Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMacCready 88-03-24 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION L~ / between Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology C~> (hereinafter referred to as the College) and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) Grievance of lan MacCready Sole Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt Appearances: For the College: F. Fogel, Dean, Human Resources Angela Williams, Employee Relations Rick Rigeloff, Supervisor For the Union: Charlie Suma, Union Representative Eugene Wilson, Union Representative Bette Egri, Union Representative lan MacCready, Grievor Hearing: Seneca College March 11, 1988 2 AWARD INTRODUCTION This is a classification grievance of Ian MacCready, whose present classification is Technician C in the Media Production Department of Seneca College. The Job factors in dispute are Job Difficulty - Judgment; Guidance Received - Nature of Review; Knowledge - Training; and Working Conditions - Visual Strain. The evaluations given to these factors by the College and the Union respectively are: College Union Job Difficulty - D4 (171) D5 (194) Guidance Received D3 (129) D4 (150) Knowledge D5 (104) D6 (118) Working Conditions B4 (10) C4 (18) DESCRIPTION OF THE JOB The Position Description Form prepared by the College summarizes the position as follows: To assist in the production of broadcast quality video, audio and interactive instructional programs, using both established methods and improvising and developing production techniques, under varied local conditions. To maintain and operate broadcast quality, audio and video production equipment to be utilized in production of educational programs. 3 The Position Description Form prepared by the Union differs slightly from this wording. It provides as follows: To participate in the production of industrial quality educational and promotional video, audio and interactive programs requiring the use of independent judgement and improvising on established industry methods and developing production needs under varied local conditions to meet needs. It is evident from these differing Position Description Forms that the grievor and the Union regard the position as involving greater independent judgment and adaptation to changing conditions than does the College which sees it as involving to a greater extent the application of established methods and procedures. Both the grievor and his supervisor, Mr. Rigeloff, testified as to the duties involved in the position. Essentially, these duties are of two types: those associated with the "shooting" of a video tape; and those associated with the "editing" of that tape as part of the preparation of the final product. The grievor estimated that he spent appoximately half of his time on each of these two types of duties. Mr. Rigeloff was of the opinion that much more time was spent on editing than on shooting the tape. He stated that it took approximately 5 days to edit a typical 20-30 minute program which might be shot in one day. The outline of duties and responsibilities in the Position Description Forms prepared by the College and Union respectively appear to indicate that 40% of the duties are related to 4 "shooting" and 35% are related to editing. I regard this evidence as more reliable than that given at the hearing and accordingly I intend to proceed on the assumption that, generally speaking, an equal amount of time is spent on both shooting and editing duties. In preparation for a shoot the incumbent in the position is required to ensure that the proper equipment that will be necessary for the shoot is assembled. There are 3 different kinds of shoots: interviews, role plays, and stock footage shoots, and the demands may vary according to the type of shoot that is being done. The determination of what will be required is made from the script and from one or more production meetings attended by the supervisor, the authour, the director of the production, a production assistant and the incumbent in the position in question. At these meetings the authour clarifies his requirements and the director may offer various suggestions as to how, from a production standpoint, the authour's demands can be met. The supervisor gives little specific direction at these meetings. Although there may be some variation in the shoots in terms of location and production requirements, from a technical standpoint, the preparation for a shoot generally involves following routine procedures. Thus, for example, the equipment that is needed to be taken to the site of a shoot is all "packaged" in cases and there are infrequent changes in the 5 "package". What would appear to vary most would be the way in which the equipment would be set up at the site of the shoot. Thus, for example, for an interview shoot, the surrounding amenities will substantially dictate and determine how and where the supporting equipment is to be set up. The incumbent in this position is responsible for determining how to set up the equipment in a way which will cause least inconvenience to others who may work at the location of the shoot. The supervisor is not present at the shoot itself. The duties of the Technician are to monitor the audio and the video signals and to communicate with the director with respect to any technical problems that might arise during the shoot. Minor technical problems are attended to by the Technician. However, if any equipment needs to be repaired that is done by the engineer, who is a Technologist. Where the problems are sufficiently serious that it becomes necessary to cancel the shoot it is the director, who is also in the Technologist classification and was described as a "lead hand", who ulltimately makes that decision (perhaps in consultation with the authour if the authour is present at the shoot) That decision to cancel will be based to some extent on the advice of the Technician as to the seriousness of the technical problems which have arisen. The monitoring of the signals requires the incumbent to watch a monitor for the period of the shoot which may last between an hour and an hour and a half. On some days two separate 'shoots may be done. 6 Editing duties are performed at the Media Production Department of Seneca College. The Technician is responsible for monitoring audio levels and ensuring that video quality is up to broadcast standards. This involves reading small video screens and consulting a number of audiometers, interpreting the information received from those screens and deciding what corrections are needed. The Technician consults with and advises the director on all matters of technical quality. However, it is the director who makes the ultimate decision. Editing duties.also include the selection of appropriate production music and opening and closing music. Although the opening and closing music is selected according to the specifications prescribed' by the graphic artist, the production music is generally selected by the Technician with some consultation with the director. Where technical problems occur the Technician must be able to diagnose the problem and communicate with the engineer responsible for repairing equipment breakdowns. For serious breakdowns in equipment both the supervisor and the director are involved in the decision making process. Although the supervisor drops in daily he does not provide any close or detailed supervision to the Technician. He is there more to deal with problems which may have arisen. Editing duties are performed in a semi-darkened room where the Technician is required for most of the working day to look at 7 the television monitor, the various small monitors and the audiometers. DECISION On the factor of Job Difficulty-Judgment the difference between the College evaluation and that of the Union is over whether or not the incumbent exercises "considerable" or "significant" judgment and whether he solves "conventional problems with established techniques" or deals with "complex data" which requires him to "refine techniques" I am not persuaded that rating of the position at the D4 level should be changed. Although it is admittedly the case that there are variations in the way that the job has to be performed, depending on the location of the shoot or on the nature of the particular technical problem that might arise, the phrase "considerable" judgement accurately describes the degree of judgment required. The requirements of the script, the discussions at the production meetings, and the general routine which has been established over the years all point to the conclusion that the incumbent in this position is, with appropriate "judgement" being exercised, applying relatively established techniques to the solution of conventional problems. I did not have any sense that the grievor was "refining" the techniques by which problems were to be solved. I find further support for this conclusion in the fact that the grievor's role vis-a-vis the director is largely an advisory 8 or consultative role. While he would inform the director as to technical difficulties both at the shooting and the editing stage, it was the director who had ultimate responsibility for deciding what was to be done. The director is classified as a Technologist C and is rated at level 6 on judgement, i.e. - a "high degree" of Judgment. Thus, the differential between the Technologist C and the Technician C could still be preserved, as i~ ought to be, by classifying the Technician C at level 5 (which is what is claimed). Notwithstanding that I am still not persuaded that, in general, the judgment required is anything more than "considerable" Under Guidance Received the contest is over whether or not assignments are "intermittently and periodically" checked or whether they are subject to "general review" for adherence to established guidelines. I have little difficulty in concluding that the position is under rated at level 3 for Nature of Review. The supervisor is not present at the shoot and while he drops in to the editing room he does not "check" the work being done. While he is present at the production meetings he does not provide any detailed instruction as to how the duties are to be performed. Nor can it be said that the director is involved in "reviewing" the performance of the duties. Admittedly the director makes the final decision on matters of, for example, technical quality. However, I am unable to regard that as "reviewing" the work of the technician. He simply receives advice 9 from the technician and exercises his own judgment as to what should or should not be done. On the factor of Working Environment-Visual Strain I am also of the opinion that the position is under rated at level C. Level C requires moderate visual concentration, focusing on small areas or objects for short periods of time up to one hour. There is little question that the concentration required both during the shoot and during the editing process is for longer periods of time than one hour. During the shoot it is for periods of between one and one and a half hours and during the editing it iS for the entire day. Consequently the appropriate level of classification for this factor is level D which involves "considerable" concentration for periods up to two hours. The remaining factor to be considered is that of Knowledge- Training. The Union claims that this should be rated at level 6, viz, a three year Community College diploma or equivalent; the College claims that it is appropriately rated at level 5, viz, a two year Community College diploma or equivalent. The grievor stated in evidence that the basic two year Radio and Television Broadcasting course at a Community College did not provide him with the sort of training required to deal with the various technical problems which might arise either during the shoot or during the editing. It was claimed that the ability to deal with this aspect of the job required a further 1 year of training in the area of electronic engineering. The College claimed that such extra training was not required since the job 10 of repair of equipment breakdowns, etc. was the Job of the engineer and that the availability of the engineer, particularly during the editing phase, reduced the need for the grievor to possess the skills that would be acquired through such added training. I am of the opinion that the position is correctly rated at level C for Knowledge-Training. The grievor frequently stated in evidence that his ability to deal with the technical problems derived from the knowledge that he had acquired from his experience in the position. He did not state that he did, in fact, possess the formal equivalent of a three year Community College Diploma. I assume that he did not. In my opinion this is conclusive against the Union on this issue. While it is true that it is the position and not the incumbent in the position which is to be evaluated, I am nevertheless of the opinion that in order to succeed on a claim that a position requires a three year diploma or equivalent there must be some evidence that would match the content of such a course or diploma with the duties of the job. Furthermore, it would appear, in view of the grievor's evidence, that ability to deal with the various technical problems which arise develops as a result of the experience in the position, and that is already taken into account in the experience element of the Knowledge matrix, which is not in dispute in these proceedings. SUMMARY Thus, for the reasons outlined, I conclude that the proper weighting that should have been given to the various job factors in dispute is as follows: Job Difficulty-Judgement D4 171 points Guidance Received-Nature of Review D4 150 points Knowledge-Training and Experience D5 104 points Working Conditions-Visual Strain C4 18 points The job factors not in dispute are: Communications C3 84 points Knowledge-Skill 5 61 points Working Conditions-Manual Effort C3 15 points Working Conditions-Environment C3 15 points Total Points 618 points Pay Band Number 9 Consequently, the grievance, which seeks a reclassification to a position equivalent to Technologist B in Pay Band 10, is dismissed. Dated at LONDON, Ontario this~ day of ~~/~ ' , 1988 G. J. Brandt, Arbitrator COLLEGE Seneca Colleqe GRIEVOR Ian MacReady CLASSIFICATION/ Technician "C" POSITION HEARING DATE March 11, 1988 APPEARANCES: MANAGEMENT UNION Angela Williams Eugene Wilson DECISION: Degree Points Job Difficulty D4 171 Guidance Received D4 150 C ommunicat ions C 3 8 4 Training Knowledge $ Exper. D5 104 Skill 5 61 Manual Effort C 3 15 Working Conditions Visual C4 18 Environ. C3 15 Total Points 618 Pay Band Number 9 COMMENTS: ARBITRATOR'S /.--~ DATE March 25, 1988 SIGNATURE Gregory J. Brandt