HomeMy WebLinkAboutRomano 88-05-30 ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
(hereinafter called the Union)
- and-
SENECA COLLEGE
(hereinafter called the Employer)
- and-
CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF MARIA ROMANO
SOLE ARBITRATOR
PROFESSOR IAN A. HUNTER
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE UNION: MR. EUGENE WILSON, CHIEF STEWARD
MR. CHARLIE SUMA, VICE-PRESIDENT,
CLASSIFICATION
MS. MARIA ROMANO, GRIEVOR
FOR THE COLLEGE: MS. ANGELA WILLIAMS, PERSONNEL OFFICER MR. RON CHOPOWICK, SUPERVISOR
MR. TERRY VERITY, OBSERVER
A HEARING WAS HELD IN TORONTO, ONTARIO ON MAY 16, 1988.
AWARD
The grievor, Maria Romano, presently occupies the position
of Support Services Officer A in the Applied Arts division of
Seneca College. Her job is Core Point rated at 557 point, Pay
Band 8.
(a) Position Description Form
The Union proposes two changes to the Position Summary on
the PDF. It currently reads: "Under the direction of the
divisional Dean and Chairs, takes faculty assignments, and
schedules subjects, students, faculty and rooms .... " The Union
submits that this sentence should be revised to read (emphasis
mine): "Under the general direction of the divisional Dean and
Chairs, coordinates faculty assignments and schedules subjects,
students, faculty and rooms .... " While this change in
nomenclature does not alter my determination of the disputed job
factors, I find that the Union's proposed alteration was borne
out by the evidence and I recommend that the PDF be amended
accordingly.
(b) The Arbitration Data Sheets
From the arbitration Data Sheets, submitted in advance by
both parties, the following job factors were agreed:
Guidance Received -- D4
2
Working Conditions: Manual Effort -- A5
Working Conditions: Environment -- A5.
At the hearing the parties agreed on two additional factors:
Communications -- D3
Working Conditions: Visual Strain -- B4.
The following 3ob factors, then, remain in dispute; the
ratings proposed by the parties are set out below.
Factor College Rating Union Rating
Job difficulty C4 ~ 5
Knowledge: Training & Experience D5 C6
Knowledge: Skill 3 4
(c) Overview of the Position
The essential core of the job function is the creation and
implementation of timetables. There are ten programs within the
Applied Arts division. The incumbent must take given enrollment
projections, faculty complement, and physical plant capacity and
3
around these three immutable "givens" she must construct a "best
fit" timetable that will maximize scheduling for both faculty and
students, and make best use of the limited institutional
resources (particularly the micro-computer lab). Other
variables, such as field placements within programs, also affect
timetabling. The grievor works in a division with roughly 50/50
part-time and full-time faculty; part-time faculty have other job
commitments and their schedules must be borne in mind in making
up a timetable.
The timetabling function is recurrent; it must be done at
the beginning of each of the three semesters. Where access to
facilities is limited (e.g., the microcomputer lab) the incumbent
meets with her counterparts in other divisions and negotiates
mutually convenient periods for use. While there is consultation
with the Chair and the Program Coordinator, the overall
responsibility for the planning of the timetable rests with the
Support Services Officer. Once a timetable is established, it is
subject to change because of such factors as (a) enrollment
shortfalls; (b) faculty changes; and (c) compliance with College
Guidelines on timetabling. Consequently, the timetabling duties
persist even after the opening of the semester.
The grievor estimated that timetabling comprised 50-60% of
her job.
4
The other 40-50% of the job consists of such functions as:
(a) Registration duties: e.g., problem solving for part-
time students; arranging pre-testing of typing skills.
(b) Examination schedules: the creation and compilation of
examination schedules, including length, time and place of
examinations. The incumbent obtains the requisite information
frOm instructors and program coordinators and her function is one
of drawing up the examination timetable.
(c) Promotion meeting schedules: the incumbent organizes a
meeting(s) for 'instructors and program coordinators to assess
final examination results of students.
(d) Reports: On request, the grievor will extract
information from the budget, or other departmental data, and
prepare a report (e.g., on space utilization).
(e) Payroll: Palnnent rates for part-time faculty are set.
The incumbent has no authority to alter stipulated rates of
remuneration. She will however convey this information to part-
time faculty and will send information to payroll.
(f) S.W.F.s: Standard workload forms: The incumbent
records absences of part-time instructors and inputs information
on to the SWF form which is obtained from her Chairman.
(g) Maintains records of subjects taught by part-time
faculty: self-explanatory.
(h) Advisory Committee Meetings: The incumbent alternates
with the senior secretary in attending, and taking minutes, at
such meetings.
I turn now to the job factors in dispute.
(a) Job Difficulty
The category definition of the College's rating is:
Complexity: Work involves the performance of various complex
tasks that include both routine and non-routine aspects requiring
different and unrelated processes and methods.
Judgment: Duties performed requiring considerable degree of
judgment. Problem .solving involves handling a variety of
conventional problems, questions or situations with established
analytical techniques.
The category definition of the Union's proposed rating is:
6
Complexity: Work involves the performance of varied, non-routine
complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated
processes and methods.
Judgment: Duties performed require a significant degree of
judgment. Problem solving involves interpreting complex data or
refining work methods and techniques to be used.
I asked the grievor what was the most complex task she
performed and she unhesitatingly replied: "Timetabling, matching
up the needs of faculty and students to ensure a best fit." This
undoubtedly is a complex, recurrent task. It includes routine
and non-routine aspects. The intricacies of timetabl±ng problems
require different and sometimes unrelated responses to sort out.
But while timetabling is a complex task, it is complex in a
recurrent, repetitive way; that is, the "givens" (enrollment,
faculty, physical plant) do not change. They remain always the
fixed constraints around which a timetable must be put together.
As Ms. Williams expressed it in argument: "Timetabling involves
a variety of recurrent problems, within defined constraints."
From the evidence, the complex tasks are not "varied and non-
routine"; rather they are cyclical and repetitive. They involve
a considerable degree of judgment to solve a variety of
conventional problems; the position does not, in my opinion,
require "significant" 3udgment, nor was there any evidence of
interpreting complex data or refining work methods or problem-
7
solving techniques. Because I find that the problems involved in
timetabling are recurrent and repetitive in nature and not
"varied and non-routine", I hold that the position is currently
correctly classified at C4.
(b) Knowledge: Training and ExDerience
The College asserts that the position requires a two year
community college diploma plus up to five years practical
experience. The Union asserts a three year community college
diploma and up to three years practical experience. When the two
positions are compared they yield a one-point rating difference
(College 104; Union 105) which is really too fine a point to be
arbitrated. It is clear that the essential skill required for
this position is a familiarity with microcomputers, however
acquired. The grievor's former supervisor, Mr. Chopowick, was
candid on this point; he would have been content with even a one
year certificate in microcomputer software application. In any
event, the Union has not persuaded me, on a balance of
probabilities, that the present classification is incorrect and,
accordingly, I leave it unchanged at D5.
(c) Knowledge: Skill
The College rates this at Level 3: "Work requires the
ability to apply specialized technical or clerical skills based
8
upon a sound knowledge of established procedures. May be
required to operate moderately complex computer laboratory or
office equipment."
The Union proposes that this factor be rated at Level 4:
"Work requires the ability to organize statistical information
and to understand elementary principles of a science or a
professional discipline. May operate complex computer electronic
instruments or laboratory equipment."
There was no evidence that the position requires
organization of statistical information, or understanding of
elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline.
The grievor operates an IBM compatible microcomputer using
standard word processing programs. There was no evidence of a
requirement to operate complex computer, electronic instruments,
or laboratory equipment. Accordingly, I direct no change from
the current classification at Level 3.
In the result, I find that the position in question is
correctly Core Point rated as follows:
Job Difficulty: C4 -- 144 points
Guidance Received: D4 -- 150 points
Communications: D3 -- 109 points
Knowledge: Training & Experience -- D5 -- 104 points
9
Knowledge: Skill -- 3 -- 34 points
Working Conditions: Manual Effort -- A5 -- 3 points
Working Conditions: Visual -- B4 -- 10 points
Working Conditions: Environment -- A5 -- 3 points
Total points -- 557
Pay Band No. -- 8
The grievance of Maria Romano is hereby dismissed.
DATED at the City of London this ~~ day of May, 1988.
l, an A. Hunter
e Arbitrator