HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrown-Paterson et al 90-10-04 REVISION
Caat S
Local 245
90A962-973
IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED ARBITRATION PR'OCEEDING UNDER ARTICLE
18.4.3 OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN: ·
ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS
AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE FORM OF SHERIDAN COLLEGE
[hereinafter called the "College")
- and-
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (FOR SUPPORT
STAFF EMPLOYEES)
[hereinafter called the "Union")
GRIEVANCES OF BROWN-PATERSON ET AL
EXPEDITED ARBITRATOR: Richard H. McLaren
REPRESENTATIVE OF COLLEGE: R. Spargo
REPRESENTATIVE OF UNION: 3. Jackson
A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT OAKVILLE, ONTARIO, ON
SEPTEMBER 2?, 1990.
AWARD
This matter knvolves the classification of twelve (12) Early
Childhood Education (ECE "A")'workers at Sheridan College. The grievances allege that:
"Based on my .duties and responsibilities I am
improperly placed on the payband matrix found in the
Support Staff Collective Agreement appendix E and F."
The names of each of the Grievors and the date of each of their grievances are:
NAME OF GRIEVOK DATE OF GRIEVANCE
Theresa A. Dolan December 12, 1988
Elizabeth F. Walters December 12, 1988
Lesley J. Brown-Paterson December 15, 1988
Kara Thompson December 15, 1988
Ellen Socha December 16, 1988
John S. Hellewell April 12, 1989
Margaret L. Dunbar May 12, 1989
Lori D. Corcoran. January 19, 1990
Nancy A. MacDougall January 19, 1990
Kathryn A. Bailey March 13, 1990
Cynthia J. Lockwood April 24, 1990
Belinda Lutes June 13, 1990
Any increases in pay arising out of this award will be effective for each of these individuals as
and from the date of their grievance. The Arbitrator also understands that the parties have an.
-2-
agreement as to how to deal with new employees who have not grieved but who work in the
position of Early Childhood Education workers at the College. The Arbitrator also understands
that the parties have an agreement as to what to do with individuals who have left the College
and might be entitled to compensation as a result of this award.
Sheridan College operates a diploma granting programme for students
enrolled in its Early Childhood Education programme. Pursuant to that programme it operates
a day care facility at the College in Oakville and at locations in Mississauga and Brampton.
The children who are at these day care facilities are the offspring of employees of the College
or the municipality in which the centre is located. There are also some children from the
community at large at th~se centres. The ECE workers are employed by the College in the day
care centres. It is their responsibility to run a day care centre with all of its attendant
programmes and activities for the care and supervision of the children at the centre. It is also
their responsibility to participate in the practical development and training of students of the
College who are enrolled in its academic diploma programme. These combined functions
constitute the core of duties of an ECE "A" classified worker. It is a corollary responsibility of
an ECE worker to respond to the needs of the family who has placed a child in the day care
c entre.
The centres operate under the direction and supervision of a manager. The
Oakville-Mississauga centre operates under a single manager. These centres also have a
programme supervisor and the Mississauga centre has a programme assistant supervisor who is
experienced with the Montessori technique. The Brampton centre has no programme supervisor.
-3-
The Arbitr.ator wishes to thank the parties for their presentations and the
skill with which they have utilized this expedited arbitration procedure. By their co-operation
and initiative they have been able to group all of the twelve Grievors together under a single
expedited arbitration process using two individuals, Ms. Brown-Paterson and Ms. Walters as
typical workers 'of the activities of the ECEs at the three day care centres. The success of this
proceeding is very directly related to the spirit of cooperation and a willing desire to make the
process work. It has made the job of the Arbitrator considerably easier. I want to thank the
parties for all of their efforts. They are an example for others to follow. I recommend highly
their processes and procedures to others who may be struggling to implement the expedited
process or require some insight into the better utilization of it.
The College had originally classified these positions on the benchmark for
ECE worker "A" in accordance, with the CAAT Support Staff job evaluation manual. It results
in an accumulated point total which would place these individuals in payband 7 under the
collective agreement. The parties in dealing with the grievances made an attempt to resolve
their differences. The grievance procedure was scrupulously followed and the College, to its
credit, having acquired considerable additional information in the process of the grievance
Procedure had through its President modified its position the result of which was to change the
points awarded for the position from 474 to 561 which would place these individuals in payband
8. As a a result of the grievance procedure the Union's demands were modified so that the
total point accumulation would be 646 placing the individuals in payband 10. Each party had
thus altered its position from the original core point classification and payband. The College
alteration was made during the grievance procedure and has not been implemented. The
College is prepared to implement its altered position of payband 8 following this arbitration
award.
The relative positioning of the parties at arbitration is set out below:
Management I Union
ELEMENTS Rating Pts.I RatingI Pts.
JOB DIFFICULTY D 4 ~1 E 5 I 222
GUIDANCE RECEIVED C 3 104 C 4 124
COM~ffUNICATIONS D 3 109 O 3 109
KNOWLEDGE TP~AINING/EXPERIENCE C 5 91 C 5 91
WORKING MANUAL C4 18 C4 18
CONDITIONS VISUAL AS
ENVIRONMENTAL C4 18 C4 18
TOTAL POINTS 561 646
PAYBAND NUMBER [ 08
10
It can be seen from the foregoing table that the parties are in agreement as
to the appropriate core point rating for the elements of Communications and Working
Conditions and for the Training and Experience aspect of the Knowledge element. The parties'
differences centre on three specific elements Job Difficulty; Guidance and Knowledge. In
these latter two the parties only disagree on one aspect of the matrix. In the case of Job
Difficulty they disagree on both the rating for the complexity of the job and the judgment
aspect of it.
The representative Grievors who attended the hearing gave a very thorough,
-5-
well thought-out, and excellent explanation .of their activities, and how they tie into the key
word phrasing of the job evaluation programme. The Arbitrator in exercising his judgment in
making the determinations in this award wishes to emphasize that what is being done is an
evaluation of the core duties 'of the job. He is in no way casting any dispersions upon the
particular individuals who appeared before him, nor on their very excellent and skillful
presentations of the work which they do. The Arbitrator believes that the College considers all
of the Grievers to be doing excellent work and is satisfied with their contribution to the
College. The parties do, however, have a disagreement as to the appropriate level of pay
which they ought to receive.
The Union in its submissions indicated that it agreed with the Position
Description Forms (PDFs) filed for each of the Grievers. There is accordingly no issue in this
arbitration proceeding as to the accuracy of the PDFs.
CORE POINT RATING and JOB EVALUATION FACTORS
1. JOB DIFFICULTY: COLLEGE D-4; UNION E-5
(i) Factor of Complexity - College is at D; Union is at E
The Union asserts that the complexity level is at E, whereas the College
asserts that it is at D. The E level of complexity of work involves;
"...performance of non-routine and relatively unusual tasks
that may require the application of specialized processes or
methods".
-6-
The Union and the Grievors submit that the fact that the day care centre is in effect a
laboratory for the College students enrolled in the programme makes the job by its dual role of
relating to the children and providing practice, modelling and demonstration to the College
students a non-routine job. The D level of complexity of work involves:
"... the performance of varied non-routine complex tasks that
normally require different and unrelated processes and
methods."
The College submits that the core functions of the job are performed in a supportive and
collaborative environment with other employees including a programme supervisor in the
case of the Oakville and Mississauga centres. The College has already changed from the
benchmark level of C to D in recognition of differences at Sheridan College. They
accordingly submit that D is the appropriate level. The College submits that the mental
processes that are required to be gone through in performing the work are not at the higher
E level.
The Arbitrator accepts that the Grievors' duties are of a non-routine
nature. They are not, however, unusual tasks as would be required for level E. · The
individuals are applying knowledge and experience to non-routine complex tasks involving
human relations with young children and late adolescent early adult students. Their
activities require different and unrelated processes and methods because they must relate to
children and college students. However, they are not at the E level where it is required
that they apply specialized processes or methods. They are dealing with the dynamics of
human relationships for two particularly difficult age groupings. They must respond
differently to each but they do not have to do so in an unusual manner nor with specialized
-7-
processes or methods. They have training and various screening tools which they use to
perform their jobs in dealing with the children. In dealing with the students they are.
primarily demonstrating through their own activity the theory which the students have
acquired in the classroom. Therefore, the Arbitrator finds that the College rating for
complexity is correct.
(ii) Factor of Judgment - College is at 4; Union is at 5
The parties also disagree concerning the judgment factor within the
element of the job difficulty matrix. The Union asserts that the level of judgment required
is that of level 5. The fifth level of judgment is described on the. level of job difficulty
matrix as:
"duties performed require a significant degree of judgment.
Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining
work methods and techniques".
The College asserts that the judgment factor in the element of job difficulty ought to be at
level 4. The level 4 description reads:
"duties performed require a considerable degree of
judgment. Problem-solving involves handling a variety of
conventional problems, questions or situations with
established analytical techniques."
The assert[on is that the appropriate level is $ because of the fact that these employees must
exercise judgment with respect to the child, the child's family, the College student and the
programme within which the College student is being trained. It is submitted that the child
behaviour presents complex data which must be interpreted with programmes and
developmental activities applied to them. The Union also submits that the gathering of
-8-
appraisal and performance information on the college students requires the evaluation of
complex data. The College submits that the thought process level involved requires the
application of education certain expected behaviour and adapting the individual's response [fa
desired result is not. achieved. It also submitted that the judgment aspect of the student
appraisal was not an evaluation of them but the observations and recording of information for
others to use in an overall evaluative process.
There is a judgment element to this job which is difficult to place on
the judgment, job difficulty matrix, because the matrix does not deal with human interaction
in its descriptive words of the activity. It is accordingly very difficult to determine with
precision at which level these individuals ought to be rated. The difference between the
levels involves the degree of judgment which is required. In that connection, the behaviour of
young children is less complex than dealing with the behaviour of older children or adults.
These individuals are trained to identify behavioural traits and the causes or reasons for
them. They then apply knowledge and experience in order to adapt the behavioural traits to
the activity they are engaged in. Therefore, as between the two levels the better fit seems to
be the fourth level in that the problem solving involved with these children at the core of the
job, but perhaps not in identifying special problems with particular children, invotves handling
a variety of correctional problems using established analytical techniques which they have
teamed. The ECE workers are not involved in a level of activity which requires them to refine '
the methods and techniques which they are using at least at the dore of the job duties. If that
were the case then this aspect of their work woUld be at level 5. Therefore, it is concluded
that they are at level 4 with respect to dealing with children.
-9-
With respect to the judgment associated with the evaluation of the
College Students they are completing a standardized form twice a semester and providing .day
to day feedback to the students. They are also required to integrate the College students into
the activities in which they are engaged. There is no question that there is a level of
judgment associated with this aspect of their work. It is merely' an issue of degree. The
judgment associated here is of a less complex nature than that associated with dealing with
the young children. Therefore, the Arbitrator concludes that the College has correctly
ranked these individuals at level 4. The Arbitrator notes that the College in the grievance
procedure had moved from level 3 to level 4.
(iii) Conclusion with Respect to Job Difficulty Element
The Arbitrator confirms the job difficulty rating to be D-4 which is
that of the College. In so doing, the Arbitrator notes that during the grievance procedure the
College had moved from its previous rating which was B-3.
2. GUIDANCE RECEIVED: COLLEGE C-3; UNION C-4
(i) Factor of Guidelines
The parties are agreed that the level of guidelines available ought to be
level C.
(ii) Factor Nature of Review - College 3; Union 4
The Union asserts that the nature of the review for the
element of guidance received is at level 4. Level 4 involves work assignments which are:
"...subject to a general form of review for achievement of
specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines".
The College submits that the nature of review ought to be at level 3 where work assignments
are at "...intermittently and/or periodically checked for quality." The submission of the Union
as to the reasons for level 4 is that the supervisors with whom the Grievors review their daily
work are "workers who are within the bargaining unit classified as ECE workers at a higher
level". The Grievors submitted that they were only reviewed by managers on an annual basis.
The College position was that the actual evaluation of an individual employee's performance
during the course of a year on the job had nothing to do with the rating of this factor in the job
evaluation process. The College submits that the higher level which the Union seeks requires a
greater degree of independent action than these individuals have.
The Arbitrator finds that these individuals work within an environment
where they are interacting with the programme supervisor. It does not matter that these
individuals are members of the bargaining unit and also ECE workers al: a higher level. This is
a degree of supervision, not in the traditional management sense where there is an ability to
discipline, reprimand or take other action with respect to the other individual; but, in the sense
of a collegial co-operation in an educational aspect and a day care aspect. Their performance
is checked on an ongoing basks by the Grievor's interaction with both the supervisors and the
faculty in the observation and recording of performance on the student appraisal forms.
Guidance to that aspect of their job is intermittent, but frequent. The check on the quality
with respect to the Grievors' performance with the children is through the. parents as well as
the College. It is more in the nature of a response to negative feedback and periodic check
than a situation where the individuals are independent in their action and do not have
supervision or others in which to seek support in carrying out their functions. Therefore, the
Arbitrator confirms the appropriate level of the nature of the review to be that at which the
College ranked the position; level 3.
(iii) Conclusion on Guidance Received Element
The Arbitrator concludes that the College ranking is correct and that
these individuals ought to be rated at C-3.
3.KNOWLEDGE - COLLEGE C-5 & 4; Union C-$ & 5
(i) Factor of Training/Experience
The parties are in agreement with respect to this factor.
(ii) Factor of Skill - College at 4; Union at 5
The factor of skill within the knowledge element level is submitted by
the 'Union is described to be at level 5. The job evaluation manual describes level 5 as work
which requires:
"... the ability to organize complex statistical information
and to understand and to apply elementary principles of a
science or professional discipline. May operate very
complex electronic instruments, laboratory or computer
equipment".
The College submits that the appropriate level for the skill factor within the knowledge
element is 4. The work required at that level is described in the evaluation manual as:
"...the ability to organize statistical information and to
understand elementary principles of a science or professional
discipline. May operate very complex electronic
instruments, laboratory or computer equipment".
The submission of the Union is that the appropriate level is 5 because there is a high degree of
interpersonal and communication skills involved, as well as time management skills, together
with an independent planning and implementation of the child's programme. The Union submits
that these individuals are applying elementary principles of a professional discipline. The
demonstrating functions of their job make them teachers to the College students. The College
submits that an ECE studies different philosophical approaches to dealing with young
children. Then they take that level of knowledge and apply it at the beginning level. They
also submit that the College students are not at these centres to learn but to be given the
opportunity to practice what they have learned. Thus, the ECE is a demonstrator and not a
teacher.
The Arbitrator finds that the College students' presence at the day care
centres is for the purpose of practicing what they have learned and not for learning new
theories. While the Grievors in their presentation saw themselves as teachers they are in fact
demonstrators of techniques and the application of knowledge. They act as role models but
they do not present principles of a profession or discipline for learning by the College
students. They set up the circumstances for the practise and application of knowledge.
The childcare aspect of their work is regulated by the Day Nursery Act.
-13-
They are applying principles of a science or a professional discipline to their work. The
legislation is intended to ensure that there is a certain minimal level of facility and skill in
those running the facility in order to qualify to be a day care facility. They are not a self
gonverning profession under that legislation as is a Nurse, Doctor or Lawyer. This the one area
where the College did not make an alteration in its reassessments during the grievance
procedure.
The Arbitrator notes that it is not easy to utilize this matrix because of
its association with technicians and laboratories and lack of reference to individual human
relations and interaction .in the skilled component. The Arbitrator must apply the theories of a
best fit rather than a precise application of the language in order to do the rating. The
Arbitrator finds that the College students are not in the centre to learn and that the day care
centre is used as a practical lab. The Grievors are demonstrating to the College students in
practice terms. The College students are given the opportunity to practice in the lab. The
Grievors provide feedback and provide their appraisal and assessment to faculty for further use
in the overall evaluation process by faculty of the students' progress. There is a learning
aspect to practice which is present in their activity, it is not a dominant aspect of their work.
The theoretical learning by the student takes place elsewhere. It is at the core of this job that
the individuals provide practice to students and provide supervision and development
opportunities to the children. The level involved is more appropriate to that of 4 than 5.
Therefore, the Arbitrator confirms the rating of the College.
CONCLUSION
The Arbitrator has confirmed the ranking of the College as it was
established during the grievance procedure. That ranking involves a change in the payband
from 7 to 8 which has not been put into effect despite the re-ranking of the job during the
grievance procedure. The ECE "A" worker job will accordingly be re-classified by this award
confirming the position of the College during the grievance procedure as Early Childcare
Education Worker "B" payband 8. The grievance is allowed to this extent. It is ordered that
the College re-classify the Grievors and compenskte them for any monies and benefits owing
retroactive to their respective grievance dates. The Arbitrator will remain seized of the
determination of the. appropriate compensation ov~ing to the Grievors for a period of sixty days
from the date herein. The College is directed to determine the amount that is owing and to
make payment to the Grievors within that time period. They are further directed to
implement th~ award in 'respect of all of the other individuals occupying this classification
pursuant to their understandings reached prior to proceeding with this arbitration. If the
parties are unable to agree as to the amount that is to be paid to any of these other individuals
who are affected by this award they are to submit a request in writing to me within the sixty
day time period in order that I may convene a further hearing to make a final determination as
to the amount ovzing to. any particular individual as a result of this a~vard. If I have received
no written request for reconvening for the purposes of making any deterrrdnations under this
award within the sixty day time period I will no longer have jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
Finally, my thanks to the presenters for a job well done. I very much appreciate the
high level of skill they brought to bear upon this proceed'rog.
DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS 4th DAY OF OCTOBER, 1990.
Richard H. McLaren
Arbitrator
0828W
ARbitRATION DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATIONS
SHERIDAN LESLEY BROW'N-PATERSON ET A~
COLLEGE INCUMBENT ~
PRESENT CLASSIFICATION EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION WORKER "A"
7 '
AND PAYBAND SUPERVISOR
E.C%~ Worker, Atypical
JOB FANCILY AND PAYBAND REQUESTED BY GRIEVOR
payband 10
POSITION DESCRIPTION FORM:
1. Position Description Form Attached
2. ~ Parties agree on contents of attached Position Description Form
O_~R
~--~ Union disagrees with contents of attached Position Description Form
SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THIS DISAGREEMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Job Difficulty .... ~mplexity and judgement
Guidance .......... nature of review
Knowledge skill
(USE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY)
AWARD
Management Union Arbitrator
ELEMENTS Rating Pts. Rating Pts. Rating Pts.
GUIDANCE RECEIVED C 3 ~0~ ~ ~ ~2~ 'd-~ /0%
KNOWLEDGE T~INING/EXPERIENCE C 5 91 C 5 91 ~
WORKING ~AL C4 18 C4 18 ~
CONDITIONS VISUAL A5 3 A5 3 ~
PAYBAND NUMBER 08. 10 ~ ~
ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
~ The Union
~ The College ~)
SIGNATURES:
~ ~ ~a:ina ~a~e ~w~rd ~a~e