Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFoster 95-05-01 IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ' ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 351 (hereinafter called the Union) - and - SIR SANDFORD FLEMING COLLEGE (hereinafter called the College) - and - GRIEVANCE OF MR. RAY FOSTER (hereinafter called the Grievor) SOLE ARBITRATOR PROFESSOR IAN A. HUNTER APPEARANCES: FOR THE UNION: Ms. Marilyn Hinds, Union Steward FOR THE COLLEGE: Ms. Brenda Tyler-Walsh, Human Resources Administrator A HEARING WAS HELD IN PETERBOROUGH, ONTARIO ON APRIL 13, 1995 1 AWARD (1) Introduction The grievance of Mr. Ray Foster (Exhibit 1) is dated December 5, 1994 and alleges improper classification by his Employer, Sir Sandford Fleming College, as a "Technician C" (Payband 9). The Union alleges that the proper classification is: "Technologist B" (Payband 10). An expedited arbitration hearing was held in Peterborough, Ontario on April 13, 1995. At that hearing the following Exhibits were entered: Exhibit 1: Grievance of Ray Foster Exhibit 2: C.A.A.T. Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual Exhibit 3: P.D.F. (dated August 3, 1994 and agreed to by both parties) Exhibit 4: Arbitration Data Sheet At the hearing I heard oral evidence from the Grievor, Mr. Foster, and from his supervisor, Ms. Joan Webster, Director of Educational Resources. Submissions were made by Ms. Brenda Tyler- Walsh on behalf of the College, by Ms. Marilyn Hinds on behalf of the Union, and by the Grievor on his own behalf. I wish to record my appreciation to both parties for their briefs submitted to me and read in advance of the hearing, and for their helpful submissions. 2 (2) Overview of The Position The Grievor works at the Frost Campus in Lindsay. There are approximately eighteen hundred (1,800) full-time students, and one hundred and seventy-five (175) faculty, at this campus which specializes in natural science through its School of Natural Resources. The Grievor is a full-time A.V. Technician and is assisted by a part-time Technician, Ms. Jill Curtain. The Grievor works 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. and Ms. Curtain works only in the afternoons. The P.D.F., which was agreed to by the parties in August, 1994 summarizes the position as follows (Exhibit 3): "This position is responsible for the development, operation and administration of instructional support services provided through consultation with and assessment of the needs of clients at both the campus and College level as well as within the local community." The primary duties and responsibilities of the position are summarized in the P.D.F. as: (1) analysing the instructional media needs of the College and its clients: 25% of time. (2) design and production of instructional media (video, audio, computer graphics, etc.): 25% of time. 3 (3) providing guidance and direction to technical staff in production and distribution of instructional media: 15% of time. (4) initiating projects involving new education technology: 15% of time. (5) miscellaneous, related duties: 20% of time. In his evidence, Mr. Foster confirmed that general breakdown of position duties and responsibilities and elaborated upon them. The core elements of the position in question are: (1) client service; and (2) production. Client Service means dealing with requests for audio- visual equipment and materials from both faculty and students. Such requests are made in writing, and in person, and equipment must be signed out. There is a database for media software; consequently a faculty member may arrive in the department seeking information on a particular subject (eg. zebra mussels) and the Grievor will search the database to see if any audio- visual materials are available. 4 Production means creating audio or visual tapes, or courseware, to assist faculty in teaching. To facilitate the production of videotapes, there is an editing studio and other sophisticated video equipment. In his brief, and his oral evidence, the Grievor illustrated this aspect of the job by referring to a Forest Soils video which he made in collaboration with the professor who teaches that course. The video allows the professor to show students the excavation process (eg. types of soils, underground profiles, texture, consistency, etc.) in January when the ground is frozen and a field trip is not practical. The Grievor estimated that there was an almost equal time split (50/50) between the service and production functions, although each will vary depending on the time of year and the number of students on campus. His supervisor, Ms. Webster, estimated that seventy percent (70%) of the time is spent on service, thirty percent (30%) on production. It is unnecessary for me to make a finding of fact on this point. While I accept that the production aspects of the position are increasing (and it is only the production aspects which might incline toward the Technologist job family) I am not prepared to accept that production yet comprises equal time with client service. 5 (3) The Arbitration Data Sheet: Areas of Agreement The arbitration data sheet (Exhibit 4) confirmed agreement among the parties on ten of the twelve job factors: viz Training/Technical Skills (Level 5; 91 points); Experience (Level 3; 32 points); Judgement (Level 5; 84 points); Motor Skills (Level 3; 25 points); Physical Demand (Level 2; 16 points); Sensory Demand (Level 4; 39 points); Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines (Level 4; 39 points); Independent Action (Level 4; 46 points); Communications/Contacts (Level 3; 88 points); Work Environment (Level 2; 32 points). (4) Areas of Disagreement There are three areas of disagreement: (1) Job Family; (2) Complexity; (3) Responsibility for Decisions/Actions. This Award deals with each in turn. 6 (5) Job Family The College submits that this position is in the Technician job family; the Union submits that it is in the Technologist job family. The manual (Exhibit 2) supplies the following job family definitions: Technician This family covers positions that are primarily responsible for the care, maintenance, set-up, operation, demonstration, distribution and security of instructional and allied equipment and materials and the preparation of materials for use in instructional programs and administrative services. This family also covers positions in plant maintenance departments involving the planning, lay-out and specifications for alterations and additions to existing facilities. Technologist This family covers positions that provide technical services requiring the application of specialized knowledge. Major responsibilities include planning, designing, developing, selecting and testing of facilities, equipment, materials, methods and procedures, etc. related to the instructional programs and administrative services. Incumbents demonstrate the principles and theories of their specialty in various learning activities and provide technical advice. Clearly, there is considerable overlap in these job families. The essential differences, it seems to me, are: (1) the Technologist requires "application of specialized knowledge"; 7 (2) the Technologist requires a creative "planning, design, set-up and testing" function, over and beyond similar but perhaps more mundane maintenance, set-up, demonstration, distribution functions of the Technician; and (3) the Technologists demonstrate "the principles and theories of a specialty". Applying these differences to the evidence before me, I hold that the position is properly classified Technician C. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons: (1) Ail of the service aspects of the position (50% of the time according to the Grievor; 70% of the time according to his supervisor) are squarely within the Technician job family description. (2) The production aspects (50% according to the Grievor; 30% according to his supervisor) do not, in my view, require the application of specialized knowledge. They do require the Grievor to stay abreast of technological innovation in audio/visual processes but I cannot consider that, in isolation, to be "specialized knowledge". Staying abreast of current technology is now a given in almost every job in the workplace, whether at a community college or elsewhere. 8 (3) While I accept the Grievor's evidence that there is some "planning and design" in advising faculty on what kind of audio visual resource will best enhance the students' learning, it is the professor who supplies the content; the Grievor is a resource person whose expertise relates to the delivery of the product. This is not to denigrate what the Grievor does; it is to say that the "planning" and "design" functions lack that element of substantive (rather than process) creativity which I would consider integral to the Technologist classification. (4) Even in the Grievor's own evidence, and in his own description of his position, I heard nothing that would convince me that the position entails "principles and theories of specialty". (5) Finally, I was impressed by Ms. Webster's evidence. She has supervised the position since 1983. She gave her evidence in a candid and fair manner. She unhesitatingly characterized the position as "Technician" rather than Technologist. Allowing for the inevitable overlap in some job functions between Technicians and Technologists, and applying the "best fit" principle of classification, I am satisfied that the position is correctly classified as Technician C. 9 (6) Complexity The College has rated this factor Level 5: "Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods". The Union has rated this factor Level 6: "Job duties require the investigation and resolution of a variety of unusual conditions involving the adaptation and/or development of specialized processes and methods". The key differences here are: (1) complex and relatively unusual tasks versus investigation and resolution of a variety of unusual conditions; and (2) involving specialized methods versus adaptation and development of specialized methods. I am satisfied that Complexity is corrected rated at Level 5. I asked the Grievor to give me an example of an "unusual task". He offered the example of videotaping an autopsy on a dead animal for the Fish and Wildlife program. But the videotaping was routine; what was "unusual" was what was being videotaped. As the Grievor expressed it: "The challenge was to keep my lunch down". There was nothing to suggest "investigation and resolution of a variety of unusual conditions". And the Grievor could not give 10 an example of a case where he would "adapt and/or develop" specialized procedures or methods. In her closing submission, Ms. Tyler-Walsh contended that the College had already "generously recognized" Complexity by rating it at Level 5 (i.e. beyond the benchmark for Technician C) and I agree with that. (7) Responsibility for Decisions/Actions The College has rated this factor at Level 3: "moderate impact on the organization; errors usually detected by verification and review; some disruption of workflow or limited waste of resources". The Union has rated this factor at Level 4: "considerable impact on the organization; errors not detected until after the fact; considerable interruption and delay in workflow and waste of resources". On the Grievor's own evidence, the College's rating of this factor is also correct. The Grievor testified that errors would be detected either by the faculty member involved or by other members of the production team; such errors would occasion reshooting some video, or replacing a piece of malfunctioning equipment, but would 11 involve a limited waste of resources and only minimal disruption in workflow. (8) Rating The correct rating for this position I find to be: Technician C Level Points Training/Technical Skills 5 91 Experience 3 32 Complexity 5 74 Judgement 5 84 Motor Skills 3 25 Physical Demand 2 16 Sensory Demand 4 39 Strain 4 39 Independent Action 4 46 Communications/Contacts 3 88 Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 3 44 Work Environment 2 32 Level 9 610 Points Accordingly the grievance of Mr. Ray Foster (Exhibit 1) is dismissed. 12 Dated at the City of London this/~ day of ~ , 1995. /Pro~essor Ian A. Hunter .Arbitrator