HomeMy WebLinkAboutCrawford(Fordyce) 98-07-27IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION ~' .... , '~
BETWEEN:
FANS~WE COLLEGE ~[ 0 q
("the College")
~d
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
("the Union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GR1-F, VANCE OF JEAN
CRAWFORD (NOW JEAN FORDYCE) - OPSEU NO. 97D489
ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate
APPEARANCES
For the College: Sheila Wilson
Madlyn Peaker
For the Umon: Sandra Kippen
Barb Ford
Jean Fordyce
HEARING: In London on May 22, 1998
INTRODUCTION
These proceedings relate to a. grievance filed on January 20, 1997 in which
the grievor alleged that she had been improperly classified under the job evaluation
system binding on the parties. Her classification was that of a Support Services
Officer ("SSO") A. As such she was paid at the payband 8 level. The grievance
requested that she be reclassified to the payband 11 level.
The gfievor worked in the college's Student Awards Department. Her official
title was awards advisor although the practice was to refer to her, and four others
who performed the same type of work, as editors.
At the hearing the parties indicated that I should concern myself only with the
ghevor's duties and responsibilities at the time the grievance was filed and not take
into account a number of subsequent organizational changes. They also indicated
that I should take into account certain functions normally associated with the
ghevor's position which she did not actually perform as she had been given release
time to attend to union related matters.
The college did not contend that the grievor's position could be classified
using the job evaluation guide charts which form part of the job evaluation system.
To the contrary, at the commencement of the heahng Ms. Sheila Wilson for the
college indicated that the college had initially considered rating the ghevor's position
as that of a Clerk General but subsequently decided that the SSO job family was a
better fit.
The job evaluation manual indicates that positions that cannot readily be
evaluated using the job evaluation guide charts should be evaluated using a core
point rating plan. This plan requires that points be assigned to twelve different job
evaluation factors based on factor definitions and illustrative classifications. The
plan also provides that reference should be made to a sunun~ of factor evaluations
contained in section X of the manual.
in the instant proceedings the parties agreed on the appropriate points for only
three job factors, namely training/technical skills, experience and motor skills. The
other nme factors remain in dispute. The parties did, however, agree on the
accuracy of a position description form ("PDF") relating to the ghevor's position.
DUTIES AND RESPONS1]3ILITIF, S
Many of the grievor's responsibilities related to the Canada Student Loan /
Ontario Student Loan program ("OSAP"). This included reviewing student OSAP
applications for errors and completeness. The ghevor described this function as
editing an application to ensure that it was as clean as possible.
The ghevor indicated that she checked the intemal consistency of
applications, including comparing an entry stating when a student had finished high
school with another entry where the student might claim to have been out of high
school for four years and thus qualify as an independent student. The grievor also
checked applications against the previous year's application. She testified that if a
student had a sudden change in status, such as claiming to have become divorced
with custody of a child, she would ask to see a separation agreement; or if a student
claimed that his or her spouse had moved to Alberta she would ask for an affidavit
to this effect.
When an application lacked some required information the grievor would
send the student an OSAP information request form. This form contained boxes
which the grievor could check to indicate what information was required. The form
also had an area where she could list additional required material. One box was for
students who had claimed that their family had zero income. It asked that they
provide a letter explaining how expenses were being paid together with supporting
documentation such as an income tax return. Usually requested information was
mailed in by students.
The gfievor indicated that she was alert to possible errors made by students
when they completed an application form. She stated that she ensured students
properly recorded their academic program; the start and ending dates of their study
period; and the percentage of a full course load that they would be taking. She said
that if a student claimed to have made $10,000 in the summer she would not let the
statement through without questioning it since the amount might have reflected
earnings for the entire year.
The ghevor ensured that, if appropriate, part of the application form
respecting a student's spouse's situation was completed and that a section of the
application to be filled in by the parents of a dependent student had been completed.
The grievor testified that she could put in an "override" on application forms
to reflect non standard situations, such as to allow a student to receive additional
travel money depending on where they lived; and to ensure that a student who was
repeating a year did not get book costs.
The grievor indicated that she entered a cost code on every application form
which reflected the course the student would be taking. She stated that at times new
programs were created for which there was no cost code, or a program might be
extended, and she would try to find an existing code which would appropriately
reflect the length of the course.
Once an application was completed and coded it was forwarded to the
Ministry of Education and Training for processing.
Every application included a student's estimate of his or her summer income.
The grievor testified that if a student later reported that he or she had made more
money, she would make the appropriate change which could lower the amount of
the student's loan. She said that when this occurred the student otten got upset with
her. According to the grievor she would remind the student that the original number
had only been an estimate and also that it was better to earn money than to borrow
it.
During most of the year loan awards received from the Ministry were
released to students by a clerk. At peak periods, however, awards were released by
the gfievor and other editors. The clerk would at times also refer students to an
editor~ The grievor indicated that students denied an award would be irate and at
times heartbroken, and they would try to explain to her why they needed the money.
An OSAP appeals manual listed a number of OSAP appeals that could be
decided by staff at the college if the student's situation and documentation
corresponded to the appeal situation. Other appeals were forwarded to the Ministry
for consideration. The ghevor's evidence indicated that she dealt with appeals
related to matters such as exceptional expenses; travel allowances; and less than
expected student contributions, including situations where a student had not worked
as a result of being ill or incarcerated.
In her evidence the grievor referred to an individual who had high grocery
costs due to the purchase of dog food. She said that she allowed the cost because
the student had claimed the income he received from raising dogs. The grievor said
that in instances where a student claimed to be paying $800 per month in rent she
would suggest that he or she get a roommate.
The ghevor testified that where a student's appeal was based on not being
able to find summer work she would give the student a job search statement to fill
in. She said that she could decide if the job search was insufficient and therefore the
appeal would not succeed.
The ghevor indicated that subsequent to the issuance of awards students
would advise her of changes m their circumstances, such as the death of a father or
the student's marriage. She said that these changes could result in a change to the
mount of a loan.
A student requesting an OSAP reassessment did so on a standard form on
which the student could check a box indicating the reason for the request. The form
discussed the nature of the supporting documents required for each type of request.
During the year that she grieved the ghevor spent a substantial part of her
time reviewing and processing requests for Ontaho Special Bursary funding. The
PDF describes this function as:
Reviews and processes all requests for Ontario Student Bursary funding in
accordance with Ministry guidelines. This includes examining applications,
ensuring complete documentation has been provided, interviewing students as
necessary, approving bursary amounts or denying such, initiating correspondence
to students, submitting ministry budget reports, and responding to enquiries related
to this funding.
The Ontario Special Bursary Program was intended as an incentive for low
income people to participate in post-secondary education on a part-time basis.
Eligible students could receive up to $2,500 per academic year to cover direct
educational costs. Decisions respecting eligibility were made at the College based
on Ministry guidelines. The grievor testified that students would receive a cheque
on the basis of her signature.
Students applied for a bursary by way of a standard form which asked a
number of questions relating to their family, employment and financial situation.
There was also a monthly budget form applicants had to fill in. The grievor
indicated that she would review the application and determine the mount the
student would receive for tuition fees; compulsory fees; books and equipment; travel
costs; and child care costs.
The ghevor testified that she would seek out the cost of books. She said that
in order to determine travel costs she used bus routes, schedules and city maps for
London, Woodstock, St. Thomas and Strathroy. She stated that she had approved
an amount for taxicab fare for a student because buses did not operate at night in
Woodstock.
The ghevor testified that she would determine if a spouse could assist with
child care, including determining why an unemployed spouse could not look after
the children or why a working spouse could not look after the children in the
evening. She said that she would get calendars from the local school boards to
ascertain when teachers had professional activity days since parents with school age
children could receive money for those days.
The gfievor indicated that in order to check an applicant's income she would
look at a pay cheque or family benefits stub. She said that she had a case where a
couple claimed they had a business which was suffering a loss. She said that she
asked to see an income statement for the business and discovered that the business
was in fact paying wages to the couple.
When assessing an application for a bursary the ghevor was required to ask
the student why he or she was not going to school on a full time basis so as to be
eligible to apply for OSAP. An administrative manual stated that acceptable reasons
for attending school part-time included child care responsibilities for dependents up
to 11 years of age; the care of disabled dependents; a student suffehng from a
disability and "other unique personal or family situation(s) which prevent the student
fi:om studying on a full-time basis".
The administrative manual contained a number of case scenarios. Some of
these scenarios specified whether a student would or would not be eligible for a
bursary. For other scenarios the manual was less clear. One such scenario read as
follows:
Scenario: This student is a sole-support parent of a six year old child. The
child is attending school on a full-time basis. The student plans to attend
postsecondary studies on a part-time basis.
Decision: The student may be a candidate for OSBP funding, depending on
the basis for his/her studying part-time.
Rationale: In cases such as the one outlined above, the FAO must review the
student's situation to determine whether or not it is reasonable to assume that the
student is unable to attend studies on the part-time basis. In addition, the FAO
must check with the student to determine the reason why the student is studying
part-time. For example, the student may be studying part-time due to personal
choice (ie. has no desire to attend full-time at this point), and has nothing to do
with the childcare responsibilities preventing full-time attendance. If that is the
case, the student should be directed to apply for OSL or part-time CSLP
assistance.
The administrative manual stated that generally students would be seeking
their first post secondary degree or diploma in order to qualify for a bursary, but
consideration should be given to individual circumstances, including where the
student was no longer able to make use of prior training.
The grievor testified that the college provided short term loans which she
could approve up to $500 with the amount of the loan being deducted from an
OSAP award when it came in. The ghevor indicated that apphcants for a loan were
generally required to complete a budget form, although this requirement would be
waived if a delay in processing the student's application had been caused by the
Students Awards Department. Ms. Marilyn Peaker, the manager of the department,
testified that the ghevor and other editors could approve secured loans up to $500
but she handled any loans in excess of $500 as well as any loans that were not
secured by future OSAP funding.
An employee who filled in for the grievor due to her union release time did
presentations to mature students and to high school students. Ms. Peaker's evidence
was that the employee in question gave two one hour presentations per year to
mature students as well as the occasional one and a half hour presentation to high
school students. Ms. Peaker testified that she did most of the high school
presentations and also wrote the scripts for both the high school and mature student
presentations.
In the year she grieved the grievor provided services to the College's
Woodstock, St. Thomas and Simcoe campuses. The grievor testified that she
performed this function four times a month. She said that she took with her a big
box containing binders and files. She indicated that although she pulled the box on
a cart she was required to lift the box in and out of her car. At times during the
winter she had to pull the cart through slush.
The grievor testified that she often had trouble finding out ahead of time what
students she would be seeing at the different campuses. She said that at the smaller
campuses she could access the college's information system but not the Ministry's.
The grievor indicated that problems frequently arose at the smaller campuses
as a result of students having been given incorrect information. She gave the
example of a student who contrary to established policy had been told that he or she
did not have to pay any fees until after they received their OSAP loan. She said that
she insisted that the student write the college a cheque for the fees prior to releasing
the student's award.
The above description of the grievor's duties and responsibilities does not
fully reflect the high quality of her performance. She worked quickly and
accurately. She made sure that students obtained the maximum allowable loan or
bursary but no more. She was sympathetic to students and listened to their
problems and concerns, particularly when they had been denied an award. She also
ensured that students understood the applicable policies. Exceptional performance
in a position is not, however, an appropriate basis for giving the position a higher
rating. Section VII of the job evaluation manual, which relates to the core point
rating plan, contains the following statement indicating that it is a position that is to
be evaluated and not the individual occupying the position: "Keep in mind that it is
positions which are being evaluated and not individuals. Raters must make a
conscious effort not to let knowledge of a particular incumbent influence evaluation
decisions."
COMPLEXITY
This factor measures the amount and nature of analysis, problem-solving, and
reasoning required to perform job related duties. The college rated the ghevor's
position at level 4. The union argues for level 5. The definitions for these two
levels, as well as the illustrative classifications, are as follows:
4. Job duties require the performance of varied, non-routine, complex tasks
involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods.
Clerk General D; Library Technician B; Programmer A, B
5. Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks
involving specialized processes and/or methods.
Prog/Analyst A; SSO B, C; Technologist C
In its written brief the union contended that the following statements relating
to the grievor's duties and responsibilities contained in the PDF illustrated the
complexity of her job: "... interviewing students as necessary; approving review
situations ... responds to general and specific inquiries and requests for detailed
information on a referral basis from central reception area.., providing budgeting
tips/assistance ... approving bursary amounts or denying such.., provides regular
service to area campuses ... proven accuracy in reviewing and analysing verbal or
written information/applications ... knowledge of other financial services available
to students who have needs beyond OSAP."
The union brief contended that the OSAP program was both specialized and
complicated. It referred to the fact that the ghevor used two computer programs
related to student awards and one of them, the Ministry system, utilized screens
which offered options to other screens.
Ms. Wilson for the college contended that there was no evidence of the
ghevor having been involved in specialized processes and/or methods. She
submitted that the grievor's position could not be equated with the work of a
technologist C, one of the illustrative classifications for level 5. In its written brief
the college relied on the fact that one of the illustrative classifications for level 4 is a
Clerk General D. The job evaluation guide chart for this classification hsts one of
the typical duties of the classification as "Determines student financial assistance
and eligibility".
The ghevor's work was complex and much of it was non-routine. As such it
was covered by the definitions for both level 4 and level 5. The main difference
between the two levels is that level 4 requires "different and unrelated processes
and/or methods", whereas level 5 refers to "relatively unusual tasks involving
specialized processes and/or methods". The phrase "specialized processes and/or
methods" is subject to a number of possible interpretations. The use of the words
"relatively unusual tasks", however, suggests the performance of tasks which are not
performed on a regular or recumng basis. The ghevor performed basically the same
tasks, albeit the facts related to each particular student were different.
I do not view the use of a complex computer program (as opposed to
developing such a program) as something which meets the definition for level 5.
Most of the other tasks relied on by the union to justify a level 4 rating related to
determining students' eligibility for financial assistance. The job classification
manual, however, indicates that this function is associated with a level 4 rating for
complexity. Having regard to these considerations I confirm the level 4 rating given
by the college.
JUDGEMENT
This factor measures the independent judgement and problem solving
required for a job. The College rated the ghevor's job at level 4; the union at level
6. The definitions for levels 4, 5 and 6 as well as the relevant illustrative
classifications are as follows:
4. Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem-solving
involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with
established analytical techniques.
ECE Worker; Nurse; Secretary C
5. Job duties require a significant degree °f judgement. Problem-solving involves
interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used.
Programmer B; Stationary Engineer C; Technologist B
6. Job duties require a high degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves
adapting analytical techniques and development of new information on various
situations and problems.
Prog/Analyst A, B; SSO C; Technologist C
The union in its brief referred to the following statements contained in the
PDF.
Independent judgement and problem solving are required in order to perform the
duties of this position. Incumbent must analyze documents and either approve
funds or provide recommendations, correct information or pursue further action.
Incumbent must be able to effectively interact with students and solicit information
from them to deliver the financial assistance programs as outlined .... Ot~en has to
elicit personal, academic or financial information that, although confidential, will
be used to establish students' eligibility for initial, or increased/decreased, financial
'assistance.
The union's brief also referred to the ghevor's function of scrutinizing
applications to ensure that the information corresponded to the entire application
and to previous applications; the need for her to determine the reasonableness of
expenses and the accuracy of income figures contained in students' budgets; and the
ghevor's approval or denial of bursary applications. The union contended that the
development of documentation to support a successful appeal and the obtaining of
background information and supporting documents fi.om a student for the file
involved the development of new information.
I do not view requests to a student for information and documentation to
support an application for financial assistance as the development of new
information on various situations and problems. The type of activity which meets
this requirement is reflected in the following typical duties of an SSO C, which is
one of the illustrative classifications for level 6, namely researching and preparing
reports to communicate and support college plans and objectives; and analyzing
requirements of groups within and external to the college and developing programs
to meet those requirements. The ghevor's position did not meet the definition for
level 6.
The definition for level 5 requires either the interpretation of complex data or
refining the work methods and techniques to be used. The ghevor was not involved
in interpreting complex data. Apart fi.om the issue discussed below, I might have
concluded that she was involved in refining work methods and techniques when she
adapted her work methods to address particular facts relating to individual students.
Examples were asking for an affidavit from a student who claimed his or her spouse
had moved to Alberta and the process of deciding whether a sole support parent was
attending school part-time due to child care responsibilities or out of personal
choice.
The complicating issue relates to how the functions of a Clerk General D are
rated under the job evaluation system. As noted above, a typical duty of a Clerk
General D listed in the relevant guide chart is "Determines student financial
assistance and eligibility". Although a Clerk General D is not one of the illustrative
classifications for the judgement factor, section VII of the job evaluation manual
states that when using the core point rating plan reference should be made to' the
summary of factor evaluations contained in section X of the manual. Section X
indicates that a typical Clerk General D position is to receive 66 points for
judgement. This is the point total for level .4.
The job evaluation manual indicates that the judgement associated with
determining student financial assistance and eligibility is to be rated at level 4. A
different rating should logically not be assigned simply because an employee
performing the duty is classified as an SSO as opposed to a Clerk General D.
Having regard to the foregoing I confirm the level 4 rating given by the
college.
PHYSICAL DEMAND
This factor measures the demand on physical energy reqtfired to complete
tasks. The college contends level 2 is appropriate, the union argues that level 3 is
more appropriate. The definitions for these two levels, together with the illustrative
classifications, are as follows:
2. Job duties require some physical demand. There is an occasional requirement
for repetition and/or speed. Employee usually has comfortable bodily positions
with flexibility of movement.
Employee uses recurring light physical effort,
OR
occasional moderate physical effort.
Bus Driver; Secretary A, B, C; Security Guard; Clerk General B, C, D;
Programmer A, B, C
3. Job duties require regular physical demand. There is a regular need for speed
and repetitive use of muscles. Employee is in uncomfortable or awkward bodily
positions for short periods of time with some flexibility of movement.
Employee uses continuous light physical effort,
OR
recurring periods of moderate physical effort,
OR
occasional periods of heavy physical effort.
Caretaker A, B; ECE Worker; Switchboard Operator; Technologist A, B; Clerk
General A
An entry in the job evaluation manual relating to these definitions indicates
that the term "occasional" is to be equated with part of a day; "recumng" with most
of the day; and "continuous" with all of the time.
The PDF contains the following statements with respect to this factor:
Minimal physical demand. Incumbent works in a normal office environment and
has some flexibility to change movement or physical position. The incumbent may
be sitting for long periods of time (more than 60%) when working at a desk or
workstation. Incumbent must retrieve files and/or documents to assist student.
Incumbent must be able to stand for specific periods of time during group sessions.
Task % of Time
Sitting at desk when examining applications, 80%
using word processing, entering data or
interviewing students.
Standing in front of a group when 2%
presenting information.
The union relies on the fact that the grievor spent long periods of time sitting
at a desk or work station, as well as her retrieval of files and documents and the fact
she had t° move a box when going to other campuses.
Although the grievor sat for extended periods of time she was apparently able
to move about or change her position. There was not the type of inflexibility
associated with a switchboard operator, which is one of the illustrative
classifications for level 3. The task of retrieving files and documentation is
presumably performed by most employees who work in an office, including those
classified as Secretary A, B, C and Clerk General B, C, D, all of which are
illustrative classifications for level 2.
Four times a month, several times each day, the grievor lifted a box
containing binders and files between her car and a cart. She also pulled the cart,
including at times through slush. The definitions relating to this factor refer to only
three levels of physical effort, namely light, moderate and heavy. I classify the
ghevor's movement of the box as involving moderate physical effort. It occurred on
an occasional basis. This situation met the definition for level 2. In my view the
ghevor's activities did not justify the same rating for physical effort as the illustrative
classifications for level 3, including Caretaker A and B; and Clerk General A, one of
whose typical duties is to deliver materials.
Having regard to these considerations I confirm the level 2 rating given by the
college.
SENSORY DEMAND
This factor measures demand on mental energy while performing tasks. The
college rated this factor at level 3. The union contends that level 5, the highest
rating possible, is more appropriate. The definitions for level 3, 4, and 5 and the
relevant illustrative classifications are as follows:
3. Job duties require moderate visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental
energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy.
OR
Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental
energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy.
OR
Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy
and periodic careful attention to detail and accuracy.
Clerk General C; ECE Worker; Nurse; Secretary A, B, C; Skilled Trades Worker;
SSO A, B, C, D; Technologist A, B, C
4. Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental
energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy.
OR
Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy
and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy.
Bus Driver; Clerk General D; Switchboard Operator
5. Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental
energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy.
Systems Analyst; Tech Support Specialist
The PDF contains the following statement with respect to this factor: "The
majority of the position's responsibilities require considerable visual and auditory
concentration, attention to detail and accuracy". The PDF also states that
concentration and close attention to detail was required for a majority of duties 95%
of the time.
The college, both in its written brief and at the heating, relied on the fact that
SSO's A, B, C and D are illustrative classifications for Level 3. I believe it
noteworthy, however, that the Clerk General D position is an illustrative
classification for level 4. Presumably this rating reflects duties which involve the
detailed review of fonns and financial data.
Almost all conscientious employees, regardless of position, can legitimately
claim that their job involves extensive physical concentration of some sort together
with frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. Accordingly, a comparison of
the position being rated with the two illustrative classifications for level 5 is
particularly important. In my view the ghevor's job did not require the same type of
extensive focused concentration that is required of a systems analyst or technical
support specialist. Accordingly a level 5 rating is not appropriate.
The PDF indicates that the grievor's duties required considerable visual and
auditory concentration. At issue is whether her duties also required occasional
careful attention to detail and accuracy such as to fit within the definition for level 3;
or frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy so as to meet the requirements
for level 4. The PDF indicates that close attention was required for a majority of the
ghevor's duties. The evidence suggests that frequent careful attention to detail was
required, both when reviewing forms and budgets and also when obtaining oral
information from students. Having regard to these considerations I find that a level
4 rating was appropriate.
STRAIN FROM WORK PRESSURES/DEMANDS/DEADLINES
The college rated this factor at level 3. The union rated it at level 5, the
highest rating possible. The definitions for levels 3, 4, and 5 are set out below along
with the applicable illustrative classifications. No illustrative classifications are
given for level 5.
3. Job duties involve moderate work pressures or demands. Interruptions,
changing deadlines, multiple demands occur regularly but are usually predictable.
Occasionally, critical deadlines may occur.
Clerk General C, D; Secretary A, B; SSO A, B
4. Job duties involve conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in
workflow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shitts in priorities and
occasional critical deadlines.
Secretary C; SSO C, D; Tech Support Specialist
5. Job duties involve continuous work pressures and unpredictable interruptions in
workflow. Numerous conflicting demands and tight deadlines occur frequently.
The PDF contains the following statement: "Incumbent is required to meet
specific deadlines. There are interruptions and multiple demands will occur". The
PDF also contains the following chart:
Task % of Time Predictability
Meeting deadlines more than 75% Predictable
Workload/volume of work -
constantly high more than 80% Predictable
Multiple/Conflicting Demands more than 80% Tends to be predictable
Short notice deadlines 5 - 10 % Not predictable
Dealing with people in difficult
situations 10 - 15% Tends to be predictable
The gfievor's evidence was that students usually had to have an appointment
to see her, although at times she would see students who brought in requested
information. A student might also phone in with information. The grievor indicated
that when releasing awards she would often be asked questions by other staff who
were assisting with the releasing.
The PDF and the evidence indicate that the grievor regularly faced
interruptions and multiple demands but these were usually of a predictable nature.
Short notice deadlines did occur but only for 10 to 15 percent of the time. This
situation fits the level 3 definition. Accordingly I confirm the level 3 rating given by
the college.
INDEPENDENT ACTION
This factor measures the independence of action and decisions required by
the job. The college rated the grievor's job at level 4. The union rated it at level 5,
the highest rating possible. The definitions for these levels and the illustrative
classifications are set out below. A Clerk General D is one of the illustrative
classifications for level 3.
4. Job duties are performed in accordance with procedures and past practices
which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems.
There is considerable freedom to act independently with Supervisor input or
verification when requested.
Library Technician B; Secretary C; SSO A, B; Technician C; Technologist B
5. Job duties are performed in accordance with general instructions and policies
involving changing conditions and problems. There is significant freedom to act
independently.
SSO C,D; Systems Analyst; Technologist'C
The PDF, as well as the evidence, indicate that the grievor proceeded with
her day to day duties in accordance with a departmental staffing schedule and work
demands. She discussed work in progress with Ms. Peaker with respect to time
lines, problems encountered and the achievement of specific objectives. The ghevor
followed Ministry and departmental policies and procedures, many of which were
quite specific. This situation clearly did not meet the definition for level 5 which is
appropriate where there is no regular supervisory input and instructions and policies
are very general so as to enable an employee to cope with changing conditions and
problems. The fact that the circumstances respecting individual students differed
did not involve changing conditions and problems. I also do not accept the union's
argument that the fact OSAP policy changed every year was a relevant
consideration.
In her evidence the grievor referred to the fact that at times Ms. Peaker was
absent fi.om the college. Ms. Peaker's evidence suggested that these absences were
generally only for a day at a time. She indicated that policy or procedural issues
would usually await for her remm although the grievor might be required to deal
with issues relating to the release of money right away. The facts related to Ms.
Peaker's absences do not justify a level 5 rating.
I affirm the level 4 rating given by the college.
COMMUNICATIONS/CONTACTS
This factor measures the requirement for effective communication for the
purpose of providing advice, explanation, influencing others and/or reaching
agreement. A note to raters states that many college jobs deal with information that
is confidential. It also states that the focus is on the manner, purpose and
responsibilities involved in communicating rather than the content of the information
being communicated. It provides that raters should not rate the information but the
communications responsibilities involved in handling it.
The college rated this factor at level 3; the union at level 4. The relevant
definitions and illustrative classifications are as follows:
3. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing guidance or
technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, or for the purpose of
explaining various matters by interpreting procedures, policy, or theory. There
may be need to promote participation and understanding and to secure
co-operation in order to respond to problems or situations of a senSitive nature.
Regular involvement with confidential information which has moderate disclosure
implications.
Clerk General D; Library Technician A; Secretary C; SSO A, B; Technician B, C;
4. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing basic instruction
or for the resolution of complex problem situations. There may be a need for
sophisticated influential or persuasive techniques in order to address the problem
of those with special needs. Regular involvement with confidential and sensitive
information where disclosure implications are significant.
ECE Worker; Library Technician B; Nurse; SSO C; Technologist C
The ghevor testified that she was proud to say that she had never had any
customer complaints. She added that she was very conscious about good customer
relations.
The grievor testified that students would advise her of personal information.
She indicated that when this occurred she would remain alert to the file in the hopes
of getting the student more money.
The gfievor referred to a male student who after he did not receive an award
started talking to her about a child. When the grievor noted that no child had been
mentioned on his application, the student commented that he was not sure the child
was his since the results of a paternity test were not yet available.
The ghevor testified that a female student who did not receive an award
complained to her that she did not think it was fair that an uncle, who had custody of
her because her father had abused her, should have to pay for her education. The
grievor stated that she explained to the student that the uncle did have custody. The
ghevor said that during the ensuing conversation she learnt that the uncle had
counted the student's sister and her child as dependents when he should not have
and she explained the relevant policy to the student.
The grievor testified that students frequently told her that their parents had
kicked them out of the house because they did not follow the rules and she
explained to them that the Ministry expected them to live at home.
The ghevor testified that when releasing funds it was her job to counsel
students respecting the repercussions of possible changes in their status, such as if
they were to withdraw during the regular school year and then take classes from
May to August.
The ghevor's evidence indicated that she communicated with students to
provide guidance and to explain policies and procedures. This fit part of the
definition for a level 3 rating. Apart fi-om lending a sympathetic ear, her other
discussions with students were for the purpose of gathering information from them,
including about difficult family situations. This is covered by the reference in the
level 3 definition to a need to promote participation and to secure cooperation in
order to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive nature. The gfievor's role
with respect to confidential information appears to have been limited to utilizing it
herself or forwarding it to the Ministry.
I am satisfied that the ghevor's communications responsibilities fit the
definition for level 3. They did not meet the definition for level 4 as the gfievor did
not provide basic instruction; seek to resolve complex problem situations; or have to
use influential or persuasive techniques. It was not part of her job to persuade
anyone to do anything.
I affirm the level 3 rating given by the college.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS AND ACTIONS
This factor measures the impact on internal and public relations, the
responsibility for information management, equipment, assets and records, and the
consequences of decisions and/or actions.
The college rated this factor at level 3, the union at level 4. The relevant
definition and illustrative classifications are as follows:
3. Decisions and/or actions have moderate impact on the organization. Errors are
usually detected by verification and review and may result in disruption of the
workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited waste of resources.
Clerk General C, D; General Maint Worker; Reprod Equip Operator B, C;
Secretary B, C
4. Decisions and/or actions have considerable impact on the organization. Errors
are detected after the fact and may result in considerable interruption and delay in
work output and waste of resources.
ECE Worker; Stationary Engineer C; SSO B,C; Technologist B,C
The evidence indicates that many processing errors with respect to OSAP
applications would be caught by the Ministry's computer system. The applications
involved would then have to be redone by college staff. Depending on the timing
involved this might delay a student's award. In some circumstances an undetected
error might result in a student not receiving a loan, or as large a loan as he or she
was entitled to. Should this occur the student might raise the error. The grievor's
evidence was that not all students would recognize that an error had occurred, or
complain about it if they did recognize the error. She said that as a result the
student might have to scrimp or drop out of school.
The PDF factor contains the following statement with respect to this factor:
Processing/procedural errors would appear as either Ministry or students detect
such; decision errors would appear as students complain. Most errors would be
discovered, the effect would be dependent upon whether error could be corrected
and/or alternative course of action could be taken. Public relations and the
integrity of the programs involved would suffer considerably.
A single error might have a devastating effect on a particular student. The
definitions, however, refer to the impact of decisions or actions on "the
organization". Logically this refers to the college or an administrative unit within
the college and not to individual students. A pattern of errors would serve to
undermine the integrity of the Student Awards Department and the college. Any
one error on the part of the grievor, however, would not have a major or continuing
impact on the organization. An error might lead to a duplication of effort, but the
waste of resources involved would be fairly limited. Having regard to these
considerations I confirm the level 3 rating given by the college.
WORK ENVIRONMENT
This factor measures working conditions in terms of physical environment.
The college rated this factor at level 1; the union at level 2. The relevant definitions
and illustrative classifications are as follows:
1. Job duties are carded out with occasional exposure to slightly disagreeable
and/or hazardous elements.
Clerk General B, C, D; Secretary A, B, C
2. Job duties are carded out with occasional exposure to moderately disagreeable
and/or hazardous elements
OR
recurring exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous elements
OR
there is a requirement for occasional travel (10% - 30%).
SSO C; Switchboard Operator; Technician A, B, C; Technologist A, B, C
The PDF contains the folloWing listing respecting this factor. It is noteworthy
that in the PDF the parties agreed to treat volatile client interaction as relevant to
this factor.
Environment % of Time
Incumbent works in a standard office environment, has
little or no exposure to disagreeable elements, more than 70%
Volatile client interaction may occur on occasion 5 - 10 %
Constant high noise level during open office hours50%
Travel to area campus locations on a regular basis10%
Travel to OSAP Presentations 2%
I view volatile client interaction as something that is more than slightly
disagreeable. It is more appropriately described as moderately disagreeable.
Accordingly there was occasional exposure to moderately disagreeable elements.
There was also travel for 12% of the time when OSAP presentations were taken into
account. Accordingly the grievor's position met the definition for a level 2 rating.
CONCLUSION
The college's rating gave the gdevor's position a total of 532 points. My
findings with respect to the factors of sensory demand and work environment result
in an additional 33 points for a total of 565 points. This point total is still within
payband 8. The gfievor's claim to a higher payband is, accordingly, hereby
dismissed.
Dated this 27th day of June, 1998.
Arbitrator
ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION
:~t Classification: <~L,~i~O~T' %~AUtC~5 OF'FIE.EA. /3~ and Present Payband: ,~
~ . ,:emily and Payband Requested by Grievor: %C~PPo/~.Y %E. fi.U~C~-5 C'-F'~iC..~--JP.. C Pi3 il
1, Position Description Form Attached
2. [~'The parties agree on the contents of the attached Position Description Form
OR
, [] The Union disagrees with the contents of the attached Position Description Form. The specific details of this
disagreement are as follows:
(use reverse side if necessary)
FACTO RS MANAGEMENT UNION ARBITRATOR
Level Pointe Level Polnt~ Level Point~
1. Training/Technical Skills ~ ~ '1' ~. ~ I .~ ~'
2.' Experience
3.- Complexity
4. Judgement
~. Physical Demand
7. Sensow Demand
8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
9. Independent Action
1 0, Communications/Contacts
1 1. Responsibiliw for Decisions/Actions
12, Work Environment
JOS c SS F CAT O. 550 A
/I
A~ACHED WRI~EN SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ~ The College
FOR THE UNION FOR MANAGEMENT
~nlon R~pr~entative) (Dat~)
'\RBITRATOR'S USE: " ·
(Arbitrator's Signi~ure) ./ (Date of Hearing) (Date of Award) ,/
93-12-09 b:datasheet.doc