Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBlanchard 88-09-16 IN TME MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE, (the "College"), - AND - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, ( the "Un ion"). AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF LORRAINE BLANCHARD SOLE ARBITRATOR Paula Knopf APPEARANCES For the College Ann Lillepold Dr. Michael Stone Mary. Hofweller For the Union Mary Anne Kuntz Samuel Reid The hearin9 was held in Toronto on September 13, 1988 AWARD This is a classification grievance brought under the ; Community Colleges Expedited Classification Arbitration Procedures. The grievor is a Documentation Specialist in the Computer Services Department of George Brown College. Her position is unique to the College and was created approximately 3-1/2 years ago. The grievor was the first person to hold this job and in many ways has used her talents to mould the demands and expectations of her position. However, as was pointed out several times during the hearing, this arDitration is an examination of the ratin9 of the position and not the abilities of the individual grievor. Basically, the Documentation Specialist is the person who "translates" computer programmes into documentation that is used by someone other than the original programmer to understand, utilize or appreciate a programme. The Position Description Form summarizes the responsibility of the Documentation Specialist as: Under general direction, is responsible for preparing and maintaining systems, programming, operations and user documentation and the maintenance of a current documentation library. May assist in establishinG or recommending documentation procedures and methods. The 9rievor presented extensive evidence to this Board explainin9 her duties and responsibilities. She very articulately desCribed her position. She explained that the Programmer/Analysts create or write the computer programmes for various systems and users throughout the College. Once the programme is written, the Documentation Specialist becomes involved. Her role is to work with the Programmer/Analyst in order to learn the programme. Sometimes the learnin9 is done through verbal communication. - 2 - Some times the Programmer/Analys ts give sketchy written documentation outlining their programmes; Other times there is more extensive documentation available. But in every case, the Documentation Specialist must learn the programme and then write or create documentation that is suitable to enable the users of the programme to enjoy its continuous use. In order to do this, the Documentation Specialist works with the user to understand the purpose of the system and the types of people who would be using the system. In this capacity she describes herself as a "translator". There are four types of documentation which are required to De produced. One is a technical reference manual which would be something that a programmer would be able to read and appreciate. This would be useful for another programmer taking over in the future if revisions in the programme were required. Secondly, the Documentation Specialist produces operations manuals. Again, these are technical and advise what the operator can and should do with a system. The third type of documentation that is produced is a "User's Guide". This is written at a completely basic level to enable a novice to take over a system then operate it to its full capacity. Finally, the documentation specialist produces "executive overviews" which are designed to enable readers to appreciate the system and its capacities in a general sense without detailing exactly how to use a sy s tern. All four levels of documentation are desirable whenever a system is sent to the Documentation Specialist for translation. Over the years, the grievor has developed her own system of analyzing each programme and her own format and style for the manual. As she explained, in the preparation of the manuals she has to be sensitive to the level of audience which will be utilizing the manual. She must write in a manner that is both understandable and respectful of the education and status of those who would be utilizing her ma teria 1. Another aspect of her work which was discussed in evidence was the fact that on a recent project, she was able to identify aspects in a system which made it less convenient and efficient than was desirable by the user. The grievor used her talents to identify these to the Programmer/Analyst who then made appropriate revisions to the programme. This suggestion ~or revision has only happened in the recent past and in fairness, seems to have occurred after the date of the grievance and seems to be beyond the College's expectations for the position. There are only three areas in dispute between the parties. The issues involved the job difficulty matrix, the guidance received matrix and the communications matrix. In a nutshell, the differences between the two parties were really very little philosophically. Both parties indicated that a high d~gree of respect and importance should be ascribed to the position because without good documentation, none of the systems or the equipment would be of any value to the College and its personnel. Thus, the Union asserted that the grievor's position ought to be rated at a similar level as the Programmer/Analyst C or SSOC in many aspects. On the other hand, the College stressed that even though the job was very important and required high levels of skill on the part of the grievor, it was said that the job must be recognized to be one involving translation or interpretation of existing material using standard procedures. This was contrasted to the Programmer/Analyst who is called upon to create new material. Thus, the College would rate the job more in line wi th the ProQrammer/Analyst A or B. I have considered the evidence and able submissions of both parties very carefully. On the basis of the evidence and after consideration of the submissions, I am able to make the following conclusions with regard to each of the areas in d i spu te. - 4 - (a) Job Difficulty The grlevor stressed the complexity of her job arises out of the fact that she is dealing with a new programme with each assignment and also dealinG with a variety of different types of computer products. She may be called upon to work on four or five different projects at one time. While her method may be similar with each project, she stressed the difficulties arisinG out of her need to be able to write for different audiences dealinG with different types of computers. The Grievor also said that she must use her judgment in her position in ~ecidinG an appropriate style for the level of audience which will be utilizing her manual as well as in her actual contact with the Programmer/Analyst and the audience which will be using the system. The College stressed that the processes that the Grievor utilizes are the same, even though she may be dealinG with non-routine matters becaus=- she will always have different people and different issues to deal with. The College agreed that her position required a "significant degree of judgment" but stressed that all the Grievor was required to do was interpret rather than create data. The Union would rate the position at E6, whereas the College states the appropriate rating would be D5. I do not agree with either ratinG suggested by the parties. The job difficulty matrix is a very hard concept to apply. But the evidence before me suggests that an E5 ratinG would be 'more appropriate. In terms.of complexity, the Documentation Specialist is required to deal with "relatively unusual tasks" in that her job is unique. Further, she is required to apply "specialized processes or methods" in terms of learninG programmes, identifyinG user needs and capacities and then writinG them up in a way that does justice to both her concerns. A "D" ratinG under "Complexity" fails to take into account the unique demanding nature of the position. On the other hand, a 5 rating seems much the most appropriate in terms of judgment. The evidence does support a finding that she is required to exercise a "significant degree of judgment. Further, she does "interpret complex data" as is suggested in a 5 rating. A rating of 6 is inappropriate because she is not called upon to develop new informatioa. Therefore, I would assign an E5 rating on the job difficulty matrix. (b) Guidance Received The grievor's immediate supervisor is the Associate Director, Integrated Business Systems. The Associate Director assigns projects to the Documentation Specialist. Virtually all her draft manuals are reviewed by the supervisor. Ms. Blanchard often uses the supervisor to "test" her documentation. The parties agreed in a good-natured way that the supervisor was ideal for the job because he is both picky and unfamiliar with the various different programmes and needs of the users. Thus, he is an ideal "guinea pig" for determining whether the documentation is suitable for use by a novice. There have been virtually no situations where the grievor has had to call upon her supervisor to resolve problems, except where she was having difficulty havinG a user respond to a draft document which she had provided. It is agreed that where there are any technical difficulties encountered by the Documentation Specialist, she will turn to the Programmer/Analyst who created the system. The Union is seeking an E4 ratinG in this area whereas the College is asserting a D4 rating. It is my conclusion that the D4 rating is the most appropriate. It is hard to think of this job in terms of past practices because it is a r~latively new job and since there were no "past practices" for the incumbent to rely upon wren the position was created. However, the grievor and th~ Union acknowledge that the work does involve standard procedures of analysis which the Grievor regularly applies. She does adapt these to meet the particular needs of each project. She does have a supervisor who is available to assist in resolving problems. There is no evidence that the supervisor is only involved in problems of major importance as would be suggested by an E ratinG. Nor is there evidence that she must adapt to changing conditions and problems as is also required by the E ratinG· Therefore, I agree with the College's rating of D4 on the Guidance received matrix. (c) Communications Matrix In the course of her work, the Documentation Specialist works with the Programmer/Analyst and the users in order to translate the programme for use within the College. The evidence established that this sometimes involves difficulties with personalities. She is also called upon to trouble shoot when a user encounters difficulties with a system. The Union asserts an E4 ratinG is most approprate, whereas the College claims the D4 ratinG is most appropriate. The D4 rating seems to completely fit the evidence which I received. The G~ievor does have contact with various personnel in the College in order to identify problems and devise solutions for tt~em. Her work is of considerable importance and it often requires tact, diplomacy and persuasion. An E5 ratin9 does not seem appropriate because it seems to contemplate "more than average tact, diplomacy and persuasion". I was Given no evidence to suggest that such a high level of interpersonal skills was required. Also, it would be an exaggeration of her role to suggest that her purpose is to "secure understanding, co-operation or -- 7 agreement on sensitive or technical matters." That degree of interaction is required by the Programmer/Analyst who must meet with the users to determine their needs and design a programme which will match those needs. In contrast, the griever takes over once that understanding, co-operation or agreement has been achieved. The Griever then writes the ; documentation which reflects the fruits of the co-operative effort. Therefore, I agree with the College ratinG of D4 on the communications matrix. Conclusion The griever's job is unique and important. This was recognized Dy the College in its evidence and in its submissions to me. However, the rating assigned by the College in order to determine the correct classification for the position failed to take into consideration the full extent of the job difficulty of the position. In every other respect, I agree with the College's rating. But, as a result of the revision of the job difficulty rating, the total number of points assignable to the position rises to 644 which would put the position into pay band 10. Thus, the grievance succeeds. The griever is to De reclassified to the position as Support Services Officer Atypical in pay band 10. She is entitled to full retroactivity from the date of her grievance. I remain seized with any questions of implementation should the need arise. DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this day of 16th September, 1988 ~. Knopf Sole A~ COLLEGE Fanshawe College CORE POINT RATING PLAN - SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM POSITION REPORTS TITLE Documentation Specialist TO Associate Director, (TITLE) Integrated Business CURRENT CLASSiFiCATiON Support Services Officer AtypicaPystems EFFECTIVE DATE DATE OF OF P.D.F. June 1, 1986 EVALUATION September 16, 1988 FACTOR COMMENTS DEGREE POINT JOB DIFFICULTY See Award E5 222 See Award D4 150 GUIDANCE RECEIVED See Award D4 123 COMMUNICATIONS ~RAINING Agreed C4 78 & EXPER. KNOWLEDGE SKILL Agreed 4 47 MANUAL EFFORT Agreed A5 3 WORKING CONDITIONS VISUAL Agreed C4 18 ENVIR. Agreed A5 3 EVALUATED BY: ///~ ...... ~ 644 PAY BAND 10