HomeMy WebLinkAboutHopkins 98-01-08IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
NORTHERN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
("the College")
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
("the Union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF KEN HOPKINS
OPSEU #97C303
ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate
APPEARANCES
For the College: Cheryl Szita, Human Resources Consultant
Tony Senyuk, the grievor's supervisor at the time of the
grievance
Fred Gibbons, Executive Director of Smdent and Staff
Services
For the Union: Elizabeth Rose, Vice President, Local 654
Frank Wright, Chief Steward, Local 654
Ken Hopkins, grievor
HEARING: In Timmins on December 8, 1997
2
AWARD
INTRODUCTION
On January 27, 1997 the grievor filed a grievance which alleged that he had been
improperly classified as a Technologist B. Pursuant to the job evaluation system binding
on the parties, a Technologist B is paid at the pay band 10 level. In his grievance the
gfievor alleged that he should be classified as a Technologist Atypical at pay band 13. At
a grievance meeting held on February 12, 1997 the grievor indicated that he was now
seeking to be paid in accordance with pay band 12.
As required by the job evaluation system, the college prepared a position
description form ("PDF") with respect to the grievor's position. The union contends that
this PDF was incomplete as it failed to refer to a significant portion of the grievor's job.
The union contends that a proper rating of the gfievor's position pursuant to the
core point rating plan which forms part of the job evaluation system gives a point total of
774. This is within the range for pay band 12. The college disagrees. It contends that
the proper point total falls within the range for pay band 10. It also contends that the
functions performed by the grievor were the typical duties of a Technologist B as
'described in guide charts which also form part of the job evaluation system.
The core point rating plan assigns points for 12 different job factors.' Prior to the
hearing the parties agreed on the rating for the factors of training/technical skills;
experience; judgement; physical demand; and responsibility for decisions and actions. At
the heating the college agreed with the union's rating for the factor of work environment.
The college also raised its rating for the factor of motor skills, although not to the level
3
argued for by the union. This and the other factors in dispute are discussed individually
below.
Prior to the heating the college core point rated the grievor's job as having a point
total of 658. The changes adopted by the college at the hearing raised this to 683 points.
This was still within pay band 10 which covers point totals of 631 to 690.
Prior to the hearing the gdevor transferred to a teaching position that is not
affected by this award.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE GRIEVOR'S POSITION
When he filed the grievance the grievor was employed at the college's Porcupine
campus where he provided technical support with respect to campus information systems.
He worked on computers as well as with eleclxical and electronic equipment.
The grievor's duties included troubleshooting with computers. The PDF prepared
by the college stated that he applied specialized troubleshooting knowledge and technical
expertise to computer hardware and software resources for faculty, administration,
support and students. The union contends that the PDF should have stated that the
grievor applied "senior technical expertise" to this work. The grievor's evidence was that
he provided senior technical expertise in the sense that he gave support to Other
technologists, technicians and faculty.
The grievor indicated that students routinely encountered problems when operating
computers. He stated he would investigate what the student had done; what he or she had
4
been trying to accomplish; and whether there were any unusual circumstances involved.
He indicated that he would clarify the appropriate procedure for the student and in some
cases the teacher would have him clarify the procedure for the entire class. The gfievor
indicated that most computer problems were caused by human error, although there could
be faults in the system that a student happened to stumble upon.
The grievor's evidence indicated that at times his troubleshooting involved unusual
problems, including situations where another technologist had previously been unable to
solve the problem. He gave the example of a library system which was operating
erratically, data was being corrupted on a random basis, and the server had crashed. He
stated that he determined that the software had been incorrectly set and the problem with
the server had to do with the network card. He said that he contacted the manufacturer
who suggested using different parameters and sent him a new mother board, but these did
not resolve the problem. The gdevor testified that he corrected the problem by using
another machine to program the card and then put the card back in the original machine.
The grievor testified that he came across problems that the manufacturers' firont
line support staff were unable to handle and he had to deal with more senior staff,
including engineers.
It was the gfievor's evidence that he was the only person at the Porcupine campus
who would retrieve lost data and he was called on to perform this function on many
occasions. He stated that sometimes the task Was simple but at other times it required
ingenuity. He said that at times he had to pull data off a hard drive piece by piece, and by
doing so he might retrieve about 80 percent of the material.
5
The PDF prepared by the college stated that the grievor provided technical
services necessary for the effective utilization of existing college resources, such as local
area networks, progranunable logic control and computer systems, and that he also
assessed future needs and requirements. The gfievor testified that he provided
information about computer equipment, applications and different products that could
assist faculty to deliver information to students.
The union contends that the PDF should have noted that the grievor was involved
in planning technical services. The grievor testified that he was involved in planning the
utilization and installation of computer systems in terms of where and how they were to
be used, the appropriate security levels, what programs were required to operate them,
and what functions the systems were to provide.
At the time the grievance was filed Mr. Tony Senyuk was Dean of Applied
Technology and Business and the grievor's supervisor. Mr. Senyuk testified that he
planned all major moves and reconfigurations. He stated that he listened to the advice of
the gfievor and the other technicians, and while that advice was often implemented, this
was not always the case.
According to PDF the grievor advised his supervisor of necessary purchases. The
grievor testified that he gave advice respecting upgrading the memory of computers and
changing systems that had become obsolete or costly to maintain. He stated that he
would tell Mr. Senyuk to buy equipment that would take the college up to the next level.
The grievor referred to a half million dollar purchase of Dell computers by the
college. He testified that Mr. Senyuk asked him to look into different systems and report
back to him. According to the grievor, he investigated four different systems and
6
prepared a proposal which listed the pros and cons of each system together with the costs
involved, and what could be obtained by selling the old equipment.
Mr. Senyuk testified that during a planning meeting he asked all of the technicians
about the specifications they wanted in new computers. He stated that the grievor took it
upon himself to contact Microsoft Canada about what computers their systems seemed to
work best on and they provided him with a list. Mr. Senyuk testified that he added Dell
to the grievor's list based upon his own readings. He stated that the grievor put each
vendor's quote on a chart, contacted the vendors to have them explain their quotes, and
then recommended that the college purchase the Dell equipment.
The grievor was engaged in troubleshooting and repairs on electrical and
electronic equipment. The grievor indicated that when equipment failed he would fred
out what had happened; check the circuitry to fred out which component needed
replacing; order a new component; install it; and then test the component and ensure that
it met the applicable safety standards.
In discussing his work with electronics and electrical equipment the grievor
referred to a beam loading unit that had been transferred from the college's Kirkland Lake
campus to the Porcupine campus. He stated that the unit, which was installed by a
technician from Kirkland Lake, would not function properly and Mr. Senyuk asked him
to look at it. He said that because there was only limited documentation for the
equipment he was required to draw the circuimy and figure out the functions of each of
the circuits. He indicated that he made several modifications to the equipment to correct
the problem and also developed a calibration procedure which he documented.
7
The PDF stated that the grievor coordinated the establishment of preventive
maintenance schedules. The evidence of the grievor and Mr. Senyuk indicates that there
were in fact no formal preventive maintenance schedules. Rather, in the summers the
grievor would check the equipment and make the appropriate adjustments and repairs.
The PDF stated that the gdevor provided guidance and training to staff and
students on the functions, operation, precaution and safety for systems that were new
and/or had modifications, alterations or additions. The grievor testified that he explained
the equipment and how to use the software commands. He stated that when he made
modifications to a system he would instruct the staff about what he had done, and he also
instructed staff on how to use new programs. As an example of the assistance he
provided to staff the gdevor referred to the college's use of two word processing systems.
He stated that a secretary who was comfortable with one of the systems would ask him
how to perform a function using the other system.
The grievor indicated that in the CAD area he showed students and teachers the
proper procedures to follow; assisted them in understanding what they were able to use;
instructed them on the software commands; and also helped them understand what they
had been doing wrong. He stated that in the business area the teachers had him train
students on things such as setting up printers; how to use programs to print what they
wanted; and how to recover from problems that could arise.
According to the PDF the grievor set procedures, policies and guidelines for staff
and students with respect to computer operations and electrical equipment. The grievor
testified that in order to provide security and a solid operation of the CAD room certain
policies had to be maintained. He stated that this was especially tree after he made
modifications to systems in order to make them more secure and stable. Mr. Senyuk
8
testified that the setting of procedures and policies by the grievor was in the nature of
user rules, such as you have to do this to access that. According to Mr. Senyuk, computer
room rules that were in place were developed partly at the Kirkland Lake campus and
partly by himself.
When equipment was moved from one work area to another the gfievor would
change the software, making any modifications required for its new use.
The grievor evaluated certain instructional materials. He gave the example of
evaluating whether certain applications of CAD software could nm within the college
systems or with alterations to the systems.
The grievor was involved in maintaining an inventory of system products for the
technical division, library, LD&T and special needs areas. He also ensured that licences
required for software programs were current, including arranging for replacement
licences for ones that had gone missing. Mr. Senyuk in his evidence classified this as a
clerical duty.
Students were hired to monitor the computer rooms in the evenings. The grievor
testified that he trained the students; scheduled their times; and ensured that they did their
jobs properly.
The grievor was involved in modifying software programs. As an example of this
he referred to modifying CAD application programs so as to eliminate problems that were
causing havoc to users. He also stated that he would also go into student fries with an
editor and manipulate the data so as to rectify the files. He described this as
programming type work.
9
The grievor was involved in developing programs for a library nonprmt catalogue
system; for keeping track of professional development activities; and also for keeping an
inventory of stock and equipment. Prior to developing at least the first two of these he sat
down with the users to ascertain what it was that they wanted.
The PDF contained the following statements relating to the grievor's programming
functions:
· Analyse, design, implement, administer and frae tunes all programs
that operate on CAD system, Library system, CD & T system, and
Special Needs computers.
· Evaluate, analyse, design, implement, administer and frae rune all
l~rograms ~at are operated in the Technical Division, Learning
Kesource C;entre, Special Needs and CD & DT department.
· Develop and test programs for instructional use in the Applied
Technology Division.
· ... Also develops computer software for (1) instructional programs;
(2) interaction with lab/shop equipment.
COMPLEXITY
This factor measures the amount and nature of analysis, problem-solving and
reasoning required to perform job related duties.
The college rated the grievor's position at level 5. The union contends that level 6,
the highest rating possible for this factor, was more appropriate. The criteria for these
two ratings are as follows:
10
5: Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively
unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods.
6: Job duties require the investigation and resolution of a variety
of unusual conditions involving the adaptation and/or development
of specialized processes and methods.
When giving his evidence the grievor indicated that he felt his adaptation of
processes to meet the library's needs involved the adaptation and/or development of
specialized processes and methods. He also referred to problems with the CAD system
caused by students in different academic programs using the equipment. He indicated
that when one group of students changed variables it would create problems for the other
groups. He said that it took him over two months to develop a system whereby one
group's use would not affect the others. In its written brief the union contended that in
order to resolve the problem the grievor had adapted and restructured the program
machine codes for AUTOCAD and all CAD related programs; modified the environment
settings for DOS; and set up procedures and trained users in them so that they would not
inadvertently change the settings.
The grievor also referred to a situation where people had been accidentally
formatting a hard drive. He stated that he sought out and modified a program so that they
could no longer do so. He indicated that he had to work with compressed machine code
language to achieve the desired result.
In support of a level 6 rating the union brief referred to the grievor's work with the
CAD system and the beam loading unit referred to above; his development of programs;
his identification and resolution of unusual problems with hardware and software
providers; as well as a situation where he had analysed a "bug" in Windows 95 software.
11
The criteria for both a level 5 and a level 6 rating refer to the need to use
specialized processes and methods. The main difference is that a 6 rating involves not
only using specialized processes and methods, but also their adaptation and/or
development. The fact that the criteria for a level 5 rating refers to relatively unusual
tasks suggest that the application of existing processes and methods to a variety of
differing tasks does not by itself involve the adaptation or development of specialized
processes and methods. Apart fi.om this, however, the language of the criteria is not
helpful in terms of indicating what is meant by the adaptation or development of a
specialized process or method.
Some assistance in this regard can be obtained fi.om the ratings associated with the
typical duties of classifications referred to in the guide charts. The union in its brief
relied on the programming work performed by the gfievor. The highest typical
programmer classification is that of a Programmer C, whose typical duties are listed in
the guide charts as:
- Codes, tests and debugs complex programs or systems.
- Prepares test data to test program logic in trial parallel runs.
- Prepares detailed operational documentation to control production runs.
- Evaluates and revises existing programs for efficiency in view of
equipment capability and confighrafion.
The guide charts indicate that the above duties involve the performance of
complex and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods. As
such they meet the criteria for a level 5 rating. This suggests that the application of
programming principles to code complex programs, revise and debug existing programs;
and prepare the relevant documentation does not involve the adaptation or development
12
of specialized processes or methods. There is nothing to suggest that the grievor's
programming duties involved a level of complexity higher than that of a Programmer C.
The grievor's involvement in designing programs for the library's nonprint
catalogue system and to keep track of professional development activities involved
determining systems requirements in consultation with the end users. This is a typical
function of a Programmer/Analyst A. This classification is also rated at level 5 for
complexity.
One of the typical duties of a Technologist A according to the guide charts is
"demonstrates appropriate use of equipment and facilities". The summary of
responsibilities and the typical duties of a Technologist B and of a Technologist C are set
out in the guide charts as follows:
Technologist B
Summary of Responsibility:
Incumbents provide technical expertise of a specialized nature to faculties,
administrative areas and students, using independent judgement to
determine services and methods required to meet user needs.
Typical Duties:
- Designs and/or develops equipment, systems, facilities, materials, etc. to
meet user output requirements.
- Plans, organizes and conducts experiments and demonstrations explaining
correct procedures and theoreficalprinciples involved.
- Evaluates equipment and other resources and makes recommendations
prior to purchase.
- Controls supply inventories and budgets.
- May assist in student evaluations in relation to learning activities in which
the Technologist B takes part.
13
Technologist C
Summary of Responsibility
Incumbents provide senior technical support in matters of a complex nature
requiring a high degree of independent judgement, technical specialization
and experience.
Typical Duties:
In addition to the duties described for Technologist B:
- Plans for the provision of technical services and effective, utilization of
resources based on independent assessment of the College s needs.
- CoTordinatesprojects involving overall planning, development, purchasing
and testing of equipment and resources.
- Develops procedures for the administration of a function.
- Solves a wide range of complex problems associated with specialization.
The grievor's duties in demonstrating the use of equipment, making alterations to
equipment, and his involvement in recommending purchases of equipment all appear to
comfortably fit within the above job duties. The guide charts indicate that the typical
functions of a Technologist B rate a level 4 rating for complexity while those of a
Technologist C involve a level of complexity which involves the performance of complex
and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods such as to
justify a level 5 rating.
Based on the above I am led to conclude that although the grievor performed
duties typically associated with different classifications, none of the tasks involved a level
of complexity which exceeded the criteria for the level 5 rating given by the college.
14
MOTOR SKILLS
This factor measures frae motor movements. At the heating the college increased
its rating from level C-3 to level C-4. The union argues for level D-1. A 4 rating relates
to a prevalence of over 60%, a 1 rating to less than 10%. The criteria for a C and a D
rating are as follows:
C: Complex fme motor movement, involving considerable dexterity, co-
ordination and precision, is required. Speed ~s a secondary consideration.
D: Complex f'me motor movement, involving significant dexterity, co-
ordination and precision, is required. Speed is a major consideration.
The major difference between these two levels relates to whether speed is a major
or a secondary consideration. The grievor testified that speed was required for a number
of his duties. These included a once a year parts inventory where, he stated, the sooner
he got it done the sooner he could move onto other things. He also referred to system
changeovers which were generally done late in the day. He stated that the college
frowned on overtime and so as to avoid overtime he tried to complete the process as
quickly as possible. He also said that he repaired equipment as quickly as possible
because otherwise students would be without the equipment.
In its written brief the union contended that speed was an important factor at the
start of the academic year when the grievor set up security for each student group; and
speed was also required to input systems changes when the server went down because the
faster the gfievor typed, the faster the server was up and running again.
Logically any task that needs to be performed at the college should be carded out
as quickly as reasonably possible so as to accommodate students and/or other staff and to
15
allow the individual performing the work to move on to other tasks. The wording of the
level D criteria, however, suggests that there are some fmc motor movements which are
linked to speed in a way that other fmc motor movements are not. Illustrative examples
of this contained in the core point rating plan are Secretary; Typist/Stenographer;
Microcomputer Operator; and Data Entry Operator. The fmc motor movements
associated with these jobs all appear to involve keyboarding and computer operations
where the essence of the job is the rapid repetitive performance of fairly basic functions.
There was nothing of this nature in the grievor's work. He performed nonrepefifive tasks
where speed was logically secondary to the need to figure out what had to be done and to
ensure that it was done correctly.
Having regard to these considerations, I agree with the C-4 rating adopted by the
college.
SENSORY DEMAND
This factor measures the demand on mental energy while performing tasks. The
college argues for a level 3 rating, the union for level 4. The criteria for these ratings are
as follows:
3: Job duties require moderate visual, auditory, or sensory demand on
mental energy and fi'equent careful attention to detail and accuracy.
OR
Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on
mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy.
OR
16
Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental
energy and periodic careful attention to detail and accuracy.
4: Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on
mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy.
OR
Job duties require extensive visual, auditory_, or sensory demand on mental
energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy.
The PDF prepared by the college contained the following chart with respect to
tasks that placed a demand on the grievor's mental energies:
Task % of Time
may experience visual strain while working with computer 40%
when installing systems, concentration is essential in order40%
to perform the task properly mad efficiently
when monitoring and maintaining systems, the incumbent 50%
will be required to pay attention to detail and accuracy
The union in its brief contended that the following should be added to this list,
namely "working with electrical and electronics circuits and components requires
extensive visual strain, considerable concentration and attention to detail and accuracy -
30% of time."
I presume that the entry in the college's PDF which indicated that the grievor
might experience visual strain while working with computers 40% of the time overlapped
with the other two entries. Were it otherwise the total would exceed 100%. I also
17
presume that the reference to "installing systems" and "monitoring and maintaining
systems" in the college's PDF relates to both computer and electrical/electronics systems.
Were it otherwise, and I were to add additional duties which took up another 30% of the
time as proposed by the union, the grievor would have been working 120% of the time, a
statistical impossibility.
This is a difficult factor to apply since most duties can arguably be viewed as
involving a sensory demand on mental energy. Further, since most people try to be
careful and accurate in their work, most duties could arguably be said to require careful
attention to detail and accuracy. I propose to rely on the employer's assessment of
sensory demand as set out in the PDF.
The PDF indicates that for 50% of the time the gfievor was required to pay
attention to detail and accuracy while monitoring and maintaining systems. This
represents half of his working time, which in my view is more reasonably described as
frequent attention to detail rather than either occasional or periOdic attention. The PDF
indicates that for 40% of the time the gdevor was required to exercise concentration
when installing systems. In my view 40% is more reasonably described as a considerable
sensory demand on mental energy rather than either a moderate or an extensive demand.
Job duties which require a considerable sensory demand on mental energy and frequent
careful attention to detail and accuracy meet one set of criteria listed for a level 4 rating.
Given this fact, I fred a level 4 rating to be appropriate.
18
STRAIN FROM WORK PRESSURES/DEMANDS/DEADLINES
This factor measures the strain associated with, or caused by, things such as the
frequency and predictability of deadlines, interruptions and multiple and/or conflicting
demands. The college assigned the grievor's job a level 3 rating; the union contends that
level 4 is more appropriate. The criteria for these two ratings are as follows:
3: Job. duties .'.m. volve mo.derate work pressures or demands. Interruptions,
ch~gmg deadlmes, multiple demands occur regularly but are usualIy
predictable. Occasionally, critical deadlines may occur.
4: Job duties involve conflicting work pressures and firequent interruptions
in workflow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in pnorifies
and occasional critical deadlines.
The grievor testified that he was interrupted on a regular basis with things needing
to be done which took priority over what he was already doing. He stated that in some
cases two repair requests would be equally important, in which case he would see if he
could do a temporary repair on one, then repair the other one, and later return to the first
one to complete the repair work.
The PDF prepared by the college referred to the grievor facing non-predictable
multiple demands/pressures 30% of the time and usually predictable deadlines 60% of the
time. (The union contends that he actually faced multiple pressures/demands 70% of the
time.) The PDF also contains the statement: "The incumbent's tasks may change due to
changes in deadlines. Many jobs have to be delayed and restarted at a later date so a new
job can be completed to meet a deadline. There are many times when more than one job
is due at the same time and this adds pressure on the incumbent".
19
The criteria for level 3 suggests that while interruptions and multiple demands
occur regularly, they are usually predictable. The criteria for level 4 suggests that work
situations may be unpredictable and require shifts in priorities. The wording of the PDF
indicates that the grievor faced this type of unpredictability and shifting priorities.
Accordingly I fred a level 4 rating to be appropriate.
INDEPENDENT ACTION
This factor measures the independence of action and decisions required by a job.
The college rated the grievor's position at level 4; the union argues for level 5, the highest
level possible for this factor. The criteria for these two levels are as follows:
4: Job duties are performed in accordance with procedures and past
practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations
and/or problems. There is considerable freedom to act independently with
Superwsor input or verification when requested.
5: Job duties are performed in accordance with general instructions and
policies involving changing conditions and problems. There is significant
freedom to act independently.
The criteria for both levels contemplate a wide freedom to act independently. The
use of the term "significant" as opposed to "considerable" freedom to act independently is
not helpful in determining what is actually meant to be covered by level 5 as opposed to
level 4. What is more useful is the reference in the level 5 criteria to job duties being
performed in accordance with general instructions and policies, and the reference to
supervisor input in the criteria for level 4. These suggest that in order to qualify for a
level 5 rating an employee must operate only under general instructions with little or no
supervisor input relating to particular situations or problems.
20
Mr. Senyuk testified that he signed work orders relating to tasks that the gfievor
was to perform. He stated that he felt this process should have been followed for all but
3 0 percent of the grievor's work that was unpredictable. He said that he kept on top of
what was going on through the work orders. According to Mr. Senyuk, he advised all of
the technicians that this process was to be followed and, except for emergencies, when
asked to do a job they were to tell the person to send a work order to Mr. Senyuk. Mr.
Senyuk noted that if the process was circumvented he would not have known about it.
He also noted that at the relevant time he had to approve any purchases.
At one point in his evidence the grievor stated that people in the areas he served
came to him directly with work. Later, in response to a question about whether Mr.
Senyuk had assigned him work, the gdevor stated that Mr. Senyuk had done so on
occasion when someone had asked him if the grievor could do a job. Still later during the
hearing the gfievor stated that if Mr. Senyuk was in a meeting and people were waiting
for data to be recovered he would not wait for a work order, although once the problem
was fixed he would insist that the person fill in a work order and send it to Mr. Senyuk.
The gfievor added that he had done this many times.
The grievor testified that Mr. Senyuk had never questioned him about why he had
not informed him about what he was doing or why paperwork had not been filled out. He
also testified there had not been any discussion about where a work order was or if he had
done a job without a work order.
When responding to a question from the spokesperson for the college, the grievor
stated that Mr. Senyuk would ask him how he had made out with a job or what problems
he had come across that others could learn from. The grievor subsequently stated that he
liked Mr. Senyuk as a supervisor because he gave the technicians the empowerment to do
21
what needed to be done. He stated that Mr. Senyuk was busy but when he had time they
discussed things. The gdevor was then asked if Mr. Senyuk had been there to assist him
if there was something he was not sure of. The gdevor replied yes, adding that Mr.
Senyuk was "our support".
The spokesperson for the college asked the grievor if Mr. Senyuk had ever told
him to put something he was doing aside and concentrate on something else. The grievor
replied that this had occurred, but most of the time Mr. Senyuk had left it to him to work
a new task into what he had been doing.
The grievor testified that he discussed major problems with Mr. Senyuk, advising
him of the situation and what he felt should be done. The grievor was asked what issues
he had discussed with Mr. Senyuk. He replied that he discussed matters with Mr. Senyuk
if he felt money should be used for a particular purpose; to get information from Mr.
Senyuk; and for Mr. Senyuk to get information from him.
The grievor was asked if he had followed up on work orders with Mr. Senyuk. He
replied that he did not do so for most of his work but Mr. Senyuk might need feedback
from him, such as if Mr. Senyuk wanted to know if all of the equipment required for a
night course had been installed.
Once a week Mr. Senyuk had a meeting by way of a teleconference call with all of
the technicians and technologists who reported to him. The grievor testified that during
these meetings there would be a discussion of the status of certain processes, and if a
problem arose, such as at the Kirkland Lake campus, the meeting would operate as a
think tank concerning ways to resolve the problem.
22
The PDF prepared by the college stated that the grievor's work was reviewed by
periodic checks during the week, weekly meetings with all technicians; and by way of a
yearly evaluation. The union noted in its written brief that the reference to the grievor's
work being checked should be changed to "periodic discussions during the week" because
the grievor's work was not checked in the sense of being inspected.
The evidence leads me to conclude that the gfievor did some tasks independently
without nofi$4ng Mr. Senyuk, but the procedure established by Mr. Senyuk was for work
to generally be assigned through work orders that he signed. In urgent situations the
grievor was expected to act independently, although Mr. Senyuk might be advised of the
work through retroactive work orders. At times Mr. Senyuk would ask the gfievor about
specific tasks and the gdevor utilized Mr. Senyuk as a resource when there was
something he was not certain of. There were weekly meetings where problems could be
raised. This evidence indicates that Mr. Senyuk's involvement with the gfievor's duties
went beyond simply providing him with general instructions. Accordingly, I conclude
that the criteria for a level 4 rating is the better fit with respect to the grievor's
independence of action.
COMMUNICATIONS/CONTACTS
This factor measures the requirement for effective communication for the purpose
of providing advice, explanation, influencing others, and/or reaching agreement. The
college rated the grievor's position at level 3, the union argues for level 4. The criteria
for these two levels are as follows:
23
3: Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing guidance
or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, or for the purpose of
explaining various matters by interpreting procedures, policy, or theory.
There may be need to promote participauon and understanding and to
secure co-operation in order to respond to problems or situafi6ns of a
sensitive nature. Regular involvement with confidential information which
has moderate disclosure implications.
4: Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing basic
instruction or for the resolution of complex problem situations. There may
be a need for sophisticated influential or persuasive techniques in order to
address the problem of those with special needs. Regular involvement with
confidential and sensitive information where disclosure implications are
significant.
A note to raters states that many college jobs deal with some information that is
confidential. It goes on to state that the focus in this factor is on the manner, purpose and
responsibilities in communicating, rather than the content of the information being
communicated; and therefore raters should not rate the information but the
communications responsibilities involved in handling it.
The gfievor testified that he was involved with confidential information, including
pension information, because people who were to take ownership of a directory had to
talk to him about who was to have access to the directory and whether they were to have
reading only access or modification access. This suggests that the grievor's role involved
ascertaining who was to have access to certain computer files containing confidential
information, and the scope of that access, and then ensuring that others could not access
the information. Logically the grievor would have had the ability to access the
information himself. It appears, however, that he did not have any responsibility for
communicating confidential information. Accordingly, his involvement in confidential
information did not justify a higher rating than that given by the college.
24
The spokesperson for the union asked the grievor how he had been required to use
persuasion. In his reply the gfievor referred to discussing equipment problems with a
supplier where the supplier's initial response had been that there could not have been
problems with the equipment. In my view this type of activity does not involve
sophisticated influential or persuasive techniques in order to address the problem of those
with special needs, which is what the criteria for level 4 refers to. It more closely fits the
reference in the criteria for level 3 to a need to promote participation and understanding
and secure co-operation in order to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive
nature.
The union in its brief referred to the grievor's discussions with special needs staff
and students. The grievor's evidence indicated that he would meet with the person in
charge of the special needs program to understand people's problems and then make
adjustments and recommendations. He gave the example of a blind person who used
braille and for whom he adapted a program to the braille system. The grievor also
referred to meetings he had with a representative from the Canadian National Institute for
the Blind to learn about new technologies for handicapped people. Mr. Senyuk testified
that the grievor's role was to advise the special needs coordinator about what could be
run on available equipment and any changes required to the equipment. He also said that
the special needs coordinator, not the grievor, was responsible for determining what
equipment would be used by special needs students.
The evidence indicates that the grievor provided technical assistance and advice to
the staff of the special needs program based in part on information he received from the
CNIB. The evidence does not suggest that there was a need for him to use sophisticated
influential or persuasive techniques when dealing with special needs staff, special needs
students or the CNIB.
25
The union contends that the grievor communicated with others for the purpose of
providing basic instruction. In its written brief the union stated that the gfievor provided
basic instruction by training staff and students on the functions, operations, precautions
and safety for systems that were new and/or had modifications. By way of example the
union noted that the gfievor had been invited into classes to explain the changes he had
made on the CAD system.
The term "basic instruction" contained in the criteria for level 4 must be
interpreted in light of the reference to "providing guidance or technical advice" in the
criteria for level 3. I view the gfievor's demonstration of the operation of computers and
software, and the explanation of changes that he had made, as being in the nature of
providing guidance and technical advice. Accordingly, it did not involve the type of
instruction contemplated by level 4.
The gfievor in his evidence indicated that at times he went beyond ensuring that
students knew how to properly operate equipment. At one point in his evidence he
referred to situations where students were becoming frustrated because they did not
understand what had been instructed in the class before. He stated that if the instructor
was not about he would instruct the students so that they would be able to complete the
work. The grievor referred to a specific situation involving AUTO CAD where a few
students who were doing highway designs kept getting the wrong information. He stated
that he showed them how they had missed putting certain parameters into a program so
that the program could do a required calculation. The gfievor stated that this sort of
situation occurred at the beginning of semesters when students were just learning the
processes, and also towards the end of semesters when lab reports and projects were due.
26
The spokesperson for the college later asked the grievor about his instruction of
students. The grievor gave the example of him being in a lab testing software while a
group of students were working on assignments. He said that if a student became very
frustrated he would question the student to fmd out what the problem was, and if it was
something about a program the student did not understand he would "walk" him through
the program until he did understand. According to the grievor, this eliminated the
student's frustration, thereby perhaps preventing an incident, and also gave the college a
better reputation to the student.
Mr. Senyuk testified that it was not part of the grievor's duties to instruct students;
he did not expect the grievor to instruct students; and he did not want him to instruct
students as it would change the classification of his position.
An employer cannot knowingly allow an employee to assume duties outside of his
or her normal functions and then refuse to pay the employee for performing those duties
on the basis that they were not part of the job. In the instant case, however, there is
nothing to suggest that the college's administration or teaching staff knew about the
incidents where the grievor instructed students. The function was not assigned to him
and he was not expected to perform it. The grievor did not contend that he understood he
had a responsibility for this function. Given these considerations, I fmd that any
instruction of students beyond providing guidance and technical advice was not an
appropriate basis for rating the grievor's position.
The union contended that the grievor's duties required communication for the
resolution of complex problem situations. The grievor in his evidence referred to a
situation where he dealt with a supplier's support staff relating to a server. He stated that
this had involved discussing issues new to the support staff. It is not clear whether this
27
was the same server that according to Mr. Senyuk the grievor worked on after the filing
of the grievance. Even if the work was prior to the grievance, and did in fact meet the
criteria for a level 4 rating, the evidence does not suggest that the grievor's other contacts
with suppliers' support staff went beyond him providing technical information with
respect to an operating problem and receiving support information in return. A single
occurrence does not justify a higher rating.
In most instances the problems that the grievor dealt with related to equipment or,
more often, a lack of knowledge on the part of the students and/or staff about how to
properly operate the equipment. The grievor would gather information about the problem
and then instruct the student or staff member with respect to the equipment's proper use.
The need was not for communication to resolve the problem so much as to provide
guidance and technical advice.
Having regard to these considerations I fred the level 3 rating awarded by the
college for the factor of communications/contacts to have been appropriate.
CONCLUSION
As noted above, the original core point rating of the grievor's position by the
college resulted in a point total of 658. This was raised to 683 points as a result of the
college's adjustment of its ratings for the factors of motor skills and work environment.
My finding that level 4 ratings were appropriate for both senso~ demand and for strain
from work pressures/demands/deadlines increased this by 22 points to a total of 705
points.
28
A point total of 705 falls within the range of 691 to 750 points covered by pay
band 11. Accordingly, I fred that the gfievor should have been paid at the pay band 11
level at the time the grievance was filed.
I will retain jurisdiction in this matter to address any issues that may arise in
consequence of this award, including compensation owing to the gfievor.
Dated this 8th day of January, 1998.
~$~l~e~.Northern lncumbent:Knn Hc~pkJn~ Supegvisor: Tony Senyuk
Present.Classification: T.~c._hnol ogi st B and Present Payband: 10
Jab Family and Payband Requested by Grievor:. T.echnologi st A - Typical Payhand l ?
Position Description Form A~ached
2. ~ The paAies agree on ~e contenm of the a~ached Position Description Form
OR
The Union disagrees with the conten~ of the affached Position Description Form. The specific details of this
disagreement are as follows:
'-' (use reverse side if necessa~)
FACTORS MANAGEMENT uNION ARB~RATO~ ·
Level " POl~t~ Lev~ Polntl Level ' P~"
1. ~aining~e~h, nica[ Skills ~.. ] 10 6 .. ] ] 0 '
2, Experience .... 5 57 5 57
3..._ Complexi~ ....... 5.. 74 6 '90
4. Judgement __ . 6 102 6 102
.... ~ f~ ~ .? 31
5. Motor Skills .. ._ .
~. Phys. ical Demand ..... 3 28 3 28
/. $~nsory Dam;and ....... 3 28 4 39
, ~,.... Strain from W~r_~ ~essures/Dem~nds/Deadiines.' .. 3 2~ , _4 39
9. I~de~e~dent Ac~!qn .... 4 46 5" 6~
1~; C~mmunications/Contacts .. 3 88 '~" t.24
11. R~spom~ibili~ for DecisionslA~ions 4 62 ~ ~ 62 ..
" ~ ~Z ~ .2 32
12. Work Environment
PA, YBAND~OTAL POIN~ _. 1, O ' ~ 12'~ 1774 /7 7F~
JOB CLASSIFICATION -echnol ogi $t ~echno o ' gt
A-Typi c~ . ~,'~/5 ~- '
A~ACHED ~NRI~'EN SUBMISSIONS: ~ ~e Union ~ The College
. .................... _.
' ~Unian R~pr~aan't~i~e~(Dotal