Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCole 96-02-12 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL 245 (hereinafter called the Union) - and - SHERIDAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY (hereinafter called the College) - and - CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF MS. BONNIE COLE (hereinafter called the Grievor) SOLE ARBITRATOR PROFESSOR IAN A. HUNTER APPEARANCES: FOR THE UNION: Ms. Norma Pennington-Drabble, Union Representative FOR THE COLLEGE: Ms. Rosalie Spargo, Associate Director, Human Resources AN EXPEDITED ARBITRATION HEARING WAS HELD IN OAKVILLE, ONTARIO ON JANUARY 25, 1996 1 AWARD The grievance of Bonnie Cole is dated April 29, 1995 and alleges improper classification (Exhibit 1). An arbitration hearing was held in Oakville, Ontario on January 25, 1996. Both parties supplied full and helpful briefs to the arbitrator in advance of the hearing. (1) The P.D.F. Following a Step 1 grievance meeting, the P.D.F. was revised; the current P.D.F. dated July 24, 1995 (Exhibit 2) has been agreed between the parties and has been signed by both the Grievor and her Supervisor. From the oral evidence I heard at the arbitration, it may be that some anomalies or discrepancies exist in the time allocations in the P.D.F. (cf. for example, section 8.2); however these are not matters I am required to arbitrate and I mention it only to draw the attention of both parties to the fact that the P.D.F. could benefit from some "tidying up". (2) The Issue The Grievor is currently classified as a Micro Computer Operator A, Payband 5, in the Faculty of Business and Commerce at the Davis campus. The Union alleges that the Grievor's position 2 should be classified as a Micro Computer Operator, Atypical, Payband 8. (3) An Overview of the Position The position is located at the Davis campus in Brampton. The incumbent reports to Ms. Kathy Woods, Supervisor, Office Services. The core function of the position is word processing and data entry. The incumbent may be called upon to do word processing for the Dean, four Chairs, eleven Coordinators, and approximately seventy-five full and part-time faculty. Requests for word processing are made on a form which indicates the requested date. The data entry relates, primarily, to two programs: (1) Mark Tracker, which deals with grades; and (2) Info-Silem, which deals with timetabling. These core functions comprise in excess of seventy percent (70%) of the Grievor's time. There are three other aspects of this position which are, on the evidence, secondary: (1) Trouble-shooting: The Grievor, Bonnie Cole, has developed considerable computer expertise. Consequently, she is called upon by faculty and staff to assist with computers, the scanner, printer, etc.. If she cannot solve the problem, she will refer it to the Help Desk in 3 the I.T. (Information Technology) Department. The trouble-shooting function in this case is problematic; to some extent it is a function of Bonnie Cole's particular expertise combined with her willingness to help others. But to some extent it is also an expectation of the position because it is referred to in the Duties and Responsibilities section of the P.D.F. (Exhibit 2). Also, a memorandum dated January 11, 1996 confirms that Supervisor Kathy Woods has delegated the Grievor as the contact person to handle linkup of network accounts to a new QMS printer. The Grievor testified that she was "daily" involved in providing some assistance to support staff on computer-related problems; and, on average, perhaps twice a week in major trouble-shooting. I remind myself that it is a Dosition, not an incumbent, which I must classify; nevertheless, from the evidence, I have concluded that the trouble-shooting expectations of this position are more significant than either the P.D.F. or the College has yet acknowledged. (2) Special Projects: Infrequently (perhaps three or four times a year) the Grievor may be asked to do a special project which goes somewhat beyond routine word processing. One example is the brochure on The Mentoring Program. Without in any way diminishing the importance 4 of such work, I am satisfied that it is (a) infrequent and (b) adequately embraced within the benchmark "Typical Duties" of the Micro Computer Operator A job family description. (3) Reception and Telephone Duties: The Grievor works in an open concept office. While there is a receptionist, and a fellow worker (Julia) who are primarily responsible for dealing with reception and telephone duties, the Grievor is pressed into service if both are away or otherwise engaged. Also the Grievor is alone in the office from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day, so for that half-hour period she has primary (and sole) responsibility for reception and telephone inquiries. (4) Factors Agreed The parties are agreed on the following factors: FACTORS LEVEL POINTS Training/Technical Skills 4 71 Experience 3 32 Motor Skills D4 40 Responsibility for Decisions and Actions 3 44 5 (5) Factors in Dispute (1) Complexity This factor measures the amount and nature of analysis, problem-solving, and reasoning required to perform job related duties. The College has rated this factor Level 2: "Job duties require the performance of specific tasks involving related steps and processes and/or methods." The Union rates this factor Level 3: "Job duties require the performance of various routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods." The core function of this position is word processing and data entry. The Grievor is given specific tasks involving related steps and she performs them. A secondary aspect of this position (magnified by this Grievor's particular expertise) is trouble-shooting. I am satisfied that the trouble-shooting aspect is a complex, non-routine task. But (1) it is not part of the core of the position; and (2) Level 3 refers to 6 task~ (i.e. plural). There is only one complex task associated with this position and that is trouble- shooting. The Manual also instructs me not to be overinfluenced by an incumbent's particular expertise. From the evidence, I believe that Ms. Cole has done quite extensive and valuable trouble-shooting work for the College: but the position (as described in the P.D.F.) does not contemplate so extensive a trouble-shooting role. On the whole of the evidence, and adopting a "best fit" rule of thumb, I have concluded that Complexity is properly rated at Level 2. Complexity - Level 2 (2) Judgement This factor measures the independent judgement and problem-solving required on the job. It 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. 7 The College has rated Judgement Level 2: "Job duties require some judgement or choice of action within limits. Some analysis is involved in problem-solving." The Union propose Level 4: "Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with established analytical techniques." I asked the Grievor what aspect of the job required the greatest judgement? She replied: "Dealing with complaints from students or telephone calls from irate parents". I note, first, that this is not part of the core duties of the position. Second, this is not the Grievor's primary responsibility; indeed she is third behind the receptionist and Julia. Third, I am satisfied that while such duties, when they do happen, call for some sensitivity, the main responsibility of the incumbent is to make an appropriate referral. Nothing in the evidence persuaded me that Judgement should be rated higher than 2. 8 Judgement - Level 2 (3) Physical Demand Essentially this factor measures the demand, duration and frequency of physical effort required in the position. The College has rated this factor Level 3 which in the context of this case means "regular" physical demand and "regular" need for speed and repetitive use of muscles. The Union proposed Level 4 which, in context means, continuous moderate physical effort and "frequent requirement for repetition and speed". The Grievor's evidence was that she spent in excess of eighty percent (80%) of her working day keyboarding. Unfortunately, neither Level 3 nor Level 4 is an exact fit in this case. There is a "frequent" requirement for repetition and speed. But the position does not require "continuous moderate" physical effort, nor was there any evidence of "awkward bodily positions over extended periods of time nor limited flexibility of movement". 9 I concluded that I could not, objectively, make this factor Level 4. Nevertheless, there is, on the evidence, something about this position which the College has underrated. I concluded that this was more appropriately dealt with under Sensory Demand than under Physical Demand. Physical Demand - Level 3 (4) Sensory Demand This factor measures the demand on mental energy. The College has rated this Level 3: "moderate" visual demand, "occasional" careful attention to detail and accuracy. The Union proposes a rating of 5: "extensive" visual energy, "frequent" careful attention to detail and accuracy. On the evidence, I was left in no doubt that the College has underrated this factor. I so conclude because most, albeit not all, of the Grievor's core functions (i.e. word processing and data entry) require considerable visual demand and frequent careful attention to detail. 10 On this point, both the Grievor and her Supervisor, Kathy Woods, agreed. That is Level 4. Sensory Demand - Level 4 (5) Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines This factor measures work strain keeping in mind the frequency and predictability of deadlines, interruptions, distractions, etc.. The College has rated this factor Level 3: "Moderate work pressures or demands. Interruptions, changing deadlines, multiple demands occur regularly but are usually predictable .... " The Union proposes Level 4: "... conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions ... occasional critical deadlines." On the evidence, I make the following findings of fact: virtually all of the Grievor's work (i.e. word processing and data entry) is subject to a deadline; however the deadlines are seldom tight and very seldom "critical". There was no evidence of "conflicting" work pressures, nor of "unpredictable" work pressures. The impression I 11 received from the Grievor was of a busy work day, achievable deadlines, and moderate work pressures. This, in my judgement, is a classic description of Level 3. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines - Level 3 (6) Independent Action This factor measures the independence of action and decisions required by the job. The College initially rated this factor Level 2 (limited freedom to act independently). However, following a first step grievance meeting, the College agreed to raise this factor to Level 3: "... moderate freedom to act independently." I have no doubt that this factor is properly rated Level 3. Kathy Woods is present at the Davis campus three days a week. When she is there she is in close proximity with the Grievor and provides "occasional" input, problem- solving or verification. Once again, in my view this is a textbook Level 3 position. Independent Action - Level 3 12 (7) Communications/Contacts This factor measures the requirement of effective communication for 'the purpose of providing advice, explanation, influencing others, and/or reaching agreement. Consideration is given to the nature and purpose of the communication and the confidentiality of information involved. The College has rated this factor Level 1: "Job duties require communication of a routine nature for the purpose of furnishing, exchanging, or discussing factual data or information. Personal courtesy and normal working/social relationships are required." The Union proposes Level 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." 13 The Union's proposed rating is too generous; the College's existing rating fails to take account of some important elements of the position. First, the Grievor's communications go beyond routinely providing factual information. On those occasions when she does reception and telephone duties these are Level 2 communications. Also, the current Level 1 classification ignores the Grievor's involvement with confidential information: viz, tests, grades, student files and "cheating" letters. The evidence established that Communications/Contacts should be rated Level 2. Communications/Contacts - Level 2 (8) Work Environment The College has rated this factor Level 1: ordinary office environment; occasional exposure to slightly disagreeable and/or hazardous elements. The Union proposes Level 2. The Union did not dispute that the Grievor worked in an ordinary office environment, but based its claim on the fact that the Grievor is occasionally required to travel to the Oakville campus (eg. for timetabling). 14 The Grievor herself indicated that approximately one twelfth (1/12th) of her time would be at Oakville. This is less than the threshold requirement (ten to thirty percent (10%-30%)) for Level 2. Consequently, I am left with the fact that the Grievor works in an ordinary office environment. Work Environment - Level 1 (6) Decision On the evidence, the position in question is Micro Computer Operator, Atypical. The job factors are core-pointed rated as follows: FACTORS LEVEL POINTS Training/Technical Skills 4 71 Experience 3 32 Complexity 2 25 Judgement 2 30 Motor Skills D4 40 Physical Demand 3 28 Sensory Demand 4 39 Strain from Work Pressures/ Demands/Deadlines 3 28 Independent Action 3 33 15 Communications/Contacts 2 52 Responsibility for Decisions/ Actions 3 44 Work Environment 1 10 Total 432 Payband 6 Accordingly, the grievance of Bonnie Cole is allowed. The College is directed to reclassify this position in accordance with this Award effective the date of the grievance (April 29, 1995). I remain seized to deal with any issue which may arise in the implementation of this Award. Dated at the City of London this /~day of '~~6~/~i , 1996. Iraa~oAr. Hunter