry, it would be necessary to work in a number of different industries in order to acquire the requisite experience. In the grievor's estimation such broad experience could not be acquired in less than 5 years as is claimed by the College. Mr. Roberts, who is himself a civil engineer with 10 years experience in industry and who taught for 5 years in the Division and served as a co-ordinator for 3 years prior to his 14 years as Chairperson of the Division, had a different view. He agreed that no single job in industry would provide the requisite experience but doubted that it would take up to 8 years to acquire that experience. It was his view that, while there certainly is an advantage in having someone with -the practical experience, a recent graduate of the program, who had taken all the labs, would be qualified to do the job. Before dealing with the evidence and stating my conclusions it ~s useful to dispo~.e of one prelim[nary matter first. That concerns the fuact]ons serformed by the grievor in connect[on with the IBM PC c~.~mputer ~k,nti. oned near his desk. As that computer was instal]ed in the fa]] of ].987 after the grievance 12 was filed it is not appropriate for me to consider those duties for the purpose of determining how the grievor ought to have been classified in June of 1987, the date of the grievance. Having said that I think it is useful to record my views on the subject of whether or not these duties were assigned to the grievor. The evidence does establish that they were not formally assigned to the grievor. However, I do not believe that that is a full answer to the claim. I recognize that an employee cannot in a sense "bootstrap" himself or herself into a higher classification by taking on duties that are not assigned and then claiming that such duties justify a higher classification. By the same token I do not believe that the College should be able to knowingly acquiesce in the performance of duties by an employee, and to enjoy the particular services provided by the employee, and to then subsequently resist a claim of higher classification on the basis that the duties have not been formally assigned. I believe that in such a situation an employee is entitled,in the absence of some indication to the contrary, to assume that he/she is intended or expected to perform the duties in question and to be rewarded accordingly. It is a simple matter for the supervisor to inform an employee that certain duties which are being performed voluntarily are not required and will not be taken into account for the purposes of job classification. In the absence of ~uch an indication an umployee should be able to draw the inference that the College ~s conter~t that the duties be performed and that 13 they will be considered to be a part of the duties and responsibilities of the position. I should add that these views here expressed can have no bearing on any future grievance that the grievor might now ~ile in connection with these duties. An arbitrator appointed to deal with such a grievance would be expected and required to take an independent view of the issue which these remarks address. III Conclusions I turn to the issue of the proper classification of the grievor. Initially it must be determined whether or not the position can be evaluated by reference to the Guide Charts or the Core Point Rating Plan. It was submitted by the College that, having regard to the principal duties of the grievor, the position could be classified by reference to the Guide Charts and that consideration of the Core Point Rating plan was unnecessary. In view of this submission it is helpful to review briefly the agreed upon procedures according to which job evaluation is to be conduction. The manual sets out the guidelines for job evaluation quite clearly in Sections II and VII which deal respectively'with two different methods of job evaluation; by Classification Guide Charts and by the Core Point Rating Plan. The following provisions in Section II describe the proper process to be followed. !. To ev.~luate a part[cu!dr position it is necessary to determine the Job Family to which it appr~,priate!y ~e!ongs. 14 3. In some cases the duties and responsibilities of a position will not clearly fall within a sing.le. Job Family Definition. In these instances the "principle of core theory" should apply. Quite simply, the predominant or central duties of the position should determine the 3ob Family. 4. Having determined the appropriate Job Family, the duties and responsibilities of the position being evaluated are compared to the Classification levels described in the relevant Job Evaluation Guide Charts...Considering the normal activities of the position, it is matched with the guide chart level which most accurately describes the actual content and responsibilities of the position .... In most cases a close approximation to a classification level described in a Guide Chart will be possible. 6. A relatively small number of truly -atypical positions that encompass duties and responsibilities which are not adequately covered by the existing Job Family Definitions and the Job Evaluation Guide Charts are evaluated by the Core Point Rating ' Plan... Section VII describes the Core Point Rating Plan as one which is to be used to evaluate and classify atypical positions. In using the plan positions must be "confirmed as being tr .y atypical and not readily evaluated and classified by the Jub Evaluation Guide Charts" It should be noted, however, that the two methods of evaluation, Guide Chart and Core Point Rating Plan, .are not mutuall~ exclusive. Se{ ion I of the Manual provides that the Guide Charts are based on the degree definitions in the Core Point Rating Plan. Moreover, the procedures which the parties have agreed upon for the processing of grievances to expedited arbitration require the parties to conduct a Core Point Rating of the position in all cases. In addition the arbitrator is required to append a Core Point Evaluation to the decision. Consequently, while it may be the case that the Guide Chart method is the appropriate method of classification for most positions, it remains the case that where the Union can establish that a position is atypical that position must be classified according to the Core Point Rating Plan. As noted the manual requires that Core Point Rating be used only for atypica{ positions and the initial question which must be determined is whether or not this position is atypical. In my'opinion so long as the Union can establish that, having regard to the various job factors and degree definitions which are common to both the Guide Chart method and the Core point Rating Plan, the position is atypical in any respect, it becomes an atypical position requiring Core Point Rating. I am mindful of the provision in the manual that Core Pofnt Rating is reserved for a "small number" of positions. It has been my experience that in every case the Union claims that the posftion is atypical. That might appear to be ~ncon$istent with the that Core Point rating ~s intended to be relatively rare. However, it should also be noted that it is likely that the kind of position that will be the subject of a grievance, and ultimately arbitration, is one which does not fit easily into the Guide Chart narrative. 16 It should also be noted that Core Point Rating of a position will not undermine the utility of the Guide Chart method as the primary method of job evaluation. Since both methods are based on the same job factors and degree definition the application of core point rating to a position which is not atypical ought to yield exactly the same results as would be achieved by the ide Chart approach. However, fo~ positions which are atypical it will yield a result which recognizes and rewards those aspects in which the duties and responsibi!itics of the position differ from the norml As noted there are a number of job factors in dispute. 1. Job Difficulty The Union seeks F6; The College has rated the position at D5. With regard to the Complexity element I am unable to conclude from the evidence that the grievor is involved in "investigating a variety of unusual conditions" or that any problem solving he does requires adapting analytical techniques and development of new information. I would not regard the development, in conjunction with the teaching master, of lab materl~"~s or the trouble shooting that he is required to do in connection with defective equipment as meeting this standard. Nor are the problems that he must solve in connection with timetabling of un "~ >.~ z '~.~a .]." nature. Similarly, while his involvement in the teaching of -~tudents may ~e</uire him to do different things at-]!f~erent times, none of it is "unusual". 17 Rather it is, as level D contemplates, "varied and non-routine" and. requires "different and unrelated processes" As for the Judgment element I am similarly of the view that the problem solving engaged in by the grievor does not require any adopting of analytical techniques or development of new information. The problem solving relied on by the union related essentially to the grievor's dealings with faculty and students. In that regard I believe the more appropriate description of the judgment required in connection with those duties is that described in level 5, viz, "interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used." Essentially he is required to explain or interpret the timetable to faculty members. In preparation of the timetable he is similarly required to take various data relating to classroom availability, teacher assignments etc. and to interpret it in such a way as to produce a timetable which will accommodate the various interests involved. I do not see that as adopting an "analytical" technique or as the "development of new information" on a problem. Rather he takes certain given information and creates a timetable using established procedures and p~actices. Thus, I conclude that on the Judgment factor the grievor is properly rated at QS. I am supported in this conclusion by the fact .that one of the illustrative classifications which is rated at F6 for this factor is that of Systems Analyst. A comparison of the duties of ~ystems Analyst with those of the 9rievo~ 18 reveals that the two positions are markedly different in terms of job difficulty. 2. Guidance Received. The Union claims ES; the Col!ege rates the position at D4. Clearly the grievor is subject to very little supervision by his supervisor. It would appear from the evidence that the only involvement of Mr. Roberts in the performance of the griew~r's duties is in the approval of requisitions of items which require an expenditure from the b~dget. In .almost all respects the grievor sets his own priorities. On this basis I would rate the position at level 5 for Nature of Review. With respect to Guidelines Available there are no manuals or .other written policies which the grievor follows for the preparation of the timetable. However, I am not persuaded that he performs in accordance with "general instructions ant policies involving changing conditions and problems" as is required by level E. Admittedly there will be changes that will occur to the timetable. However, ! believe that the requirement to adapt to those changes is captured by the language of level D, viz, work is performed in accordance with procedures and practices which may be adapted ~nd modified to meet particular situations." Certainly, in preparing the timetable the grievor follows certain established practices and procedures. Consequently, this [a~tor ~hou!d be rated at DS. 3, Communications The Union claims E3; the College has rated the position at C3. The evidence relative to communication is that respecting the grievor's contacts with faculty, over the issues of · timetabling and use of equipment, and with students over their lab assignments. This evidence does not support the Union's claim. Level E clearly has no application whatsoever to communication with students. I am similarly of the view that it has no application to the contacts with faculty over problems connected with the timetable. I cannot regard the issue of faculty timetabling as a "sensitive" matter of "significant importance" Nor is the grievor involved in "securing cooperation" of the faculty over the timetable. It is true that it falls to the grievor to "sell" the timetable, to the faculty. But he is no sense negotiating with faculty on this issue. Rather he is, as the language of level C suggests, "providing advice...for the purpose of explaining" the timetable. Moreover, the language of level D more accurately captures the grievor's contact with students, viz, "providing guidance and instruction". Consequently, I conclude that the grievor is properly rated at level C3. 4. Knowledge: Training and Experience The dispute here relates to whether or not the level of Experience should be up to 5 yea~s, as the College claims, or ~p to 8 years as the Union claims. 20 I am persuaded by the opinion of Mr. Roberts that the experience necessary to conduct the labs could be acquired over a period of 5 years. Consequently I confirm the College rating of D6 as appropriate. 5. Knowledge: Skill The Union claims that this factor should be rated at level 6 viz, "ability to understand and apply complex principles of a discipline, such as mathematics, computing science etc." The basis for this claim appears to rest on the involvement of the grievor in providing ~dvice and assistance to faculty and students in connection with the IBM PC computer. However, as those duties were not undertaken until after the date of the grievance I cannot take them into consideration at this stage. Apart from this I see little in the evidence that relates to the applicatio'n of "complex" principles of a discipline. Obviously the grievor must be able to apply scientific principles. However, the skill required to do that is, in my opinion, reflected in level 5. Consequently, I confirm the College rating at level 5 21 6. Working Conditions: Manual Effort. The dispute in relation to this [actor relates to'whether · the position should be rated at level B, as the Colleg~ claims, or level C as the Union claims. In my opinion the evidence establishes clearly that the rating applied by the Union is more appropriate. The grievor is required to carry weights of 30 pounds frequently during the Concrete lab testing. He is also required, to lift a weight . in excess of 100 pounds. I would regard these materials as of "medium" rather than "light" weight. Moreover the grievor is required to climb a rung ladder. Consequently, I would rate this factor at level C3. 7. Manual Effort: Visual Strain The dispute here concerns whether this factor should be rated at level B, "moderate" visual concentration - concentration on small objects for up to 1 hour" or level C, "considerable" visual concentration - concentration on small areas and objects for up to 2 hours at a time. Again, it is c!ea~ ~_~om the evidence that when the grievor is involved in entering the timetabling data on the VAX computer ~is duties require him to sit at a video display terminal for periods ranging of at ~.east ~ hours, perhaps more. Moreover, the image on the screen ~.~, ~w!~,~3 ..... ~o. certain technical deficiencies b~urr~d thereby increasing ~he in the equipment which he ilses, visual strain experi.' ........ 22 Consequently, I would rate this factor at level C4. 8~ Manual Effort: Working Conditions This factor is rated by the College at level B3 and by the Union at level C3. The evidence establishes c/early theft the work environment is "disagreeable" within the meaning of the Work Environment factor. During the concrete testing there is dust and a "loud" noise from the concrete grinding. There is also exposure to potentially hazardous conditions with a possibility of injury. This is evidenced by the fact that the grievor is supplied with both safety glasses and safety boots. Consequently, I rate this factor at level C3. In summary the position is to be rated as follows: 1. Job Difficulty D5 194 points 2. Guidance received D5 172 points 3. Communications C3 84 points 4. Knowledge:Training D6 118 points 5. Knowledge: Skill 5 61 points 6. Manual Effort C3 15 points 7. Visual Strain C4 18 points ~. Environment C~ 15 points. Total points 677 Pay Band I0 The grievance is dismissed. Dated at LONDON, Ont. thi$/~-~_~ day of - -~---~_ , 1989. G. J. Brandt, Arbitrator. COLLEGE Fanshawe GRIEVOR D. Elgie CLASSIFICATION/ POSITION Technologist B HEARING DATE June 2, 1989 APPEARANCES: MANAGEMENT UNION D. Busche Jim Phillips DECISION.' Degree Points Job Difficulty D5 ] q4 Guidance Received n5 177 . Communications C3 84 Training & Exper. D6 118 Knowledge Skill 5 61 Manual Effort C3 15 Working Conditions Visual C4 Environ. 18 C3 ] ~ Total Points 677 Pay Band Number 10 COMMENTS: ?