Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTodd 89-04-25 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN.: GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE, (the "College"), - AND - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, (the "Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF NOLA TODD BOARD OF ARBITRATION Paula Knopf, Chairman Jacqueline G. Campbell, College Nominee Edward Seymour, Union Nominee APPEARANCES F__or the College F.G. Hamilton, Q. C., Counsel Ann Lillepold For the Union N.A. Luczay, Grievance Officer Sam Reid The hearing was held in Toronto on March 15, October 17, November 28 and December 20, 1988 AWARD This ~s a classification grievance. The matter was first referred to arbitration under the parties Expedited Arbitration process. But because of the many complications and issues in the case, it was referred to a three-person Board of Arbitration for full consideration under th'e collective agreement. The case occupied four days of hearing. At the conclusion, the Boar. d requested written arguments to assist in its consideration of the issues. This was partly due to the complexity of the issues, but mostly due to the technical nature of the grievor's job and the fact that so many items of disagreement arose between the parties throughout the hearing. The Board has been assisted by those written submissions. The grievor, Nola Todd, is the only person to occupy the position which is under consideration in this case. There is no title for this position. Prior to June 1986, she was considered as an excluded employee from the bargaining unit. But thereafter she was included in the bargaining unit and was ultimately classified by the College as a Support Services Officer C (SSO "C"). The evaluation was done under the parties' jointly created evaluation system. Her grievance, dated October 3, 1986, specifically requests that she be assigned to the classification as SSOD. However, the position taken by the Union since June 1987 is that she should be considered as Atypical under the classification system and that her duties should be core-pointed into Pay Band 13 retroactive to June 1, 1986. The parties agreed to very little about this case. But at the outset, three items were agreed to govern the conduct of the case. First, it was agreed that the job has not changed since October 1986. Secondly, the parties then agreed that the scope of evidence that ought to be heard in - 2 - this case would be from April 1986 to October 1986 only. Third, in dealing with the ratin9 of each factor in the classification system, the Board was asked simply to choose between the arguments presented by each party, rather than to embark upon an alternative rating. In order to make this practical and feasible, we ordered the Union to specify to the College exactly what position it would take on each rating factor and the Union would be confined to one position. This was necessary because the Union's initial submissions had been that we could or ought to accept several alternative arguments made on behalf of the grievor on several factors. However, in response to our order, the Union provided the details of its position prior to the second day of hearing and the evidence then commenced. A. Job Family Evaluation The evidence revealed that, in accordance with the parties' job evaluation system a Position Description Form (PDF) was drafted soon after Ms. Todd entered the bargaining unit. She took exception to its contents and the initial rating assigned to her. Her complaint was taken to Alison Chritchley, the consultant on the implementation of a classification system to the College. She sent the grievor and Ms. Todd's supervisor, Mr. Brad Ciccarelli, back together to redraft the PDF. The final version they achieved was completed in October 1986. This was signed by Ms. Todd but she never agreed with the classification assigned. It was filed before us with some agreed-upon revisions. While the Union claims that the PDF is not complete enough, it does not dispute its contents as far as they go. The PDF summarizes the duties and responsibilities of the grievor as: The incumbent acts as a resource person, advisor and troubleshooter for the Finance and Accounting Department. The incumbent is responsible for the department's complex computer system and develops -- 3 strategies for the implementation of new versions of the existing software. The Accounting System is made up of the budgetary accounting system which has nine sub-systems, budget planning system which has seven sub-systems, and four ancillary systems. In a nutshell, the grieuor works in the Finance and Accounting Department working with a computerized financial report writing system. The system is a ~ackage produced by a company called SRB. The system is utilized throughout the College for various budgetary and accounting purposes. The grievor's unique roles range from analyzinq and monitoring the use of the software to ensuring that it is being fully utilized to assist various levels of staff on an as need basis in the use of the software. She also trains, monitors and advises various levels of staff on the use of the system. She designs financial reports using the existing software and has computerized the College's accounting system. She also prepares, maintains and updates opera[ional manuals for a variety of levels of staff to assist them in their understanding of the SRB software. She acts as the Department's liaison with contacts inside and outside the College regardin9 the financial system and training programmes. Her work also assists in ~reparation of budgetary analysis. Ms. Todd gave us detaileJ evidence on all these areas and explained the difficulties and degrees of skill she felt were required in the performance of these tasks. The conceptual dispute between the parties was that Ms. Todd considered her tasks in designing financial reports and modifying programmes for the colleges should be considered as computer programming or the designing of "new" information. On the other hand, the College's evidence and the cross-examination of Ms. Todd was designed to show that her work involved the use of existing software that is created to be used and adapted to meet the individual needs of its purchasers. The grievor admitted that she cannot and does not change the existing software or programmes. But she did stress that the skill and creativity she needs to utilize the software for the many needs of the College amount to duties justifying a higher classification. As explained by Brad Ciccarelli, the former Manager of Budget and Systems at the College, the SRB package contains two financial "report writers" which Ms. Todd knows how to use. She uses these and instructs others on how to use the software to produce appro~)riate financial reports for the College. A manual was provided by SRB which appears to give basic instructions on report writing for any of the purchasers of the programme. Ms. Todd's work involves using that general manual and the software to develop an expertise applicable to the College's use of the system and to compose specific instructions for operational manuals to be distributed to personnel using the system throughout the College. Rather than going into any further details of the 9rievor's work at this point, it seems more appropriate to analyze the position in terms of the key issue in the case, namely, whether the job falls within the Support Staff Officer job family. The position has been assigned to the classification of SSO "C" by the College. The grievor initially asked for an SSO "D" rating and then amended the position to submit that the job should not fall within the SSO family but should instead be core-rated as Atypical and into Pay Band 13. Therefore, we must first determine whether the position has properly been classified within the Support Services Officer job family under the CAAT - Job Evaluation Guide Chart. The Job Evaluation Guide Chart defines the job family of Support Services Officer as: -- 5 This family covers positions of employees who perform administrative duties that are functional/ project oriented rather than task oriented and involves conceptualizing, facilitating and project managing. The summaries of responsibilities and typical duties under the Guide Chart list duties associated with the administration of the College, including developing and operating the College's administrative programmes. This seems to be exactly the kind of work done by the grievor when she responds to the needs of personnel in the College by preparing or assisting in the preparation of financial reports and helping to develop the format for such reports. Indeed, many of the "typical duties" listed in the SSO "C" portion of the Chart seem to echo the duties of Ms. Todd. For example, when preparing financial reports she "prepares · .. and reports to communicate and support College plans and objectives." Her evidence showed how often she "provides functional guidance and direction to others" when she assists in report writing, discovers and eliminates errors in other reports, and "debugs" the system. She also "analyzes requirements of groups both within and external to the College and develops programmes to meet these requirements." She does this by developing financial reports and manuals for the College and acting as the liaison to outside contacts regarding the financial system. Thus, her job seems to fall squarely within the Support Services Officer job family and indeed within the classification or level of "C". In fairness, the Union suggests that other aspects of her job take her beyond the typical SSO "C" position, specifically because of the computer-oriented nature of the job. However, the emphasis on the computer and her work with the computer alone are not sufficient to satisfy the Union's onus in this case. Further, while the grievor does design - 6 - reports from the SRB software provided, she does not do any programming, creating of "new" material or alteration of the software which would take her out of the typical Support Services Officer family and into something more akin to the Computer Programming job family or elsewhere. Having decided that the grievor's job sits squarely within the Support Services Officer family, the next question to address is what level she ought to be at. This is easily answered, given the position of the parties. The College rates her at the level of C. The Union does not claim the higher level of D nor would it be approDriate because it involves duties such as marketing programmes to outside communities and developing programmes for outside groups. These are certainly beyond the range of requirements for the grievor. The Union was not seeking the higher level within this job family as it was trying to assert that the job was Atypical. Since we have found that the job is not Atypical and fits within the Support Services Officer family and since the level of D does not seem appropriate, we have concluded that the proper rating of the position is as an SSO "C". The result of this conclusion is that the grievance must fail and we need not address further argument as to whether the position should be ~ated higher using the core point system. However, the CCAT Su~ort Staff Job Evaluation System is designed so that the core point ratings and the job family criteria should act as checks and balances for each other. Further, the Union argued core point rating so strenuously that it may be helpful to demonstrate through that exercise that even once the position is analyzed from that perspective, it has still been properly rated. In order to embark on that exercise, we must deal with each category separately. - 7 - B. The Core Point Rating (1) Job Difficu~_~ The College has rated this as E5 whereas the Union claimed an E6 rating. The difference is over the degree of "judgment" required for the job. The distinction between the ratin9 of 5 and 6 includes whether one develops new information (i.e. a 6) or whether one is required to interpret complex data and refine work methods. The grievor is not required to create "new info~mation". Sh~ is r~quired to interpret existing information, analyze it, and develop ways of reporting it by designing reports or preparing training manuals. This does require "significant judgment" but does not call upon "the high degree of judgment" required when developing new information. Thus, the proper rating under the job difficulty matrix is E5. (2) Guidance Received The College has rated this at E4 whereas the Union claims an E5 rating. The difference between 4 and 5 includes whether the Work is subject only to "a general form of review for achievement of specific objectives" (4), as opposed to review only for the achievement of broad objectives (5). The Board hear~ the evidence of Brad Ciccarelli who was, at all relevant times, the grievor's supervisor. He seemed to have a 9rear deal of respect for Ms. Todd and her capabilities and thus relied on her to work fairly independently. However, the time she spent on projects was governed both by the urgency of her client users and by her Manager's schedules and pro~)rities. Mr. Ciccarelli testified that he would check her work periodically to see how she was - 8 - progressing on a problem and to see at what stage the project was. Ms. Todd testified that her work was checked for results by her "users" and she just talked to her Manager about the assignments he had given her and budgets. She said she would not discuss actual reports with Mr. Ciccarelli unless he would be the user of the report. It must be conceded that some of the work of the grievor would only be reviewed for achievement of broad objectives. This would be the case in terms of her assisting of other personnel and her writing of manuals. But clearly, the bulk of her work was report writing and developing the utilization of the computerized financial system. In this regard she was subject to a general form of review for the achievement of specific objectives. Thus, she has been properly rated at E4. (3) Communications The College has rated this at D3 whereas the Union claims a rating of E4. The parties disagree about the level and purpose components of this matrix. We shall deal with these separately. (a) Level of Contacts - The rating of 3 applies to positions where contacts are primarily with employees at higher levels within the College and at middle management levels outside the College. A rating of 4 applies to contacts primarily with senior management levels within and outside the College. The grievor does deal to a large extent with senior management levels in the designing and use of the reports and the development of the computerized programme. But it would be an exaggeration to say that this was her "primary level of - 9 - contact". She also deals, to what seems like a larger extent, with employees at equal levels to her or at lower levels who are utilizing the systems and need her assistance. Further, there is no evidence of her having contacts with senior management levels outside the College. Therefore, the rating of 3 is appropriate. (b) Purpose of Contacts: The College rates this at D and the Union claims a rating of E. An E ratinG requires the use of "more than average tact, diplomacy and persuasion." A D rating requires simple "diplomacy and persuasion" on matters of "considerable importance". The latter seems to perfectly describe the position of the grievor. Ms. Todd is called upon to identify and solve problems on matters of considerable importance. Her contacts with her peers, her superiors and those at lower levels than her require personal skills in dealing with and solving these problems. But these skills are not so demandinG or unique as to require the "more than average" level of tact, diplomacy and persuasion contemplated by the E rating. Thus, the "purpose" component is properly rated at D. As a result, the Communications portion of the matrix is properly rated at D3. (3) Knowledge - Skill Element The College rates this at 5 whereas the Union claims a rating of 6. The definitions of the two ratings are very different, but the basic difference can be summarized by saying that the rating of 5 implies the application of elementary principles of a professional discipline, whereas the rating of 6 requires the application of complex principles to a discipline. In truth, Given the nature and the quality of the evidence presented, it is very difficult for this Board to analyze this aspect of the position. Witnesses offered different subjective views of the nature of the skill element of the position and it is difficult to apply this to a technically complex area such as computer work. But when we look at the positions that the parties have jointly assigned to the ratings in the initial development of this rating system, we are Given some assistance. The parties rate a Programmer C, an SSO D and a Programmer/Analyst B and C at the ratinG of 6. All these positions call for a level of technical skill and technique beyond what Ms. Todd has to perform. For example, a Programmer C "develops and prepares very complex computer proGrammes". The Grievor's position does not develop computer proGrammes at all. She takes an existinG programme and uses its software to the best advantage of the College. The system itself was designed to enable this. This takes considerable skill and involves the use of "complex ... computer equipment". It also requires the ability to "organize information". But it does not elevate the position to the level of a Programmer C. Thus, it is more appropriately rated at the level of 5 on this ma trix. (5) Workin~ Conditions (1) Visual Strain The College rates this at B3 and the Union claims a C4 rating. Thus, the parties disagree over the component of visual strain and prevalence. We shall deal with these separately. (a) Visual Strain - The difference between the ratings is "moderate" to "considerable" concentration wi th focusing of up to one or two hours on small areas. The grievor's evidence in this regard was credible and no one was in a good position to challenge her evidence. We accept her estimation as accurate and that she is required to frequently focus for up to two hours on the computer screen to accomplish many of the aspects of her job. It may be as the College suggests that she is not forced to sit at the terminal and she would not De refused permission to move. Further, the collective agreement itself provides for minimum amounts of breaks from the terminal. But it is also clear that her work demands full and focused concentration on many occasions. Thus, she has been underrated in this component. We would rate her at the level of C. (D) Prevalence - The College rates this at the level of 3 whereas the Union claims a level of 4. The difference is whether the visual strain is from 10 to 30% or 31 to 60% of the time. Again, we accept the grievor's evidence as credible and as the most reliable offered. Also, given the finding that considerable visual strain is demanded from the job, it is easy to accept that strain is quite frequent and occurs more than 30% of the time. Thus, we find the rating of 4 to be the most appropriate. As a result, we conclude that the College has underrated the visual component of the position and would rate it at C4 as the Union claims. (6) Environment The College rated this at A5 and the Union claims a C4 rating. They disagree on the quality of the work environment and the prevalence. We shall deal with them separately. (a) Work Environment The parties disagree fundamentally over this. The Union's claim for a C rating suggests "disagreeable working conditions such as exposure to dirt, noise and potentially hazardous conditions." The College's rating assumes "generally agreeable working conditions such as those found inside offices." The Union's claim is based largely on the allegation of exposure to radiation from the video display terminal (VDT). No evidence was called on the subject. However, the Union filed evidence with its written argument on this matter and the ColleGe responded by filin9 a conflicting report. Both reports were issued by reputable authorities. However, in our view it is improper for the Board to deal with the factual question of whether there are radiation hazards in the context of a final argument. This is something that must be addressed in the evidentiary aspect of a case so that the Board has the benefit of expert witnesses and cross-examination. Thus we cannot and will not rely upon the reports submitted by either party in this area. Even if we did, the coflicting reports could do nothing more than cancel out each other. Further, the evidence does not show that the Grievor is in any different position than any other College employee who works at a computer terminal to a large ex tent of the time. Since the workinG conditions matrix is applied on a relative basis, this puts her in relatively the same position as any other office employee. It is vastly inappropriate to compare her working conditions to those of a caretaker, stationary engineer or child care worker as the Union suggests. There is simply no evidence to support sucn a position. Therefore, we would agree with a rating of A. (b) Prevalence The College rates this as 5 whereas the Union claims a rating of 4 to co-ordinate with their claim that she works in a largely disagreeable work environment. In fairness, the 5 ratin9 is obviously the most appropriate because it shows that the grievor is exposed to "generally agreeable conditions" more than 60% of the time. There is no evidence to the contrary. The onus being on the Union, the A5 rating must be deemed to De appropriate. The results of the above analysis can be summarized on the followin9 chart: Union College Final Rating Points Rating Points Rating Points Job Difficulty E6 246 E5 222 E5 222 Guidance Received E5 200 E4 177 E4 177 Communications E4 150 D3 109 . D3 109 Knowledge 1. Training and Experience A G R E E D E6 131 2. Skill 6 75 5 61 5 61 W__orki~9 Conditions 1. Manual Effort A G R E E D B5 13 2. Visual Strain C4 18 B3 7 C4 18 3. Environment C4 18 A5 3 A5 3 Total Points 851 723 734 Pay Band 13 11 11 Conclusion Thus, it must be seen that when we examine the question of how the job ought to be rated using the core point system or what, if any, job family, this job belongs to, the same result is achieved. Using both processes, one comes to the conclusion that the job has been properly classified as a Support Services Officer C and has been properly rated into Pay Band 11. We were impressed with Ms. Todd and with the skill she has demonstrated. She has been crucial to the successful implementation of the computerized financial reporting system of the College. However, as we emphasized many times throughout the hearing, our function was to examine the position and not the person holding that position. Our conclusions in this case are based on our understanding and analysis of the position and not on Ms. Todd personally. Therefore, in the result, for all the reasons stated above, the grievance is dismissed. DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 25th day of April, 1989. "J. Campbell" College Nominee "Edward Seymour" Union Nominee