Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSutherland 87-06-30 ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION (hereinafter called the Union) - and - FANSHAWE COLLEGE (hereinafter called the Employer) - and - MR. GARY SUTHERLAND (hereinafter called the Grievor) SOLE ARBITRATOR PROFESSOR IAN A. HUNTER APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION: MR. N.A. LUCZAY, GRIEVANCE OFFICER FOR THE COLLEGE: MR. D.L. BUSCHE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES A HEARING WAS HELD IN LONDON, ONTARIO ON JUNE 25, 1987. AWARD (1) INTRODUCTION The grievor, Gary Sutherland, is currently classified as an Operator C; Reproduction Equipment. He works in the Print Department at Fanshawe College. The majority of his working day is spent operating an A.B. Dick offset press, model #98/10. Utilizing this press, he prints brochures, forms, handbooks, manuals, etc. He is an experienced press operator with fifteen years experience with several employers, including twelve years at Fanshawe College. His grievance is that he is improperly core-point rated at 490 total points (Pay Band 7) and should be rated at 584 total points (Pay Band 9). (2) PROCEDURAL ISSUE Both in the written submission to the arbitrator (D.L. Busche letter June 15, 1987) and at the hearing, Fanshawe College vigorously asserted the position that the grievor's job is, in no sense, "unique" or "atypical." Nor does it encompass duties and responsibilities which are not adequately covered by the existing Job Family Definitions and the Evaluation Guide Charts. That being so, the College submitted that the position is to be classified by Guide Chart and not by Core Point Rating. In other words, the College submitted that before an arbitrator gets to the Core Point Rating system, the Union must discharge an onus of proving that there is something "atypical" about the position in 2 question. Otherwise, the position is to be classified by the Evaluation Guide Charts. In support of its submission, the College relied upon the CAAT Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual. It is important to remember that this Manual is the product of collaboration and agreement by both parties. I accept the proposition that the Manual is an authoritative guide to the arbitrator. Similarly, the expedited arbitration procedures, of which I am a part, were jointly agreed upon to resolve differences between the parties. I also regard these procedures as authoritative. When I consider the Manual and the Procedures, I find the following: (1) "Most of the positions covered by the CPS have been allocated into major occupational groups of Job Families and Job Family Definitions have been prepared." (Section I, page 1) In the instant case, the parties are agreed on the Job Family (Technical Services) and the classification (Reproduction Equipment Operator). (2) "The Job Evaluation Guide Charts are based on the degree definitions in the Core Point Rating Plan. As such, the Job Evaluation Guide Charts provide a stable, reliable and 3 consistent narrative standard by which most positions can be quickly and effectively classified. The appropriate Pay Band is determined by reference to the Pay Band/Classification Matrix. A relatively small number of unique or atypical positions may not be covered by the Job Evaluation Guide Charts. These positions are evaluated by the Core Point Rating Plan. The total point rating determined for these positions is converted to an appropriate Pay Band by reference to the Pay Band Determination Scale." (Section I, page 2) (3) Section VII of the Manual, which sets out the Core Point Rating Plan begins by saying it is used "to evaluate and classify atypical CAAT Support Staff Positions." From the plain words of these three quotations, I draw two conclusions: (a) For most positions, narrative evaluation, through the Guide Charts, is the appropriate method of classification. Only in atypical cases is classification to be done by Core Point Rating Plan. (b) The two systems (Narrative and Core Point) are not opposite; they are linked, or in Mr. Busche's terminology "married", because the Job Evaluation Guide Charts are based on 4 the same job factors and degree definitions as the Core Point Rating Plan. The procedures that the parties have agreed upon for expedited arbitration (letter from Norman Williams to Jim Clancy, July 16, 1986) require the parties to submit to the arbitrator, in advance of the hearing, "a completed arbitration data sheet." This sheet compels the parties to include a Core Point Rating. The procedure also requires the arbitrator to append to his decision a Core Point Evaluation. This suggests strongly that the Core Point Evaluation is to be a prominent feature of the arbitration hearing. The conclusions I draw are these: (1) Fanshawe College is correct in its submission that Narrative Evaluation by Guide Chart is the appropriate method of classification for most positions. (2) Only a small number of atypical positions are to be classified by the Core Point Rating Plan. (3) Notwithstanding (2), the parties are to go through the exercise of Core Point Rating, prior to the arbitration hearing and to provide the arbitrators with the result of that exercise, 5 as a pre-hearing-"check'' on the reliability of the current classification. (4) At the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator should hear viva voce evidence, and argument, on each of the job factors which are in dispute between the parties that go to make up Core Point Rating. Only after hearing such evidence will he or she be in a position to determine whether or not the position in issue is atypical and requires Core Point Rating. (5) In the decision, the arbitrator should, on the evidence he or she has heard, first determine whether or not the position is atypical. This can be done by applying the evidence to the various Evaluation Criteria set out in the appropriate Job Evaluation Guide Chart (in this case, ODerator ReDroduction Equipment, Section VI, page 8) In applying the evidence to the Criteria, he or she should keep in mind (a) that it is the position, not the incumbent, which is being evaluated and classified; (b) the evaluation criteria "are general statements which may or may not have total applicability to a particular classification"; (c) the onus is upon the Union to prove some element of "atypicality" which would remove the evaluation from the Guide Chart system and to the Core Point Rating Plan; and (d) the overall scheme is designed on a "best fit", not an exact application, basis. 6 If the arbitrator determines that the position can be properly classified on a Guide Chart basis, he should do so. If it cannot (i.e., if he is satisfied that the position is atyDical) then he should classify by the Core Point Rating Plan, substituting, where necessary, his own Core Point Rating, based on the evidence at the hearing, for the Core Point Rating suggested by either the Union or the College. As far as I am aware, this is the first decision to address the procedural issue which was raised by Fanshawe College. It may be that other arbitrators will develop a different, or better, approach than that suggested above. But, because this is a case of first impression, I considered that I should outline the approach which I believe the Manual and the procedure agreed to by the parties requires. It is the procedure I have endeavoured to follow in resolving the instant grievance. (3) JOB FAMILY -- OPERATOR, REPRODUCTION EOUIPN~9~f (Section VII, page 8) "This family covers positions of employees involved in the operation and maintenance of reproduction equipment and ancillary reproduction equipment." 7 ODerator.C ' "Position incumbents operate reproduction equipment for the majority of the time and are regarded as advanced and highly- skilled specialized operators." TYPical duties "In addition to duties described for Operator B, Reproduction Equipment: -- produce the most difficult printing jobs which must reach rigid standards and include the application of colour separation techniques. -- operates large and complex offset presses which entail numerous and critical operating adjustments. -- liaises with user groups. -- may recommend alternative methods of production." Both the Job Family, Operator C, and Typical Duties definitions are in accord with the testimony of the grievor and his supervisor, Mr. Gerry Paschink. 8 ( 4 ) JOB DIFFICULTY The College has rated Job Difficulty C4: "Work involves the performance of various complex tasks that include both routine and non-routine aspects requiring different and unrelated processes and methods." The Union evaluation is D4: "Work involves the performance of varied non-routine complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated processes and methods." The essential difference between the two definitions involves whether or not the complex tasks performed by the Reproduction Operator, are "routine." The Oxford English Dictionary defines routine: "a regular course of procedure; a more or less mechanical or unvarying performance of certain acts or duties." From the grievor's evidence, I draw the conclusion that he prints a variety of different material. However, the printing techniques used are essentially routine. He testified: "No two things are exactly the same; you always have to be making adjustments." When asked directly whether or not the printing was routine, he replied: "After years of working on the job, you know the routine." While there is a considerable variety in the work performed 9 (the printing.varying by paper size, colour, format, etc.) I am satisfied that the printing tasks are essentially routine. Consequently, I am satisifed that Job Difficulty is appropriately rated at C4. (5) GUIDANCE RECEIVED The College has rated Guidance Received as C4: "Work is performed in accordance with general procedures and past practices. Unfamiliar situations are reviewd with supervisor." The Union rates Guidance Received at D4: "Work is performed in accordance with procedures-and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems. Supervisor is available to assist in resolving problems." In the grievor's case, there are few unfamiliar situations which must be reviewed with his supervisor. This is because the grievor is an experienced Press Operator, highly competent in the discharge of his duties, and (on the evidence) creative in dealing with unforeseen contingencies (e.g., the broken timing mechanism on the AB Dick printer or the broken drive pin on the Pitney Bowes). Consequently, the grievor seldom encounters unfamiliar situations requiring review with his supervisor. The Supervisor, Mr. Paschink, is also a highly experienced 10 press operator..He is available to review unfamiliar situations should the need arise. On this issue, I must remember I am evaluating a position not an incumbent. Applying the evidence to the position, I am satisfied that it is correctly rated at C4. (6) 'COMMUNICATIONS The College has rated Communications at B2: "Work involves contacts for purpose of providing detailed explanations to ensure understanding on matters such as how information was collected or how a figure was calculated." The Union rating is C2: "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." There was no evidence from the grievor or the supervisor that Mr. Sutherland is involved in explaining matters or interpreting procedures or policy. He does, on occasion, render assistance to the two xerox operators in the Department. These contacts are primarily at comparable or lower levels within the College. I am satisfied that this factor is properly rated at B2. 11 (7) owr.mx = ._ The parties are agreed in rating this factor. (8) WORKING CONDITIONS -- MANUAL EFFORT The College rates this factor at B5: "Work requires light manual effort and physical exertion, e.g., prolonged standing, sitting, walking, climbing stairs, using light tools and/or handling light-weight materials." The Union rates this at C5: "Work requires moderate manual effort and physical exertion, e.g., climbing or working from ladders, using medium-weight tools and machines and/or handling medium-weight materials." The issue here is whether or not the grievor is handling "light" or "medium" weight material. The evidence of the grievor and the College was not dissimilar. The grievor regularly handles boxes of paper weighing between forty and sixty-eight pounds. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "light" as: "of little weight, not heavy. Deficient in weight. Bearing a small load. Having a small burden." In my opinion, regular lifting of weights between forty and 12 seventy pounds c&nnot be considered "light" lifting. The appropriate classification is "moderate manual effort" requiring lifting of "medium" weight materials. Consequently, the appropriate rating is C5. (8) WORKING CONDITIONS --VISUAL STRAIN The College rates this factor at A5: "Normal visual concentration required, more than sixty per cent of time." The Union rates this B5: "Moderate visual concentration required. Required to focus on small areas or objects for short periods of time, i.e., up to one hour, more than sixty per cent of the time." I heard no evidence which would convince me that more than normal visual concentration was required. The operator checks the quality of paper coming off the machine. He does so by examining ordinary printing in a normal fashion. In my opinion, this factor is appropriately rated at A5. (9) WORKING CONDITIONS -- ENVIRONMENT The parties are agreed on a rating of C5. 13 (10) DECISION The only area in which I am prepared, on the evidence, to vary the College's rating is Working Conditions -- Manual Effort. In all other job factors, I find that the duties performed by the grievor accord with the Job Evaluation Guide Chart: Operator Reproduction Equipment. The only element of atypicalit¥ is Working Conditions -- Manual Effort. In that one area, the position is incorrectly rated at B5 (13 points) and should be rated at C5 (21 points). This changes the total points from 490 to 499 but does not alter the Pay Band (7). To the limited extent of altering the rating of Working Conditions -- Manual Effort the grievance is allowed. I have appended a completed Arbitration Data Sheet. DATED at the City of London this ~'~ day of June, 1987. Ian A. Hunter Sole Arbitrator APPENDIX 14 COLLEGE George Brown GRIEVOR Gary Sutherland CLASSIFICATION/ POSITION Operator C; Reproduction Equipment HEARING DATE June 25, 1987 APPEARANCES: MANAGEMENT UNION Mr. D.L. Busche Mr. N.A. Luczay DECISION: Degree Points Job Difficulty C4 144 Guidance Received C4 124 Communications B2 48 Training & Exper. D4 90 Knowledge Skill D4 47 Manual E flor t C 5 21 Working Conditions Visual A5 3 Environ. C5 21 Total Points 499 Pay Band Number ? COMMENTS: ~Om ~7~/~ ARBITRATOR'~~_~( DATE F 7 SIGNATURE