HomeMy WebLinkAboutSample Group 16-03-18IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ALGONQUIN COLLEGE
-and-
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
(Support Staff Bargaining Unit)
Concerning the classification of
Program Support Officers
Erin Sample, Margaret Cayen and Lori Driscoll
OPSEU Grievance #2013-0416-0032
13S15
BEFORE : Kathleen G. O’Neil, Single Arbitrator
For the Union: Jan Strickland - Steward, OPSEU Local 416
Margaret Cayen, Lori Driscoll, Erin Sample - Grievors
For the College: Leah-Anne Brown - Manager, Organizational Effectiveness
Lindsay Hinds - Manager, Implementation and Operations, Centre for
Continuing and Online Learning
A Hearing was held in Ottawa, Ontario on December 9, 2015
1
A W A R D
This decision deals with a group grievance brought by three incumbents, Erin Sample, Margaret Cayen
and Lori Driscoll, claiming that the position entitled Program Support Officer (PSO) is incorrectly classified
at Payband E, and asking that it be reclassified upward to Payband G. The employer maintains that the
job is properly classified.
The dispute is to be resolved by application of the Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (referred to below
simply as “the Manual”) to the job duties set out in the Positi on Description Form (referred to below as “the
PDF”).
The Manual details a job evaluation system aimed at providing an objective basis for the placement of a
large variety of jobs across the college system on the common salary grid in the collective agreement. To
this end, the Manual provides a multi-factorial method of point-rating the job duties, which are formally set
out in the PDF. It is important to underline that it is the basic requirements of the job that are evaluated in
this system, and not the performance, qualifications or worth of incumbents, even if they perform at a level
or possess skills that surpass the requirements of the job.
The parties prepared detailed briefs and made helpful presentations at the hearing, all of which I have
carefully considered in the process of coming to this decision.
Overview of the Program Support Officer Position
The PSO positions are situated in the Centre for Continuing and Online Learning. The incumbents are
responsible for providing overall administrative and clerical support related to the delivery of a specified
area of courses and programs. This position supports part-time faculty in the day-to-day delivery of their
courses which includes processing their payroll. The incumbents also respond to student inquiries related
to the delivery of courses and programs via telephone, e-mail and in-person. Further, the incumbents
provide support to a more senior position, the Program Support Specialist, including entering course data
into the student management system. The incumbents also provide f ront line back-up for the Receptionist
position.
The position is part of a team of 9 employees at the Centre for Continuing and Online Learning, reporting
to the Centre’s Manager, Implementation & Operations. The team includes a receptionist, four Program
Support Officers, two Program Support Specialists, a Finance Clerk and a Budget Officer.
2
Nature of the Dispute
During the grievance procedure, the parties worked on the PDF, and by the time of the hearing, there was
no dispute about its wording, but there is still a dispute about the rating of several factors. There are five
factors in dispute:
1. Analysis and Problem Solving
2. Planning and Coordinating
3. Independence of Action
4. Communication
5. Audio Visual Effort
These will be dealt with in turn below.
1. Analysis and Problem Solving
This factor measures the level of complexity involved in analyzing situations, information or problems of
varying levels of difficulty; and in developing options, solutions or other actions.
The College has rated this factor at Level 2, for which the Manual’s description reads as follows:
2. Situations and problems are easily identifiable. Analysis or problem
solving is straightforward. Solutions may require modification of existing
alternatives or past practices.
The union maintains it should be rated at Level 3 as follows:
3. Situations and problems are identifiable, but may require further
inquiry in order to define them precisely. Solutions require the analysis
and collection of information, some of which may be obtained from areas or resources
which are not normally used by the position.
Starting with the current rating at Level 2, there is much about it that appears to be a good fit. The
description at Level 2 of straightforward analysis or problem solving, where solutions may require
modification of existing alternatives or past practices, corresponds well to the work of the position in
dispute as set out in the materials and elaborated at the hearing. For instance, the examples in the PDF
for this factor such as extending the class end date when a faculty member has missed several classes,
tracking down why a part-time faculty member has not been paid on time or directing a faculty member to
the proper resources to gain access to Blackboard, are all examples that fit very well within the language
at level 2.
The union argues that the level of analysis and problem solving goes beyond level 2. As an example of a
level 3 function, the union’s brief refers to an example of loading a course description where the
incumbent would need to access resources not normally used by the position. The normal process is that
the Program Support Specialist, a position identified as having a more senior role, provides the completed
3
loading document to the PSO. However, when both Specialists are absent, the PSO is still expected to
load the course, which the union submits requires her to contact various departments and staff with which
she is unfamiliar. While solving the situation, the incumbent must take into account the software
requirements for the course, the room requirements, scheduling and correct fees. Another example given
at the hearing was a situation where both the budget officer and manager were away, and one of the
incumbents did calculations of rates of pay to fill the gap. Similarly, there was an example of a situation
dealt with by one of the incumbents where a student had been out on placement, but had not actually
been registered first, making it difficult to create the necessary invoice in the system. She figured out how
to do it on her own, but indicated at the hearing that perhaps it should have been the budget officer who
did that task.
The College’s response to these examples was that it is not the role of the PSO to calculate fees and that
such a function needs to be done in conjunction with the Specialists and Academic Manager. It was also
mentioned that Ms. Driscoll had been acting in the position of Specialist, and thus had been functioning in
that role, doing duties that were not expected of the PSO position. It is clear that the duties of the higher
rated position that Ms. Driscoll was doing temporarily are not to be the focus of this decision, despite the
fact that she is able to perform the duties of the higher rated position when called upon.
The examples given by the union are ones that fit comfortably in my view into the second sentence of the
factor description language of level two, “Solutions may require modification of existing alternatives or
past practices.” However, it is true that they could also fit into the wording of level three because further
information was needed, which might have been obtained from an unfamiliar resource. In this case, the
following portion of the Notes to Raters, which are a mandatory part of the evaluation system, is of
assistance:
3. To clarify the differences between levels 1, 2 and 3:
…
Level 2 versus level 3 - wording in a PDF that suggests there is a need to get additional
information, such as problems that require the incumbent to look at several sources of information
or ask questions of other departments, does not necessarily mean that level 3 would apply. For
example, if dealing with a question regarding a "hold" on a student record, the incumbent might
have to check several screens on the student record system to see if it is a financial hold, or an
academic hold, and might even have to contact the academic or finance department for an
answer. However, these are procedural steps that should be followed one by one until the
problem is identified and solved. There may be some judgement (level 2) in deciding which step
to try first, but the analysis, if any, is quite straightforward (level 2). For level 3, the incumbent
would be gathering information, analyzing each new piece of information in relation to the other
pieces, and possibly exploring new or unusual directions to seek more information based on the
results of the investigation or analysis.
4
I find the level two description of using judgment to decide which step to try first, including potentially
contacting other departments for more information, to be a very good fit for the functions described by
both parties. Having listened to the incumbents, it seemed clear that even in the examples that occurred
when other staff were absent, they were aware of a straightforward way to accomplish what they felt had
to be accomplished. The material before me does not persuade me that the examples fit better with the
Level 3 factor description or Notes to Raters, especially the portion of the Notes to Raters referring to new
or unusual directions based on investigation or analysis. The incumbents do have to track things down in
the course of their work, such as why a faculty member has not been paid, but the steps involved appear
from the evidence to be well known and laid out. As well, many of them are controlled by what the
various computerized systems require or will accept.
There was quite a bit of discussion at the hearing about the fact that the incumbents are very resourceful,
and tend to step up and do what is necessary “in a pinch”. This made it very clear that the incumbents
are endeavoring to provide the best possible service to internal and external customers. However, for the
purpose of evaluating the job itself, rather than the performance of the incumbents, it is necessary to
focus on the notable assigned duties of the position, rather than initiatives, commendabl e though they
may be, that are not an expected part of the job.
In the result, I find level 2 to be a good fit for the assigned duties of the job, and the employer’s rating at
Level 2 for Analysis and Problem Solving is confirmed.
2. Planning and Coordinating
This factor measures the planning and/or coordinating requirements of the position. This refers
to the organizational and/or project management skills required to bring together and integrate activities
and resources needed to complete tasks or organize events. There may be a need to perform tasks with
overlapping deadlines (multi-tasking) to achieve the decided results.
The employer has rated the position as Level 2, while the union argues for Level 3. These two levels are
described as follows in the Manual:
2. Plan/coordinate activities and resources to complete own work
and achieve overlapping deadlines.
3. Plan/coordinate activities, information or material to enable completion of tasks and events,
which affect the work schedule of other employees.
Notes to Raters:
…
3. To clarify the differences between levels 2, 3 and 4:
5
Level 2 - the position plans and prioritizes its own activities. Planning and coordinating are
typically focussed on completion of assigned activities within established deadlines or procedures
(e.g. scheduling, coordination of data for reports, setting-up of new software in a department to
meet specific business needs). The position may coordinate or make arrangements for an event
by coordinating the calendars of others.
Level 3 - the position decides the order and selects or adapts methods for many work
assignments. Typically, the planning and coordination at this level, which affects the work
schedule of others, are requests for materials/information by specific deadlines in order for the
position to plan events or activities (e.g. conferences, research projects, upgrading hardware or
software).
Relevant definitions
Affect - to produce a material influence upon or alteration in.
Similar to the first factor, the Notes to Raters clarifies the situation for this factor, so that it is clear that
level 2 is the better fit for the position in dispute. The incumbents’ jobs are full of deadlines, but they are
set by others. Their job involves, as one incumbent put it, creating their own deadlines within the
externally imposed deadlines, such as the fact that the textbooks have to be available for the start of the
semester. The incumbents work backwards, to figure out, for example, when they have to order the
books in order for that to happen. For ordering, obviously they need to know what books the faculty will
be using. This aspect of the work is an example of work that could be considered to fall into level three,
as the information from the v arious faculty members has to be coordinated in order for the ordering to
happen on time. Similarly, with the example of producing part-time faculty contracts, the incumbents need
to have rates of pay confirmed by other personnel, and then have to contact the programmer/analyst to
have the contract produced, after which signatures have to be obtained prior to the first night of class.
This does involve requesting information by specific deadlines, something which could fit within either the
factor description language at level 2 “coordinate resources to complete own work” or at level 3
“coordinate information to enable completion of tasks”.
However, when one looks at the notes to raters, it is clear that the coordination of data and scheduling (in
which I would include scheduling the book order date in that example) is considered to be a level two
activity. Level 3 requires not only deciding the order of one’s own activities, or work assignments, but
also selecting and adapting the methods for many work assignments. I am persuaded by the material
before me, that the incumbents are not assigned the role of selecting and adapting the methods by which
they accomplish their work assignments, as these methods are quite structured. I accept that there is
some effect on others’ schedules in getting information to the incumbents in time for them to do their part.
Nonetheless, when the level 3 Note to Raters speaks of deciding the order and the method of many work
assignments, it appears to be describing more of an ability to organize others’ workflow and decide the
deadlines than is the case for the incumbents who have no control over the academic deadlines for which
they need information. Further, the examples given in the Notes to Raters of the type of planning and
6
coordination that level 3 is focused on, such as planning events, conferences, research projects or
upgrading hardware or software, do not correspond well with the functions of the position in dispute. The
examples given in the PDF, such as ensuring class registers and course materials are ready for the
upcoming term, planning for the production of part-time faculty contracts, tracking payroll processing,
entering course data into the GeneSIS computer system, and converting documents into accessible
format, are not of the same nature as planning events, conferences or research projects, and have less
impact on the schedule of others.
For these reasons, I find the rating for Planning/Coordinating at Level 2 to be appropriate, and a better fit
than Level 3, so that Level 2 is hereby confirmed.
3. Independence of Action
This factor looks at the level of autonomy in the position and the rules, procedures, past practices, etc.
that are available to provide guidance and direction.
The College’s rating for this factor is Level 2, regular and recurring, while the Union argues for
Level 3, regular and recurring with Level 4, occasional. The factor description language for this range of
levels is as follows:
2. Position duties are completed according to established procedures.
Decisions are made following specific guidelines. Changes may be made to
work routine(s).
3. Position duties are completed according to general processes. Decisions
are made following general guidelines to determine how tasks should be
completed.
4. Position duties are completed according to specific goals or objectives.
Decisions are made using industry practices and/or departmental policies.
Relevant definitions in the Manual are as follows:
Policies - broad guidelines for directing action to ensure proper
and acceptable operations in working toward the mission.
Industry Practice - technical or theoretical method and/or process
generally agreed upon and used by practitioners to maintain standards
and quality across a range of organizations and settings.
Process - a series of activities, changes or functions to achieve a result.
Notes to Raters:
…
3. To clarify the differences between levels 2 and 3:
7
Level 2 - duties are completed based upon pre-determined steps. Guidelines are available to
assist, when needed. The position only has the autonomy to decide the order or sequence that
tasks or duties should be performed.
Level 3 - specific results or objectives that must be accomplished are pre-determined by others.
The position has the ability to select the process(es) to achieve the end result, usually with the
assistance of general guidelines. The position has the autonomy to make decisions within these
parameters.
4. To clarify the differences between levels 4 and 5:
Level 4 - the only parameters or constraints that are in place to guide the position's decision-
making are "industry practices" for the occupation and/or departmental policies. The position has
the autonomy to act within these boundaries and would only need to consult with the supervisor
(or others) on issues that were outside these parameters.
The union highlighted that the PDF provides that no instructions are given to the incumbents for day-to-
day tasks and gave examples of work seen as going beyond the level 2 accorded by the employer. This
included the example of a new course being created, and the duty of the incumbent to ensure that
descriptions conform to college guidelines, acceptable to the Curriculum Administrator for publication.
The union characterizes this as work involving level 4 terms such as adhering to industry standards and
college policies and guidelines concerning curriculum development.
By contrast, the employer highlighted that Program Support Officers prioritize their own work tasks and
responsibilities. For example, they complete course outline updates and are required to verify whether
the correct book is in the course outline. Another example referred to by the employer is that the
incumbents may receive a student complaint by phone but they are not required to handle the complaint.
They can escalate it to the Program Support Specialist or the Centre’s Manager. As well, the Program
Support Officers also consult with the Centre’s Manager, in order to make decisions that may have a
budget impact, or involve issues with staff, changes to deadlines, complaints and other issues beyond the
scope of the position.
The employer was of the view that the level 4 description of “industry practices” or “departmental policies”
was not applicable to the position in dispute. The employer took the position that industry practices,
defined as it is above, refers to external practices such as for accountants, rather than the highly
structured internal administrative procedures which guide the incumbents’ work. In this regard, it is clear
that the incumbents have some contact with industry practices such as in ordering supplies for programs
that work with the building code. However, I am not persuaded that the autonom y of the incumbents in
their work is regulated by such industry practices. Rather, I accept the employer’s argument that the work
of the incumbents is largely guided by established procedures, within which they prioritize their own work.
Any different or new assignments are accomplished in consultation with a variety of other people. Further,
any change of process would need to be authorized by the manager, rather than independently chosen
by the incumbent.
8
The incumbents gave a number of examples, which can be characterized as making sure something
happens in the absence of other people. For example, it is not contested that it is an assigned duty of the
PSO to complete course outlines or descriptions, creating a digital existence in the computer system
accessible to students and others. The normal process is that the course description is given to the PSO
by the coordinator of the program, and the PSO is to input it word for word. However, it has happened
that such input was rejected by a manager as not in line with the applicable guidelines. One of the
incumbents went back and forth with the Curriculum Manager, who referred her to the guidelines, the
college standard for this type of input, and the incumbent used the guidelines to get it entered in an
acceptable form.
Another example given by one of the incumbents is that, despite being ordered in time, books have not
arrived on time, so that the week before class the incumbents have to call and get them shipped directly
to them to ensure they are available for the right class.
Another example given was that of volume scheduling for the CPI program, for which one of the
incumbents handled the scheduling process, which she referred to as creating a master process to
master the processes with which she is presented. Her manager described this as a process mandated
by the Academic Manager, and that it was something that would normally be the role of the Program
Support Specialists, but something that “landed on the desk” of one of the PSO’s, who handled it very
well. Nonetheless, the role of the PSO was described as normally to go by the process set out by the
organization.
The college expressed concern about the incumbents’ taking on roles that were not part of the job
description, such as trying to do course descriptions, or following up concerning the payroll schedule, as
faculty are expected to get their sheets in on time, by looking at the payroll schedule on line. The College
emphasized that management is very specific about the role of the incumbents, and that they need to
have approval for anything that creates extra work.
I find the material and discussion at the hearing to describe a situation where the incumbents are
regularly working in a way that is best characterized at level 2, as their work is normally completed
according to established procedures, but changes may be made to work routines. I would include in this
examples such as arranging for books that had not arrived when expected to be delivered to the
incumbent directly to make sure they arrived in time for class. However, there seems to be an additional
area which arises on occasion, such as the exam ples of doing the volume scheduling or figuring out how
to make content fit into the college guidelines for course descriptions in time for a deadline, which
although not part of the usual flow of work, are left for the incumbents to do with the involvement, in one
9
of the examples given, of the Curriculum Manager. In my view, this amounts to an assignment of work,
which did not appear to reach the level of regular and recurring, but which warrants an occasional rating
at level 3, for completing duties according to more general processes, in the sense of doing what was
necessary to achieve the result of having the course loaded, or the bulk scheduling, done on time, in a
way that goes beyond the normally prescribed procedures.
Thus, I find the appropriate rating for Independence of Action to be Level 2, regular and recurring, Level
3, occasional.
4. Communication
This factor measures the communication skills required by the position, both verbal and written and
includes:
- communication to provide advice, guidance, information or training
- interaction to manage necessary transactions
- interpersonal skills to obtain and maintain commitment and influence the actions of others.
The College has rated this factor at Level 2, while the union argues for Level 3, for which the Manual’s
Factor Level descriptions are as follows:
2. Communication involves the exchange of information that requires explanation
and/or interpretation.
3. Communication involves explaining and/or interpreting information to secure
understanding. May involve communicating technical information and advice.
Notes to Raters:
To clarify the differences between levels 2 and 3:
"Explain" and "interpretation" in level 2 refers to the fact that it is information or data which needs
to be explained or clarified. The position exchanges basic technical or administrative information
as the normal course of the job and may be required to deal with minor conflicts or complaints.
This level may also include exchanges that are of a more complex technical nature, where all the
parties to the communication are technically competent. That is, for those people the
communication is relatively basic as they share a vocabulary and understanding of the concepts.
"Explain" and "interpretation" in level 3 refers to the need to explain matters by interpreting policy
or theory in such a way that it is fully understood by others. The position must consider the
communication level/skill of the audience and be sensitive to their abilities and/or limitations. At
this level, if the exchange is of a technical nature, then usually the audience is not fully
conversant or knowledgeable about the subject matter. Unlike communicating with people who
share an understanding of the concepts, in this situation the material has to be presented using
words or examples that make the information understandable for non-experts or people who are
not familiar with the intricacies of the information.
10
The issue for this factor is whether the incumbents are responsible for communication “to secure
understanding”, as this is the important distinction between Level 2 attributed by the college and level 3
sought by the union.
In support of the Level three rating, the Union focused on the fact that the incumbents are constantly
imparting information to staff at Algonquin and other colleges, as well as students and faculty. Although
orientation is provided to new faculty, which covers subjects such as the payroll process, contract and
course information and policies, the incumbents nonetheless are asked many questions. They answer
them in person, by phone or email, making sure the person asking understands the answer. They find
that, even after orientation, many faculty do not seem to understand the difference between day-time and
continuing education procedures, leaving the incumbents with the need to explain when asked.
As an example, the incumbents referred to the months of May through August, when a lot of people are
away. When one of the incumbents receives a question for which she knows the answer is available in a
policy or directive, such as how to handle grading when a student is ill, she would send the directive to
the faculty member. It is the union’s position that it is not desirable that the incumbents send the faculty
off to ask another person when they have the information, and that it is part of the expectation that they
work as a team and provide the information so the faculty understands. Another example given by the
incumbents was when grade forms are not returned on time they have to explain the impact of missing
grade reports - that it can hold up the whole class - or they have to explain what the faculty member
needs to do to fill out grade change forms. The incumbents explained that they can get caught in the
middle between an academic manager and the faculty. For instance, when the manager does not sign
something that has not been filled in correctly, and does not go back to the faculty about it, it is the
incumbents who are left to fill the gap.
By contrast, the employer spoke of examples of the communication provided by the Program Support
Officers such as explaining course loading details to co-workers, who are on an equal level in terms of
ability to understand the communication, or sending an e-mail to the Coordinators to find out if the same
text books are being used as last time. A further example was that the incumbents inform faculty that
Blackboard is the Learning Management System used by Algonquin College and refer them to the
College’s website which has plentiful information on how to use Blackboard.
The College is of the view that the orientation of new faculty stresses the importance of the part-time
faculty familiarizing themselves with college services and how to access them , and that the PSO’s are
going beyond what is expected if they try to ensure that faculty understand their contracts or grading
policies. The College sees the incumbents’ role as communication of what the Notes to Raters refers to
as administrative information, explaining, sending information, reminding them of the policy, or grading
11
directive, but not as interpreting or securing understanding. In the employer’s view, if faculty members do
not understand the information provided to them, including on the extensive Human Resources website, it
is managers or Human Resources staff who should be providing the explanations rather than the
incumbents. Acknowledging that the incumbents try to be pro-active, the College emphasizes that it is
really the faculty member’s responsibility to understand, and that part-time faculty tend to be fairly
independent.
There is overlap between levels 2 and 3 in that both involve reference to understanding on the part of the
person with whom the incumbent is communication. At level 2, communication involves an exchange of
information that requires explanation, and/or interpretation. “Interpret” is defined by the Manual as “to
explain or tell the meaning of”, while the Manual defines “explain” as to “provide details or examples ot
help others better understand the information”. Thus, helping others understand is already part of level 2.
Level 3 has to mean something more when it says that interpreting and explaining, which are already
present at level 2, is “to secure understanding”. The Notes to Raters elaborates that at level 3, the
explanation must be given in such a way that it is fully understood by others. I take this to mean that
Level 3 positions are accountable for whether the people they are communicating with fully understand
what they are being told. I am persuaded by all the material and discussion that the incumbents are not
accountable in this way, even if they are individually quite capable of operating at this level. They are
responsible to make information available, and to refer the person onwards if there are issues with
understanding.
In the result, I find level 2 the better fit, and the College’s rating for Communication is hereby confirmed.
5. Audio/Visual Effort
This factor measures the requirement for audio or visual effort, including the following two aspects:
a) the degree of attention or focus required, in particular for:
- periods of short, repetitious tasks requiring audio/visual focus
- periods where task priorities and deadlines change and additional focus and effort is
required to achieve the modified deadline;
b) activities over which the position has little or no control that make focus difficult. This
includes the requirement to switch attention between types of tasks and sensory input
(e.g. multi-tasking where each task requires concentration).
Assess the number and type of disruptions or interruptions and the impact of these activities on
the focus or concentration needed to perform the task. For example, can concentration be
maintained or is there a need to refocus or change thought processes in order to complete the
task.
12
Notes to Raters:
…
Concentration means undivided attention to the task at hand.
4. Few interruptions or disruptions generally means that an appropriate level of concentration can
be maintained for the duration of the task being performed. Where there are many disruptions,
concentration must be re-established and the task completed in smaller units or steps.
5. In determining what constitutes an interruption or disruption, you must first decide whether the
"disruption" (e.g. customer requests) is an integral or primary responsibility of the position (e.g.
customer service, registration/counter staff, help desk, information desk).
Then consider whether these activities are the primary or secondary aspect of the job. For
example, if an individual has no other assigned tasks or duties while tending to customer
requests, then those requests can not be seen as disruptions.
6. Consider the impact of the disruption on the work being done. For example, can the
incumbent in the position pick up where he/she left off or has the interruption caused a
disruption in the thinking process and considerable time is spent backtracking to determine and
pick up where he/she left off.
The College and the Union concur that this factor should be rated at Level 2. However, the Union submits
that focus cannot be maintained, which would attract 35 points, rather than the 20 points attributed when
rated as Focus Maintained.
Level 2 is defined as:
Regular & recurring long periods of concentration; or occasional extended periods
of concentration.
Relevant definitions are:
Focus Maintained – concentration can be maintained for most of the time.
Focus Interrupted - the task must be achieved in smaller units. There is a need to
refocus on the task at hand or switch thought processes.
The College’s approach to the issue of whether focus can be maintained centres on the fact that client
support, such as answering inquiries and providing front line backup for the Receptionist position, is an
integral responsibility of the job. Therefore, in the employer’s view, answering inquiries cannot be
considered an interruption. The employer notes that Program Support Officers are next in line for Front
Receptionist support. If a phone call is not picked up by the front Receptionist, it is forwarded to the
Program Support Officer. Further, there is a schedule for Program Support Officers to cover the front
reception, once a week at lunch. During lunch time they attend to people who come into the Centre for
Continuing and Online Learning. Otherwise, the Program Support Officer can plan around regular
activities in the department.
13
Moreover, it is the employer’s position that there are periods of time in the day when the incumbents can
block off time to complete tasks if required, and that their Manager has asked them to plan and prioritize
their time with each other, using computerized calendars.
In this regard, the employer mentions some of the incumbents’ main duties other than answering
inquiries, such as entering Payroll Authorizations and updating payroll. In the employer’s view, if the
incumbent is interrupted while performing these tasks, the incumbent does not need to start all payroll
authorizations and/or payroll again. It is transaction based work, so the Program Support Officer can
resume at the last entry. Similarly, for word processing and course loading, each document is created or
converted one document at a time. When the Program Support Officer wants to verify that all courses are
complete, they run a report and can verify all courses have been loaded.
For the union, the employer’s view is of an ideal world that does not represent the reality of the
incumbents’ daily work. First of all, it is the union’s view that absences of the receptionist and other staff
mean that they are relieving the receptionist more than the 5% of their time listed in the PDF. Further, the
open area in which the incumbents work, with frequent phone and other conversations, is an environment
in which inefficient refocusing and switching of thought processes is a regular feature of the work day.
Having carefully considered all the material and discussions at the hearing, I begin by observing that the
incumbents have a varied set of competing duties, all integral to the position. And although the
incumbents are invited to plan time with each other to create uninterrupted time for some of their duties, it
is clear that there is much of the time when they are simultaneously assigned the duty to respond to
inquiries and to work on other duties of the position. It is undisputed that the duties such as contract
preparation, payroll updating and course loading need careful concentration. I accept that some parts of
that type of work can be taken piece by piece. Nonetheless, in terms of the definition of interruption in the
Manual, I find that if an incumbent is working on loading a course, and a call comes in so that she must
answer an inquiry from a student about the program, or from faculty members about their pay, that is an
interruption of the course loading work, as she needs to refocus or switch thought processes. In this
respect, I note the evidence that the incumbents are situated in an area where even if they are not
personally on the phone, they can hear everything. As well, when the incumbents are assigned to cover
reception, they have been told they can be at their desks and go up to the front if someone needs
attention. Thus, even when an incumbent is assigned back-up to reception, they are not exclusively
assigned to answering inquiries.
It is difficult to achieve precision in applying the criterion set out in the definition of “concentration can be
maintained most of the time”, as there are obviously quieter and busier times, and days when no staff are
absent and others when several are out of the office, and the incumbents have to pick up the slack of
14
answering calls and finding answers or referring the matter onward. Nonetheless, I am persuaded that
the ability to maintain focus “most of the time” is not likely regularly available to the incumbents, given that
it appears that they are more often in a position where one kind of work is continually susceptible to being
interrupted by phone and in-person inquiries. I accept that answering inquiries is an integral part of the
job. However, the incumbents are not in the situation referred to in the notes to Raters where they have
no other assigned tasks or duties while tending to customer requests. Further, they are in a situation of
fluctuating coverage due to absences, and a phone system where calls are referred to the incumbents if
not picked up by the receptionist even when that position is present.
In all the circumstances, I find Level 2, Focus Interrupted, to be the better fit for Audio-Visual Effort.
Summary
To summarize, for the reasons set out above, the grievance is allowed i n part.
The employer’s rating for the factors Analysis and Problem Solving, Planning/Coordinating and
Communication are confirmed. The rating for the factor Independence of Action should be raised to level
2, regular and recurring, with Level 3, occasional. The rating for Audio/Visual effort should be raised to
level 2, Focus Interrupted.
This brings the point rating to 373, still within Payband E, as set out on the attached arbitration data
sheet.
I will remain seized to correct any errors, or to deal with any problems in implementation of the above
decision which the parties are unable to resolve themselves.
Dated at Toronto this 18th day of March, 2016
_____________________________________
Kathleen G. O’Neil, Arbitrator
15