Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFrenette-Fitzgerald 90-07-03IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION 90A340 BETWEEN: Local 124 LAMBTON COLLEGE (the "College") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (the "Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE OF DIANE FRENETTE-FITZGERALD SOLE ARBITRATOR Ian Springate APPEARANCES For the College 'Gwen Trone, Human Resources Guy Bertrand, Vice-President, Human Resources Nancy Mathews, Administrative Assistant, Industrial Training Division For the Union Paul Mantle, .Union Spokesperson Di Frenette-FitzGerald, Grievor Carol McAdam, Observer '~ HEARING June 18, 1990 in Sarnia · 2 AWARD Introduction These proceedings arise out of a grievance filed by Ms Diane Frenette-FitzGerald on December 6, 1989. The grievance followed a letter sent to the grievor by the College on November 23, 1989, in which the College advised her that her position had been classified as "atypical" and her pay rate raised to payband 5. In her grievance, the grievor contended that her classification should be reassigned to payband 7. During the grievance procedure the College determined that the grievor should appropriately be classified as a Secretary A, but still paid in accordance with Payband 5. The dispute as to the proper classification of the grievor for pay purposes was referred to arbitration pursuant to the expedited arbitration procedure set out in Article 18.4.3 of the applicable collective agreement. At the arbitration hearing the College argued that the grievor's job appropriately came within payband 5. The Union contended that payband 7 was more appropriate. The difference between the parties relates to the manner in which they rate certain elements of the grievor's job under the job evaluation system referred to in the collective agreement. In particular, they disagree as to the proper ratings with respect to the matrixes for job difficulty, guidance received and knowledge. The parties do, however, agree that the position description form · 3 prepared by the College is accurate. Nature of the Grievor's Position The grievor is employed in the Contract Education Department in the College's Industrial Training Division. The Department provides safety and environmental training courses with respect to the proper handling of petroleum and chemical products as well as the transportation of dangerous goods. Clients who attend these courses are generally sponsored by their employers. Most of the courses offered by the Department are scheduled ahead of time and are listed in a course calendar put out by the College. If requested to do so the Department will also design courses specifically tailored to the needs of a particular firm. These are referred to as contract education programs. The administrative structure of the Industrial Training Division was altered subsequent to the filing of the grievance. This award addresses the situation at the time the grievance was filed. At the relevant time Mr. Robert Wilson was the Manager and Mr. Mark Braet the Co-ordinator of the safety and environmental courses. Mr. Braet and two other teaching masters comprised the full-time faculty who taught these courses. The Division also employed a training consultant who dealt with individual firms with respect to specially designed contract education programs, · 4 The grievor served as a receptionist in the administrative area of the Industrial Training Division. In this role she performed the normal duties of a receptionist, such as greeting visitors, answering the telephone, taking messages and arranging appointments. She also dealt with requests for information about courses from potential clients. When calls related to the possibility of the Department designing a special course for a particular firm, the grievor took the caller's name and phone number and passed them on to the training consultant. The grievor, however, dealt with those calls which related to established courses. The parties disagree as to the nature of the discussions between the grievor and potential clients. Ms Nancy Mathews, an Administrative Assistant, testified that at the relevant time she fulfilled the role of office manager for the Industrial Training Division. She described the grievor's role as as being to pass on the information contained in course outlin6s to clients so as to allow the clients to decide what training to select. Ms Mathews added that the gqievor did not have the authority to assess client training needs. The grievor testified that clients who called in were often uncertain as to what course would best fill their needs, and accordingly she developed a series of questions to ascertain what their training requirements were. She further testified that she recommended training programs to suit clients' needs. The grievor 5 described the most important part of her job as insuring that clients were enrolled in the proper training program, because otherwise they are not likely to return to the College. It was the grievor's evidence that she was able to handle most of the calls from clients, although if she was not certain of something she would ask one of the teaching masters about it and later call the client back. As already noted, the grievor referred calls respecting contract courses to the training consultant. She testified that what she did discuss with clients was the option of them taking a specialized training program comprised of modules from different courses offered by the Department. According to the grievor, if a client decided to utilize this approach, she passed on the information to a faculty member to cost the program. Ms Mathews acknowledged that the grievor did suggest specific pieces of courses to clients but noted that the grievor did not have responsibility for either costing or authorizing such special training courses. In light of Ms Mathews' acknowledgement that the grievor suggested specialized programs comprised of parts of different courses to clients, it is logical that she would also have advised clients with respect to regular courses. Further, there was no evidence of anyone else in the College providing information or advice to clients with respect to established safety and environment training courses. These considerations lead me to accept the grievor's evidence that she did provide such information and advice. As part of her clerical duties the grievor maintained files for the Contract Education Division. She also compiled a variety of records for statistical purposes. Using the registration forms for safety and environmental training courses, she compiled a list of the clients who had registered for each course. This was passed on to a clerk who apparently registered the clients as students in the College. The grievor also kept track of the number of out-of-province and out-of-country clients. From information provided to her relating to client absences from classes, the grievor prepared attendance reports. Certain of these were reviewed by Mr. Wilson. The grievor was also responsible for assigning one of 12 cost account centre numbers to purchase order requisitions and expenditures. It was the grievor's evidence that Mr. Wilson would verify her account numbers, although he seldom changed them. In addition, the grievor typed letters for other departmental staff. They would review these letters before signing them. When a client registered for a particular course the grievor would mail out to the client what she referred to as an information package. The enclosed information advised the client about class location(s) and what equipment to bring. Also i~cluded was an invoice with respect to the cost of the course. The grievor did not set the location, equipment requirements or the cost of courses. She did, however, complete and sign her own name to standard form letters, including those included in the information package sent to clients. She also prepared the invoices. A recent example of the type of letter the grievor would complete and sign is set out below: 1990 - 04 - 11 Hr. Rene Chausse C.I. L. Inc. 300 Brookdale Ave. CORNWALL, Ontario K6H 5V4 Dear Rene: This will confirm your registration in the following Safety & Environment Program offered by Lambton College: TDG - Emergency Response May 28-June1/90 $1000.00 8 Participant(e) Please find attached an invoice for your participation. Thank you for your interest and support. Sincerely, Diane Frenette-FitzGerald (Mrs.) Safety and Environmental Programs A client was required to pay 50 percent of the cost of a course if he/she cancelled within 30 days of its commencement. This led the grievor to set a deadline which ensured that course participants received the information package five to six weeks before a course began. 8 The grievor was advised as to the minimum and maximum number of clients allowed in each course. It was the grievor's evidence that if there were not enough clients she would initiate the cancellation of the course and so advise the appropriate teaching master as well as the clients. It was Ms Mathews' evidence that the grievor did not authorize the cancellation of a course but rather advised the Manager or Co-ordinator of the situation and he made the final decision. This evidence finds support in the grievor's statement that if five to six weeks before a course was to commence they were a couple of clients short, Mr. Bract, the Co-ordinator, would ask her if she believed it likely that additional clients would sign-up before the course was scheduled to begin. This comment leads me to conclude that in all probability the grievor raised the matter of a shortage of clients with Mr. Bract and it was he who actually made the final decision as to whether or not the course would be cancelled. The grievor was then responsible for notifying the teaching master as well as the clients about a cancellation. If a course had reached its maximum number, the grievor would generally keep a list of those unable to get into the course. If there appeared to be a sufficient number to justify an additional course, she would bring this to the attention of the faculty member involved. It was Ms Mathews' evidence that the grievor did not authorize adding a course. The evidence of the grievor, however, as well as the wording of the position description form, suggest that if the number of extra clients met the minimum number required, and the appropriate faculty member was available to teach the course, the grievor would automatically proceed to book the necessary facilities and contact the clients about attending. The grievor was not responsible for fixing the locations where courses were offered but was responsible for booking the locations. She arranged for the necessary materials to be transported to the appropriate locations and also for a catering firm to deliver lunches. On the first day of a course she provided each of the clients with a schedule showing them where they were to be at different times. As noted above, the grievor was responsible for preparing and sending out invoices for clients who attended a course. For most courses, the cost per client was pre-set. Specialized courses comprised of modules taken from different courses were costed by a faculty member. When the grievor sent out an invoice she noted this fact in a memorandum to the College's accounting department. When the grievor received a cheque in response to an invoice she forwarded it to the accounting department. By way of a tracking sheet which she developed the grievor kept a record of the amounts paid by clients and the amounts still owing. The accounting department kept its own set of records which were treated as the official records and used for auditing purposes. The grievor testified that if someone did not pay their account she would send out a second notice. If the client still lO did not pay she would raise the matter with Mr. Wilson. The grievor described one occasion when she was discussing the matter of an unpaid account with Gerry Silver, the College's Director of Finance. .According to the grievor, Mr. Silver made the comment that "you" invoiced the client and therefore you collect from him. The grievor did not know whether Mr. Silver was referring to herself personally or to the Contract Education Department. At the hearing the grievor remarked that Mr. Silver knew that she had no authority to take action against.the client to collect the money. The same client sought to enroll in a subsequent course. The grievor raised the matter with Derek Washington, the Dean of Industrial Training. Mr. Washington decided that the client would be permitted to register. Job Difficulty Matrix The parties agree that a rating of 3 is appropriate for the judgement aspect of the job'difficulty matrix. This rating indicates that the grievor's job involved a moderate degree of judgement. The parties disagree with respect to the proper rating for the complexity portion of the matrix. The College rated the grievor's job at level B. The Union argues for a C rating. The criteria for these two ratings are set out below: B Work involves the performance of specific tasks that involve related steps, processes or methods. 11 C Work involves the performance of various complex tasks that include both routine and non-routine aspects requiring different and unrelated processes and methods. Most of the grievor's tasks were quite specific and constituted related steps in the handling of the detailed arrangements and paperwork relating to environmental and safety courses. These tasks cannot reasonably be regarded as complex. They were instead the type of tasks contemplated by a B rating. The one exception relates to the grievor's role in providing clients with information and advice with respect to courses. Although the College regards these functions as part of the grievor's duties as a receptionist, the evidence indicates that when performing these duties the grievor was acting in the nature of a course counsellor. Some of this counseling was of a particularly complex and non-routine nature, such as when she advised clients with respect to the selection of modules from different courses so as to create a unique program suited to their specific needs. The position description form indicates that the grievor performed receptionist duties, which included advising clients, for about 20 percent of her time. Notwithstanding this fact, the grievor's role in assisting clients in the selection of courses appears not to have been a marginal or insignificant one. In my view, the complexity of this task should have been recognized when rating the grievor's position. In light of these factors I conclude that the grievor's job was more appropriately rated at a C level for compexity. 12 Guidance Received Matrix The parties disagree with respect to the proper rating for both aspects of the guidance received matrix, namely the guidelines available and the nature of review. At the relevant time Ms Mathews was the grievor's supervisor, although the grievor did no work for her. Ms Mathew$ did not directly check any of the grievor's work. She did, however, receive anQ review certain reports prepared by others which were based, in part, on data supplied by the grievor. Mr Wilson was the person who assigned particular tasks to the grievor and she went to him with any administrative problems. The grievor commented that Mr. Wilson, "was sort of my boss but not my boss." Given Mr. Wilson's general supervisory role within the College, I do not believe that anything turns on the fact that technically he was not the grievor's supervisor. I regard him as coming within the term "supervisor" as it is used in the guidance received matrix. Mr. Wilson checked the typing the grievor prepared for his signature, her assignment of cost centre numbers as well as certain other of her tasks. With respect to the guidelines available portion of the matrix, the College claims a C rating to be appropriate whereas the Union argues for a D rating. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 13 C Work is performed in accordance with general procedures and past practices. Unfamiliar situations are reviewed with supervisor. D Work is performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems. Supervisor is available to assist in resolving problems. The Union contends that the 9rievor developed the procedures which she utilized and accordingly she was capable of adapting them as required. The procedures in question appear to be the routines the grievor adopted to.perform the job functions assigned to her. There is no evidence of the grievor adapting these routines to meet particular situations. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that when out of the ordinary situations arose, such as the client who did not pay his fees and his subsequent action in trying to register for a second course, they were referred to Mr. Wilson or to Mr. Washington. The grievor was not assisted in resolving these types of problems, as contemplated by a D rating, but rather someone else took responsibility for them. These factors lead me to conclude that the College appropriately gave the grievor's job a C rating for guidelines available. With respect to the nature of the review of the grievor's work, the College has assigned a 3 rating whereas the Union argues in favour of a 4 rating. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 3 Work assignments are intermittently or periodically checked for quality. 4 Work assignments are subject to a general form of review for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines. Reports and statistical data prepared by the grievor were generally reviewed by others. The accounts receivable records kept by the grievor were not directly checked, but the accounting department kept a separate set of records which were utilized as the official records. The material which went out over the grievor's name was not checked by anyone. Given the highly routine nature of this correspondence, as indicated by the letter set out above, however, I do not believe anything turns on the fact that it was not checked. A different situation applies with respect to the grievor's discussions with clients concerning course selections. There was no direct review as to what she told clients or the advice she gave to them. Indeed, such a review would have been very difficult. If there was something the grievor did not know, she would raise it with a faculty member. In this type of situation the faculty member served as a resource person and not as someone who was reviewing the grievor's performance. Although there was no evidence of this occurring, logic suggests that if the College had become aware of any problems concerning the manner in which the grievor was advising clients, it would have been as a result of complaints from the clients themselves. With respect to this 15 aspect of the grievor's job, I am satisfied that work assignments were subject only to a general form of review. Assigning an overall rating with respect to the nature of the review of the grievor's work is made difficult by the fact that a relatively small part of the grievor's time was taken up in advising clients. In assessing the complexity of the grievor's work I concluded that it was appropriate to credit the grievor with the counselling aspect of her work because she performed it on a regular basis. I am not satisfied that the same approach logically applies with respect to the level of review. In that over 80 percent of the grievor's work was either checked for quality or was of a highly routine nature, Z am led to conclude that the entitlement to a 4 rating has not been made out and that a 3 rating was more appropriate. Knowledge Matrix The parties agree that the grievor's job rated a C level in terms of the experience required to perform it, that is up to three years of practical experience. They disagree, however, as to the training required for the job. The College rated the requirements at level 3, while the Union contends a level 4 rating to be more appropriate. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows: 3 Requires skills normally acquired through attainment of secondary school graduation or equivalent. 16 A Requires skills normally acquired through attainment of secondary school graduation and completion of additional job related training courses or equivalent. The grievor is a secondary school graduate. While in her current position she took three of the safety and environmental courses offered by the Department. She did $o on her own initiative. The grievor testified that she took the courses so ae to be better able to advise clients. The Union basis its claim for a 4 rating on the fact the grievor took the courses in question. The criteria for a 4 rating, however, do not refer to the skills or job related training an incumbent actually possesses. Neither do they refer to training which would assist on incumbent. Reference ie instead made to required skills. This indicates that what is to be looked at are the minimum skill and training levels required to perform the job. In the instant case the College set the minimum formal educational requirement as grade twelve or equivalent. I recognize the possibility that there may be cases where the College sets the formal educational requirements for a job too low and that an incumbent will be required to utilize skills acquired through additional training. Such, however, was not the case here. By relying on available course material and using faculty members as resource persons, the grievor, as well as anyone who might have replaced her, was able to advise clients as to the nature and content of the courses offered by the Department. The fact that the grievor took the three courses would have assisted her in performing her job. The courses, however, were not necessary, as demonstrated by the fact 17 that she did not take the great majority of courses offered by the Department. In these circumstances I conclude that a 3 rating was appropriate. Conclusion The manner in which the grievor's job was rated by the College resulted in it being given a total of 373 points on the rating scheme. Had it not been for the grievor's activities in assisting and providing advise to clients with respect to course selections, Z would have upheld this rating. As indicated above, however, these activities warrant her job being awarded a higher C rating in terms of job complexity. A C rating with respect to job complexity results in the job receiving a total of 122 points on the job difficulty matrix rather than the 96 points assigned by the College. The additional points raise the point total for the job to 399. This point total comes within payband 6. Having regard to the above, I reject the Union's claim that the grievor's job should be paid in accordance with payband 7. I do, however, find that the grievor is entitled to, and direct that she be, paid in accordance with payband 6. I will remain seized of this matter in the event the parties are unable to agree on the amount of compensation payable to the grievor with respect to time already worked. Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of July, 1990. lan Springate ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF Cr~SSIFICATIONS COLLEGE LAMBTON INCUMBENT Diane Frenette-Fitzgerald PRESENT CLASSIFICATION Secretary A AND PAYBAND 5 SUPERVISOR Nancy Mathews (at time of grievance) JOB FAMILY AND PAYBAND REQUESTED BY GRIEVOR Pay. band 7 POSITION DESCRIPTION FORM: 1. Position Description Form Attached 2. FT~ Parties agree on contents of attached Position Description Form o_E ~ Union disagrees with contents of attached Position Description Form SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THIS DISAGREEMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS: (USE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY) AWARD Management Union Arbitrator ELEMENTS Rating Pts. Rating Pts. Rating Pts. JOB DIFFICULTY B 3 96 C 3 122 GUIDANCE RECEIVED c 3 104 O 4 150 COMIMUNI CATIONS B 3 59 B KNOWLEDGE TRAINING/EXPERIENCE C 3 64 C 4 7~ " - SKILL 3 34 3 34 - WORKING MANUAL A 5 3 A 5 3 CONDITIONS VISUAL B 4 ~0 B 4 ENVIRONMENTAL A 5 3 A 5 3 TOTAL POINTS 373 459 PAYBAND NUMBER 5 7 · =~-~a~n WWITTEN SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ' ~-] The College (Optional) SIGNATURES: FOR THE UNION FOR MANAGEMENT D. Fr-ene t re-Fit zCerald ~ (Gr~evor) , (Date) (Date) (Union Rep. ) (Date) Hearing Date AwarJ Date