HomeMy WebLinkAboutMcNamee 91-11 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
between
LOYALIST COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter referred to as the College)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 421
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification Grievance of Diane McNamee
Sole Arbitrator: Go J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: G.J. Palmer
N. J. Glancy
For the Union: John Boor
Diane McNamee
Hearing:
Belleville, Ontario
November 15, 1991.
AWARD
Introduction
This is a classification grievance of Diane McNa~ce ~wno is
Secretary to the ~-~ __i=r. She was originally classified as a
Secretary. A, Payband 5. Her Position Description Form (PDF) was
reviewe~ by the Classification Committee on April 24, 1991 and the
position was reclassified to Secretary B, Payband 6. The grievor
remained unsatisfied and filed her grievance on May 23, 1991. That
grievance sough~ reclassification to Secretary Atypical, Payband 9.
A classification complaint hearing was held on May 30, 1991 and the
grievance was denied. Subsequently, the union reassessed its
position and revised the grievance to a claim for Secretary
Atypical, Payband 8o
The following table sets out the respective ratings of ~he job
factors by the College and Union respectively.
College Union
Job Difficulty C3 122 C4 144
Guidance Received C3 104 D5 172
Communications B3 59 C4 97
Knowledge: Training/Exp C4 78 C5 91
Skill 3 34 3 34
Working Conditions:
Manual A5 3 B3 7
Visual B3 7 B3 7
Environmental A5 3 A5 3
Total Points 410 555
Pay Band 6 8
Preliminary Issues
Before proceeding it is necessary to deal with a. preliminary
matter relating to the data filed prior to.the arbitration hearing.
The 'Arbitration Data Sheet filed in preparation for the
hearing is signed by representatives of both parties and indicates
that the parties agree on the contents Of the Position Description
Form. However, notwithstanding that stated agreement on the PDF,
the PDFs filed by the parties with their written briefs differ in
certain significant respects.
The Union PDF summarizes the overall purpose of the position
by stating that the incumbent has delegated responsibility to
perform administrative.and secretarial functions. The College PDF
describes the functions as secretarial and clerical°
Under the factor of Guidance Received the Union PDF states
that work assignments are reviewed only for achievement of' broad
objectives. The College PDF states that work is reviewed
intermittently by discussion.
Under the factor of Job Difficulty, the Union PDF states,
inter alia, that the incumbent initiates correspondence for routine
and non-routine matters. The College PDF deletes any reference to
non-routine matters. Under the same factor the Union PDF states
4
that tlle incumbent performs various non routine tasks that require
~ considerable deqree of judgment. (eq. assisting and advising staff.
when new or different procedures are established. The College PDF
omits the words emphasized above°
Under the factor of Job Knowledge the Union PDF describes the
minimum level of academic or formalized training required as two
years Post Secondary Secretarial diploma including courses in word
processing and accounting, or equivalent. The College PDF refers
to secondary school graduation diploma and completion of additional
job related training courses, eg. word processing, accounting.
The expedited arbitration process agreed upon by the parties
cannot work well where the parties do not agree on the PDF.
Expedited arbitration is not a forum in which factual disputes
about, for example, what is done or how closely work is reviewed
can b~ satisfactorily resolved. Where such disputes occur it is
preferable that the grievance be referred to a tri-partite tribunal
for hearing in the normal fashion. Where, on the other hand, there
is agreement on the contents of the PDF, expedited arbitration
serves to resolve disputes as to how the position described by that
agreed upon PDF should be evaluated according to the classification
scheme.
The problem presented by this case is that there is some
question as to whether the PDF should be considered to have been
5
agreed upon. It is helpful to state the chronology of events
which has led to this situation. A PDF was initially drafted by
the Comptroller, Mr. Glancy, the grievor' immediate supervisor. It
was agreed to-by the Union and. the grievor and sent to Mr. Palmer,
the Chair of the Support Staff Classification Committee° That PDF
was put before the Classification Committee which scored it and
rated it at Secretary B, Payband 6. The grievor was unsatisfied
and filed her grievance on May 23, 1991. At a meeting on May 30,
1991 the Classification Complaint Committee denied the grievance.
On June 17, 1991, Mr. Palmer wrote to Mro Glancy attaching a PDF
which he states in his memo "reflects the language clarification
flowing from our meeting with the Union May 30, 1991~.'' He further
asked Mr. Glancy to have the grievor sign it and indicate that she
has "read and understood the Position Description Form."
The PDF attached to the June 17th memorandum is the PDF filed
by th~ College with me prior to these proceedings° It was not
signed nor agreed to by the grievor.
In approaching this matter I must be guided by the PDF that
was evaluated by the Support Staff Classification Committee. That
PDF was agreed upon by both the grievor and her supervisor and is
the one to which the Committee evidently applied its mind and whose
decision is the subject of this grievance. Moreover, insofar as
the Arbitration Data Sheet, signed b~ the College, indicates that
both parties agree to the PDF attached thereto (ioe. the PDF filed
6
by the Union), the Union was justified in believing theft the
hearing would proceed on that basis and that it wa~ not required to
make out its case based on a different PDF. F~.nally, although Mr.
Palmer, as mhair of %i. suppOrt Staff Classificati~rl Committee,
expressed disagreement with the PDF on June 17, 1791 (and sought
some clarification thereof), at the hearing into this matter he
stated ~at, apart from that section of the PDF dealing with the
Knowledge requirement, he could "live with" the PDF that was
attached to the Arbitration Data Sheet.
Duties and Responsibilities ·
I turn to a general account of the grievor's duties and
responsibilities.
A substantial portion of the grievor's time (75%) is involves
her fn the performance of "administrative and secretarial"
functions for the Comptroller, Mr. Glancy. A considerable portion
of that time is spent in connection with various meetings that are
held by different committees throughout the year. Four such
meetings were identified. They are (in order of importance and
significance) a joint meeting of the Audit Committee and the
President's Committee held once a year, meetings of the Audit
Committee held 2-3 times a year, meetings of the Book Store Users
Committee held twice a year, and monthly Comptroller meetings.
7
The Comptroller's meeting is attended by the 4 supervisors who
report to Mr. Glancy. The purpose of this meeting is to ensure
that everyone is kept current concerning what is occurri?,g in the
various areas of theldepartment~and to be made aware of any new
~rocedures. The grievor prepares the agenda for this meeting by
reviewing, the minutes of the previous meeting to determine whether
there is any business that must be brought forward and by asking
the various supervisors if they have matters to be raised. She
collects any material that is relevant for the meeting, reviews the
agenda with Mr. Glancy, and once he has approved of the agenda, it
is circulated along with the collected material to those who will
be in attendance. The grievor attends the meetings, records the
proceedings by speed writing and prepares condensed minutes of the
meeting for review by Mr. Glancyo Once he has approved of the
minutes they are circulated.
· he Book Store Users Committee meeting is attended by
representatives of the Deans, the Secretaries, students, faculty,
the manager of the book store and Mr. Glancy. Its purpose is to
review problems that may have arisen~ in connection with the
operation of the bookstore. The grievor sends a memorandum to
those attending requesting them to submit items for inclusion on
the agenda. She prepares the agenda and any background materials
that may be required for the meeting and circulates it to the
members. Mr. Glancy checks both the memorandum and the agenda
before it is circulated. The grievor attends the meeting, records
8
the proceedings, prepares the minutes which, after review b?! Mr.
Glancy, are circulated.
The Audit Committee ~= 'chaired by a member of uhe Board-of
Governors and is composed of two other members of the Board of
Governors, Mt. Palmer (Vice President, Finance and Administration),
the Coli~ge auditors, and Mr. Glancy. Again the grievor, on the
instruction and subject to the review of Mr. Glancy, compiles
information needed for this meeting, prepares and circulates the
agenda, attends the meeting, recOrds the proceedings and prepares
the minutes for Mr. Glancy's review.
The Audit Committee meets once a year with the President's
Committee which is composed of .the President, and the Vice-
Presidents° Prior to this meeting the auditors prepare a
memorandum of their recommendations and sent it to Mr. Glancy who,
in turn sends relevant portions of the memorandum to the various
Vice-Presidents for their response. The responses are collected by
the grievor who puts them before Mr. Glancy for his review. Once
this has been done the grievor prepares the agenda and supporting
material and circulates it prior to the meeting. She attends the
meeting and takes minutes which, after review by Mro Glancy, are
circulated°
The grievor.also has some involvement with one other Committee
meeting° That is the meeting of the Finance, Property and
9
Personnel Committee which is held once a month. This committee
consists of representatives of the Board of Governors and Mr.
Palmer and Mro Glancy. For each meeting the grievor gathers
together, various material, eg. cheque listings, financial
statements, investment reports, and capital campaiqn r~ports,--which
she sends to Mr. Palmer's secretary who prepares the agenda for
that meeting. The Supervisor of Accounting, Mrs. Gwyn Thompson,
checks this work to ensure that it has been properly collected.
For some of the meetings she collects the minutes of the audit
committee and budget adjustments and sends them, by a letter of
transmittal to Mr. Palmer'~ secretary° Before transmittal that
work is reviewed by Mr. Glancy.
Other duties performed in her capacity as secretary to the
Comptroller include the following:
1. Updating the Accounting system coding manual and preparing
summaries of frequently used codes for the assistance of different
secretaries.
2. preparing correspondence of a confidential nature for Mr.
Glancy's signature.
3. opening mail and putting before Mro Glancy that which
requires his immediate attention°
4. On the instruction of Mr° Glanc~ researching source
documents to assist in the updating Or development of new policies.
5. Co-ordinating special events occurring on average once a
year.
10
6. Offering input into the design of forms used in the
department.
7o F~ls'aring that the Comptroller's Department Procedures
Manual and t~e '~ollege Policy and Procedure Manual and kept.~cu~mt
and ensuring t>~at staff are alerted to ~-' _. ~'
8. Processing time sheets for part time staff and reviewing
timesheets for full time staff.
Mr. Glancy stated that he checks the grievor's work very
closely whenever calculations are involved and where the letter or
document is important, eg. to budget holders. He also checks the
minutes Closely to ensure that they do not convey a different
meaning than that expressed at the meetings. On the other hand some
of the work done by the grievor is routine and not as closely
checked. However, Mr. Glancy stated that one reason why he does
not check some of the grievor's work closely is that he has
confidence in her. He stated that he would feel compelled to check
closely all of the work of a new hiree into the position although
it was his expectation that they would be "up to speed" quite quickly.
In addition to reporting to Mr. Glancy the grievor also "acts
as a resource person" to various other peoPle at the College.
These are Mrs° Thompson (Supervisqr of Accounting), Mr. Martin
(Purchasing Agent), Bookstore and Office Services Manager (Carol
Grant) and Accounting Department Staff. Her responsibilities in
this regard include "receiving, priorizing, compiling and
11
transcribing data supplied by the Supervisor of Accounting and
others, arranging meetings and scheduling appointments, and
arranging for casual~ and temporary personnel during peak w6r.kload
periods .... -
The .grievor stated that, insofar as her responsibilities
require to accept work assignments from people other than Mrs.
Glancy, she'is required to establish some priorities as to when
work coming from different sources gets done. In this regard she
uses her own judgment and is generally guided by the deadline for
each particular piece of work given to her. She stated that she
has always been able to complete the work assigned by the
established deadline and has only "rarely" had to tell Mr. Glancy
that she.was unable to do his work because of a competing and
higher priority of another job. Mr. Glancy confirmed that cases of
conflict are rare and that supervisors resolve the problem the
poten%ial sources of conflict before the grievor is given the
assignment.
EVidence was led with respect to various inquiries to which
the grievor is expected to respond. These inquiries generally seek
explanation as to coding, forms to use, or information as to who
may authorize expenditures (generally inquiries as to the policies
and procedures of the Department). They come from the Executive
Secretaries to the Vice-Presidents, Secretaries to the Deans (and
occasionally a Dean), the Professional Development Co-ordinator
12
(Leslie Forrester), the ~anager of Placement (Maureen Corrigan),
and The Directo~ of Public Relations (Diane Spencer). Both Ms.
Forrester a.md ~s. Corrigan report to a Vice-President. Mr. Spencer
reports to ~ P~-'es~.dent of the College.
Evaluation of factors
I turn to a consideration of the appropriate evaluation of
each of the separate job factors in dispute. As indicated above,
'in view of the fact that the PDF must be considered to have been
agreed upon by the parties, that task involves essentially an
application of the core point rating plan on the basis of what is
set down in the PDF as expanded upon by the evidence at the
hearing. In this regard it must be noted at the outset that, with
respect to a number of the factors, the PDF itself is conclusive
insofar as it contains statements which are identical to (and no
doubt~were taken directly from) the core point rating plan. Where
that result is supported by the evidence no particular difficulties
arise. However, where the statements contained in the agreed upon
PDF are not supported by the evidence, an issue arises as to which
conclusion is to be preferred.
I have concluded that, having regard to the fact that
expedited arbitration is intended to resolves disputes about the
proper evaluation of a position as described in the PDF, where the
PDF itself points conclusively to a particular result, that
13
- conclusion ought to obtain even where,-on the evidence adduced at
the hearing, I might have reached a different conclusion.
1. Job Difficulty. .'
The dispute under this factor is over the question of
judgment. The union claims level 4: "considerable judgment,
problem solving involves handling a variety of conventional
problems with established analytical techniques°" Section C(1) of
the PDF states, inter alia, that the incumbent "performs a variety
of non-routine tasks that require a considerable degree of
judgment" and, in C(2) that "problem solving involves handling a
variety of conventional problems". Thus, the PDF itself is
conclusive.
Moreover, the evidence supports this result. In my opinion
the preparation of minutes that are to capture, in succinct terms,
the d~scussions and decisions made over the course of two hour
meetings, is a task which requires a degree of judgment that can
reasonably be characterized as "considerable". Moreover, I am
persuaded that the kinds of problems which the grievor is required
to deal with coming as they do from a number of different sources,
present her with a "variety" of different problems°
Consequently, I would rate factor of Job Difficulty at C4.
2. Guidance Received.
14
The dispute here is over both Guidelines Available and Nature
of Review. The union claims D5 and the College rates this factor
at C3.
~- ~_, ~ates that "work is perf6rmed in accordance with
general p~ocedures and past practices which may be modified to meet
particular situations" and that "work assignments are reviewed only
for achievement of broad objectives." This corresponds exactly
with level D for Guidelines Available and level 5 for Nature of
Review. For the reasons set out above I must conclude that the
proper evaluation of this factor is as reflected in the agreed upon
PDF.
However, this conclusion is not, in my opinion, supported by
the evidence. The evidence establishes that Mr. Glancy checks and
reviews the work of the grievor quite closely; indeed, that with a
new hiree he would check it even more closely. It appears to me
that, on the basis of the evidence, the College evaluation of the
Nature of Review element at level 3, viz, "assignments
intermittently and/or periodically checked for quality" is more
accurate. Moreover, I do not believe that, while the grievor does
handle a variety of different meetings and situations, she has to
modify or adapt her practices. The evidence was clear that, for
example, her role in connection with gathering together
information, preparing the agenda, circulating the material,
attending the meeting and taking minutes, was essentially the same
15
for all of the meetings even though the meetings themselves were of
different committees and dealt with different issues.
Thus, were it the case that I were evaluating this.~fa.ctor on
the basis of the evJ~ence'~a'tone, I would have evaluated it at C3.
However, in view of what is stated in the PDF I have no option but
to rate~his factor at D5.
3. Communications
The dispute respecting this factor concerns both the level and
the purpose of contacts° The College rates it at B3 and the Union
at C4.
This factor can be assessed entirely on the basis of the
evidence. The PDF itself is not conclusive.
I have little difficulty in concluding that the rating of the
College is to be preferred with respect to the question of the
level of contacts. The union claims that contact is "primarily
with employees at senior management levels inside the College".
The evidence simply does not support that claim. With the
exception of her contacts with Ms. Spencer, who reports to the
President of the College, her contacts are with people at the
middle management level. Consequently, this factor should be rated
at level 3.
16
Similarly, I find that the purpose of the contacts is better
captured by the phrase provides "detailed explanation to ensure
understanding on, eg. how information is collected" than by that
set down in the core point rating plan £~r .±evel C, viz,
"instruct~r .~'gu~dance for the purpose of explaining various
matters by interpreting procedures and policy". The eVidence is
that the~grievor is asked questions with respect to coding, signing
authorization and forms. I have difficulty accepting that her
answers to such questions can reasonably be considered as
"instruction" or "guidance" of such a kind'as to involve
"interpretation" of policy. They appear to me to be more in the
nature of answers to relatively straightforward questions as to the
requirements of the Comptroller's Department.
Consequently, I would rate this factor at B3.
Knowledge
The parties disagree over the proper rating to be applied to
the Training element of this factor. The College rates it at level
4, viz, secondary school diploma and completion of additional
courses or equivalent. The Union rates it at level 5, viz, 2 year
community College diploma or equivalent°
Again, with respect to this factor the PDF is conclusive. It
describes the minimum level of academic or formalized training
17
required to undertake the duties of the position as "two year Post
Secondary Secretarial diploma including courses in word processing
and accounting, or equivalent."
Moreover, the evidence supports the union(s claim. A letter
written .by Professor Carol Hudson, Co-ordinator, Office
Administration, at the College was filed by the union in support of
its claim. That letter expressed the opinion that a current
graduate from a Grade twelve program would not have the skills
necessary to carry out the duties required of a secretary at the
College. She stated that, while at one time the Ontario schools
offered a comprehensive business/commercial training, such training
no longer exists; that the job of training students to go ihto the
work force capable of performing as secretaries has now fallen to
the Community Colleges. She recited a number of areas in respect
of which teachers in the Office Administration program have to
train~students entering the College from a high school program:
language and communication skills, touch typing, transcription
skills, computer applications, including word processing,
accounting, office procedures, personal organization skills, time
management and prioritizing work.
I find this letter to be a useful and objective account of the
level of training required for the position in question and I adopt
its conclusions.
18
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at C5.
5. Wcz%2~,g conditions: Manu~l ,~f?ort.
Both the PDF that was scored by the Classification Committee
and the'~DF supplied by the College describe the manual' effort as
"prolonged sitting" for 25% of the time. Therefore, there is
little question that the factor should be rated at B3. The Core
Point Rating Plan includes among the examples of manual effort that
will qualify for the B rating, "prolonged sitting". Further, it
provides that a level of 3 for Prevalence will be justified where
the time spent in such activity is "occasional" i.e. between 10-30%
of the time.
Moreover, the evidence supports this conclusion. The grievor
stated that each of the meetings that she must attend,
approximately 20 a year, last for two hours. In addition I am
satisfied that her other duties sometimes require that she be
remain seated for "prolonged" periods of time. It may be noted in
this regard that, to qualify for level 3, it is only necessary that
there be manual effort of the requisite degree for as little as 10%
of the time. While I am somewhat sceptical of the claim that the
incumbent is engaged in "prolonged sitting" for 25% of the time
(even though both parties appear to make that claim) I have little
doubt in finding that she is engaged in such effort for at least
19
10% of the time.
Accordingly, I would rate this factor at B3.
Summary and Conclusions
Th~ following table sets out a summary of my conclusions with
respect to the proper evaluation of this position.
Job Difficulty C 4 144
Guidance Received D 5 172
Communications B 3 59
Knowledge:Training/Experience C5 91
Skill 3 34
Working Conditions:
Manual Effort B3 7
Visual B3 7
Environmental A5 3
Total Points 517
Pay Band 8
~learly this result is anomalous. My assessment of the
position based on the evidence would confirm the PDF ratings'in all
categories but that for Guidance Received. As I have indicated my
rating of that factor, on the evidence, would have been C3 and the
grievor's overall point total would have been 487 and she would
have been placed in Payband 7.
However, for the reasons given, I feel compelled (albeit
20
reluctantly) to conclude that the grievance must be allowed and the
grievor classified as Secretary Atypical, Payba~d 8 retroactive to
the date of grievance and paid accc..dingly. Although the grievance
claims int~c. _ ~ believe that, iD t.~e cir~:umstances, an award of
interest on any outstanding monies ow~ shculd be denied.
I ~emain seised of jurisdiction to deal with any issues
arising out of the implementation of this award.
Dated at LONDON, Ont. this 2 ~ day of ~c~4~ , 1991
G. J. Brandt, Arbitrator