Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutYoung 88-05-20 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, (the "Union"), - AND - GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE, (the "College"). AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF YVONNE YOUNG SOLE ARBITRATOR: Paula Knopf APPEARANCES: For the Union : Nick Luczay For the College: Ann Lillipold The hearing in this matter was held in Toronto on May 10, 1988 AWARD This is a classif[catioa grievance under the Ministry o~ Co.[i~g3s and Universities expedited arbitration proceedings. Th.~ case involv'~s the position of Y,gonne Young, th~ ~rievor. Consistent with th,~ concept of an "arbitrator driven hearing] ti~ Boa~-J aske] questions of Ms. ~oung and her supervisor, Michael Rant. Th~se were th3 only wi nnesses put forwa~-d Dy either party. 'i~he Arbitration Board also allow,3d r~pr~s.3~Lativcs of each pa~ty to question both witness,,~s and to make final submissions. Fortunately, there was lintl3 dispute about the evidence in tee case. The parties were working from an agreed-upon Position Description Form and di~fere~ in the ratings of only four aspects of the position. ]7ne evidence established the following facts about the position. Ms. Young works under the Director of Physical Resources and performs a wide variety o~ both s3cretarial and administranive functions. She is called upon to prepare a Board Property Committee Agenda every month. ?he preparation of this report involves gathering together and r~searching materials and writing reports upon the information she has r.~ceived as well as respondin§ to the individual needs within the deparunent requiring inclusion in the agenda. This aspect of her job is recognized as the single most complex and time--consuming task she has to perform and accounts for 20% of her time or approximately four to five days per month. Ms. Young is also required to field telephon.~ complaints and requests regarding tJ%e services within her department's control and "troubleshoot problems" to initiate correction by contacting the appropriate person or persons who can remedy the problem situation. - 2 - Another aspect of her job is the maintenance and monitoring of personnel records for part--time employees working within her department. This involves initiating personnel records, .ensuring that part-time staff receive their paycnqu.~s in a timely fashion an~ also ensuring that they do not exceed the pre-determined period of employment. Sh.s is also responsible for both preparing and monitoring budgets in two sections of the department to ensure that individuals are not overspending beyond the budgets. In the event that she discovers any potential overpayment, she is require~J to report this to her Director. Finally, the largest aspect of her job in terms of time alone (30%) is undertaking secretarial responsibility and correspondence for the Director as well as the Manager of Operations, the Engineering Services Manager and other staff. Finally, she has responsibility for telephone and radio communications for the maintenance staff. It should be noted that as part of her administrative duties, she both identifies and organizes materials for the Board Property Committ=.e Agenda. She undertakes research for the department into comparative costs of providing similar security at the College by contacting other colleges and outside agencies. She is also relied upon as being able to interpret leases and give information to people within the department as to the content and meaning of leases applying to them in the aosence of the Director. The dispute between the parties is over the complexity required of the position. The College would assign a C rating, whereas the Union is urging that a D rating is most appropriate. To support their cases, they both relied upon. the evidence given by Ms. Young and Mr. Rant regarding the complexity of the many tasks that Ms. Young is - 3 - called upon to perform. The evidence clearly establishes that the position involves many complex tasks that require different and unrelated processes and methods. For example, the position requires the incumbent to be able to work upon a microcomputer doing word processing, have ability to interpret and apply leases, have the ability to gather information and write reports and the ability to deal with people at every level of the College staff. However, the difference between a C and D rating is whether she performs "various complex tasks that include both routine and non-routine aspects" or "varied non-routine complex tasks" (emphasis added). There is no question in the Board's mind that although the grievor's position does have a requirement that she perform many complex tasks, there is an undeniable recurring pattern or "routine" in the nature of her job. On a weekly, monthly or yearly basis, she is called upon to perform a cycle of tasks which may individually be complex. But they do take upon themselves a routine aspect. A very large portion of her work is secretarial support and includes the "routine" tasks of typing, answering calls and providin.~ assistance to her superiors. Another example of "routine" is the requirement of the preparation of the monthly agenda. It is undoubtedly a difficult and complex task and it is recognized by both parties as the most .difficult and complex aspect of her job. However, it is done every month and involves the application of the same skills and abilities. It is unlike the type of job that would call upon a person to apply himself to varied and non-recurring or routine problems that arise anew as time passes. Indeed, the description in the complexity matrix under Secretary C 'seems to perfectly define the type of difficulty that the evidence supports. Further, a comparison of the Job Evaluation Guide Charts for the positions included under degrees C4 and D4 indicate greater consistency with the type of job of the incumbent under Category C4. The positions agreed upon under Category D4, such as Technician C or Computer Operator B, seem to involve the task of establishing programmes or procedures to deal with issues as they arise or developing or recommending new procedures. This is consistent with varied, non-routine ty~oe of work. In contrast, the grievor's work requires the ability to process complex material, but she does so on a recurring Dasis. Plus, there are many routine tasks in her work. Therefore, on the basis of the above, it is my conclusion that a C4 rating is the most appropriate rating on the job difficulty matrix for this position. T_~raining and_Experience The parties have agreed that the minimum amount of practical experience required to perform this job is a thorough training and two years' experience in the use of microcomputer and word processing equipment and up to five years of practical experience. They disagree as to whether there is the requirement of the completion of additional job-related training courses or the equivalent. Thus, the parties disagree over whether the job should be rated as 3 or 4 on the training matrix. The evidence of the Union is that specific training is required, especially for the use of the microcomputer. The position of the College is simply that they do not require any formal training because it would De expected that the person would gain the "computer literacy" in the five years of practical experience that is required in any event. The Board notes that the typical Secretary C is rated at a D4. The 'Board also notes that the Position Description Form also requires a "thorough training" in the use of the microcomputer and word processing equipment. The Board understands that the College believes that the degree of skill required would be gained within the five years of experience. However, it also seems clear that job-related training courses or the equivalent are actually being - 5 - expected or required in a position. The difference between the rating of 3 and 4 in the training component is the additional job-related training courses on top of the secondary school graduation or equivalent. The evidence points to the suggestion that this additional training is required. Therefore, it is my conclusion that the appropriate rating for the training and experience aspect of the joD is D4. Workin~ Conditions - Visual Strain The parties agree that the incumbent spends 50% of her time on the word processer 'VDT. The difference between the parties is the level of interruptions or the amount of concentrated time that Ms. Young is required to spend an the terminal. Ms. Young explained that at peak periods in the month when she is called upon to perform the agenda, she will have to spend a large number of hours per day on an uninterrdpted basis at the terminal. However, during the rest of the month she could spend more than two hours focusing on the screen at various times during the day. On the other hand, Mr. Rant s,~ggested that the telephone r~=sponsibilities of the grievor, as well as her many other duties, call upon her to be away from the computer terminal many times and to be interrupted in her work. Therefore, it was his testimony, based on observation, that Ms. Young would more than likely only be required to focus on the computer screen on a concentrated basis for up to one hour at a time on a routine day. Frankly, the Board had some difficulty in dealing with the conflicting evidence between Ms. Young and Mr. Rant. Both were highly credible witnesses and impressed the Board as attempting to be as forthright and accurate in their testimony as possible. With that in mind, it would seem that Ms. Young is far better able to judge this aspect of her job - 6 - than Mr. Rant and I see no reason for disbelieving her evidence. Therefore, I accept her evidence as accurate=. The result of that is that the appropriate rating for the visual strain element of the job would De C4. Working Conditions - Work Environment Element The Union put forward the argument that the working conditions were disagreeable and exposed Ms. Young to noise and potentially hazardous conditions as a result of her work with the VDrr's. Thus, the Union sought a C4 rating. On the other hand, the College argued that the position was placed in the typical office environment and thus warranted an A5 rating. The Position Description Form acknowledges that the grievor is subjected to the noise of the word processing machine and telephone lines 75% of her time as well as the noise of street traffic 80% of her time. I was asked to take judicial notice of the fact that there are hazards presented by exposure to the video display terminals. However, in this age of the controversy surrounding that area, the lack of expert evidence provided to me and the protections included by the parties in the collective agreement, I consider it inappropriate to make such a finding on the basis of judicial notice. On the basis of the evidence present~=d, I can see nothing that would suggest that the working conditions are anything other than one would expect in a modern office. There was nothing that could be objectively considered as "slightly disagreeable" or even "disagreeable" Therefore, I conclude that the A5 rating is appropriate. - 7 - Conclusion On the basis of the analysis above, the job now merits total number of 499 points. But this would retain the grievor in pay band 7. Hence, the grievance is denied. Addendum One other aspect of the case needs to be addressed. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Union sought to put before the Board evidence regarding an alleged or apparent settlement of this grievance which had occurred during the steps of the grievance procedure. I was told that an individual in management had informally indicated to a Union official that the grievance would succeed. The Union made it clear to me that it did not wish to take the position that a settlement had been achieved. Instead the Union sought to adduce such evidence in order to undermine the credibility of the College's position. The College objected to the presentation of the evidence on the basis that it had been raised in an untimely fashion and that it was not relevant. 'This Board of ArDitration ruled that the evidence was inadmissible and inappropriate for several reasons. First, it was indicated that if the Union wished to assert that a settlement had occurred, the appropriate time to do so would have been at the outset of the hearing rather than to wait until all the evidence had been adduced. But given that the Union was not asserting that a settlement had been achieved in a legal sense, the Board had to then deal with whether such evidence would be admissible or appropriate on the issue of~ credibility. In that regard, the Board indicated to both parties that it felt it absolutely crucial to the process that parties be aDle to change and modify their positions up to and including the dates of hearing. This is the only way that parties can attempt to settle their differences. It does not reflect on a party's credibility if positions change in a course of attempts to resolve questions prior to arbitration. I regarded the evidence to be analagous to the attempts to settle or the grievance procedures which are recognized as privilege for the parties' advantages. Hence, the evidence was ruled as inadmissible and inappropriate and was not taken into consideration by this Board in the analysis of the evidence. DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 20th day of May, 1988. Sole Arbi ~ COLLEGE George Brown College CORE POINT RATING PLAN - SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM POSITION REPORTS TITLE Secretary C TO Director, Physical Resources (TITLE) CURRENT CLASSIFICATION Secretary C EFFECTIVE DATE DATE OF OF P.D.F.. April 13/87 EVALUATION FACTOR COMMENTS DEGREE POINTS JOB DIFFICULTY See Award C4 144 GUIDANCE RECEIVED Agreed D3 129 COMMUNICATIONS Agreed B4 71 · ~RAINING See'. Award D4 90 · & EXPER. KNOWLEDGE Agreed 3 34 SKILL MANUAL Agreed B4 10 EFFORT WORKING CONDITIONS VISUAL i' See Award C4 18 ENVIR. See Award A5 3 EVALUATED BY: Paula Knopf TOTAL POINTS 499 Arbitrator PAY BAND 7