HomeMy WebLinkAboutJohnston 88-09-03 CAAT S
OPSEU # 88A498
OPSEU LOCAL 109
ARTICLE (S) 18
JO~tNSTON, Lori (OPSEU) vs. Fanshawe College (S)
Award dated September 3, 1988 (G. Brandt)
In this classification grievance, the grievor sought
reclassification from Secretary C to Support Services Officer C
which would involve a move to Pay Band 11.
Arbitrator Brandt upheld the union's position in part with
regard to the areas of Job Difficulty and Guidance Received. He
did not agree with the union's submissions that neither the
grievor's job description and nor his assessment of the work
performed supported a move to the family of support services
officer. Rather, he held that she ought to be classified as a
secretary - atypical Pay Band 8.
MAK
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
between
FANSHAWE COLLEGE
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
(hereinafter referred to as the union)
Classification Grievance of Lori Johnston
Sole Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: D.L.Busche, Assistant Director
Human Resources
For the Union: Jean Crawford, Chief Steward
Hearing: London, Ontario
August 31, 1988
AWARD
Introduction
This is a grievance of Lori Johnston, a Divisional
Assistant, who is currently classified as Secretary C and who
seeks reclassification as Support Services Officer C, Pay Ba~d
11. The relief sought is proper classification and compensation
retroactive to June 1, 1986.
As a preliminary matter the College took the position that,
pursuant to the collective agreement, relief could only be
claimed retroactive to the date of the grievance. The Board
reserved on that question and ruled that, in the event that the
grievance were to succeed, it would leave the matter of
determining the appropriate compensation to the parties and
remain seized of jurisdiction in the event that agreement on that
issue could not be reached.
The following table sets out the respective evaluations of
the parties in respect of the job factors in dispute.
College Evaluation Union Evaluation
Job Difficulty C3 122 points E5 222 points
Guidance Received C3 104 points D4 150 points
Communications B3 59 points D4 123 points
Knowledge
Skill 3 34 points 5 61 points
Working Conditions
Manual Effort A5 3 points B4 10 points
Visual Strain B4 10 points D4 28 points
According to the College Evaluation the position should fall
within Pay Band 7. Under 'the Union's Evaluation it should fall
within Pay Band 11.
3
Facts
It may be noted that the parties agree on the job
description.
The grievor has been employed full time by the College for
approximately 8 years. She began as a part time Typist Steno and
successfully bid on a full time Secretary B position. Following
a rewriting of the job description she was upgraded to a
Secretary C position.
The grievor stated that she spent a good deal of time in the
preparation and monitoring of Standard Work L~oad Forms (SWFs).
This is a duty which was given to her after the College and the
Union representing the academic staff including in their
collective agreement certain provisions respecting the
calculation of work load for academic staff. Broadly speaking
those provisions set doQn various factors, eg, contact time,
preparation time, evaluation time, committee assignments etc.
which are to go into the calculation of the workload of a
Teaching Master. These factors are, in turn, broken down such
that, for example, the amount of preparation time that is
allotted to a particular course will vary according to whether or
not it is a course which has or has not been taught before by the
faculty member. Similarly the allotted evaluation time will vary
according to the nature of the evaluation.
The grievor's duties in connection with the preparation of
SWFs begin with the receipt from the Chairperson of her
Department, Mr. Jack Roberts, of a list of course assignments
4
that have been agreed upon between him and the teaching master.
She is then required to check to determine whether or not that
course has been taught before by this faculty member and, if so,
when it was taught, what committee assignments have been made,
the class size, the method of evaluation etc, and enter this data
on a VAX computer.. The computer is programmed to do the
necessary calculations which will produce the work load. If the
resulting figure is in excess of the maximum of 44 hours per week
she informs Mr. Roberts who may, at that stage, make the
necessary changes.
She is called upon on occasion to explain to faculty members
why their workload has been calculated in a particular way.
Although the College has produced a manual which sets out the
College's view as to how the collective agreement provisions
respecting work load are to be interpreted the grievor does not
use it. Rather she deals with these matters by referring faculty
members to the collective agreement and explaining how the figure
was calculated. Where faculty members remain unsatisfied she'
refers them to Mr. Roberts.
Her work in monitoring SWFs involves her essentially in
updating the SWFS by incorporating changes in dates, changes in
course numbers, changes in class size, and changes in committee
assignments.
There are approximately 45 full time and sessional faculty
members and some partial load faculty members for whom SWF s have
to be prepared. The work is done generally twice a year, once
5
for each teaching term, although there are some faculty members
who teach in the summer as well.
Another type of duty which the grievor performs is the
preparation of program evaluations. There are 7 or 8 such
programs and an evaluation is done every 3 years. Thus she does
at least one of these each year and in some years may do as many
as three such evaluations.
The College has policies which describe what is to go into a
program evaluation and the grievor collects that information,
organizes it and puts it together. Some of this work requires
her to obtain information from the Registrar's Office and the
Placement Department respecting student enrolment and placement
from which she prepares a student flow chart. A similar document
which she prepares is the enrolment report which breaks down the
enrolment in different programs.
A third duty described by the grievor was the co-ordination
and development of final examination schedules. In this
connection she ascertains the needs and preferences of the
faculty members concerning the time of the examination and the
requirements (eg. nature of room etc.) and, in consultation with
the scheduling department, prepares the final examination
timetable. The job description indicates that this function
occupies her for 5% of the time.
The grievor is also responsible for co-ordinating equipment
and supply requisitions and monitoring the budget. In this
respect she maintains journals for nine divisional cost centres,
6
and enters debits and credits in those journals. Although Mr.
Roberts signs the requisitions for larger items the grievor has
some authourity to authourize purchase of smaller items. She
testified that this activity occupies her for approximately 8 or
9% of the time.
The grievor is responsible for administering the repayment
of loans made from a student emergency loan fund. This is a fund
of $2500 which is made available to students. Mr. Roberts
authourizes the loans (usually about $250) and determines the
time when it is to be repaid. The grievor is responsible for
ensuring that the loan is repaid on t.ime and can, if she feels it
appropriate, grant an extension to the time for repayment. Where
the loan is not repaid on time the grievor takes responsibility
for contacting the 'student to demand payment and, if necessary,
arranges for the debt to be put into collection.
Other duties include the preparation of an orientation
package for new faculty.' This includes information about the
College, the College calendar, the instructors handbook, grading
policies etc. She exercises her own judgment as to what
information goes into this package and adds to it as and when
necessary. She also orients support staff to the office and
trains them on the use of office equipment.
The grievor receives her work assignments from Mr. Roberts'
outbasket and works independently in completing them. She is not
told how to perform the various jobs she has to do. However, she
has available to her various sources to assist her. These
7
include the computer 'manual, the collective agreement, and
various policy manuals, i.e. a hiring guide, the SWF guidelines,
an accounting manual and a planning, budgeting and procedures
manual. In some areas there is no formal policy written and the
grievor acts on the basis of the practices which she has
developed over the time she has spent in the job.
Essentially there is little in the way of detailed review of
her work by Mr. Roberts. In his evidence Mr. Roberts stated that
the general working relationship he had with the grievor was one
in which he would give her general instructions and leave it to
her to carry out the task. He stated that he checked the SWF s
and reviewed the budgets once a month and looked only at any new
information that went into program evaluations. The grievor
stated that the nature of the review conducted by Mr. Roberts was
essentially to ensure that the job was done and that he did not
review it for the quality of her work.
In the course of her work the grievor has contact primarily
with Mr. Roberts, with Ms. Haygarth, the Assistant to the Dean,
with faculty and with students in that order. Mr. Roberts stated
that there is some contact with the Dean directly when he may ask
the grievor questions concerning various matters, which come from
Mr. Roberts' office and which require his signature. She
generally answers those questions without consultation with Mr.
Roberts.
The grievor carries out her duties while sitting at a desk
on which is situated the VAX Computer. The telephone and the
8
manuals which she needs to consult are at her desk. She stated
that she spends more than 50% of her time sitting at the desk.
The VAX Computer is on throughout the day and, while she may be
interrupted from her work at the VAX (to answer a telephone call
or to attend meetings or obtain information), she is frequently
occupied at the VAX for more than 2 hours at a time. She is able
to delegate some of her work to other people in order that she
can work uninterrupted at the VAX where necessary in order to
complete a particular job.
Decision
1. Job Difficulty
Both the factors of Complexity and Judgment are in dispute.
The Union seeks level E for Complexity ("performance of non-
routine and relatively unusual tasks that may require the
application of specialized processes or methods" and level 5 for
Judgement ("significant degree of judgment. Problem solving
involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and
techniques to be used".)
I am unable to agree that the position should be classified
at level E for Complexity. While some of the duties performed by
the grievor are of the non-routine kind, may of them are
"routine" in that they are duties which are regularly performed
according to some cyclical fashion. The preparation and
monitoring of the SWF s, on which the Union chiefly relies, are
of this character. This duty must be performed at least twice a
9
year and occupies the grievor for a substantial period of the
time on each occasion. Similarly, the preparation of the program
evaluations, the preparation of the final examination timetables
and the monitoring of the budgets occurs on a regularly recurring
basis. Although the precise way in which these tasks may be
completed may vary from one time to the . next the basic process
according to which they are completed remains the same and is, in
that respect, "routine" work.
For similar reasons the position cannot be classified at
level D for complexity since that level also requires that the
work be non-routine.
I agree with the classification of the College of this
factor at level C which contemplates that the position include
the performance of both routine and non-routine tasks.
On the Judgment element in the Job Difficulty factor I agree
with the submissions of the Union. While I have some difficulty
with the claim that the grievor's role in preparing student flow
charts and student enrolment charts and her involvement in
explaining to faculty the provisions of the collective agreement
respecting workload involves her in the "interpretation of
complex data", the job description, on which the parties are
agreed", specifically states that "a significant degree of
judgment is used by the incumbent", and that the incumbent, in
coordinating, is involved in "compiling, developing and
interpreting complex data from many different sources.
10
The College submitted that ~the job description was poorly
written in that it contained evaluative conclusions. Be that as
it may the fact of the matter is that it is a job description
that has been agreed upon by the parties. Given that agreement
it must serve as my principal guide in arriving at an appropriate
classification for the position.
Consequently, I conclude that the appropriate level for the
Judgment element is level 5.
Accordingly, I would classify the Job Difficulty factor at
C5
2. Guidance Received
Both the elements of Guidelines Available and Nature of
Review are in dispute.
I am satisfied that the appropriate classification for this
factor is that proposed by the Union, that is, D4.
On the Nature of Review element it is clear that the work
assignments are subject only to a general form of review by Mr.
Roberts. As the job description indicates, and as confirmed by
Mr. Roberts, the grievor works independently. She is essentially
assigned a task to do and carries it out. Although Mr. Roberts
does check some of the work I do not see it as checking it fox
"quality" as is contemplated by level 3. Rather, to the extent
that it is checked at all, it is a checked for achievement of
specific objectives and adherence to established guidelines.
As for the Guidelines Available element it was submitted by
the College that there was no evidence to establish that the
11
grievor "adapted and modified" procedures and practices "to meet
particular situations and/or problems." However, there are two
respects in which there is Some adaptation of procedureb and
practices. One is in the area of granting an extension for the
time of repayment of student loans. The other is in the
determination of what is to go into the orientation package that
is put together for new faculty.
The level proposed by the College, level C, is inappropriate
in that it contemplates that the incumbent will review unfamiliar
situations with the Supervisor. The evidence does not indicate
any respect in which the grievor is required to or needs to seek
the advice of Mr. Roberts on the completion of tasks. As stated
above she picks up the assignments from his out basket, completes
them, and returns'them to him. Moreover, it may be noted that
included among the illustrative classifications for level C are
the Secretary A and B positions while one of the illustrative
classifications for level D, is that of Secretary C. Thus the
level proposed by the College places the incumbent at a lower
level than that which she currently enjoys.
3. Communication
Both the elements of Purpose of Contacts and Level of
Contacts are in dispute.
The Union claims that the element of Purpose of Contacts
should be classified at level D. "work involves contacts for the
purposes of problem identification and solution with respect to
matters of considerable importance and requiring tact, diplomacy
12
or persuasion." I am unable to agree that the contacts that the
grievor has are for this purpose. The Union relied on the job
description which included among the typical duties "identifying
problems and recommending solutions...by liaising with other
College departments..." However, there ~s nothing in the evidence
that would indicate that the kind of problems relate to "matters
of considerable importance requiring tact, diplomacy and
persuasion." Reference was made to the recovery of student
loans. This may require some diplomacy. However, it occupies a
very small part of the duties of the position. The contacts which
the grievor has with faculty over the issue of the determination
of the workload factor, or with students (concerning complaints
about a teacher or about grades) are not for the purpose of
solving a problem b6t are more directed at explaining College
policies and directing faculty or students to some other person
for solution.
I am of the opinion that the appropriate level for this
element is that proposed by the College, i.e. level B (contact
for the purpose of providing detailed explanations to ensure
understanding on matters such as how information was collected
or how a figure was calculated.) This appears to me to best
capture the essence of the grievor's contacts with members of the
faculty concerning the calculation of the SWF s. Although the
grievor regarded her role as "interpreting" the collective
agreement I think it more accurate to describe it as
"explaining", having regard to the collective agreement, how the
13
workload figure was reached. Furthermore, such contacts as she
may have had with other College personnel in connection with the
obtaining of information necessary to complete reports and
projects could not be said to be at level D. Indeed, if anything
they might be said to rest more comfortably at level A, i.e.
contacts for the purpose of "obtaining...factual information"
I am also in agreement with the classification proposed by
the College with respect to the Level of Contacts. The Union
proposed level 4, ("contacts are primarily with employees at
senior management levels within the Colleges~ and outside the
Colleges.") The evidence simply does not support that claim.
While there was some evidence to indicate contact with the Dean
or the office of the Dean, it certainly did not establish that
this was the grievor's "primary" contact. Her primary contacts
were with the Chairperson, Mr. Roberts, whom I would not regard
for these purposes as a "senior management employee". Thus she
would appear to fit' properly within level 3 (contacts primarily
with employees at higher levels within the College).
Accordingly, I conclude that the proper classification for
this factor is that proposed by the College, i.e. B3.
4. Knowledge - Skill
The Union proposes that the position be classified at. level
5 ("ability to organize complex statistical information .... may
operate very complex...computer equipment.") The College
proposes that it be classified at level 3 ("ability to apply
14
specialized technical or clerical skills .... may be required to
operate moderately complex computer equipment.")
I cannot agree that level 5 is an appropriate level for this
factor. None of the statistical information which the grievor
"organized" could reasonably be said to be "complex" Rather she
simply acquired certain information concerning student enrolment
and placement from the Registrar's office and Placement Office
and organized it and recorded it.
Clearly the 3ob description requires that the incumbent have
computer experience and have the ability to do word processing,
spreadsheets, Dbase etc. The job evaluation manual differentiates
between a number of skill levels on the basis of, among other
things, the degree of complexity of the computer ("moderately
complex, complex, very complex") However, as for the degree of
complexity of the computer which the grievor operated I simply
have no basis for making any judgment.
I am satisfied that the appropriate classification for the
skill element of the Knowledge factor is that proposed by the
College, i.e. level 3. I believe that it is accurate to describe
her skills in the use of the computer as "specialized technical
or clerical skills" as are called for by that factor.
5. Working Conditions - Manual Effort
Both the Manual Effort and Prevalence elements are in
dispute.
The grievor stated that she spends more than 50% of her time
sitting at her desk. The Union, in claiming that this factor
15
should be classified at level' B4, argues that the gr~evor is
required to sit for a "prolonged" period of time as contemplated
by level B for Manual Effort. However, it would appear from the
'evidence that the grievor is frequently given some relief from
such "prolonged" sitting. Her other duties require her to leave
her desk in order to gather information that may be necessary for
a report, to take material to the Dean's office for signature, to
attend to problems which may arise with the office staff, to
train office staff etc. While the duties which she performs at
her desk may require her to sit for substantial periods of time
the breaks from those duties persuade me that she is not required
to sit at her desk for what can be reasonably be described as a
"prolonged" period.
It appears to that the more accurate description of the
manual effort associated with the job is that set down in level A
("minimum manual effort and physical strain in a variety of
normal positions, eg. intermittent sitting, standing, walking,
ordinary office tasks"). To the extent.that her work consists
largely of typing data into a computer data base it involves a
degree of manual effort which would correspond closely with that
of a typist steno all of whom are classified at level A. I heard
no evidence which would indicate that the manual effort and
physical strain expended was anything other than "minimal"
Consequently, I conclude that the appropriate classification
for this factor is A5.
6. Working Conditions- Visual Strain
The dispute concerning this factor is over the extent of
visual strain involved. The College has classified this factor
at the B level (moderate visual strain, focus on small areas or
objects for short periods of time up to one hour".) The Union
seeks D4 ("extensive visual concentration - focus on small areas
and objects for more than two hours at a time.")
I am satisfied that the appropriate classification for this
factor is at level C4. Admittedly, the grievor performs most of
her duties at the VAX Computer. She testified that she
frequently works at the computer for periods.in excess of two
hours at a time. However, she is frequently absent from the
computer when engaged in other duties. It may be noted that
those illustrative classifications which are rated at C4 for
visual strain include Data Entry Operators, Word Processors and
Programmers. It would be difficult to justify awarding the
grievor a rating higher than that given to those positions for
this factor.
However, I am not persuaded that the extent of visual strain
should be rated as low as level B, as proposed by the College.
Consequently, I conclude that the appropriate classification
for this factor is C4.
17
Conclusion
In summary it is my conclusion that the factors in dispute
should be classified in the following manner.
1. Job Difficulty C5 166 points
2. Guidance Received D4 150 points
3. Communications B3 59 points
4. Skill 3 34 points
5. Working Conditions
Manual Effort A5 3 points
6. Working Conditions
Visual Strain C4 18 points
When these factors points are added to those factors on
which there is agreement the total points obtained is 551. This
places the grievor in Pay Band 8.
The Pay Band Classification Matrix indicates that an
appropriate classification for an incumbent in a position that
falls within Pay Band 8 is that of Support Services Officer A.
However, an examination of the Typical Duties of a Support
Services Officer A, as set out in the Job Evaluation Guide
Charts, reveals that the position occupied by the incumbent fails
to fall within those duties. While the grievor "compiles data
and statistics required for departmental reports" it cannot be
said that she "develops and recommends policies and procedures
for administration of unit", "provides data to decision makers
~llowing them to determine best course of action", or "responds
18
to needs of service users by coordinating adminstrative details
of projects."
Consequently the appropriate classification for the grievor
is Secretary Atypical, Pay Band 8.
Consequently, the grievance is allowed in part and the
College is directed to reclassify the grievor and compensate her
for any monies and benefits owing.
As indicated the issue of the retroactive relief to which
the grievor is entitled is left to the parties and jurisdiction
is retained to determine any issues which the parties themselves
are unable to resolve.
Dated at LONDON, Ontario this day of , 1988
G. J. Brandt, Arbitrator
APPEARANCES:
MANAGEMENT UNION
DECISION:
Degree Points
Job Difficulty ~ f~- /6(o '
Guidance Received
Communications
Training
& Exper.
Knowledge
Manual
Effort
Working
Conditions Visual
E,vi,on.
Total Points
Pay Band Number
COMMENTS:
SIGNATURE