HomeMy WebLinkAboutBloom et al 91-09-20· Original
91C729 - 740 (Bloom et al)
IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE~.EMpLOYEES~UNION
(hereinafter. called the Union)
- and -
G__EORGE BROWN COLLEGE
(hereinafter called the College)
- and -
L. HAYASHIDA. D. MOS$~. D,:NAS'SiVERA, M. NUDLER. C. PARSONAGE.
D_~_..PITRE, R,'.ROssI
(hereinafter'~alled the Grievors)
SOLE ARBITRATOR
PROFESSOR IAN A. HUNTER
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE UNION: Mr. CamerOn Walker, Grievance Officer
Mr. D. NasSivera, Grievor
FOR THE COMPANY: .: Ms. Regina Park, ·Manager, Classifications
~ro .Dan 'Cushing, Acting Dean, Business
and Industry Training
AN EXPEDITED ARBITRATION' HEARING WAS HELD IN TORONTO, ONTARIO
ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1991
1
AWARD
(a) Introduction
There are twelve grievances before me. The Grievors are all
Training Consultants in the Ontario Skills Development Office which
falls under the authority of the BuSiness and industry Training
Division of George Brown College. All Grievors are currently
classified as Support Service Officers A, Payband 13. The
grievances are dated March 5, 1991. The parties agreed that Mr.
Dino Nassivera would give evidence as a "representative" Grievor.
The parties further agreed that this Award would be dispositive of
all twelve grievances.
(b) The P.D.F.
The parties are agreed on the contents of the P.D.F..
(¢) Job Factors Agreed
The Arbitration Data Sheet, as amended on the date of
arbitration, disclosed agreement between the College and the Union
on most job factors:
Guidance Received E5 - 200 points
Communications E4 - 150 points
Knowledge/Training & Experience E6 - 131 points
Knowledge/Skill B6 - 75 points
Working Conditions: Manual A5 - 3 points
Working Conditions: Visual A5 - 3 points
(d) Job Factors In Dispute
College Union
Job Factor Evaluation Evaluation
Job Difficulty F6 u 275 points F7 - 300 points
Working Conditions:
Environmental A5 - 3 points C4 - 18 points
(e) Overview of Position
The position in question is Training Consultant in the Ontario
Skills Development office. The incumbents are located at an off-
campus site (184 Front Street East)°
The primary purpose of a Training Consultant is to implement
the training program mandated by the Ontario Ministry of Skills
Development. The specific responsibility of the Training
Consultant is "to encourage and develop a training culture in the
business and industrial community of the City of Toronto". The
Ontario Skills Development office at George Brown College services
approximately 1,500 clients annually, and each Training Consultant
carries a client load of approximately eighty to one hundred.
Central to understanding the position of Training Consultant
is the concept of "a training culture"; not by accident it is
referred to in the first sentence of the P.D.F.. A "training
culture" means more than simply providing clients with access to
3
training. It means (a) convincing clients that training is not a
stop-gap solution to a business problem, but rather should be an
integral, ongoing component of the business; and (b) making an
accurate assessment of the client's training needs, if any (and
these may be quite different from what the client thinks they are);
and (c) precisely matching the defined need to a
trainer/consultant who is capable of fulfilling that need.
Training Consultants serve a diverse client group from small
owner-operated businesses (sometimes located in the home) to large
public employers (eg. Hospital for Sick Children, some municipal
government boards, social service agencies, etc.), and private
employers; there are no restrictions by the size or activity (so
long as the Company is registered in Ontario) on which employers
may call on the Training Consultant's services. The Branch engages
in some marketing of its services (eg. brochures, telemarketing),
but most work comes from referrals or by word of mouth.
In servicing clients, the Training Consultant first conducts
a "needs analysis". This involves an on-site visit to the Company
to determine what the Company's training needs are. A
Questionnaire and application will be completed (usually by the
Company, although in cases of small companies or where language
barriers may exist, the questionnaire and Application may be
completed by the Training Consultant). In approximately ten to
fifteen percent of clients, Mr. Nassivera testified that the
4
questionnaire will be inadequate and he will develop a new
questionnaire tailored for that specific client. Sometimes several
on-site visits will be made to the client. Armed with the needs
analysis, the Training Consultant will prepare a training plan.
Two training plans (Exhibits 7A and 7B) were filed by the College;
however, I am not persuaded that either of these can properly be
regarded as "typical" training plans. Indeed, I accept Mr.
Nassivera's evidence that, while there are common headings or
formats (eg. situational Analysis, Job Profile, Workplace
Objectives, etc.), there is no such thing as a "typical" training
plan. The clients are too diverse and their training needs vary
too greatly for there to be a "typical" training plan.
Once the training plan has been developed, validated and
approved, the Training Consultant will research the "bank" of third
party trainers/consultants which the branch maintains. Each
trainer/consultant must give a presentation to the branch to be
included in the "bank". The Training Consultant will try to match
the client's needs to the trainer/consultant's skills and will
recommend not less than three (only one of whom may be a George
Brown College employee) trainers/consultants to the client. The
client makes the final choice of which trainer/consultant, if any,
to use and negotiates fees directly with the trainer/consultant.
If the training is to be provided by an employee of the client
company, the Training Consultant attends and evaluates all training
sessions. If the training is provided by one of the "outside"
5
trainers/consultants recommended by the Training Consultant, the
Training Consultant tries to attend and evaluate fifty percent of
the training sessions. When the training has been completed, the
Training Consultant assists the client to prepare a follow-up
written assessment. The form in use at the date of the grievance
was not filed at the arbitration hearing, but a form subsequently
developed was filed (Training Place Development Guide, Exhibit 9).
The Training Consultants have prepared forms which are used in
discharge of their duties (with the exception, of course, of the
Ministry Operating Guidelines, Exhibits 1 and 2). They determine,
collectively through a Marketing Strategy Committee, how they will
market their services. Within broad governmental guidelines they
determine "target" industries (eg. hospitality; export-import;
small manufacturing). They operate with a very high degree of
independence from both the Ministry and the College, and they
market training in an environment in constant change due to
changing economic trends and the introduction of new technology.
(f) Job Family
The parties are agreed that the Training Consultants properly
fall in the "support Services Officer" job family. That is, the
positions involve" functional/project oriented" work rather than
"task oriented", and the positions involve "conceptualizing,
facilitating and project managing".
6
The College contends that the Training Consultant's duties and
responsibilities are adequately embraced by Support Service Officer
D.
I reject this submission. The "typical duties" of a Support
Services Officer D are:
(1) "Identifying requirements of outside groups
for college services... "', the Training
Consultant refers no more than one College
training/consultant to the client.
(2) Markets college capabilities; same point.
(3) Develops detailed training programs...; the
Training Consultant does this but only after
first having developed a detailed "needs
analysis" for the client;
(4) Acts as a public relations resource when
representing College. This duty does apply to
Training Consultants.
I agree with Mr. Walker that the duties of a Training
Consultant embrace those of a Support Services Officer D, but go
considerably beyond them. Accordingly I conclude that Training
Consultants are Support Service Officers, Atypical.
I turn now to the core points rating of the specific job
factors in dispute.
7
(g) Core Point Rating
(1) Job Difficulty
The College has rated this factor F6. The Union submits that
the correct rating is F7.
It will be noted that the parties agree on Complexity: "Work
involves investigating and resolving a variety of unusual
conditions. Problem-solving requires adopting analytical technique
and development of new information on the problem condition".
The parties disagree on Judgment.
The College evaluates Judgment: "Duties performed require a
high degree of judgment. Problem-solving requires adopting
analytical techniques and development of new information on various
solutions and problems."
The Union evaluates Judgment: "Duties performed require a
very high degree of judgment. Problem-solving requires originating
new techniques and utilizing them in the development of new
information".
From these definitions, which I am required to accept and
apply, two crucial distinctions emerge.
8
(1) Does the performance of the duties of a Training
Consultant require "high" or "very high" degree of judgment?
Obviously, these are not mathematically precise indicia, and
any answer must, perforce, be subjective. On the evidence of both
Mr. Nassivera and Mr. Cushing, I have concluded that a "very high"
degree of judgment is required in "needs analysis". Since that is
the essential first step of the Training Consultant's duties I have
concluded that "very high" is the "best fit" definition.
(2) Does the Training Consultant simply "adopt" analytical
techniques in problem-solving or does he/she "originate and
utilize" new techniques?
From the evidence before me, I have concluded that the
Training Consultant "originates and utilizes" new techniques in two
significant areas: (a) needs analysis, and (b) researching
industry trends. Mr. Cushing, who has been the Acting Dean,
Business and Industry Training for one and a half years and was the
College's witness, did not dispute the substance of Mr. Nassivera's
evidence but only offered different "shades of emphasis". It was
Mr. Nassivera's evidence that Training Consultants do originate new
techniques and utilize these techniques to develop new information.
I accept that evidence.
9
Mr. Cushing testified that needs analysis, to be properly
done, requires that clients quickly accept the credibility of the
Training Consultant. That means that the Training Consultant must
be cognizant of industry trends, recurrent industry problems, new
technologies, etc.. In my view that requires a very high degree of
comprehension and judgment.
If the Training Consultant simply provided training modules to
suit employer-identified needs, then I would agree with the
College's classification. As the evidence made clear, Training
Consultants do much more than this; the "needs analysis" component
of their duties in my view tips the balance in favour of the
Union's classification.
Accordingly, I conclude that Job Difficulty is properly to be
rated F7.
(2) Working Conditions: Environment
The Manual states that this factor measures "disagreeable and
unpleasant working conditions" and the frequency of exposure to
such conditions. It measures also potentially hazardous working
conditions such as "heat, cold, dirt and excessive noise".
10
The College has rated this factor A5 - Generally Agreeable
Working Conditions (office environment), continuous (i.e. more than
sixty percent of the time).
The Union submits classification at C4 - Disagreeable Working
Conditions - thirty-one to sixty percent of time.
On the evidence before me, both of these classifications are
clearly incorrect.
It was Mr. Nassivera's evidence, concurred in by Mr. Cushing,
that Training Consultants spend approximately twenty-five percent
of their time at head office (184 Front Street East), approximately
twenty percent of their time driving (or going by public
transportation) to and from clients, and the remainder on site with
clients. Some clients (eg. construction) may be rough, noisy or
dusty sites; other clients (eg. service or manufacturing) may be
a normal office environment.
I reject the Union's argument that any of these activities
renders the working conditions "disagreeable". However, I also
reject the College's classification which ignores the fact that
approximately seventy-five percent of the Training Consultant's
working day may be spent outside the normal office environment.
11
On the evidence before me the correct classification is B3 -
slightly disagreeable working conditions, ten to thirty percent of
the time.
The Training Consultants at George Brown College should be
classified as Support Services Officers, Atypical and core point
rated as follows:
Job Difficulty F7 - 300 points
Guidance Received E5 - 200 points
Communications E4 - 150 points
Knowledge/Training & Experience E6 - 131 points
Knowledge/Skill B6 - 75 points
Working Conditions: Manual A5 - 3 points
Working Conditions: Visual A5 - 3 points
Working Conditions: Environmental B3 - 7 points
TOTAL 869 points
To the extent indicated herein, the grievances are allowed.
Dated at the City of London this~6~day of~/~7~~ , 1991.
fessor Ian A. Hunter
Sole Arbitrator