Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLuhowy 96-02-29 SHERIDAN 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 DEBRA LUHOWY (O.P.S.EU. #95A890) ARBITRATOR: lan Springate APPEARANCES For the College: Rosalie Spargo, Associate Director, Human Resources Carolyn Teo, Human Resources Assistant David Wright, Manager, Contract Training Services For the Union: Norma Pennington-Drabble, Steward Jay Jackson, Local 245 President Debra C. Luhowy, Grievor HEARING: In Oakville on February 5, 1996 AWARD INTRODUCTION These proceedings relate to the grievor's former position as a graphic designer in the College's Community and Government Services Division. In this position she was classified as a Technologist B and paid at the payband 10 level. The grievor moved to a different position on or about January 7, 1996 as a result of the graphic designer Position being declared redundant. On November 18, 1994 the grievor filed a grievance Which alleged that she was improperly classified and should be classified as a Technologist Atypical at payband 12. The grievance was subsequently amended to claim that she should be classified at the payband 13 level. At the hearing the representative of the College indicated that the College had classified the grievor's position as that of a Technologist B using job evaluation guide charts which are part of the relevant job evaluation system. The job evaluation system also contains a core point rating plan used to evaluate atypical positions and other positions with duties that cannot be readily evaluated using the job evaluation guide charts. The College's representative indicated that the College did not actually core point rate the grievor's position but had instead adopted all of the typical ratings for a Technologist B. She contended that if she had core point rated the position the ratings for certain factors would have been lower than those actually awarded by the College. The College and the Union agreed on the ratings for only two of the 12 factors in the core point rating plan, namely Training/Technical Skills and Experience. The remaining ten factors are discussed below. The highest typical technologist classification provided for in the job evaluation system is that of a Technologist C at payband 11. The job evaluation guide charts contain the following entries relating to the duties and responsibilities of a Technologist B and a Technologist C. TECHNOLOGIST B SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITY Incumbents provide technical expertise of a specialized nature to faculties, administrative areas and students, using independent judgement to deterrrfine 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 theoretical principles 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. 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. - Co-ordinates projects 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 parties agreed on a position description form relating to the grievor's position. The representative of the College suggested that I should keep in mind the fact that the grievor and another bargaining unit employee classified as a Support Services Officer D had prepared the form. I propose to rely on the position description form in the normal matter. While College officials were not involved in drafting the form, the College did adopt its contents. THE GRIEVOR'S DUTIES Contract Training Services is one of the Departments within the College's Community and Government Services Division. It sells training services to various government agencies and private sector employers. At the relevant time the Department was divided into three units. One was the Client Services Unit which dealt with private sector employers. Another was the Government Relations Unit which dealt with government agencies, especially five Canada Employment Centres located in the Regional Municipalities of Halton and Peel. The third unit, which was where the grievor worked, was the Proposal Development Unit. All three divisions were overseen by Mr: David Wright, the Manager of Contract Training Services. In each unit a Support Services Officer D had lead hand responsibilities. The lead hand in the Proposal Development Unit was referred to as the Proposal Developer. Also employed in the unit was the grievor and a Program Assistant classified as a Clerk B. Responsibility for obtaining training contracts lay with Training Consultants in the Client Services and Government Relations Units. The primary role of the Proposal Development Unit was to support the Training Consultants by preparing proposals respecting training programs that the College was proposing to provide to clients. The text for a proposal was determined by the Proposal Developer in consultation with the relevant Training Consultant. Some of the text preparation was assigned to the Program Assistant. The grievor testified that she might help with the text if the Proposal Developer was under pressure. The grievor prepared the graphics for proposals. She created original graphic designs and also ensured that print material was appealingly presented. The grievor testified that she checked with the Training Consultant or Proposal Developer when something was unusual but generally used her own judgement to develop the graphics. Mr. Wright testified that the grievor prepared the graphics under the direction of the Proposal Developer. He also indicated that he dealt with the grievor only infrequently. In these circumstances I accept the grievor's evidence that she generally developed the graphics on her own. The graphics were, however, subject to approval by the Proposal Developer and the Training Consultant. The grievor testified that when planning the graphics for a proposal she met with the Proposal Developer or Training Consultant, although at times she was only left notes with information relating tc~ a planned proposal. She stated that she might be provided with a shell of the proposal. According to the grievor she would begin to get a feel for the length of time it would take to prepare the graphics work and the seriousness of the client. She testified that because a lot was left up to her she tried to ascertain the value of the proposed training and the likelihood of the proposal being accepted before spending a lot of time on it. Mr. Wright testified that responsibility for deciding what resources would go into a proposal on the basis of considerations such as whether a client had the resources to buy the training lay with himself and the Program Developer. On the basis of the grievor's evidence and Mr. Wright's limited involvement with her work, however, I conclude that the. grievor generally decided how much time to spend on each proposal.. The grievor developed graphic designs on a computer. She did so either fl'.om scratch, by re-using a graphic from a previous proposal or by adapting something in her data base. When re-using a graphic she had to ensure there were no references to the previous proposal. The gfievor testified that her work often included a lot of text and some of the programs she used did not have a spell check. She stated that she had to ensure that technical terms and names were spelt fight, that no details were missed and that nothing was incorrect. The grievor's responsibilities included insuring that a proposal looked professional. This often involved resizing text and graphics to ensure that they matched. It also involved preparing a cover and a table of contents. The grievor at times developed a flow chart with shading to allow a reader to more quickly assess what was involved. The grievor tried to include the client's logo on a proposal, which at times involved contacting the client for the logo. If she could only get the logo on paper she would recreate it using a computer. The grievor provided a consultation service to members of the Department relating to the production and visual effectiveness of materials as well as computer graphic practices as they related to the design and production of training materials. The grievor testified that she suggested modifications to Certain documents and also helped streamline the Department. The grievor at times worked on materials other than training proposals. Some of this work related directly to Contract Training Services. This included being asked to prepare material such as flyers for the Training Consultants and to work on statistical material that the Proposal Development Unit had been asked to help put together. The grievor was also approached by employees from other parts of the College seeking her assistance and advice. The grievor testified that although the College had a Corporate Communications Department it was very busy with things such as mass productions and accordingly she was often approached for ideas and assistance with respect to simple projects or a cover page. Mr. Wright testified that the grievor's decision to be available to the rest of the College was not part of her job description and was not expected of her. He stated that the grievor had been told to refer these types of approaches to her lead hand. The grievor did not dispute this statement. She did state that when someone telephoned her for advice it was a reasonable expectation that she would answer the question. Approximately 10 percent of the grievor's time was taken up in maintaining computer equipment and ensuring that backup information was properly maintained. The grievor stated that when she initially started in her position she did not have a large enough hard drive and so she had to learn to do file compression and put files on a floppy disk. She also stated that graphic files tend to be very large and when opening and closing a file there was often file fragmentation and so she had to check the system to correct any fragmentation. COMPLEXITY This factor in the core point rating plan measures the amount and nature of analysis, problem-solving and reasoning required to perform job related duties. The College rated this factor at level 4. The Union argues that level 6, the highest rating possible, is more appropriate. The criteria for these and the intervening level 5 rating are set out below. The classification system indicates that a level 4 rating is typically associated with a Technologist B position and a level 5 rating with a Technologist C position. 4 Job duties require the performance of varied, non-routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods. 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. The grievor testified that the technical aspects of her job were complex as were the human relations skills involved. She stated that the Government Relations Unit dealt with unemployed people who often had low level skills and who required basic training whereas the Client Services Unit dealt with firms such as Chrysler and Ford which had high level training requirements. She indicated that training programs were aimed at youths, minorities, trades persons and professionals and because she often worked on different things at the same time she had to keep the audience in mind. The grievor testified that she was always making decisions about the appropriate images _ to use. She indicated that she did not want to insult people or have her work look "cartoony". She stated that she had to keep her work understated so that it looked professional. The grievor acknowledged that she used computer software to assist her but commented that software is only as good as the operator. She stated that she had to know not only the software but also the software's limitations. According to the grievor she encountered problems that even the experts could not help her with. She stated that she frequently ran into problems related to limitations in the equipment and had to compensate for those limitations. The grievor was asked what unusual conditions she faced in her job. She replied that she never worked on only one thing at a time and her work was unusual in the sense that often persons who worked in her capacity worked on advertising material. The representative of the Union contended that the grievor's job involved unusual conditions whereby there was a constant need to problem-solve and find quick solutions to problems. She submitted that the grievor's work required creativity and mental challenge. She stated that when picturing students the grievor had to decide if they should be young or old or whether to show visible minorities. She also stated that people asked the grievor for graphic images and the grievor had translated their requests into a design. She contended that a great deal of mental gymnastics were required for the grievor to generate graphics from word pictures. The representative of the College submitted that the textual aspect of proposals was developed by a Training Consultant and the grievor produced graphics to complement the text. She contended that the grievor had received a high degree of input from senior staff She also contended that the so,ware utilized by the grievor should be considered as tools related to her field of work. It appears that the grievor did not prepare graphics for those who actually took part in training sessions. Instead the material was prepared for corporate and government officials who purchased training services. Accordingly, while the grievor pictured different types of students for different types of training, she did not have to tailor her work to audiences with different levels of comprehension. The criteria for a level 6 rating requires the investigation and resolution of a variety of unusual conditions. This wording suggests regular dealings with a variety of different situations each of which is unusual. The fact that the grievor had a relatively unique job and was frequently involved in problem solving did not meet this requirement. I am satisfied that the grievor's position did not meet the criteria for a level 6 rating. The more difficult issue is whether the griever's job involved complex and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/m: methods so as to meet the criteria for a level 5 rating; or whether it is better described as the performance of non-routine complex tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods such as to meet the criteria for a level 4 rating. Assistance can be obtained from the typical duties of a Technologist B and C set out in the job evaluation guide charts. A typical duty ora Technologist B rated at level 4 for complexity is "designs and/or develops .. materials etc. to meet user output requirements". This appears to encompass the griever's work in preparing graphics. The typical duties of a Technologist C rated at level 5 make no reference to designing or developing materials. Rather, they refer to much more general functions including planning for the provision of technical services and the effective utilization of resources based on an independent assessment of the College's needs as well as the coordination of projects including overall planning. These considerations indicate that the appropriate rating is level 4. Accordingly, I confirm the level 4 rating given by the College. JUDGEMENT The core point rating plan states that this factor assesses the difficulty in identifying various available choices of action and in exercising judgement to select the most appropriate action. It also considers mental processes such as analysis, reasoning or evaluation. The College rated the judgement factor of the griever's job at level 5 while the Union contends that a level 6 rating is more appropriate. The criteria for these ratings are as follows: 5 Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used. II 6 Job duties require a high degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves adapting analytical techniques and development of new information on various situations and problems. When asked about this factor the grievor referred to the fact that before working on a proposal she tried to ascertain the value of the proposed training and the likelihood of the College getting the work. She also noted that no one gave her guidelines as to what images she should use. She stated that if she was doing a proposal respecting youth she had to sense the ages and sex of those involved. The grievor referred to a situation when her printer did not have enough printer memory and she had used a method of layering to achieve the required result. According to the grievor she adapted analyt, ical techTniques when dealing with problems such as a lack of capability in the software or not enough memory in the printer. She also stated that if she had a problem getting what she wanted she would generally solve it herself. The grievor was asked whether she had developed new information. She replied that it was more a question of refining information "we" already had and making it more up to date. She stated that with high level clients with complex training issues "we" had to be on top of what was out there. She added that new information also involves new methods of reproduction. That portion of the position description form which relates specifically to the judgement factor commences with the statement, "The job requires a significant degree of judgement". This is the level of judgement referred to in the criteria for a level 5 rating. The representative of the Union, however, contended that the grievor's position met the criteria for a level 6 rating. She relied on the statements in the position description form which state: "Problem solving involves the ability to analyze and estimate, often on very short notice, realistic timelines to be allotted for upcoming or current projects"; and "Incumbent must provide comprehensive and creative design solutions, sometimes with few or no guidelines. The incumbent must gather facts and examples, determine the right approach and present the client with a cost effective solution that meets appropriate standards". She submitted that there were no guidelines for the grievor to follow and she had to originate new techniques under extreme pressure. The representative of the College contended that the grievor's job required judgement in juggling schedules/deadlines, choosing the most appropriate tool for a proposal and the best method of articulating a message but that it did not require a high degree of judgement. She contended that the grievor did not adapt analytical techniques or develop new information on various situations and problems. The grievor's work clearly involved refining work methods and techniques to deal with problems that she encountered. It is not readily apparent that she also adapted analytical techniques. Even if I were to accept that she did so, to meet the criteria for a level 6 rating she also had to develop new information on various situations and problems. I do not view the gathering of information from other staff members who worked on proposals as the development of new information on situations and problems. These considerations lead me to conclude that the grievor's position did not meet the criteria for a level 6 rating and that a level 5 rating is appropriate. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the designing and developing of materials to meet user output requirements is a typical function of a typical Technologist B rated at level 5 for judgement. Having regard to these considerations I affirm the level 5 rating given by the College. MOTOR SKILLS This factor measures the fine motor movements necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position. It considers dexterity, complexity, co-ordination and speed. The College rated this factor at level C3. The Union argues that level D4 is more appropriate. A level 3 rating relates to a prevalence of a particular level of motor skills 31 to 60 percent of the time whereas a 4 rating is appropriate if it is more than 60 percent of the time. The criteria for level C and D ratings are as follows: C. Complex fine motor movement, involving considerable dexterity, co-ordination and precision !s required. Speed is a secondary consideration. D. Complex fine motor movement, involving significant dexterity, co-ordination and precision is required. Speed is a major consideration. The position description form contains the following entries relating to motor skills: Proper and rapid keyboarding skills are necessary, as job often involves formatting and modifying text (which is an integral part of the design process). A high degree of detail orientation is necessary in order to maintain high quality and optimum speed with very little time to spend proofing work. Dexterity and speed with a mouse when modifying, sizing and locating design components is essential in utilizing graphics design and related sot'tware. Work is very detailed and involves multi-tasking between programs. Task/Equipment %of time Formatting text using dextrous movements, speed and co-ordination 30% Creating computer images and designs using keyboard and mouse 70% The grievor testified that although she did not work in a direct production environment where her key strokes were measured, the only way for her to get through the work day was to be fast and accurate at the key board and with a mouse. She stated that she used the mouse to click and drag and to resize and had to look to see if there were any distortions. According to the grievor she was always editing as she worked and sometimes she repositioned things as she was editing. Mr. Wright stated that there was a speed and accuracy component to the grievor's job. He indicated that she was expected to do what reasonably could be done within the time available. In her submissions the representative of the Union relied on the wording of the position description form. The representative of the College contended that the software applications utilized by the grievor were not predicated on speed. She stated that knowledge of the software and the interconnectedness of software in the production of material was primary, not speed. She submitted that the speed aspect of the job referred to in the position descriPtion form referred to deadlines provided by clients and consultants rather than speed on the keyboard. The representative of the College also noted that typical Technologists A, B and C and all Support Services Officers are rated at level C for this factor. She stated that there was no reason to go to a higher rating for the grievor's position. She also noted that data entry operators, typist-stenographers and secretaries are to be found at level D. The levels argued for by the College and the Union are both premised on the grievor having used complex fine motor movement. The evidence and the position description form clearly indicate that she was involved in this type of activity for over 60 percent of the time. This justifies a level 4 rating for prevalence. The remaining issue is whether speed was a secondary or a major consideration. The grievor's evidence indicated she felt she had to work quickly. The position description form states that "proper and rapid keyboarding skills are necessary". It also refers to "optimum speed", and "dexterity and speed with a mouse when modifying, sizing and locating design components is essential". These comments suggest a need for speed on the part of the grievor when performing her tasks. Accordingly I conclude that speed was a major as 15 opposed to only a secondary consideration. Accordingly I find level D4 to be the appropriate rating. PHYSICAL DEMAND This factor measures the demand on physical energy required to complete tasks. The College rated this factor at level 3; the Union at level 4. The criteria for these two ratings are set out below. 3. Job duties require regular physical demand. There is a regular need for speed and repetitive use of muscles. Employee is in uncomfortable or awkward bodily positions for short periods of time with some flexibility of movement. Employee uses continuous light physical effort, OR recurring periods of moderate physical effort, OR occasional periods of heavy physical effort. 4. Job duties may require frequent physical demand. There is a frequent requirement for repetition and speed. Employee may be in awkward bodily positions over extended periods of time with limited flexibility of movement. Employee uses continuous moderate physical effort, OR recurring heavy physical effort. The position description form contains the following statement with respect to this factor: The incumbent works in an open office environment. Although there is little physical demand due to this being a very sedentary job (sitting at a computer terminal), there is a great deal of eye, back and sometimes wrist strain when the incumbent is subject to pressure and deadlines and often cannot take the appropriate, necessary breaks. The grievor testified that often there had not been the opportunity for her to take designated breaks since she wanted to get the work done. She also stated that a lot of the time she was in a nervous state because people were waiting for her work. Mr. Wright testified that the grievor had been encouraged to take breaks. He also indicated that the grievor had a lot of opportunity to move around, including when she was consulting with others. The representative of the Union contended that the grievor was in a locked position all day. In support of this contention she relied on the statement in the position description form that the grievor often could not take breaks. She also contended that the constant rush put extreme stress on the grievor. The representative of the College contended that if the College had core point rated the grievor's position this factor would have been rated at level 2. She submitted that it was not at level 4 where positions such as skilled trades worker, shipping/receiving clerk and maintenance worker appear. The issue of the stress that the grievor was under more appropriately relates to the factor of strain from work pressures/demands/deadlines than physical demand. While the grievor on her own initiative did not always take her breaks, the evidence indicates that she did have some flexibility of movement. It does not appear that she was in awkward bodily positions over extended periods of time or that she used anything more than light physical effort. The illustrative classifications for this factor indicate that the grievor's position did not justify a level 4 rating. Not only are the illustrative classifications for a level 4 rating associated with considerable physical labour, but one of the illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating is that of switchboard operator, a position where the employee must work at a fixed location. In the circumstances I find a level 3 rating to be appropriate. SENSORY DEMAND The factor of sensory demand is perhaps the most difficult factor to apply. It is meant to measure the demand on mental energy while performing tasks but does not directly take into account the complexity of the tasks or the degree of judgement involved. In addition, the need to pay frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy is covered by several ratings. The College argues for a level 3 rating while the Union contends that a level 5 rating, the highest rating possible, is more appropriate. The criteria for level 3, 4 and 5 ratings are as follows: 3. Job duties require moderate visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent 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 Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and periodic cai'eful 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. 5. Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. The position description form contains the following entry with respect to this factor: A very high degree of concentration is required for developing conceptual design, on how to project appropriate images for proposals, planning work and timelines,~ and reviewing necessary job information. A very high degree of speed and accuracy is required, and there is little time to thoroughly check work for accuracy. The incumbent must be able to block out extraneous noise in order to concentrate on the task. The representative of the Union relied on the statement in the position description form that a very high level of concentration was required. She contended that the sensory demand on the grievor was even greater because of her open centre-of-office work station which meant that while under the pressure of multi-tasking and high precision work she had to block out noise. The representative of the College submitted that there was not a high level of tension between the mental energy and visual, auditory or sensory demand built into the position. It is clear that the grievor had to pay frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. This, however, fits the criteria for a level 3, 4 or 5 rating. It is not at all apparent from the wording of the core point rating plan where the lines are to be drawn between moderate, considerable and extensive visual, auditory or sensory demand on mental energy referred to in the different criteria. The only assistance comes from the illustrative classifications. Among those listed as being at level 3 include Technologist A, B, and C and Support Services Officer A, B, C, and D. The grievor's duty of designing material is one of the typical duties of a Technologist B. There is no reason to believe that the demand on her mental energy exceeded that associated with other technologists or Support Services Officers. Having regard to these considerations, I conclude that a level 3 rating is appropriate. STRAIN FROM WORK PRESSURES/DEMANDS/DEADLINES The College rated this factor at level 3'. The Union submits that a level 5 rating, the highest rating possible, is more appropriate. The criteria for these ratings, and the intervening level 4 rating, are as follows: 3. Job duties involve moderate work pressures or demands. Interruptions, changing deadlines, multiple demands occur regularly but are usually predictable. Occasionally, critical deadlines may occur. 4. Job duties involve conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in workflow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and occasional critical deadlines. 5. Job duties involve continuous work pressures and unpredictable interruptions in workflow. Numerous conflicting demands and tight deadlines occur frequently. The position description form contains the following entries with respect to this factor. The term "UP" means usually predictable. Constant pressure of multi-tasking, interruptions from existing tasks to do work which has been reassigned a higher priority and/or has just come in unexpectedly and must be dealt with immediately. Interruptions from external clients and non-departmental staff Task %of time predictability Multitasking, interruptions to do 80% UP other higher priority work The grievor testified that shortly after she started in her position she had two training consultants dictating material to her in preparation for a trade show. She indicated that this was not the normal state of affairs but it did happen. ' ' 20 Mr. Wright testified that the grievor worked in an environment with deadlines. He indicated that some interruptions related to the grievor's actions in. assisting employees from other parts of the College. According to'Mr. Wright the grievor was asked numerous times to refer such interruptions and requests for assistance to her lead hand. In her submissions the representative of the Union relied on the indication in the position description form that the griev°r had been under constant pressure and dealt with multitasking and interruptions 80 percent of the time. She contended that the grievor faced numerous conflicting demands and tight deadlines and that her work flow was almost never predictable. The representative of the College submitted that the situation of two Training Consultants leaning over the grievor's shoulder had nOt been a major part of her job. She contended that interruptions could ovly come from the grievor's supervisor, her lead hand or a consultant. She submitted that interruptions in work flow were likely to come from the grievor checking with the consultant to clarify the client's needs. She also stated that some interruptions were a matter of the grievor's personal choice or style. She noted that the core point rating plan does not rate any typical classification at level 5 and that typical Technologist B and C positions are rated at level 3. The fact that not one of the 60 typical classifications provided for in the job evaluation system has been given a level 5 rating for this factor suggests that such a rating is to be used only in extremely unusual situations where there are unremitting work pressures. This does not describe the grievor's situation. As the grievor herself indicated that it was not the normal state of affairs to have people were leaning over her shoulders waiting for her work product. The position description form does, however, indicate that quite apart from interruptions related to her assisting employees outside her work area the grievor frequently had to move between jobs and that interruptions resulted from unexpected work or the reassignment of priorities. The position ', 21 description form suggests that the resulting interruptions in work flow occurred frequently. Although the form refers to interruptions as usually being predictable, this suggests that at certain times they were unpredictable. The situation met the criteria for a level 4 rating. Accordingly, I find level 4 to be the appropriate rating. 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 while the Union argues for level 5, the highest level possible. The criteria for these ratings 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 Supervisor 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 position description form' contains the following entries relating to this factor: Limited general instructions are given with each project (deadline, audience, goal, budget). Much informal verbal discussion may follow with great latitude as to the means with which the project will be accomplished. Because of the nature of the work, each assignment is unique, and incumbent must develop own methods and procedures. This can mean the development or modification of existing standards. Often no documented procedures exist for the activities related to an assignment. Because of differing expectations and changing conditions, the incumbent must demonstrate resourcefulness, creativity, initiative and self-motivation. Work is checked in process at regulated stages (i.e. initial concept, proof, production-ready, product). However, specific monitoring of mechanical requirements related to the publication is lef~ to the expertise of the designer. Production sChedules are updated daily. When unforeseen or rush work comes in, when a pre-planned method of undertaking a given assignment (or an aspect thereof) does not generate desirable results, or when technical difficulties arise, the incumbent must be prepared to make quick and effective decisions as to what alternatives must be chosen to achieve desired results. (Situations or problems typically referred to the supervisor for solution are) conflicting priorities, workload, equipment and sof~ware needs and/or difficulties, personnel mat~ers. The grievor testified that if faced with anything beyond her knowledge it was up to her to discern the source of information to find a solution because she was the expert. She stated that although most jobs were reproduced in the office, it was up to her to decide where to get the Department newsletter produced and whether to use colour. She also testified that because she was in a newly created position there was nothing in place for her to follow and accordingly she had to develop procedures and methodology as best she could. The representative of the Union relied on the wording of the position description form. In particular she contended that the reference in the form to limited general instructions corresponds with the wording in the criteria for a level 5 rating that job duties are performed in accordance with general instructions and policies involving changing conditions and problems. The representative of the College contended that there had not been a great deal of scope for independent action on the part of the grievor because the SupPort Services Officer D had developed and produced the text of proposals and the grieVor was required to work around the text. ~ ' 23 The statement in the position description form that limited general instructions are given is worded somewhat similarly to the criteria for a level 5 rating. The form, however, specifies that the instructions are given for each project and it lists the nature of the instructions namely deadline, audience, goal and budget. The form also indicates that while the gfievor had great latitude to decide on the graphics to be used they were reviewed at a number of different stages. The graphics had to be within the framework of of the proposal being developed by the Proposal Developer. These considerations indicate that there were considerable restrictions on the gfievor's independence of action. A Technologist C is listed as one of the illustrative classifications for a level 5 rating for this factor. As noted above, the job evaluation guide chart lists as typical duties of a Technician C the planning for the provision of technical services and the effective utilization of resources based on an independent assessment of the College's needs as well as the coordination of projects including overall planning. This represents an independence of action and decision making that goes beyond what was associated with the grievor's position. To award a level 5 rating would result in an inconsistent application of the job evaluation system. A level 4 rating is more appropriate. 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 gfievor's position at level 3 while the Union contends that level 4 is more appropriate. The criteria for these levels, as well as a note to raters which forms part of the core point rating plan, state as follows: 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 participation and understanding and to secure co-operation in order to respond to problems or situations 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. Note to Raters Many college jobs deal with some information that is confidential. The focus in this factor is on the manner, purpose and responsibilities involved in communicating, rather than the content of the information being communicated. Therefore, raters should not rate the information, but the communications responsibilities involved in handling it. The position description form contains the statement that: "Job duties require communication for the purposes of providing guidance and technical advice, particularly on graphical standards and needs". It was the gfievor's evidence that her job required that she communicate her knowledge to others. She also stated that her job involved making training packages saleable and some training programs had been aimed at individuals with special requirements. The gfievor testified that she was in a position to learn confidential information which individuals outside the College would like to know about. I do not vieTM the grievor's role in preparing the graphics aspect of proposals which were ultimately the responsibility of the Proposal Developer and a Training Consultant as involving the type of communications contemplated by the communications/contacts factor. The grievor did not have any communications responsibilities respecting confidential information. Her primary communications responsibilities involved communications with college staff for the purpose of providing guidance and technical advice. A level 3 rating was clearly more appropriate than a level 4 rating. Accordingly I confirm the level 3 rating given by the College. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS/ACTIONS The College rated this factor at level 4. The Union argues that level 5, the highest level possible, is more appropriate. The criteria for these two levels are as follows: 4. Decisions and/or actions have considerable impact on the organization. Errors are detected after the fact and may result in considerable interruption and delay in 'work output and waste of resources. 5. Decisions and/or actions have significant impact on the organization. Errors are difficult to detect and result in a significant waste of resources and continuing influence on operational effectiveness. The grievor testified that she was responsible for producing work that was accurate, looked good and was pertinent to what the unit was working on. She stated that she proofed her own work although another employee, generally the lead hand, would do a double check. According to the grievor any errors on her part would be expensive to correct and costly to the College's image. Mr. Wright indicated that the responsibility for what was presented to a client lay with the Proposal Developer and relevant Training Consultant. In response to Mr. Wright's evidence the grievor stated that while these two individuals might have responsibility, if she "screwed up" she would have had a strong sense that it was her responsibility as well. She added that she did not think that she could divorce her own responsibility. The position description form contains the following entries with respect to the factor of responsibility for decisions and actions: The incumbent's decisions and work output have conSiderable impact on the College corporate image in the long term. Moreover, client satisfaction with the product generated by the incumbent (along with his/her associates) will ideally result in business for the department (in the short term), and in developing a reputation for excellence which will reflect on both the department and college as a whole. Proof-reading ones' own work, as well as inviting critique and review by other staff associates; particularly those persons most familiar with any.specialised terminology which may be integral to the document. Errors undiscovered could potentially be very detrimental to future business. Considering the nature of our business is training, and we are an educational institution, optimum care must be taken with document preparation and reproduction. The representative of the Union contended that the position description form indicates that the grievor's work had a great impact on the College's reputation for excellence and that any errors could have extremely detrimental consequences. The position description form reflects the fact the grievor worked in a team environment and that the final product depended on the contributions of a number of individuals. The Proposal Developer and Training Consultant, not the grievor, were responsible for the completed proposal. I do not believe that a need to redo a proposal due to a discovered graphics error can reasonably be described as involving a significant as opposed to a considerable waste of resources. While an uncaught error in graphics might prove embarrassing and conceivably might even be a factor in the College not getting a particular training contract, I do not see how it could have a continuing influence on operational effectiveness. For this to occur presumably there would have to be a number of such errors. Having regard to these considerations I affirm the level 4 rating given by the College. WORK ENVIRONMENT This factor measures working conditions in terms of the physical environment. The College rated the grievor's position at level 2 while the Union argues for a level 3 rating. I do not propose to review this issue in detail. The illustrative classifications for this factor indicate that typical 6ffice positions are rated at level 1, technologists at level 2 and classifications such as caretaker and food service worker at level 3. The grievor worked in an office environment. It would result in a clear inconsistency to rate her position any higher than level 2. CONCLUSION The College's rating of the grievor's position gave it a point total of 634 which is at the Iow end ofpayband 10 which encompasses 631 - 690 points. My finding that a D4 level rating is appropriate for the element of motor skills and that level 4 is appropriate for the element of strain from work pressures/demands/deadlines raises this to 660. This total is still within the range for payband 10. Accordingly I find that the grievor was appropriately paid in accordance with payband 10. Dated at Toronto this 29th day of February 1996. Arbitrator ARBITRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION _ College: Sheridan Incumbent: Debra _Luhowv Supervisor: David Wriqht ~ Tecknologist B 10 -Present Classification: and Present Payband: Job Family and Payband Requested by Grievor: Technologist Atypical, Payband 13 1. Position Description Form At~ached 2. [~ The parties agree on the contents of the attached Position Description Form OR [] The Union disagrees with the conl:en~s of the attaohed Position Descriptian Form. The specific details of this disagreement are as follows: (use reverse side if necessary) FACTORS MANAGEMENT UNION ARBITRATOR Level Poim~ Level Poim~ Lev~ P~ints 1. Training/Technical Skills 6 ll0 6 ll0 ~ f ! ~) 2. ~erience _ 4 4 5 4 4 5 ~ ~ ~ 3. Com~lexi~ 4 5 8 6 9 0 ~ ~ ~ .... ~. Judgamem 5 84 6 Z02 ~ F~ , 5. Motor Skil~ C3 . 25 D4 40 ~ ~ ~ D 6. Physical Demand 3 28 4 39 _~ ~ ~ 7. Se~ory Demand 3 28 5 50 ~ ~ ~ 8. Strain from Work Pr~ur~lDema~s/Deadlin~ 3 28 5 50 ~ ~ ~ 9. Independent Action 4 46 5 60 ~ ~ 11. R~po~ibili~ for Decisio~/Acfio~ 4 62 · 5 80 ~ ~ 12. Work Environment 2 32 3 55 ~ ~ ~ JOB C~$SlFI~ATION Technologist B Atypical A~AOHE~ W~I~E~ SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Unian ~ The C01l~g~ FOR THE UNION FO~ANAGE~T ,' J6ti~r) (Union He~e~fivel · (Dam)