Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLuckock, Bates, Stanshall 90-05-09 MOHAWK OOLLE~E (~he "College") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (the "Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF GRIEVANCES OF CHRISTINE LUCKOCK, JOAN BATES AND SHARON STANSHALL SOLE ARBITRATOR Ian Springate APPEARANCES For the College Stephen Banto~t, Director o~ Human Resources E, W, Fi]ipowich, Assistant Director, Compensation, Human Resources Division For the Union Betty Savoie, Steward Frans Brinkman, President, Local 241 HEARING Apri] 2§, 1990 in Hamilton AWARD These proceedings arise out of complaints raised by Christine Luckock, Joan Bates and Sharon Stanshall ("the grievor$") in which they contend that their jobs have not been properly classified for pay purposes. The complaints were referred to arbitration pursuant to the expedited arbitration procedure set out in Article 18.4.3 of the applicable collective agreement. The grievors work as academic scheduling officers. They are classified as support services officers - atypical and paid in accordance with payband 9. They claim an entitlement to be paid in accordance with payband 10, Although the grievors perform certain other related tasks, some 70 percent of their time is spent in developing academic timetables. This involves receiving and clarifying relevant data and then producing operational timetables for each of the College's three semesters. The parties are in agreement with respect to the wording of the relevant position description form. They disagree, however, as to how the grievors should be rated with respect to certain aspects of the classification/point system developed by the parties. In particular, they disagree as to the appropriate ratings with respect to job difficulty, guidance received, working conditions - manual and working conditions - environmental. JOB DIFFICULTY The College and the Union agree that the job performed by the grievors rates a 5 on the judgement portion of the job difficulty grid. This rating recognizes that their duties involve a significant degree of judgement and that problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining the work methods and techniques to be used. The parties disagree as to the proper rating with respect to the job's complexity. The College has rated the job at the "D" level, while the Union contends an "E" rating would be more appropriate. The criteria for these two ratings is set out below: D. Work involves the performance of varied, non-routine complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated processes and methods. E. Work involves the performance of non-routine and relatively unusual tasks that may require the application of specialized processes or methods. The evidence indicates that the job of an academic shedu]ing officer requires someone who has an aptitude for problem solving and an ability to be innovative. Each semester the grievors receive and clarify data from department chairs and others with respect to a variety of considerations, including the courses to be offered, elective bands, faculty workload assignments, laboratory requirements and rOom availability. The grievors identify any problems or conflicts inherent in the information they have received. They then raise.these difficulties with the appropriate academic chairs while at the same time advising them 4 as to the various ways a particular difficulty might be resolved. Once the difficulties have been resolved, the grievors produce operational timetables which take into account the information they have received as well as certain "givens", such as the need for lunch breaks and time for departmental meetings. Their work is not checked by anyone and each academic scheduler is held accountable for the schedules she produces. In recent years the task of scheduling has been made more complex by the combining of classes for part, but not all of the time, the splitting of classes for the purposes of laboratory time and the setting aside of laboratory time so that students can do their homework. Certain laboratories must at times be blocked off for revenue producing purposes. In addition to these considerations, the availability of faculty must be taken into account. Some faculty members are available to teach only at specific times. Restrictions also exist as to the number of consecutive hours that a faculty member can teach. Once the initial scheduling process has been completed, timetables frequently have to be reconstructed to take into account program changes, faculty changes and enrollment shifts. In certain situations a timetable may have to be constructed on the understanding that a yet to be hired faculty member Will be assigned to teach certain courses. The person actually hired, however, may not be able to teach all of the courses in question, thus necessitating changes to the relevant schedule. 5 The grievors go through a timescheduling cycle for each of the College's three annual semesters. The information they work with differs every semester. Although it is not uncommon for them to receive information- late, the academic schedulers themselves must adhere to rigid deadlines. At certain times of the year this results in extensive overtime. The work performed by the grievors is acknowledged to be complex. The factual information they work with changes every semester and thus no two timetables will be the same. Notwithstanding these considerations, the grievors are essentially performing the same general task on a cyclical basis, namely developing operational timetables which take into account the factors and constraints referred to above. In light of this fact, their work cannot reasonably be regarded as involving the performance of relatively unusual tasks which may require the application of specialized processes or methods, which is the requirement for an "E" rating. A "D" rating more accurately reflects the tasks performed by the grievors. Having regard to the above, I confirm the D5 job difficulty rating.assigned by the College. GUIDANCE RECEIVED At one time the grievors worked directly under scheduling manager Kathy Hays, who functioned as a "hands on" supervisor. Hrs. Hays was subsequently promoted to the position of associate registrar, academic scheduling and records. No one was appointed to replace her as scheduling manager. In her current position Mrs. Hays is not on]y responsible for the academic scheduling staff, but is a]so the supervisor for six and a half employees in the records area, the individual who schedules continuing education courses and the central room booking clerk. The records area is located at the far side of the College from the academic scheduling office. Mrs, Hays indicated that the employees in the records area require considerably more of her attention than do the academic scheduling staff and that she functions both as the record employees' supervisor and their coordinator. Mrs Hays further indicated that because of time constraints it would create a problem if she had to be more involved as the supervisor of the scheduling staff. Mrs. Hays indicated that with respect to the academic scheduling, she concerns herself primarily with matters of policy. Mrs. Hays generally meets with the grievors only once a month. The other staff who come within her area of jurisdiction also attend these meetings. Mrs. Hays described the meetings as being very general in nature with no discussion of specific scheduling issues. Hrs. Hays testified that she does not get involved with specific time scheduling problems, even highly complex ones. When Mrs. Hays was the academic scheduling manager, Ms Colleen MacEachern worked as the scheduling lead hand. When Mrs. Haye was promoted into her current poeition, Ns NacEachern wae made the scheduling co-ordinator. Ns NacEachern is a bargaining unit employee. She is not the grievors' supervisor. Ns NacEachern assists Nfs. Hays with respect to overall planning matters. In addition, she works with the employee who schedules continuing education courses as well as the central room booking clerk. Ms MacEachern meets with the grievors once a week to review progress insofar as it relates to approaching deadlines and, where appropriate, balances out work loads. The grievor$' testimony indicates that they view Ms MacEachern as a resource person. When the grievors are busy, Ms MacEachern may undertake to obtain some required information for them. If one of the grievors is faced with a particularly difficult scheduling problem, she may ask one of the other grievors for a second opinion concerning how the problem might be resolved. At times a grievor will also ask Ms MacEachern for such a second opinion. The evidence indicates that the grievors do not view Ms MacEachern's opinions as being on any different footing from the second opinions they provide to each other. There are certain areas of scheduling with respect to which Ms MacEachern has not had any experience. Her views are not asked with respect to those areas. Mrs. Hays testified that Ms MacEachern keeps her advised of events in the scheduling area, but usually with respect to matters that have already been resolved. Mrs. Hays indicated that on an infrequent basis Ms MacEachern will raise with her a particular scheduling problem and she in turn would advise Ms MacEachern of her opinion on the matter. According to Mrs. Hays, her opinion then "filters down" to' the grievors. Both the College and the Union agree that the nature of the review of the grievor's work justifies a 4 rating on the guidance received matrix. The parties disagree, however, with respect to the guidelines available portion of the matrix. The college rated the job at the "D" level while the Union contends that an "E" rating is more appropriate. The factors relevant to a "D" and "E" rating are as follows: 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. E. Work is performed in accordance with general instructions and policies involving changing conditions and problems. Supervisor may be involved on problems of major importance. The facts of this case do not fit squarely within the criteria for either a "D" or an "E" rating. The work of the grievors is performed in accordance with scheduling procedures and practices which are adopted and modified to meet particular problems. This points toward a "D" rating. A contrary consideration, however, arises from the unavailability of the supervisor to assist in resolving problems, which is what is contemplated by a "D" rating. Mrs. Hays, the grievors' supervisor, is not available to assist the grievors in resolving problems, even complex problems. When requested to do so Ms MacEachern will offer the grievors a second opinion. This second opinion, however, is apparently treated as being on the same basis as the second opinions the grievors provide to each other. Further, Ms MacEachern is not the grievors' supervisor. Given the particular circumstances involved, I believe an "E" rating to be appropriate. Accordingly I rate the grievors' job at the E4 level on the guidance received matrix. WORKING CONDITIONS - MANUAL EFFORT The parties disagree as to both the extent of the manual effort involved with the grievors' job as well as the prevalence of that effort. The grievors share an office. Generally they work at a desk, although at times they spend some time at a computer monitor located at a separate work station. The grievors are free to get up and move around as they see fit. They are also free to take breaks whenever they feel it advisable, provided only that at least one employee remains in the academic scheduling office. The union contends that because the grievors spend most of their time sitting at their desks their job should receive a "B" rating for manual effort. The College, however, has given it an "A" rating. The relevant criteria for these two ratings are as follows: A. Work requires minimum manual effort and physical strain in a variety of normal positions egs. intermittent sitting, standing, walking, ordinary office tasks. B. Work requires light manual effort and physical exertion egs. prolonged standing, sitting, walking, climbing stairs, using light tools and/or handling light weight materials. Sitting for prolonged periods of time can lead to a job being assigned a "B" rating. Given that an "A" rating is stated to cover ordinary office tasks, however, it would appear that a "B" rating is meant to apply to positions where the incumbents are required to sit for extended periods of time without an opportunity to move around. This clearly does not apply to the grievors. In the result I conclude that the College was correct in assigning their job an "A" rating with respect to manual effort. With respect to the prevalence of the manual effort, the College rated the grievors' job at level 5, which connotes continuous manual effort. The Union claims a lower 4 rating, which relates to frequent effort. The Union's claim to a 4 rating was clearly tied to that portion of the grievors' work which the Union contends should have received a "B" rating for manual effort. In that I have rejected the Union's claim for a "B" rating, the reasonable approach would be to confirm the College's § rating. In the result, I affirm the College's A5 rating for manual effort. Working Conditions - Work Environment The College has given the grievors' job an A5 rating with respect to this issue while the Union argues for a 03 rating. The difference arises out of the Union's claim that as a result of inflexible deadlines and related heavy overtime the grievors at times work under heavy stress with related physical fatigue and emotional tension. It characterizes this as a hazardous condition involving a distinct possibility of injury. The criteria for "A" and "D" ratings in this area are set out below: A. Generally agreeable working conditions such as those found inside offices or equivalent work areas. D. Very disagreeable working conditions extreme cold and heat fumes and or height. Exposure to potentially hazardous conditions where there is a distinct possibility of' injury. Requires the use of protective equipment. On a fair reading of the requirements for a "D" rating it is apparent that the type of disagreeable working conditions and potential hazards referred to relate to the physical location where the work is being performed. It would be stretching the criteria to cover stress arising from the nature of the work itself. Given that the grievors work in an office, I conclude that the College's AS rating was the appropriate one. Conclusion The College's rating of the grievors' job resulted in a point total of 612. Of these 150 points were assigned under the guidance received matrix pursuant to a D4 rating.. I have found an E4 rating to be more appropriate, resulting in 177 points under this heading. The additional points raise the grievors' total points to 639. This brings them within payband 10. In the result ! direct that the grievors be paid at the payband 10 level. I will retain jurisdiction to deal with the issue of the grievors entitlement to compensation for time already worked. Dated at Toronto this 9th day of May, 1990. ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATIONS Christine Luckock Joan Bates COLLEGE Mohawk College INCUMBENT Sharon Stanshall PRESENT CLASSIFICATION Support Services Officer Atypical AND PAYBAND 9 SUPERVISOR Kathy ~{ayes JOB FAMILY AND PAYBAND REQUESTED BY GRIEVER Supp0=t Services Officer - 10 POSITION DESCRIPTION FORM: 1. Position Description Form Attached 2. [ xl Parties agree on contents of attached Position Description Form II 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. GUIDANCE RECEIVED D4 150 COMMUNICATIONS D3 109 D3 109 KNOWLEDGE TRAINING/EXPERIENCE C5 91 C5 91 ~ ~ ~ / CONDITIONS VISUAL C3 ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ~ The College (Optional) FOR THE U~IO~ FOR / (Date) ~ (Date) ~ (U~i~ Rep.) ~ (Date) Hearing Date Award Date