Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWright 87-06-29BETWEEN: /_-557 ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION (hereinafter called the Union) - and - GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE (hereinafter called the Employer) - and - MR. DONALD WRIGHT, GRIEVOR SOLE ARBITRATOR PROFESSOR IAN A. HUNTER APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION: MS. SHERRIL MURRAY, GRIEVANCE OFFICER FOR THE COLLEGE: MS. SALLY LAYTON, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT A HEARING WAS HELD IN TORONTO, ONTARIO ON JUNE 24, 1987. AWARD ( 1 ) INTRODUCTION Because this was my first case as arbitrator under the Expedited Arbitration Procedure agreed upon between the parties (indeed, it may well be the first written decision), it may be of use if I set out in the Award the method by which, after discussion, we agreed to proceed at the hearing. Prior to the formal hearing, I held discussions with Ms. Murray and Ms. Layton. As arbitrator, I ascertained the areas of agreement between the parties and the areas of disagreement. It became evident that the parties were not agreed upon the content of the Position Description Form (hereinafter PDF). Nevertheless, both parties agreed that little point would be served by my attempting to arbitrate language differences in the PDF. Rather, the PDF was considered as background to the specific disagreements between the parties over the core point ratings. I ascertained that the Union intended to call one witness, the grievor, and the College intended to call one witness, his supervisor. With the concurrence of counsel, I directed that the supervisor should remain outside the hearing room while the grievor was giving evidence. I did this for two reasons: (1) so that the evidence of the supervisor would be as fresh, 2 independent and objective as possible and not be coloured by having heard the prior evidence of the grievor; and (2) recognizing that the grievor and the supervisor are in an ongoing work relationship, it seemed desirable to minimize, as far as possible, tension that might arise if both parties were present throughout the evidence and felt pushed into taking up adversarial positions. After giving his evidence, the grievor remained in the hearing room while the supervisor testified. I had before me an Arbitration Data Sheet giving the College and Union job factor ratings. With these ratings side by side, it was evident what areas were agreed upon and what were in dispute. The hearing began with the arbitrator questioning the grievor, in a general way, about his educational background and employment at the College. Then, counsel for the Union proceeded to examine the grievor-in-chief on the specific job factors that were in issue. On completion of her questions, the College representative was permitted to cross-examine the grievor on these areas. In addition, I, as arbitrator, took a rather more forthright role in the questioning of 'both the grievor and the supervisor than would occur in the usual arbitration. The procedure seemed to work quite well. Allowing for the fact that the process and the expedited procedure is unfamiliar 3 to all parties, the hearing was ordered, informative and relatively expeditious. At the conclusion of the hearing, I rendered an oral decision and am now embodying that decision in writing. (2) JOB EVALUATION FACTORS Both parties agreed that the grievor is an Atypical Clerk General. Because the atypicality is conceded, it falls to me to apply the evidence which was led at the hearing to the job factors which are set out in the evaluation scheme for support staff at Community Colleges. (1) Job Difficulty The parties were agreed that the proper degree of job difficulty was C4 = 144 points. (2) Guidance Received The College evaluated this factor at D3 = 129 points. The Union evaluated this factor at D4 = 150 points. The difference between the parties was as to the "best fit" description: D3 "Work assignments are intermittently and/or periodically checked for quality." D4 "Work assignments are 4 subject to a general form of review for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines." The grievor's evidence was that he spent 75% of his time on Student Administrative Council budgets. These were subject to general review only by his supervisor, Mr. Rodriguez. He received little or no evaluative feedback. If a problem arises in the SAC accounts, it is the grievor who must find a solution. He adheres to regular, established monthly deadlines. There is no periodic check for the quality of his SAC account work by either Supervisor or Controller; rather, such review as there is relates to the passing of the accounts. The proper rating is D4. I reach this conclusion because of (a) the general form of supervisory review, and (b) the fact that the grievor's work must adhere to established (a monthly) deadlines. From both the evidence of the grievor and his Supervisor, I am satisfied that D4 is the "best fit" on Guidance Received. (3) Communications The College rating was C2: "Contacts are primarily with employees within own work unit. Occasional contact with employees in other units." 5 The Union position was that this factor should be classified at D4: "Contacts are primarily with employees at higher levels within the College and with individuals at middle management outside the College." In considering the evidence on this factor, I adopt the following two "Notes to Raters." (1) Only those contacts that occupy a significant portion of time and are a regular and integral part of the job should be taken into consideration. (2) Contacts with students are to be rated at degree two. The grievor's evidence was that he had contact with the President of the College two times a year to present the SAC budget. He had contact with the Director of Student Services "once or twice a month." His primary contact was with Student Administrative Council executives. I am satisfied, from the evidence, that the grievor's primary contacts are not with "employees at higher levels within the College" but rather with students who are to be rated at Level 2. Consequently, I find that the grievor is properly 6 classified at C2. (4) Knowledge -- Training/Experience The College has rated this factor as D5: "Required skills normally acquired through attainment of a two year Community College diploma or equivalent." The Union rates this factor at D6: "Required skills normally acquired through attainment of a three year Community College diploma or equivalent." The job posting for which the grievor applied was put in evidence. The posting sets the qualifications as "University or college graduate, currently enrolled in at least third level of CGA or RIA accounting courses." The grievor met these qualifications. The qualifications sought on the job posting are more consistent with D6. Mr. Earl Durst, the grievor's supervisor, testified that he would be seeking a college graduate with three to five years experience and having completed (or at least being enrolled at) the third or fourth level CGA or RIA course. In addition, he would require "fairly good accounting levels and skills." The PDF speaks of "excellent accounting skills." 7 On the evidence led, the Union has proved that the appropriate rating is D6. (5) Knowledge -- Skill The parties are agreed that this is properly rated at Level 5. (6) Working Conditions: Manual Effort The College rates this at A5. The Union contends that it should be B5. The A5 rating is: "Work requires minimum manual effort and physical strain in a variety of normal positions. E.g., intermittent sitting, standing, walking, ordinary office tasks (more than 60% of time)." The Union rating definition is: "Work requires light manual effort and physical exertion. E.g., prolonged standing, sitting, walking, climbing stairs, using light tools and/or handling lightweight materials (more than 60% of the time)." The grievor's evidence concerning manual effort was substantially supported by his supervisor, Mr. Earl Durst. Both the grievor and Mr. Durst were highly credible witnesses. 8 The grievor testified that most of his work was done at a desk. He left his desk to get files, to go to a computer terminal, or to leave the campus entirely on his weekly visit to the SAC offices at the other three campuses. Clearly the grievor's job involves sitting more than 60% of the time. Equally clearly, it does not involve continuous sitting. Nor is it prolonged sitting more than would be typical for any sedentary position in an accounting department. I am satisfied, from the evidence, that the position is correctly rated at A5. (6) Working Conditions -- Visual The College rates the position at C3: "Considerable visual concentration required. Required to focus on small areas and objects for up to two hours at a time (ten to thirty per cent of time)." The Union rating at D4 is: "Extensive visual concentration required. Required to focus on small areas and objects for more than two hours at a time (thirty-one to sixty per cent of time)." Most of the grievor's work involves digits. Often that is done on a computer screen. Alternatively, he would be examining 9 digits on accounting-type documents. When he was asked about visual concentration, the grievor testified: "You have to look at what you are doing -- pay close attention to what you are doing in order to make sure it is correct." When the definitions were put to him he adopted the College's definition "considerable" visual concentration and the College's evaluation of the time (less than thirty per cent). Accordingly, on the grievor's own evidence, I find that the rating is correctly set at C3. (7) Working Conditions -- Environment The College rating is B2: "Slightly disagreeable working conditions. Exposure to somewhat noisy, hot or cold conditions (less than ten per cent of time)." The Union rating is B3 which is the same definition but for ten to thirty per cent of the time. The grievor's own evidence is that he is required to travel to the other three campuses approximately once per week. He spends thirty to forty-five minutes travelling per week. He set the maximum travel time as one hour. If the weather conditions are bad, he can reschedule the appointments to another time. 10 On the grievor's own evidence his exposure to noisy, hot or cold weather or travelling conditions would be less than ten per cent of his time. Consequently, I am satisfied that B2 is the proper rating. (3) DECISION I have appended an arbitration data sheet embodying my job factor ratings. These ratings produce total points of 567, which is payband eight. The College evaluation is currently 532 points payband eight. Accordingly, the grievance is allowed to the limited extent that the job factor ratings should be changed in accordance with the arbitration data sheet appended. DATED at the City of London this ~ ~ day of June, 1987. Ian A. Hunter Arbitrator 11 APP]~DIX COLLEGE GRIEVOR CLASSIFICATION/ POSITION HEARING DATE APPEARANCES: MANAGEMENT UNION DECISION: Degree Points Job Difficulty C4 144 Guidance Received D4 150 Communicat ions C 2 71 Training &. D6 118 Knowledge Exper. Skill 5 61 Manual E flor t A 5 3 Working Conditions Visual C3 15 Environ. B2 5 Total Points 567 Pay Band Number 8 COMMENTS: ARB I TRATOR ' S ~ DATE ~~-~£~7 SIGNATURE~' ~ ,~ ~