Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNisbett 96-02-12IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION PROCEEDING UNDER ARTICLE 18.4.3.4 OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN: ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE FORM OF SIR SANFORD FLEMING COLLEGE (hereinafter called the "College") ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (FOR SUPPORT STAFF EMPLOYEES) (hereinafter called the "Union") GRIEVANCE OF JUDY NISBETT OPSEU FILE NO. 95G071 (hereinafter called the "Grievor") EXPEDITED ARBITRATOR: Richard H. McLaren, C. Arb. APPEARING FOR THE COLLEGE: Brenda Tyler-Walsh Paul Rochetta, Registrar APPEARING FOR THE UNION: Judy Nisbett Marilyn Hinds, Steward A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT PETERBOROUGH ONTARIO, ON FEBRUARY 6, 1996. AWARD Ms. Judy Nisbett is classified as a Support Services Officer A, at payband 8. The position involves providing administrative and secretarial support to the Registrar and three reporting Associate Registrars. The Grievor reports directly to the Registrar. In its submissions to the Arbitrator the Union advised that it no longer wished to dispute the judgement factor. The only factors in dispute are the Physical and Sensory Demands and the Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines. In conjunction with that issue the Union alleges that the percentage of time in sections 7.2 & 8.2 of the Position Description Form {PDF} do not accurately reflect the actual times spent. In these isolated aspects the PDF is in dispute and must be resolved along with the balance of the grievance. Otherwise the parties have agreed on the PDF. This mater was discussed at the hearing. It was agreed by both the supervisor and the incumbent that this area of the PDF form is not capable of allocation of percentages in anything but the broadest guideline and can not be quantified. With this understanding the PDF was agreed to by the parties. The Grievor has been employed by the College for 19 years and in her current position in the Registrar's Office since its inception 6 or 7 years ago. Ms. Nisbett represented herself. She seeks an evaluation of her position claiming it ought to be reclassified as a Support Services Officer B from its current A classification. The payband would move from 8 to 9 if there were such a reclassification. -2- The Arbitration Data Sheet for the support staff classification filed with the Arbitrator by the parties and revised by them at the hearing set out their respective positions. The corrected table is reproduced below: FACTORS MANAGEMENT UNION Level Points Level Points 1. Training/Technical Skills 5 91 5 91 2. Experience 4 45 4 45 3. Complexity 4 58 4 58 4. Judgement 4 66 4 66 5. Motor Skills C4 28 C4 28 6. Physical Demand 1 5 2 16 7. Sensory Demand 3 28 4 39 8. Strain from Work 3 28 4 39 Pressures/Demands/Deadlines 9. Independent Action 4 46 4 46 10. Communications/Contacts 3 88 3 88 11. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 4 62 4 62 12. Work Environment 1 10 1 10 PAYBAND/TOTAL POINTS 8 550 9 606 Reproduction JOB CLASSIFICATION Support Services Operator A The parties agree on all but three of the twelve job factors. This narrow disagreement is the result of the process the parties used. It took up to the hearing to finally settle on the above agreed upon factors. 3 The PDF reveals that the core duties of the job comprise participating as a member of the creative team developing College publications and in particular the post secondary Calendar. This activity comprises 25% of the time. Another 35% involves assisting the Registrar by advising and interacting with reporting managers and the College community on a day-to-day basis resolving inquiries and acting on them. These core duties together comprise 65 % of the person's time. CLASSIFICATION/POINT SYSTEM/CORE POINT RATING PLAN FACTORS 1. FACTOR 6: PHYSICAL DEMAND - COLLEGE LEVEL 1, UNION LEVEL 2 The Grievor asserts that the physical demand factor ought to be at Level 2. The description for that level is: 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. The College submits that Level 1 is appropriate, that description reads: Job duties require little or no physical demand. Employee has high degree of flexibility of movement with no requirement for speed or repetition at this level. Employee may use occasional light physical effort. -4- The day after the Step One grievance meeting the College down graded this factor to Level 1. Nothing about the job had changed it was simply that the PDF could be viewed in the College's submission as supporting this level. For some time previously, if not always, the rating had been at Level 2. The Arbitrator finds this to be the appropriate level and so awards. 2. FACTOR 7: SENSORY DEMAND - COLLEGE LEVEL 3, UNION LEVEL 4 The Union asserts that the sensory demand factor ought to be at Level 4. The description for that level is: 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. The College submits that Level 3 is appropriate, that description reads: 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 metal 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. The difference between these levels is one of degree between the visual, auditory or sensory demands in the mental energy required to be expended by the person. The position 5 involves working with the data in a number of systems more than 50 % of the time. There is considerable attention to detail in producing and verifying the College Post Secondary Calendar and auditing the part-time Calendar as well as other publications. There is no question there is frequent attention to detail in this work and the inquiry work. The issue is the degree of sensory impact in that attention to detail. I find it is not as considerable or extensive as is required by Level 4. It is closest to the moderate range. For these reasons the rating of the College is confirmed at Level 3. 3. FACTOR 8: STRAIN from WORK PRESSURES/DEMANDS/DEADLINES COLLEGE LEVEL 3, UNION LEVEL 4 The Union asserts that the Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines factor ought to be at Level 4. The description for that level is: Job duties involve conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in workflow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and occasional critical deadlines. The College submits that Level 3 is appropriate, that description reads: Job duties involve moderate work pressures or demands. Interruptions, changing deadlines, multiple demands occur regularly but are usually predictable. Occasionally, critical deadlines may occur. Once again the difference in the levels is one of degree. Do the stresses and strains involve "moderate work pressures or demands" or "conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions"? -6- This job involves predictable deadlines together with other non-predictable ones. Interruptions are a continual feature of the position as the person to whom initial inquiries go. In the daily routine there are unpredictable shifts in the direction of the work associated with the inquiries. They also unpredictably impact on the deadlines for that day and the future. These are occasional critical deadlines. At least thirty-five per cent of the time the person is required to interact with all members of the College constituency including staff, professors, students, parents and others in dealing with their inquiries and resolving them or acting on them. It is the degree of unpredictability of the inquiries and what they may bring together with what is found out which needs to be changed or corrected in the audit of a publication which shifts the Level from 3 to 4. It is found that the Union rating better reflects the job at Level 4. CONCLUSION This case has presented difficulty in that the person who performs the job is clearly a very capable person with a very close rapport with the Registrar. He took over this position when it was created and she followed him into the support position. As the position has changed and evolved for her supervisor, so has her own position as a consequence. She has grown and developed with the position. It is a matter of a very close judgement as to the core point rating in this case. The parties agreed upon ratings has an important impact on the outcome of this case. The rating totals 577 which means the classification ought to be B. The parties are ordered to apply this classification to this position and to pay the Grievor within three weeks of the date of this Award the monies owed to her under the - 7 - retroactive provisions of the Collective Agreement with respect to this re-classification. The Arbitrator will remain seized of the matter of determining the compensation owing to the Grievor in the event that there is a dispute. Either party may request the Arbitrator to reconvene the hearing for the purposes of setting the retroactive compensation in the event that the parties are unable to agree. Either party may cause the hearing to be reconvened by a written notice to the Arbitrator, within 45 days of the date of this Award. The Arbitration data sheet for the classification as rated by me is attached to this Award. I want to thank the spokespersons for the excellent job they did in presenting their positions. The Grievor did an excellent job presenting her own case. I appreciated the thoughtful and courteous manner in which everyone carried out their roles in this proceeding. I congratulate everyone on doing an excellent job. DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1996. Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb. rh4 ARBITRATION DATA SHEET- SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION ~.ollege:~lR SfI~JD~O~D El, E/-(/~cumbent: ,,~tO¥ ~1~~ Supe~isor: resent Classification: ~UPPO~ ~vl~ O~FI~E~ ~ and Present Payband: Job Family and Payband Requested by Grievor: S~PPoA~ S~VIC~ OFFIc~K 1. Position Description Form A~ached 2. ~he parties agree on the contents of the a~ached Position Description Form OR ~ The Union disagrees with the contents of the a~ached Position Description Form. The specific details of this disagreement are as follows: (use reverse side if necessary) AWARD FACTORS MANAGEMENT UNION ARBITRATOR Level P~n~s Leve~ P~nt'$ Lev~ Po~ntz 1. Training~echnical Skills 5 ~/ ~ ~/ 2. Experience ~ ~ ~ eS' 3. Com~lexky ~ 5 ~ ~ 5 g '"4. Judgement ~ b~ ~ ~ ~ ~(~ 6. Physical Demand / 5 2 1~ ~. ]~ 7. Sensory Demand ~ ~8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines ~ ~¢ ,~ J 3~ ~ ~ 10. Communications/Contacts ~ ~ ~ J ~ 1 1. Resoonsibility for Decisions/Actions ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PAYBAND/TOTALPOINTS ( ~ j S55 ~ I ~0b ~ I ~7 JOB CLASSIFICATION j SSO~ 330~. ~ , A~ACHED WRI~EN SUBM~SSl0NS: ~The Union ~The College  .HE UNI0~ . , . FOR MANAGEMENT ~a~e) / ~College Representat~el (Oa~e)