Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKruger 88-11-28 }{EADNO T E CAAT S OPSEU # 88A727 OPSEU LOCAL 109 KRUGER, F. (OPSEU) vs. Fanshawe College (S) Award dated November 28, 1988 (Ian Hunter The grievor was seeking ~classification to payband 7 as a clerk atypical from a clerk C (payband 5). There were 4 points of dispute in the PDF which Professor Hunter disregarded. On one point he was critical of the parties for trivializing the expedited arbitration process by quibbling over minute details. In addition he noted that the process by definition limits the scope of evidence adduced and therefore limits the nature of questions that can be satisfactorily dealt with in this forum. Overall, Professor Hunter found the grievor's evidence did not reinforce the union's arguments although he found both the grievor and his supervisor equally credible and had to remind himself that he was assessing the position, not the individual. The crux of the union's case rested on a comparison with another job. Notwithstanding the obvious evidentiary restrictions in the process, Professor Hunter still held that this argument was without merit. The grievance was denied. MAK BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (hereinafter called the Union) FANSHAWE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY (hereinafter called the College) MR. FRANCOIS KRUGER (hereinafter called the Grievor) SOLE ARBITRATOR Professor Ian A. Hunter APPEARANCES: FOR THE UNION: Ms. Jean Crawford, Chief Steward Mr. Jim Phillips, Local President Mr. Franqois Kruger, Grievor FOR THE COLLEGE: Mr. D. L. Busche, Assistant Director, Human Resouces Ms. S. Gingrich, Manager, Accounting Services A HEARING WAS HELD IN LONDON, ONTARIO ON NOVEMBER 14, 1988 AWARD (1) Introduction Mr. Franqois Kruger is currently classified as'a Payroll Clerk C, Pay Band 5, in the payrol! section of the accounting services department of Fanshawe College. By his grievance dated November 11, 1987 he alleges that proper classification is Clerk Atypical, Pay Band 7. I was provided with an arbitration data sheet which illustrates the respective positions of the College and the Union on COre Point Rating. RATING COLLEGE EVALUATION UNION EVALUATION Degree Points Degree Points Job Difficulty C3 122 . C4 144 Guidance Received C2 84 D3 129 Communications B2 48 C3 84 Knowledge: Training and Experience B3 53 B4 66 Knowledge: Skill 3 34 3 34 Working Conditions: Manual Effort A5 3 A5 3 Working Conditions: Visual B4 10 C4 18 Working Conditions: Environment A5 3 A5 3 Total Points: 357 Total Points: 481 Pay Band No.: 5 Pay Band No.: 7 (2) An Overview of the Position The Grievor works in the Systems and Administrative Services office on the main campus at Fanshawe College. He reports to Mrs. Saskia Gingrich, the Manager of Accounting Services, and his office is located close to hers. The most onerous and challenging of the job duties (the "core of the job function" as both the Grievor and Mr. Busche described it) is the bimonthly preparation of payroll for support staff. More specifically this involves: processing and reviewing for accuracy and completeness payroll documents such as: Payment Authorization forms, time sheets, Change of Status forms, and absence reports. Often the Grievor receives form documents from the Human Resources department; he must extract therefrom relevant payroll data and encode it on the boxes provided on the form. Some verificatiOn of data and simple calculation (e.g. by adding up the total number of days absent) may be involved. The positions requires documentation of benefits and arrears for all full-time and part-time support staff; setting up correct pay lines, processing time sheets and absence forms; calculating total payroll commitment and-payment authorization. The Grievor reconciles earnings and maintenance reports to the deduction register. He prepares pension documents for retiring employees. He determines the amount of eligible pension contribution and prepares and signs the form by which the prospective retiree exercises his or her pension option. The Grievor processes termination forms as required; e.g. by U.I~C. or Revenue Canada. He is responsible for the set-up, reconciliation and bank reports on the yearly Canada Savings Bonds campaign and he exercises a corresponding function in the annual United Way campaign. The Grievor receives telephone inquiries, either from support staff or their supervisors, concerning a variety of payroll and pension problems. Also, at the time of the grievance the Grievor was being trained to assist the Reconciliation Clerk, Mr. Art Stewart with O.H.I.P. This involved reconciling O.H.I.P. premiums for support staff, administration and faculty and reporting of data to O.H.I.P. (3) The P.D.F. The parties claim disagreement on four points in the P.D.F. (1) The Union wish to have the last line of paragraph 1 under Position Summary specify "D"; i.e. "designated substitute for Reconciliation Clerk D". I see no reason for adding '%)" to the words Reconciliation Clerk on the P.D.F. of another position. The classification of that position might change. It would be anomalous to have to change the P.D.F. for the Grievor's position simply because the classification of another position had changed. (2) The Union submitted two changes in time approximations under the Duties and Responsibilities section; viz paragraph 1; 56% of time (versus 66%) and paragraph 2; 14% of time (versus 4%). This is not the kind of issue which can be satisfactorally resolved through the expedited arbitration process. The evidence satisfied me that paragraph 1 encompasses the core of the Grievor's job functions, but whether this amounts to 66% or 56% of his 4 time is not a question of which the evidence, given the limitations the parties have imposed on expedited arbitration, permits answer. Moreover, it trivializes the expedited arbitration process for the parties to quibble on such matters: if such disputes are significant, they should be settled through negotiation or, failing that, by time study experts. (3) The Union submitted that the words "more complex" should be inserted, and the word "routine" deleted from paragraph 4 of the Duties and Responsibilities section: "responds to a variety of inquiries regarding biweekly payroll and solves more complex problems as referred by manager, accounting services". In my opinion, the evidences to the complexity of the problems referred to the incumbent by the manager was insufficient; in fact it was wholly lacking. There was no evidence on the point to warrant my directing such a change. (4) The Comparison to Ms. Barb Busby The crux of the Union's case rested essentially on a comparison of the Grievor's job functions to those of Ms. Barb Busby, a Clerk D who prepares 'the monthly payroll. The Union submitted that, since the job functions were virtually identical, the Grievor should be on a similar pay band to Ms. Busby. For the College, Mr. Busche objected that such comparisons are inappropriate in expedited arbitration where the parties are limited in the witnesses who may be called to testify. There is some merit in this submission. The parties have placed significant evidentiary restrictions on 5 the expedited arbitration process and this may hamper proof of comparability. Nevertheless, if it were proved that two employees in the same department were performing virtually identical job functions but were in different classifications, what evidence could be more persuasive to support a Union's assertion of improper job classification? In the instant case, the evidence does not permit me to conclude that the Grievor and Ms. Busby performed virtually identical job functions. The Grievor acknowledged that Ms. Busby performed job functions "that I do not", just as he performed job functions that she did not. So the content of the two jobs is not the same, even though the Grievor expressed the opinion that "the majority of our job functions are the same''. But the Supervisor's evidence (which, on this point, I prefer) did not concur. Mrs. Gingrich acknowledged that the Grievor prepared the bimonthly support staff payroll and that Ms. Busby prepared the monthly faculty and administrative payroll. But she testified that there were significant differences in complexity in the preparation of the two payrolls. "The earnings portion of the monthly payroll is more complex; there are more variables." Also, she testified that Ms. Busby acts as a "resource person" to the payroll department. I accept Mrs. Gingrich's evidence. I find that the two. positions are not virtually identical and that two significant differences: greater complexity of the monthly payroll, and Ms. Busby's function as a "resource person" serve to differentiate them. Accordingly, I. reject the Union's argument based on equivalence to the job functions of Ms. Busby. (5) Core Point Rating The factors in dispute are: (1) Job Difficulty; (2) Guidance Received; (3) Communications; (4) Knowledge: Training and Experience; and (5) Working Conditions: Visual. At the outset let me record that I considered both the Grievor and his supervisor, Mrs. Gingrich, to be-honest and credible witnesses. Their evidence concerning the position was not significantly different. Throughout the Core Point Ratings, I have reminded myself that it is the position, not the incumbent (who impressed me as an outstanding employee) that I am considering. (1) Job Difficulty The College has rated this factor C3: "Duties performed require a moderate degree of judgement. Problem-solving requires the identification and breakdown of the facts and components of the problem situation." The Union submits the correct rating is C4: "Duties performed require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or situations with established analytical techniques." The parties are agreed on Complexity. What is at issue is ludgement. From the evidence, I concluded that the various complex tasks that the Grievor is required to perform involves a moderate degree of judgement. The Grievor testified that the most complex problem he encounters involves employee pension plans. The resolution of pension problems requires: (1) identification of the problem; (2) breakdown of the facts; and (3) examination of C.A.T. Regulations to determine the correct answer. In my opinion, this is almost an exact fit to C3. There was little evidence of problem-solving by the application of analytical techniques. As the Grievor expressed it, there is a "right" answer either in the Income Tax Act and/or Regulations, or the regulations governing C.P.P., U.I.C., C.A.T. pension regulations, etc. The Grievor job is to find the correct answer. This is not a position requiring exercise of substantial discretion. Rather, as the Grievor expressed it, it requires mathematics and basic accounting. If a serious problem presents itself, the Grievor will identify it and discuss it with his supervisor, Mrs. Gingrich. Mrs. Gingrich considered the judgement factor to be level 2 (i.e. "some judgement or choice of action within limits"), but.I am satisfied that the job is correctly classified as C3. (2) Guidance Recieved The College rates this factor C2: "Work is performed in accordance with general procedures and past practices. Unfamiliar situations are reviewed with supervisor. Work assignments are regularly reviewed on completion by supervisor for completeness and accuracy." The Union submitted the correct classification is D3: "WOrk is performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be 8 adapted and modified to meet particular sitiuations and/or problems. Supervisor is available to assist in resolving problems. Work assignments are intermittently and/or periodically checked for quality." There was no evidence before me that the Grievor adapts or modifies procedures or past practices. The evidence did prove that the Grievor's work is performed in accordance with general procedures and with governmental and departmental regulations. Unfamiliar situations are reviewed with his supervisor, Mrs. Gingrich. On Guidelines Available, I am satisfied that C is the correct rating. The Grievor himself described the Nature of Review as "regular"; review is regularly conducted 'by Mr. John White, an S.S.O. in the department, as the Supervisor's designate. The review is for completeness and accuracy. On the Grievor's evidence alone, I find that the position is properly rated C2. (3) Communications The College rates this factor B2: "Work involves contacts for the purpose of providing detailed explanations to ensure-understanding on matters such as how information was collected or how a figure was calculated. Contacts are primarily with employees in comparable or lower levels within the College or with individuals below middle management levels outside the College." The Union submits the correct rating is C3: "Work involves contacts for the purpose of. providing guidance, instruction or technical advice or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures or policy. Contacts are primarily with employees at higher levels within the College and with individuals at middle management levels outside the College. On the Grievor's own evidence, his contacts are for the purpose of explaining, and providing detail, on payroll deductions, pension matters, U.I.C., etc. What he is communicating is precisely "how information was collected or how a figure was calculated". There was no evidence either of "guidance, instruction or technical advice" nor of "interpreting procedures or policies". I am satisfied that B is correct on Purpose of Contacts. The evidence on Level of Contacts was, to be frank, confusing. As I understood it, the Grievor's most frequent contacts are: (a) employees, or their supervisors, concerned about a payroll deduction or a pension inquiry; (b) the Clerk D or Administrative Assistant in the Human Resources office; and, on outside contacts, clerks or investigators from Employment and Immigration, U.I.C., or clerks at the C.A.T. Pension Plan. Keeping in mind that only contacts occupying a significant portion of time are to be considered, I am satisfied that the current classification (B2) is correct. 10 (4) Knowledge: Trainin_e and Experience The parties are agreed that one year practical experience is required. Where they differ is on whether secondary sChool graduation is sufficient (College) or secondary school graduation plus additional job related training courses, (Union). This issue virtually dissolved in the hearing. The Grievor himself expressed the opinion that what was required was high school graduation. He added that it would be "desirable" to have bookkeeping, accounting or payroll courses; but they would not be essential to minimal satisfactory performance. As he put it: "If you were bright, yOu could do the job with high school graduation." Accordingly, I direct no change in B3. (5)' Working Conditions: Visual Strain The College has classified this B4: i.e. moderate visual strain. The Union submits this factor should be classified C4: considerable visual strain. The Grievor testified that he spent 50 to 60 percent of his time on a computer terminal and experienced, on occasion, eye strain and headache. In the modern office environment computers are a fixture. Some eye strain is likely. There was no convincing evidence to persuade me that the visual strain which goes with this position exceeds that of any other office position where the work involves a majority of time on a computer terminal. I accept that this requires moderate visual concentration. I do not accept that it involves considerable visual concentration. Accordingly I direct no change from the classification B4. The correct core point rating for this position is: Job Difficulty C3 122 points Guidance Received C2 84 points Communications B2 48 points Knowledge: Training and Experience B3 53 points Knowledge: Skill 3 34 points Working Conditions: Manual Effort A5 3 points Working Conditions: Visual B4 10 points Working Conditions: Environment A5 3 points Total Points: 357 Pay Band No.: 5 Accordingly, the Grievance of Frangois Kruger is hereby dismissed. DATED at the City of London, this ~/~ dayof /~/ooe,~-d.~__ ,1988. Profe~.- Ian A. Hunter Arb tr~fir