Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLee 87-02-23 IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION BETWEEN~ ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY (GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE) ( the "Coll.~e" , - AND - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNIONf \~/ (the "Union"). SOLE ARBITRATOR Paula Knopf APPEARANCES: For the Collech~ Sally Layton Ann Lillepold For the Union ~ick Luczay The hearing was held in Toronto, Ontario on February 17, 1988 AWARD This is a job classification ~r~evance which arises under the Community Colleges Support Staff job evaluation expedited arbitration procedures. There was substantial agreement between the parties on the facts and o~ly three areas of disagr.~ement with regard to the ratings on the job. The grievor, Doreen Lee, is th_~ lead hand in the office which deals with academic upgrading. She is called upon to provide advanced clerical services for the Academic Upgrading Department. She maintains department personnel and student records, types, does data entry, answers telephone enquiries, calculates students' final grades, monitors staff attendance, determines class sizes, handles all staff personnel matters an~ co-ordinates monthly progress meetings for the faculty. Her job requires her to work with a computer, a typewriter and a telephone. The first area of disagreement between the parties arises with respect to the nat~]re of review over her position. The parties agreed on the guidelines available to her but disagree on the nature of review. Ms. Lee's testimony was that she considers herself responsible for all the work that she produces and that she is not checked or reviewed for accuracy. She is simply expected to produce the work on a timely basis and she takes it upon herself to ensure the work's accuracy. The grievor's supervisor, Ms~. Singh, testified that although she bears the ultimate responsibility for the work produced for her by Ms. Lee, Ms. Singh relies upon Ms. Lee to produce - 2 - accurate material. Ms. Singh praised Ms. Lee's abilities. But she also pointed out that she has no need to check Ms. Lee's work becaus=.~ if ther~ is an error, it would show up ultimately in the system. Ms. Singh says that she r.~lies u_~on Ms. Lee and someone in that position to function independently and to produce the work accurately and to meet deadlines. On the basis of the evidence heard, it must be concluded that the way the position was functioning at all relevant times, the only nature of review which was applie.~ was general review for achievement of the objectives of the position and insurance that established deadlines were met. There was little if no periodic checking for quality. While this may be the result of Ms. Lee's experience in the job, Ms. Singh made it clear that she wDuld expect anyone functioning in the position to have the same degree of independence. Thus, it is determined that the nature of review should be rated as 4 within the "Guidance Received" Matrix. Thus, I have assigned the rating of D4 for 150 points. Manual Effort The grievor described her job as requiring a lot of sitting, data entry, typing and telephone work. She said that she was "basically rooted to my desk." She describe~ the prolonged sitting as creating the manual effort which the Union claims should be rated as BS. The College's evidence agreed with Ms. Lee's description of the job. However, the position taken was that her work merely encompassed ordinary office tasks and therefore should be rated as A5. The uncontradicted evidence is that the grievor is called upon to sit 95% of the time. I was shown nothing in the evidenee whici~ would suggest that the grievor is called upon to do anything other than "ordinary office tasks" which are encompassed by an A5 rating for manual effort. Conversely, I was shown no evi'Jence to convince me that the grievor is called upon to display the "physical exertion" that is contemplated by a B5 ratinD. Therefore, I rate the position with regard to Working Con]itions an'~ Manual Effort at A5 or 3 Doints. Visual Strain The grievor Jescri'oed visual strain arising out of several of h.~=r responsi'3ilicies. She is called upon to input into the computer from carbon copies .of forms which she receives for about two hours every week. This is in connection with her registration duties. And, about once every three months, she is required to input into the computer for three to four hours with regard to continuing education. On a normal day she estimate~ she would work for a half to one hour on the computer. Eye strain would also arise because she was required to type from handwritten work. This would be approximately from one half to one hour per day. She is also required to write out the transcript marks which would take three to four hours per week. Again, the College's evidence did not contradict these estimates of time in any way. The Union claimed that the work that the grievor does merits a C3 rating, whereas the College argued that a B3 rating was more appropriate because only moderate visual concentration was required. On the basis of the evidence heard, while the grieVor is called upon to focus on the com~puter for approximately two hours once a week an.J even longer every three or four months, it does appear that on her average day she is not required to focus on one object for long periods of time. Thus, it would appear that only moderate visual concentration is required by the position. Therefore, the B3 rating is found to be the most appropriate which 9ives a total of 7 points. Conclusion On the basis of the agreed upon ratings and the above findings, the position merits a total of 515 points and thus falls within pay band 8. (See the Core Point Rating Plan - Summary Evaluation Form attached. ) Thus, the grievance is allowd. The job should be reclassified as a Clerk D Atypical. The grievor is to receive any losses in pay or benefits arising from the difference between the pay rate of the Clerk D General at the time of the grievance. The Board remains seized with jurisdiction to ~eal with the matter should the parties have any difficulty wi th implementation. DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 23rd day of February, 1988. -- a Knoof COLLEGE George Brown CORE POINT RATING PLAN - SUMMARY EVALUATION FORM POSITION REPORTS TITLE Clerk D TO Kav Sinqh (TITLE) CURRENT CLASSIFICATION Clerk D - Atypical. EFFECTIVE DATE DATE OF OF P.D.F. September 9, 1987 EVALUATION February 17, 1988 FACTOR COMMENTS DEGREE POINTS JOB DIFFICULTY Agreed C4 144 General review for achievement and GUIDANCE RECEIVED meeting of deadlines D4 150 COMMUNICATIONS Agreed C 3 84 ~RAINING & EXPER. Agreed D4 90 KNOWLEDGE SKILL Agreed 3 34 MANUAL EFFORT Ordinary Office tasks A5 3 WORKING Moderate visual concentration B3 7 CONDITIONS VISUAL ENVIR. Agreed A5 3 EVALUATED ~¥: TOTAL POINTS Paula Knopf 515 Arbitrator PAY BAND 8