Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReason 88-02-08BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (hereinafter called the Union) - and- SENECA COLLEGE (hereinafter called the Employer) - and - CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF SHERRY REASON SOLE ARBITRATOR Professor Ian A. Hunter APPEARANCES: FOR THE UNION: Mr. Harry Karelas, Union Representative Mr. Eugene Wilson, Chief Steward Mr. Charlie Suma, Vice-President Classification FOR THE COLLEGE: Ms. Angela Williams, Personnel Mr. John Coulter, Supervisor Mr. Mel Fogel, Director of Employee Relations AN ARBITRATION HEARING WAS HELD AT SENECA COLLEGE IN TORONTO, ONTARIO ON FEBRUARY 1, 1988. AWARD The Grievor, Sherry Reason, is currently classified as a Clerk D. Her job is core point rated as 494 points, pay band 7. The Union proposes several additions to the current P.D.F. (see Appendix 5; Union brief). While the evidence was insufficient for me to direct such additions, I do accept that the current P.D.F. does not, in some aspects, properly reflect the atypical duties of this position. Accordingly I recommend that both parties meet and negotiate a revision, particularly in the Duties and Responsibilities section of the P.D.F. The Grievor, Sherry Reason, is the first and sole incumbent of a position which she desCribed as "Assistant to the Chairman of Part-time Studies and Special Programs". It is neither secretarial nor clerical in nature. Apart from typing her own memos does no secretarial and few clerical functions; rather she is "the front line person for the part-time studies department". When the Grievor's position was created, Seneca College was inaugurating a C.I.L. (Center for Individualized Learning) program at 43 Sheppard Avenue. As a new front line position in a newly created department, the Grievor was expected (and did) pioneer work, diverse and varied responsibilities, within a department that was in the process of taking shape. In saying that, I have not neglected the fact that it is a position not an incumbent that I am required to classify; nevertheless when one is dealing with a new position, of which the Grievor is the first and sole incumbent, it is difficult to separate the position from the incumbent. Consequently, I have accepted the Grievor's evidence concerning the duties of the position, surprising as some of her assertions were, at face value. Indeed, I had no alternative. The only witness for the College, Ms. Kim Dantzic, while expressing "surprise" at the scope of the Grievor's duties, was not the person for whom the Grievor worked directly and was not in a position to contradict the Grievor's assertions. I shall summarize the Grievor's evidence concerning the duties of the position in ten points: (1) Representing the Department by attending meetings (e.g., retention and recruitment; co-ordinator's meetings, etc.) in the Chairman's absence. (2) The Grievor participated in devising a computerized registration program for C.I.L. students. (3) She represents the part-time studies department in a variety of off-campus displays and educational fora including mall displays, educational fairs at major corporations such as McDonald Douglas, Union Gas etc., college open-houses etc. (4) She is the front line person in the department for student problems and complaints. (5) She deals directly with part-time faculty on a number of issues, including such sensitive issues as student complaints about faculty. (6) She deals with problems in student transcripts; it was Ms. Reason's evidence that she had authority to direct a change in the transcript of grades. Usually she would do this in conjunction with the part-time faculty member concerned, or the program co-ordinator; but, on occasion, she testified that she made the change on her own initiative. (7) The Grievor claimed authority to determine course and program equivalencies so that she could determine whether or not a student was ready, or qualified, to graduate. She said that she had this authority on direct' delegation from the former Chairman (who did not testify). (8) She assigns and monitors faculty load. This includes deciding who (among full-time faculty) will be asked to take on part-time teaching in certain courses, assigning teachers to subjects, equalizing workload levels among faculty, room assignments, resolving disputes among faculty etc. (9) She has primary responsibilities for C.I.L. entries in the Continuing Education Calendar. (10) She prepares computerized statistical reports on budget, payroll, enrolment, etc. While the Grievor testified to other aspects of her job, the above ten points give the flavour of the breadth, diversity, and level of responsibility, according to her uncontradicted evidence. There are three ratings in dispute: (1) job difficulty; (2) knowledge: training and experience; and (3) knowledge: skill. I set out below my findings on each of these disputed factors. (1) Job Difficulty The College has rated the position C4. The Union submits that the correct rating is D4. The issue between the parties comes down to (a) whether the tasks are "various complex" (College) or "varied, non- routine complex" (Union). (b) Do the tasks involve normally require different and unrelated processes and methods (Union). From the Grievor's evidence, I resolve both of these questions in favour of the Union. Her tasks from her evidence are varied, non. routine and complex. The scope and variety are truly impressive. She is exercising independent judgement on some (if not the) most significant decisions the College can make (i.e., course and program equivalencies and who shall graduate and when). It may be that she should not be making such decisions, but the evidence is that she is, that she is doing so by direct delegation of the Chairman, and that these decisions fall to her position not to the Grievor in her personal capacity. Accordingly, I direct that Job Difficulty be rated D4. (2) Knowledge: Training and Experience The College has rated the position D4. The Union submits that the appropriate rating is C5. I note that I am concerned here with~minimum entrance qualifications. The dispute between the parties boils down to what is required beyond secondary school graduation. The College says (a) additional job related training courses and up to five years practical experience. The Union submits that it should be a community college diploma or equivalent and three years of practical experience. On this point, I accept the evidence of Kim Dantzic who was involved in the Grievor's hiring and continues to be involved in College hiring for similar positions. She testified that the current rating D4'represents the training and experience elements which the College is seeking. I heard no evidence from the Union which would lead me to any other conclusion. Accordingly I direct no change in the D4 rating. (3) Knowledge/Skill The College rating is 3 "...specialized technical or clerical skills...may be required to operate moderately complex computer or office equipment". The Union's proposed rating is 4: "...ability to organize statistical information and to understand elementary principles of a science or professional discipline. May operate complex computer equipment". Given (a) the Grievor's involvement (again by virtue of her position) in devising a computer registration program for 'C.I.L., and (b) her requirement to regularly organize and produce statistical reports on, among other things, budget and payroll, registration, course enrolments and projections, I am satisfied that 4 is the correct rating for the skill level. I direct that Skill be rated at 4. To summarize, I have found that the proper classification for this position is as follows: Job Difficulty: D4 - 171 points Guidance Received: D3 - 129 points Communications: C3 - 84 points Knowledge: Training and Experience: D4 - 90 points Knowledge: Skill: 4 - 47 points Working Conditions: Manual Effort: A5 - 3 points Working Conditions: Visual: B3 - 7 points Working Conditions: Environment: A5 - 3 points Total points 534 points. Pay band 8. I have appended a completed arbitration data sheet. Accordingly, the Grievance of Sherry Reason is allowed. DATED at the City of London this ~ day of ~U~y , 1988. Professor Ian A. Hunter S0~bitrat°r COLLEGE Seneca College GRIEVOR Sherry Reason CLASSIFICATION/ POSITION Clerk D HEARING DATE APPEARANCES: MANAGEMENT UNION See Arbitration Award DECISION: Degree Points Job Difficulty D4 171 Guidance Received D3 129 Communications C3 84 Training & Exper. D4 90 Knowledge Skill 4 47 Manual Effort A5 3 Working Conditions Visual B3 7 Environ, A5 3 Total Points 534 Pay Band Number 8 COMMENTS: