Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCaron et al 90-11-22 90B988-993 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CAAT S Local 557 GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY ("the College") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF GRIEVANCES OF C. CARON, G. EVANS, D. McGIMPSEY, C. DROZDOWSKI and J. FOX SOLE ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate APPEARANCES For the College: Regina Park, Classification Manager John Hardy, Associate Director, Educational Resources For the Union: Cameron Walker, Grievance Officer Samuel Reid, President, Local 557 HEARING: In Toronto on November 8, 1990 AWARD The grievors are employed in the library at the College's St. James campus. In February of 1989, when they filed their grievances, they were five of the six employees at the library classified as a Library Technician A. As such they were paid in accordance with payband 7 under the 3ob evaluation system adopted by the parties. In their grievances, each of the grievors contended that he or she should be classified as a Library Technician 8 and paid in accordance with payband 9. Following the filing of the grievances the College acknowledged that the g'rievors had been wrongly classified, It then reclassified them as Atypical Library Technicians with salaries at the payband 8 level. The grievors continued to assert that they should be classified as Library Technicians B. The dispute was referred to arbitration pursuant to the expedited arbitration process set out in Article 18.4.3 of the collective agreement. The College's decision to reclassify the grievors' positions narrowed the areas of dispute between the parties. Their remaining disagreement relates to the proper rating of the grievors' positions with respect to the complexity portion of the job difficulty matrix, The College gave their positions a 0 'rating. The Union contends that a D rating would be more appropriate. A D rating would be sufficient to bring the grievor$' jobs within payband 9. The criteria for a O and a D rating are as follows: C Work involves the performance of various complex tasks that include both routine and non-routine aspects requiring different and unrelated processes and methods. D Work involves the performance of varied, non-routine complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated processes and methods. It will be noted that the criteria for the two ratings overlap to some extent. Both require the performance of complex tasks. Both also require that an employee be engaged in non-routine activities requiring the use of different and unrelated processes and methods. The major difference relates to the extent of such non-routine activities. The criteria for a O rating provides that the tasks performed by an employee are to have both routine and non-routine aspects. The criteria for a D rating, however, refers only to non-routine tasks. At the hearing Mr. Walker for the Union contended that every job has routine duties and that the routine duties performed by the grievors were not sufficient to disentitle them to a D rating. It is probably true'that all jobs have some routine aspects. A comparison of the criteria for a C and a D rating, however, suggests that to qualify for a D rating a job must be primarily non-routine in nature. Two position description forms were utilized in'these proceedings. Both were developed by the College subsequent to the filing of the grievances. One of the forms relates to the position occupied by a grievor who works in a film library. The other relates to the positions occupied by the grievors who work in the main library. The Union acknowledges that the two forms substantially reflect the jobs performed by the grievors at the time they filed their grievances, At the hearing Mr. Douglas NcGimpsey gave evidence on behalf of the grievors. Hr. NcGimpsey is one of the four grievors who work in the main library. One of the two employees classified as a Library Technician B also works in the main library. The remaining grievor, Ms C. Caron, works in the film library along with the other individual classified as a Library Technician B. There is also a campus librarian who is a professional librarian. Mr. McGimpsey testified that in his view the grievors generally perform the same duties as the two employees who are classified as Library Technician B's, the only exceptions being tasks for which the Technician B's are paid a separate lead hand premium. A similar statement is contained in the Union's written brief. The comparison of a grievor's duties with those of a person in the classification being claimed, sometimes referred to as the "usage test", has generally been accepted as one approach to assessing whether or not a person has been properly classified. It is not, however, an approach contemplated by the expedited arbitration procedure outlined in Article 18.4.3 of the collective agreement. That procedure is instead limited to assessing whether or not an employee has been properly classified in accordance with the job classification system referred to in the agreement. At the conclusion of the hearing Ms Park on behalf of the College contended that the grievors had been performing certain tasks which had not been required of them. I gather from this that in her view the tasks in question should not be regarded as part of the grievors' job functions. I do not agree. The tasks performed by the grievors were done openly and presumably with the knowledge of the campus librarian. No one told them to stop performing them. It would be inequitable to allow the College to take advantage of the full range of tasks performed by the grievors and then to contend that certain of these tasks were not part of their job functions. The evidence indicates that some of the tasks performed by the grievors have changed since they filed their grievances. Below I have addressed only the situation as it existed at the time the grievances were filed. Mr. McGimpsey testified that the grievors who worked in the main library spent between 33 and 50 percent of their time at the circulation desk. When at the desk their main function was to check books in and out. The College utilized an automated circulation system. When checking a book out a grievor would scan a bar code on the book as well as a student or faculty library card. According to Mr. McGimpsey, library cards were made up ahead of time for about half of the students. When one of the other students requested a card, a grievor working at the circulation desk would handle the matter. He or she would enter the student's name along with a number into the automated circulation system and then type and laminate a library card. · Reserve books were kept at the circulation desk. A student who wanted to refer to such a book would be asked by a grievor to leave his or her library card at the desk. The student would then be restricted to looking at the book in the library. At times a student would ask for a book located at another campus of the College. A grievor would have the student fill in a form and then telephone the other campus to arrange for the book to be forwarded. The student would be told to check for a notice on a reserve board indicating that the book had arrived. Grievors assigned to the circulation desk would be responsible for handling reference inquiries. Mr. McGimpsey testified that in some cases a student might indicate that he/she was looking for a particular book or works by a specific author while in other cases an inquiry might be quite in-depth. He testified that generally a grievor would assist the student and direct him or her to the appropriate information. If required, the grievor would utilize a book which sets out the Library of Congress headings for various topics. Hr. HcGimpsey indicated that about the only time one of the grievors would be unable to help a student was if he or she was busy at the circulation desk. In such a situation the student would be referred to another member of the library staff, who might be one of the other grievors. Hr. HcGimpsey was asked if he had ever referred a -reference inquiry to the librarian because he had'been unable to help the student. He responded that this must have happened although he had no recollection of it. Hr. John Hardy, the College's Associate Director for Educational Resources, was called as a witness by the College. Hr. Hardy had responsibility not only for the library on the St, James campus but for the libraries at the College's other campuses as well. He was also responsible for the College's audiovisual services, archives and records management policy. Mr. Hardy indicated that he usually attended at the St. James campus library about once a week. He testified that while he did not know the frequency with which it occurred, he did know that the grievors referred reference inquiries to the campus librarian. Given Hr. Hardy's limited involvement with the St. James campus library, his evidence does not detract from Hr. HcGimpsey's evidence which suggests that it was rare for the grievors to refer reference questions to the librarian because they could not handle an inquiry. When they worked on the circulation desk the grievors were responsible for collecting late return fines and then clearing a reference to the fine from the circulation system. At the end of each term they reviewed all the fines owing and if a student owed more than $5.00, or had any material outstanding, they would report this to student services. At times the grievors received complaints from students who contended that they had been fined even though they had returned a book on time. These complaints were generally resolved by a grievor reviewing with the student the date the book was due and when it Was actually returned. Generally, the student would acknowledge that the book had, in fact, been returned late. On occasion the review would indicate that the student had returned the book on time. If the matter could not be resolved, the student would be asked to fill in a form setting out his/her view of the situation. This form was forwarded to the librarian, at times with a recommendation from a grievor. The librarian then made a determination as to the student's liability for the fine. Mr. Hardy testified that it was his expectation that the reduction or elimination of large student fines would be done by the campus librarian. It was Mr. McGimpsey's evidence, however, that.he could reduce a fine on his own initiative. He noted that if a student had a $100.00 fine and was apologetic, he might decide to reduce the amount owing. Employees on the circulation desk compiled two sets of statistics. One was a list of magazines which had circulated during the course of a week. The second was the number of people in the library each day at 8:00 and 10:00 a.m., as well as at 1:00, 4:00, 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. This information was obtained by reading a counter and then deducting the previous reading. The grievors were not responsible for analyzing the results obtained. This was done by Mr. Hardy. All books and magazines kept in the library had a magnetic strip. When a book was signed out a grievor working on the circulation desk would desensitize it. If someone tried to remove material from the library which had not been desensitized, it would set off an alarm and the exit gate would briefly lock. The alarm might also be set off by metal or a new book owned by a student. When the alarm went off a grievor would ask the student if he/she was removing any library material. According to Mr. McGimpsey, a student would generally acknowledge removing library material and say that he or she had forgotten to check it out. The grievor would then ask the student to fill in a report form. The grievor was not responsible for deciding whether any further action would be taken with respect to the student. According to Mr. McGimpsey, if he felt a student had in fact made an error, he would not ask the student to fill in a form. l0 At times a grievor working on the Circulation desk would discover that a student had vandalized library material. This often involved removing the spine of a book in an attempt to get rid of the magnetic strip, or taking pages out of a book or magazine. According to Mr. McGimpsey, when confronted by a grievor the student would generally admit what he or she had done. The grievor would ask to see the student's library card and record the student's name. Mr. McGimpsey indicated that if difficulties were encountered with a student, the' matter might be referred to the campus librarian. Mr. McGimpsey referred to one incident where a student who had destroyed a number of graphic arts magazines had contended that he had no identification on him. Because neither the librarian nor a technician B were present, Mr. McGimpsey called the campus manager to deal with the situation. In addition to working at the circulation desk, the grievors had responsibility for maintaining the library's vertical file. The file consisted of newspaper clippings, pamphlets, brochures and short government documents relating to courses offered at the campus. Mr. McGimpsey testified that the grievors would decide what to put in the file, what new subject headings should be added and which current headings should be deleted. Mr. Hardy testified that changes of subject headings for the vertical file might or might not involve a reference to the librarian. On the basis of Mr. McGimpsey's evidence, however, I am satisfied that at the St. James campus the practice was for changes to be made to subject headings without any reference to the librarian. 11 In September and October of each year the grievors took turns conducting student orientation tours of the library. There were also a number of tours in January as a result of a new intake of students. The grievors showed the students around the library and demonstrated how to use the catalogue (which was on microfiche), the vertical fi]e, the periodical index and the circulation system. If those taking the tour were graphic arts students they would also be shown a picture file. Nursing students wou]d be shown a nursing periodical index. About once a year the College librarian assigned the grievors to perform an inventory of the library using a computer print out of what should be there. The grievors ensured that each item was accounted for and that it matched the description on the print out. Any discrepancies, such as a wrong number on a book or a book that should have been returned to another campus, were taken to the office for correction. If during the inventory one of the grievors concluded that there were too many copies of a particular book, he or she would so advise the librarian. The librarian would then decide whether or not to remove any of the copies. This can be contrasted to the situation with respect to the vertical file. If a grievor were to decide that because of its state of repair or because it was no longer of any use an item should be removed, he or she could proceed to remove it. 12 At times the grievors would show students how to operate a microfiche reader, a microfilm reader, a VCR and a slide carousel. A student might also have to be shown how to operate one of the two coin-operated photocopy machines located in the library. Once a day one of the grievors working at the circulation desk would empty the coin boxes on the photocopy machines. The grievors were also responsible for dealing with minor problems with the photocopy machines, such as paper jams or a shortage of paper. According to Mr. McGimpsey, if a problem developed which a grievor could not fix, and neither the librarian nor a technician B was about, then one of the grievors would telephone for a service technician. A list was kept in the library of supplies which needed to be ordered. According to Mr. McGimpsey, if one of the grievors felt that an item, such as date due labels, binders, paper clips, pads or book pockets was running low, he or she could add it to the list. On occasion the grievors would repair books and journals using tape, glue or staples. Books and periodicals that required binding would be sent out to a bindery. One of the grievors would complete a slip noting what colour the binding should be and what should be written on the spine. 13 The library maintained a supply of blank order forms which could be used by staff, students and faculty for recommending books that the library might purchase. The actual purchase decision was made by the librarian, who was restrained by budgetary considerations. The grievors often used the forms to recommend the purchase of particular books. Their recommendations were based, in part, on what books had been requested when they were working at the circulation desk. Hr. McGimpsey testified that most of the books he recommended had in fact been purchased. He added that when a student recommended that a particular book be purchased, he would usually pass it on to the librarian with a verbal comment as to whether or not he felt the book was actually required. Hr. Hardy testified that in addition to the grievors' views, the librarian also took into account the opinions of faculty and outside accreditation agencies as to what should be in the library. Once the librarian decided to order a particular book, either one of the grievors or a Library Technician B would type up the order form. Mr. McGimpsey gave a lengthy list of recommendations which had been made by the grievors relating to the operation of the 'library and which had been adopted. There was no formal procedure for making recommendations. Rather, the grievors either raised them at staff meetings or in discussions with the librarian. The recommendations included the posting of step by step guides on how to operate the photocopy machines and how to obtain a library card. Also adopted were recommendations to move reserve items to a more secure location and to move the vertical file closer to the circulation desk and a photocopy machine. One grievor recommended that a complete list be compiled of the periodicals held in the library. When the recommendation was adopted this grievor decided which subject headings would be used. One grievor recommended that paper back books no longer be kept by subject headings but instead be maintained by author. When this recommendation was accepted grievor$ made up new cards for the books, redid the book spines and then refiled the books into the new order. One of the grievors recommended that the circulation desk close 15 minutes prior to when the library closed for the evening. The grievor who works in the film library recommended that a new film catalogue be developed. In consultation with the technician B who works in the film library, whenever she had the time she compiled the necessary information and cataloged films. If information was not otherwise available, she would obtain it by watching a film's credits. She also previewed films so as to enable her to make recommendations as to what films might be purchased. When a student wanted to view a film, the grievor who worked in the film library would fill in a slip listing the student's name as well as the details of the film. She would then put the film on a projector. After the film was over she would rewind it and then using an inspection machine inspect it for possible damage. The position description form relevant to this employee 15 makes reference to her maintaining microcomputer equipment and assisting patrons with the use of both hardware and associated software. Hr. HcGimpsey noted, however, that this had been included on the form in anticipation that she might perform these duties in the future. The grievors worked from either 8:00a.m.to 4:00 p.m. or from 1:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The two employees who were classified as a Library Technician B varied between the two shifts. The librarian always worked from 8:00 a.m, to 4:00 p.m. In the result, there were times when only the grievors and perhaps some part-time student help were working in the library. Accordingly, at times one of the grievors might be called upon to demonstrate a particular procedure to a new staff member, The grievors' jobs clearly involved both routine and non-routine aspects. As indicated above, the issue in this case -is whether their jobs were primarily non-routine in nature, Deciding what material should be placed in the vertical file as well as adding and deleting subject headings were clearly non-routine functions. The cataloging of films was also non-routine as was demonstrating a particular procedure to a new staff member. Recommending books and films to be purchased as well as changes in the manner of doing things were also non-routine. 16 Certain other functions performed by the grievors were generally routine in nature but could at times become non-routine. Examples of this included the handling of late return fines. Collecting fines and clearing the names of the students involved were very routine functions. Also routine was the handling of student complaints relating to fines. It will be recalled that if the matter could not be resolved by a review of the relevant dates, the student would be asked to fill out a form which was given to the librarian. What was non-routine, however, was the exercise of a discretion to reduce a fine. Most reference requests appear to have been of a routine nature, such as how to find a particular book or books by a certain author. Detailed and complicated inquiry requests, however, would have been non-routine. The handling of students who tried to go through the alarm system with books that had not been checked out was also generally routine, as was the process to be followed when a student was found to have damaged'library property. An unusual response from a student, however, would quickly turn the situation into a non-routine one. It appears that although in most cases a grievor could refer such a situation to the librarian or a Library Technician B, this was not always possible. It will be recalled that on one such occasion Mr. McGimpsey called upon the campus manager to deal with the matter. l? Some of the functions performed by the grievors were clearly routine in nature. These included checking books in and out at the circulation desk, following the procedure for allowing a student to view a film, the preparation of library cards and the ordering of books from other campuses. The collection of data was very routine as was the listing of supply items which were running low. Both the conducting of orientation tours and demonstrating the use of various pieces of equipment were routine, as was the collection of money from the photocoping machines and telephoning for a service technician. Having reviewed the evidence, I am, on balance, led to conclude that the grievors' jobs did not primarily involve tasks that were non-routine in nature. Rather, their jobs could more accurately be described as involving the performance of various complex tasks that included both routine and non-routine aspects. As noted above, this description is covered by the criteria for a C rating on the complexity portion of the job difficulty matrix. In the result, I find that the College properly re-classified the grievors as Atypical Library Technicians within payband 8. In that each of the grievors originally complained about being classified as a Library Technician A within payband 7, however, their grievances technically succeed. I will retain jurisdiction to entertain any outstanding issues related to the grievances. 18 Dated at Toronto this 22nd day of November, 1990. Arbitrator · ,ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATIONS AND PAYBAND ~ SUPERVISOR '-~0; POSITION DESCRIPTION FORM: 1. Pos~tion'Description Form Attached . 2. ~ Parties agree on Contents of' attached Position Description Form O_BR ~ Union disagrees with contents of attached Position Description Form SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THIS DISAGREEMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS: ([]SE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY) · AWARD Management Union Arbitrator ELEMENTS Rating Pts. Rating Pts. Rating I Pts. GUID~CE RECEIVED ~ .'/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ ~CHED ~RX~E~ SUBMXSSEO~S~ S XGN~URES ~ FOR THE UNION .. FOR ~NAGEMENT (Union Rep.) (Date) ARBIT~TOR'S USE: ~'/, ~ /YYO ~P~ ~2, /fPO Hearing Date Award Date