Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDame - 88-12-14 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION between FANSHAWE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION Classification Grievance of Janet Dame Sole Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt Appearances: For the College: D. Busche, Assistant Director, Human Resources For the Union: John Ford, Grievance Officer Hearing: Ramada Inn, London November 29, 1988 2 AWARD INTRODUCTION This case deals with a classification grievance of Janet Dame whose position title is Divisional Assistant and wh0-reports to the Chairperson of the Management Studies Division. She is currently classified as a Secretary C, Pay Band 7 and seeks a reclassification retroactive to June 1, 1986 to the position of Support Services Officer, Pay Band 11. The parties are agreed as to the content of the Position Description. There are 5 job factors in dispute. The respective evaluations by the College and Union of these factors are as follows: College Union 1. Job Difficulty C3 E5 2. Guidance Received C3 D4 3. Communications B3 D4 4. Knowledge (Skill) 3 5 5. Working Conditions Manual Effort A5 B4 FACTS The agreed upon position description form indicates that 41% of the grievor's time is spent on SWF Cycle Data Base 3 Maintenance. The grievor testified extensively as to the duties Which she performs in this regard. The SWF is the Standard Work Load Form which records information respecting a number of factors which the College and the Union representing the Academic Staff have negotiated into their collective agreement concerning the calculation of the work load. That collective agreement contains a formula according to which various activities, eg. contact time, preparation time, evaluation time, committee assignments, etc. are assigned certain weights for the purpose of calculating the workload. The amount of time that may be allotted various according to various other factors, such as, the method of evaluation, the number of students in the course, whether or not the course has been taught before etc. The target workload for each fadulty member is 44 hours per week. Where that target is exceeded the College is obliged to pay overtime. It is the responsibility of the grievor to collect the information necessary for the calculation of the workload, to make the appropriate entries of that information into the computer, (which in turn does the appropriate calculation) and to monitor any changes that might be necessary in the workload as and when they arise. The process begins with the assignment of teaching responsibilities to faculty members by Mr. Cleary, the Chairperson of the Division. He communicates those assignments to the grievor who then begins the process of gathering the 4 information necessary to complete the SWF. This information may be obtained from course outlines, from the hiring guide, from talking to the instructors etc. She prepares a rough draft of a SW~ for ea~ instructor. Where, as a result'of that'process, the target of 44 hours per week is reached there is generally no problem. However, if the target is exceeded, it becomes necessary to consider changes in the assignments, eg. switching an instructor to a section with fewer students, which will achieve the appropriate target. In this regard she consults with Mr. Clearly and advises him on alternative scenarios that might be attempted in order to achieve the desired target. As noted, where it is not possible to achieve that target, overtime will become payable. The process by which the SWF is calculated is done largely by entering the relevant data, which the grievor has collected from various sources, into the computer. The ~omputer is programmed to carry out the necessary calculation. Once the SWF is calculated it may become necessary for the grievor to discuss the calculation with faculty members. Faculty members may have questions concerning how or why a particular factor was weighted in a particular way or questions as to how, generally, the workload is calculated. This involves the grievor in explaining to faculty members how the provisions of the collective agreement operate. If there are disputes concerning the calculation of the workload, which cannot be resolved 5 following an explanation of the process by the grievor, they are referred to Mr. Cleary. The process of calculating the SWF occurs for each of the three academic terms. In addition to the initial calculation there is need to review and, if necessary, revise the SWF, after the "count date", which occurs approximately 6 weeks into the term when the Registrar's Office has confirmed figures concerning the numbers of students who actually registered in a particular course or section. Where that number was higher than had been expected at the time that the SWF was originally prepared, it becomes necessary to revise the SWF. If, as a result of a change in the SW-F, overtime becomes _payable the grievor is ~equired to calculate the overtime rate and to prepare a payment authorization for the signature of Mr. Cleary. A further need for revision to a SWF may occur where the Workload Monitoring Group, which reviews the SWFs against the timetable, discovers some discrepancy. A list outlining any discrepancies will be sent to the grievor who is responsible for checking the discrepancies and effecting any reconciliation that . may be necessary. A second area of activity (10%) performed by the grievor concerns "exam-week" activity. Three times a year the grievor is required to prepare an examination week timetable. In this' regard she obtains from the Physical Resources information as to the rooms that will be availabl~ for examinations and from 6 faculty members information concerning the course, the number of students in the course, and the faculty member's preference for the time and location of the examination. In the majority of cases faculty members do not specify a preferred time and location and leave the determination of that to the grievor. In selecting the appropriate place and time for the examination the grievor takes into account the marking time required (eg. scheduling examinations which require a lot of marking earlier in the week) and preparation time for students (eg. scheduling examinations sufficiently far apart that students will have adequate time to prepare). Once all the information has been gathered together the grievor prepares a timetable for all of the faculty members and for the students. This timetable must be available 2 weeks prior to the examinations. A third are of activity (10%) concerns human resources/ account and purchasing liaison. In this respect the grievor initiates payroll documents for support staff and faculty and monitors the payroll and calculates and processes overtime payments for faculty and acts as liaison between payroll and Human Resources when discrepancies arise. A related activity (5%) involves the grievor in monitoring divisional accounting and purchasing systems in which capacity she processes appropriate purchase orders for equipment and supplies, reconciles monthly distribution journals and makes recommendations to the chairperson concerning budget transfers 7 where some of the accounts are running low. Purchasing for the division is routed through the grievor for advice or for passing an item on to Mr. Cleary for approval. She has signing authority for all divisional supply accounts. In connection with these duties she is called upon to give advice to faculty or co-ordinators on buying supplies and to explain to new staff how the accounting and purchasing is carried on at the College. In carrying out these functions there are available to the grievor various Written guidelines. However, because of her experience in the position, she no longer finds it necessary to refer to them unless there has been some change. Approximately 10% of the grievor's time is allocated to duties as Individual Administrative Assistant to the Chairperson in which capacity she provides administrative support to the chairperson including confidential correspondence, and faculty and support staff evaluations. She stated, and Mr. Cleary did not disagree, that she is asked by him to give advice on the hiring and firing of staff including faculty members. She also is invited by Mr. Cleary to advise on various ways in which operating costs in the department can be reduced. Other duties include orientation of new faculty in which regard the grievor participates in (and on one occasion when Mr. Cleary was absent, ran) meetings where new faculty are welcomed and oriented to the various procedures of the College respecting examinations, grading, office procedures etc.; preparing the 8 documentation for the review of a program, attendance at program review meetings and the taking of minutes and the preparation of a report on the review meeting; and program maintenance functions, viz, initiation of course authorization forms, updating of the curriculum on the computer. Her working relationship with Mr. Cleary was described by Mr. Cleary as involving a "participative" approach. While he has responsibility in the end he leaves it to the gr[evor to carry out her duties. She stated that she prioritizes her own work and does not review her how she establishes those priorities with Mr. Clearly. Mr. Cleary did not disagree with that account. She is aware of the deadlines that she has to meet and works to that kind of self-imposed timetable. On occasion she has taken work home with to do at night in order to meet a particular deadline. As far as guidelines are concerned it was the grievor's opinion that, considering the number of changes in ~he curriculum, in the faculty and in the co-ordinators, she had to adapt her practices and procedures. However she admitted that her basic method of carrying out her duties did not change. The same steps were followed, for example, in preparing and monitoring the SWFs. However, what did change was the information that would need to be taken into consideration in completing her tasks. DECISION In argument, the spokesperson for the College invited me to conduct an analysis of the guide charts for the Secretary Job Family and the Support Services Job Family and to compare the respective lists of typical duties found therein with those of the grievor. It was submitted that if that process were undertaken it would be evident that the vast majority of the grievor's typical duties fell within the Secretary Job Family and, more particularly, within the classification of Secretary B. I am not persuaded that this is an appropriate way to proceed where the claim is essentially that the position is atypical. It is clear from the Classification Manual that where such is the case the appropriate manner of proceeding is to assess the position against the various job factors outlined in the Core Point Rating Plan. Consequently, I intend to proceed with such an examination. 1. Job Difficulty. As indicated above the parties are in disagreement over both the factors of complexity and judgment. On the factor of judgment the College has rated the position at level 3, viz, "moderate degree of judgment...problem solving requires the identification and breakdown of facts and components of the problem situation." The Union claims level 5, viz, "significant" 10 judgment...problem solving involving interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used." I do not regard either of these as appropriate. It is stating the obvious to say that the points of definition between judgment which is "moderate", "considerable" or "significant" are not easy to discover. There are a number of respects in which the grievor is called upon to exercise judgment which I would regard as "significant". These include the advice that she gives to Mr. Cleary on alternative means by which the SWFs can be calculated in order to achieve the desired target of 44 hours per week, her role in explaining to faculty members (who may not be entirely content with the SWF) the manner by which the SWF was calculated, the advice she gives on matters relating to the administration of the budget and advice on matters of hiring and firing of new faculty. I do not regard the fact that Mr. Cleary is ultimately responsible for these decisions to be material since it is clear that he values very highly the advice given to him. While this conclusion would support a finding that the factor of judgment should be rated at level 5, as the Union claims, I am not satisfied that the problem solving required is of a nature which requires the grievor to "interpret complex data" or to "refine work methods and techniques to be used" She admitted that the methods by which she carried out her duties remained essentially the same although, in particular cases, there may be some changes In the information that had to be 11 gathered in order to complete the task. Moreover, I have difficulty in characterizing the data that she deals with as "complex" in nature. With respect to the major part of her duties, viz, the preparation ,~nd monitoring of SWFs. it is essentially information concerning student numbers, methods of evaluation etc. This information is readily obtainable and the process of entering it into the computer itself is relatively straightforward. Similarly, the data or information which she processes concerning examination week or the budgets is not "complex" in nature. I would therefore conclude that the appropriate rating for this factor is level 4, viz, "considerable" judgment where problem solving involves handling a "variety of conventional problems or situations with established analytical techniques." On the factor of complexity the College has rated the position at leve.1 C, viz, performance of various complex tasks that include both routine and non-routine aspects requiring different and unrelated processes and methods. The Union claims level E, viz, performance of non-routine and relatively unusual tasks that may require the application of specialized 'processes or methods. The point of differentiation between level C and those above it is the exclusion of routine functions in levels D and above. Thus, for the Union to succeed on this factor it must establish that the duties which the grievor performs are not routine in nature. I am not persuaded that this has been established. In 12 tkis regard it must be kept in mind that merely because the precise manner by which a particular task is carried out may vary from term to term or year to year does not make the performance of that task non-routine. If, in general, the basic nature of tke task does not vary and if it is typically performed at regular periods throughout the year it qualifies, in my opinion, as a routine function. Thus, when one examines the preparation and monitoring of SWF s, the grievor's major activity, it becomes clear that this is performed regularly 3 times a year and the process by which it is performed is the same each time. What varies is the information that needs to be collected in order to perform the task. I am not persuaded that this variation has the effect of converting what is a routine, regularly performed function, into one which is non-routine. Were it otherwis~ any slight variation in the manner by which a particular job is performed would justify a higher rating, a result which would lead to any number of claims of atypicality. Consequently, I conclude that for the factor of Job Difficulty, the appropriate rating is C4. 2. Guidance Received. Again the parties are in disagreement both on the factors of Guidelines Available and Nature of Review. For Guidelines Available the College has rated the position at level C, viz, work performed in accordance with general procedures and past practices..unfamiliar situations reviewed with supervisor." The 13 Union claims, level D, viz, work performed in accordance with procedures and practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems...supervisor available to assist in resolving problems. While, for the reasons set out above, I have some difficulty in concluding that the grievor is required to "adapt" or "modify" the practices and procedures she follows as would be required for level D I have equal difficulty in concluding that her relationship with her supervisor is such that "unfamiliar problems are reviewed" with him, as suggested by level C. It appears clear that there is very little, if any, review of unfamiliar problems with Mr. C!eary. However, I am not permitted to choose a rating somewhere between level C and level D. In view of the fact that the factor definition for this factor states that it is "used to measure the requirement of resourcefulness, creativity, and initiative", I am persuaded that the fact that the grievor works largely on her own without review by her supervisor should be accorded paramount importance. Consequently, I conclude that she should be rated at level D for Guidelines Available. Similar factors enter into my determination of the proper rating for the factor of Nature of Review. The College proposes a rating of 3, viz, intermittent checking of the grievor's work for quality. The Union proposes level 4, viz, general review for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines. The evidence is quite clear and beyond doubt that there is no checking of the grievor's work for quality. Consequently, I agree with the rating proposed by the Union. Therefore, I conclude that the factor of Guidance Received should be rated at D4. 3. Communications Both the purpose of contacts and the level of contacts are in dispute. For the factor of purpose the College rated the position at level B, viz, providing detailed explanation to ensure understanding on matters such as how information was collected or how a figure was calculated. The Union seeks level D, viz, problem identification and solution with respect to matters of considerable importance requiring tact, diplomacy and persuasion. Clearly there is no basis in the evidence for supporting the Union's claim. The only circumstances in which the contacts which the grievor has might require her to exercise tact, diplomacy and persuasion are in respect of dealing with faculty members who have questions concerning the calculation of their SWF. However, in that respect, the grievor is not required to "justify" the calculation; she merely explains how it was arrived at. If faculty members remain dissatisfied they are referred to Mr. Cleary. Similarly, any students who have complaints about faculty members are referred directly to Mr. Cleary. The grievor plays no role in "resolving" those disputes. Level B, as proposed by the College, adequately captures the role of the grievor in respect of her work on the SWF s. 15 However, it does not capture those of the grievor's duties which involve her in orienting new faculty, in explaining how the purchasing and accounting procedures work etc. Those duties appear to be more closely reflected by level C, viz, 'providing guidance, instruction cr technical advice or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures or policy. It may be noted that the grievor's role in explaining to faculty members how the SWF was calculated also fits comfortably into level C. Consequently, I would conclude that level C more accurately describes the bulk of the grievor's duties than does level B. With respect to the level of contacts the College proposes level 3, viz, primarily with employees at comparable or -lower levels within the College or with individuals below middle management levels outside the College. The Union proposes level 4, viz, primarily with employees at senior management levels within the College and outside the College. I agree with the rating proposed by the College. There is simply no evidence at all to establish that the primary contacts of the grievor are with employees at senior management levels. Her primary contacts are with Mr. Cleary and with faculty neither of whom would qualify as senior management. Her contacts with the Dean are infrequent. 4. ~nowledge: Skill The College proposes that this factor be rated at level 3, viz, ability to apply specialized technical or clerical skills 16 based on a sound knowledge of established procedures .... may be required to operate moderately complex computer. The union proposes level 5, viz, ability to organize complex statistical information and to understand and apply elementary principles of a science ..may operate very complex ...computer equipment. In support of the claim for level 5 the Union argued that the grievor had to use certain mathematical skills in reviewing the SWF s after the count date and that this met the requirement that she "understand and apply the elementary principles of a science" I cannot agree. The checking of the SWF s following the count date involved a simple matter of comparing student registration numbers and correcting any changes. It is difficult to conceive of that task as involving the exercise of mathematical skills to any significant degree. Nor can it be said that the grievor was involved in the "organization of complex statistical information" or the operation of a "very complex" computer. The work she performed on the computer was essentially data entry, work which, it may be noted, is among the typical duties of the Typist-Steno and Secretary classifications. It is my conclusion that the appropriate rating for this factor should be that proposed by the College, viz, level 3. 5. Working Conditions: Manual Effort Both the factors of Manual Effort and Prevalence are in dispute. The College has rated the position at A5, viz minimum 17 manual effort more than 60% of the time. The Union seeks B4, viz, light manual effort 31 to 60% of the time. The Union rests its claim for level B on two tasks that the grievor performs. Once a week she carries printed material weighing 15 pounds from the printer back to desk, a journey of 5 minutes walk. Once every 2 weeks she car~ies office supplies, which she described as "quite heavy" from the book store to her office, a 3 minute walk. Level B speaks of "prolonged" walking, climbing stairs, and/or handling light weight materials. The facts scarcely support the argument that the carrying of this material, one for 5 minutes per week, the other for 3 minutes every 2 weeks, constitutes "prolonged" activity. Moreover, for similar reasons the facts do not suppor~ the Union's claim as the prevalence of this activity. Level 4 requires that it be engaged in on a "frequent" basis, 31 to 60% of the time. The facts simply do not support the claim. Consequently, I conclude that rating proposed by the College is appropriate. 18 SUMMARY The following are my conclusions concerning th~ proper rating for the various factors in dispute. 1. Job Difficulty C4 144 points 2. Guidance Received D4 150 points 3. Communications C3 84 points 4. Skill 3 34 points 5. Manual Effort A5 3 points This results in a further 93 points being added to the grievor's point total bringing her to 546 points. That point total places her in Pay Band 8. Accordingly, the grievor should be reclassified as Secretary Atypical, Pay Band 8. The grievance is allowed and the College is directed' to reclassify the grievor and compensate her for any monies and benefits owing retroactive to June 1, 1986. In the grievance the Union claims that the grievor also be awarded interest. It was argued by the College that I have no jurisdiction to award interest. I find no limit on my jurisdiction to award interest. Moreover, I see no reason why interest should not be awarded. By improperly classifying the grievor the College has deprived her of monies which ought to have been paid to her over the period in guestion. If she is to 19 be "made whole" for that loss it is quite reasonable to order the College to pay interest. I remain seised of jurisdiction in the event that the parties are unable to agree on the appropriate compensation including questions which may arise as to the appropriate rate of interest that should be applied to the monies owing. Dated at LONDON, Ont. this /~/ day of ~'f~/~ , 1988 G. J. Brandt, Sole Arbitrator APPEARANCES: MANAGEMENT UNION DECISION: Degree Points Job Difficulty ~.. ¥ / ¥~.. Guidance Received Communications Training Knowledge & Exper. Skill Manual Working Effort Co~itions Visual Environ. Total Points Pay Band Numar COMMENTS: