Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWhelan 94-02-15IN THE HATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ST. CLAIR COLLEGE ("the College") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE OF MARK WHELAN BOARD OF ARBITRATION: Ian Springate, Chair David Guptill, College Nominee Sherril Murray, Union Nominee APPEARANCES For the College: Barry Brown, Counsel Kevin Mailloux For the Union: Mary Anne Kuntz, Grievance Officer Sherry Sharon Hearing: In ~indsor on November 24, 1993. \. 2 AWARD INTRODUCTION The grievance giving rise to these proceedings was filed on June 29, 1992. It relates to a job evaluation plan provided for under a collective agreement between the Union and the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. The collective agreement is binding on the College as well as support staff employed by the College. At the time of the hearing the grievor was employed in a temporary teaching position and not in the support staff position that he was in when he filed his grievance. The grievor's evidence was that he might be returning to his former support staff position at the end of the current academic year. These proceedings relate only to the support staff position that the grievor was in when he filed his grievance. The relevant position description form was agreed to by the parties. It does not state which job family the grievor's support staff position came within. The grievor applied for the position in 1990 in response to a job posting which described it as a Technician C position. At the hearing counsel for the College contended that the Technician job family was the appropriate job family. The representative of the Union, however, contended that the position should have been classified as a Technical Support Specialist-Atypical or, in the alternative, as a Technologist C-Atypical. At the time he filed his grievance the grievor's position was classified by the College as coming within payband 9. In his grievance he claimed that he should be reclassified to the payband 11 level retroactive to July 23, 1991. The grievance was subsequently amended during the grievance procedure to claim that the 9rievor should be classified at the Payband 12 level. The disagreement between the parties concerning the appropriate payband arises out of the different manner in which they rate a number of aspects of the position under the job evaluation plan. They disagree, on the ratings for the complexity and judgement elements of the job difficulty matrix; the guidelines available and nature of review elements of the guidance received matrix; the purpose of contacts element of the communication matrix; the experience and skill elements of the knowledge matrix; and the work environment element of the working conditions matrix. THE GRIEVOR'S JOB DUTIES When occupying the position in question the grievor provided technical and supervisory support with respect to the day to day operation of microcomputers and related equipment. His responsibilities related to the College's Divisions of Applied Arts, Business and Hospitality and General Education. The computer equipment in these Divisions was also utilized by both the Continuing Education Division and The Reach Office. The grievor was responsible for the software used in eight or nine different rooms of computers where students learned about and did work on computers. He testified that he ensured that everything was coordinated so that people had what was required, when it was required. If a class was to work on Word Perfect software, the grievor was responsible for ensuring that Word Perfect was available. The same was true for specialized software, such as accounting software adopted for veterinary business use. As part of his job the grievor gave direct assistance to students during open computer lab times. According to the grievor, students would ask him for assistance when they were unable to figure something out by themselves. The grievor was not involved with students in scheduled computer labs. Employees 5 referred to as paradigm shift technologists worked with students during scheduled labs and marked their lab assignments. The grievor was at times required to deal with students who were behavioural problems. He gave the example of a student lighting fire crackers or trying to use 10 computers at once. He indicated that if faced with a major problem, or a student stealing software or equipment, he would raise the matter with his supervisor, Mr. Joe Korchnak. The grievor also provided assistance to teachers concerning the proper operation of hardware. According to the grievor, some of the teachers had limited training and capabilities with respect to computers. He gave the example of a word processing teacher who had previously taught typing wanting to know why a 31/2 inch diskette would not fit into a 5 inch disk drive. The grievor testified that it was common for both teachers and students to blame a computer virus for what was in fact the erroneous use of software. When this occurred the grievor would ascertain what the problem was and advise the teacher and/or student of the correct way to use the software. The grievor provided various departments with information relating to the type of software that was appropriate for the courses they offered. In addition, he tried to ensure that sufficient software was purchased for scheduling requirements. He also determined how many licenses had to be purchased for particular software. He gave the example of being able to purchase eight copies of Word Perfect for the cost of one because a college was doing the buying. The grievor advised relevant individuals of new versions of software as they became available. He testified that he received information about new software packages in the mai] and would evaluate the information to determine what advantages the new software had and whether they were worth the cost involved. At times a faculty member might learn about some software and ask the grievor how it could be made available. The grievor testified that while a computer committee established standards for computers acquired by the College, when computers were to be purchased he would ask that they have a certain amount of memory or suggest particular brand names. He stated that he might also request that colour monitors and particular types of mice be purchased. The grievor prepared detailed schedules for labs using schedules that had been prepared by the scheduling department. The grievor would identify any scheduling problems or conflicts and then make the necessary changes. The grievor was responsible for identifying areas of concern relating to the operation of computer labs and preparing rules and regulations for the labs. As part of his job the grievor hooked equipment such as scanners and printers to computers and also make the associated adjustments. In addition, he configured hardware. He explained that to configure means to set something up so that it is appropriate for the use required and appropriate for the environment. He gave the examples of setting up a scanner board and setting switches on the board; and also ensuring that when a software package is being used it is used in accordance with the proper settings. The grievor indicated that at times a teacher would change the configuration on computers with the result that other software packages could not later operate with that equipment. When this occurred, the grievor would ascertain what the problem was and correct it, The grievor was involved in joining computers into networks, configuring the networks and then managing the networks. He also oversaw the operation of a room of terminals serviced by an AS 400 operating system. Except for minor repairs, the grievor was not responsible repairing hardware. He was, however, required to determine when repairs were required. Depending on whether or not the equipment was under warranty, he would either contact the supplier or a College technologist to do the repairs. In addition, he would keep a record oh problems with hardware so as to be able to identify recurring problems. The College hired students on a part-time basis to work in the computer labs. The grievor testified that previously he had hired the students on his own but most recently he was on a committee which hired three students. He indicated that he had been the one to decide that three was the appropriate number to hire and that he was the one who had trained the students. According to the grievor, he also made sure the students did the work assigned to them, such as keeping the labs clean. The grievor indicated that as part oH his job he was involved in a variety oH di??erent tasks, such as working with plant maintenance to determine what kinds oH blinds should be ordered and dealing with problems associated with whether or not a ~ire exit should be kept open. He also provided technical assistance to clerical staSH who used microcomputers in their work. THE APPROPRIATE JOB FAMILY The representative of the Union contended that the Technical Support Specialist job family best described the grievor's position. The description of this job family in the job evaluation plan reads as follows: TECHNICAL SUPPORT SPECIALIST This family covers positions of employees who manage and are directly responsible for software in one or more specialized areas e.g. operating systems, data communications, data base, and provide a high level of technical information and guidance related to the systems software and/or data base software on a College wide basis The job evaluation plan lists the following as being the typical duties of someone within the Technical Support Specialist job family: TYPICAL DUTIES Assesses user needs and determines the software appropriate to meet those needs Alters and or designs software systems where required Provides adVice and guidance on the most effective utilization of software systems Implements systems designed for college Acts as technical resource for entire college 10 These provisions indicate that a technical support specialist's duties relate to the implementation of software systems to be used by a college, including systems expressly designed for the college, and that when required he or she is able to alter and design software systems. The grievor's role, however, related to the selection and use of commercially available microcomputer software primarily utilized by students. We do not view this role as involving the type of work contemplated by the Technical Support Specialist job family. As an alternative argument, the representative of the Union contended that the grievor's position came within the Technologist job family. The descriptions of the Technologist and Technician job families are as follows: TECHNOLOGIST This family covers positions and employees who provide technical services regarding the application of specialized knowledge. Major responsibilities include planning, designing, developing, selecting and testing of facilities, equipment, materials, methods and procedures, etc. related to the instructional programs and administrative services. Incumbents demonstrate the principles and theories of their speciality in various learning activities and provide technical advice. TECHNICIAN This family covers positions of employees whose major responsibilities involve the care, maintenance, set-up, operation, demonstration, distribution and security of instructional and allied equipment and materials and the preparation of materials for use in instructional programs and administrative services. This family also 11 covers positions in plant maintenance departments involving the planning, lay-out and specifications for alterations and additions to existing facilities. The grievor's position had some elements from both of these job families. He was involved in the selection of software packages for instructional programs, which is covered by the Technologist job family. He was not, however, involved in planning, designing or developing facilities, equipment, materials, methods or procedures, which is also referred to in the Technologist job family description. He was involved in the set-up, operation, demonstration and distribution of software used in instructional programs and administrative services, These tasks are covered by the description of the Technician job family. On balance, we believe the "best fit" for the grievor's position was as part of the Technician job family. THE JOb DIFFICULTY MATRIX The parties disagree on the appropriate rating of the grievor's former position with respect to the complexity and the judgement elements of the job difficulty matrix. The College gave the grievor's job a D rating in terms of complexity and a 5 rating for judgement. The Union argues for an F-6 rating. The criteria for these ratings, as well as the E rating for complexity, are as follows: Complexity D. Work involves the performance of varied, non-routine complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated processes and methods. E. Work involves the performance of non-routine and relatively unusual tasks that may require the application of specialized processes or methods. F. Work involves investigating and resolving a variety of unusual conditions. Problem-solving requires adapting analytical techniques and development of new information on the problem condition. Judgement 5. Duties performed require a significant degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used. 6. Duties performed require a high degree of judgement, Problem-solving requires adopting analytical techniques and development of new information on various situations and problems. An F rating for complexity is the highest rating possible. The criteria for this rating indicate that it is appropriate only if an employee is dealing with a variety of unusual conditions and when problem-solving requires adapting analytical techniques and developing new information on the problem condition. The matters dealt with by the grievor were non-routine. For the reasons indicated below, however, we do not view them as involving a variety of unusual conditions. Further, as a general matter the grievor was not required to develop new information. Accordingly, 13 an F rating was not appropriate. The grievor's position met the criteria for a D rating since his work was complex and non-routine and also required the application of different processes and methods. The criteria for an E rating requires that the tasks involved be relatively unusual and that they may require the application of specialized processes or methods. The tasks performed by the grievor differed in the s~nse that one problem student would presumably act differently than another problem student; the technical problems experienced by one faculty member would differ from those of another faculty member; and the software needs of one lab would be different from the software needs of another lab. When dealing with each situation, however, it cannot reasonably be said that the grievor was performing a relatively unusual task. His work is better described by the phrase "varied, non-routine complex tasks", which is found in the criteria for a D rating. The grievor's work also does not appear to have required the application of "specialized" processes or methods. Given these considerations, we believe that a D rating for complexity was the appropriate rating. With respec~ to the judgement matrix, the main difference between the criteria for a 5 and a 6 rating is that a 6'rating requires the adopting of analytica] techniques and the development of new information on various situations and problems. While it might be said that the grievor was required to adopt analytical techniques, he was not required to develop new information on situations and problems. This being the case, a 5 rating was appropriate. Having regard to the above, we affirm the D-5 rating given by the College. THE GUIDANCE RECEIVED MATRIX The grievor testified that he answered directly to six different departmental chairs, although his direct supervisor was Mr, Joe Korchnak. He stated that he thought Mr. Korchnak was the Chair for Law and Security and Information Systems as well as the Office Manager in the Business Department. The grievor testified that days would go by without him seeing Mr. Korchnak. He indicated that they would meet only when one of them felt there was something the other one should know about, He gave the example of a teacher being unhappy about the way something had been done, and the grievor talking to Mr. Korchnak about it before the teacher did. Ne stated that if there was a major problem with a student, or if a student had removed equipment or software, he would raise the matter with Mr. 15 Korchnak. The grievor also indicated that he would raise with Mr. Korchnak any problems that he was unable to resolve. The grievor's evidence was that Mr. Korchnak did not know a lot about what he did. He stated that he prioritized the work that had to be done and then just went and did it. According to the grievor, deadlines relating to the start of courses were very important to him, but at times deadlines could not be met. He stated that he adjusted his hours of work to do what was required, including working extra hours at times and then taking equivalent time off. According to the grievor, what kept him in check was the need to have everything working properly. He stated that if things were not working properly, people would complain about it. The College gave the position a D rating with respect to the guidelines available element of the guidance received matrix and a 4 rating for the nature of review element. The Union argues for an E-5 rating. The criteria for these ratings are as follows: Guidelines Available D. Work is performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems. Supervisor is available to assist in resolving problems. E. Work is performed in accordance with genera] instructions and policies involving changing conditions and problems. Supervisor may be involved on problems of major importance. Nature of Review 4. Work assignments are subject to a general form of review for achievement of specific objectives and adherence to established deadlines. 5. Work assignments are reviewed only for achievements of broad objectives, effectiveness of results and to ensure integration with the work of others. The grievor's instructions appear to have been very general in nature, namely to carry out the various functions associated with his position and deal with problems as they arose. The evidence indicates that Mr. Korchnak provided information to the grievor but did not suggest to him what he was to do. Given these considerations, we believe that an E rating was appropriate. With respect to the nature of review element, because of the nature of the grievor's work it was subject to a general form of review for the achievement of specific objectives. When something did not work properly, or if a faculty member was unhappy about the way the grievor had performed a particular task, a complaint was apparently made to Mr. Korchnak. In our view, this situation met the criteria for a 4 rating, but not the criteria for a 5 rating. Having regard to the above, we find that E-4 was the proper rating for the guidance received matrix. THE COMMUNICATION MATRIX The parties agree that the grievor's position justified a 3 rating for the level of his contacts. This rating is appropriate where contacts are primarily with employees at higher levels within the College. The parties disagree on the purpose of his contacts. The College gave the purpose of contacts element a C rating while the Union argues for an E rating. The criteria for the C, D, and E ratings are as follows: C. Work involves contacts for the purpose of providing guidance, instruction or technical advice or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures or policy. D. Work involves contacts for the purpose of problem identification and solution with respect to matters of considerable importance requiring tact, diplomacy and persuasion. E. Work involves contacts for the purpose of securing understanding, cooperation or agreement on sensitive or technical matters of significant importance where more than average tact, diplomacy and persuasion is required. The grievor testified that he communicated with faculty and chairs and the information and recommendations he provided to them had a major impact on what they did since they had to rely on him. 18 He further testified that he met monthly with Mr. Rick Erwin, the manager of computer operations, to try to convince him to authorize expenditures to repair hardware which was giving rise to repetitive problems. The representative of the Union contended that an E rating, the highest possible, was the only sensible and reasonable one. She submitted that the grievor's contacts related to technical matters of significant importance. She further submitted that the grievor was required to exercise significant tact because he was always in a subordinate position to those he dealt with and he was required to get their cooperation. To some extent the tasks performed by every employee of the College are important, and some tact is required whenever employees deal with each other about work-related matters. The criteria for a D and E rating, however, suggest that what is required is the need to explain difficult situations diplomatically and to persuade people to act in a certain way with respect to matters of some consequence to the College. The grievor's role did not extend that far. Primarily what he did, and what he apparently did very well, was to provide technical instruction, guidance and advice to others, all of which fit within the criteria for a C rating. Accordingly, we uphold the C-3 rating given by the College. 19 THE KNOWLEDGE MATRIX The parties agree that the grievor's position properly received a 6 rating for the training element of the knowledge matrix, meaning that it required the skills normally acquired through the attainment of a three year community college diploma or equivalent. They disagree, however, on the proper rating for the experience element. The College rated the position at level C, which means that it required up to three years of practical experience. The Union argues for a D rating, which is appropriate for positions which require up to five years of practical experience, Both parties questioned the grievor in some detail about his training and work experience and advanced arguments as to how these related to the appropriate experience rating. We base our rating, however, on the position description form which was agreed to by the parties. Under the heading "Indicate the minimum amount of practical work experience required to perform this job" there is the entry "Three to five years in Technical Facilities Management". Having regard to this statement, we find that a D rating was appropriate. The parties disagree on the proper rating for the skill element of the knowledge matrix, The College argues for a 4 20 rating, the Union for a 8 or at least a 5 rating. The criteria for these ratings are as follows: 4. Work requires the ability to organize statistical information and to understand elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline. May operate complex computer, electronic instruments or laboratory equipment. -5. Work requires the ability to organize complex statistical information and to understand and apply elementary principles of a science or professional discipline. May operate very complex electronic instruments, laboratory or computer equipment. 6. Work requires the ability to understand and apply complex principles of a discipline, such as mathematics, computing science etc. Designs testing procedures for repetitive application, conducts standardized scientific studies and performs statistical and other problem analyses. The representative of the Union contended that the grievor was required to apply principles of mathematics and computer science and that it would understate the College's reliance on his ability to say that he was only required to understand the elementary principles of a science. She contended that while the grievor conveyed elementary principles to others; he himself had to be conversant beyond the elementary level. Counsel for the College noted that the job classification plan indicates that a programmer B's skills will normally be rated at a 4 level. He submitted that since programmers who develop new software get a 4 rating, it would be inappropriate to give the 21 grievor who installed software a higher rating. The grievor's work related to the operation of software packages in microcomputers. This logically did not involve the application of complex principles of computer science. In addition, he did not design testing procedures for repetitive application, conduct scientific studies or perform statistical analysis. Accordingly, his position clearly did not meet the criteria for a 6 rating. The grievor was required to understand the elementary principles of computer science as contemplated by both a 4 and a 5 rating. It appears that at times he was also required to apply those principles, which is one of the requirements for a 5 rating. He was not, however, required to have the ability to organize complex statistical information, which is also required for a 5 rating. The computer equipment he operated was being used to train students who were not specializing in computer studies. This suggests that it was "complex" computer equipment of the type referred to in the criteria for a 4 rating, as opposed to "very complex" computer equipment of the type referred to in the criteria for a 5 rating. On balance, we conclude that a 4 rating was the appropriate rating for the skill element. 22 WORK ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT The College gave the grievor's position an A-5 rating with respect to the work environment element of the working conditions matrix. The Union argues for a C rating. The criteria for the A, B, and C ratings are as follows: A. Generally agreeable working conditions such as those found inside offices or equivalent work areas. B. Slightly disagreeable working conditions. Exposure to somewhat noisy, hot or cold conditions. C. Disagreeable working conditions. Exposure to dirt, noise and a variety of weather elements. Exposure to potentially hazardous conditions where there is some possibility of injury. The position description form and the grievor's evidence indicates that he was exposed to high voltage live power supplies, toxic fumes from laser printers, various cleaning solutions and chemical substances, We view these as disagreeable working conditions which satisfy the criteria for a C rating. The position description form indicates that disagreeable working conditions were present from 10 to 15 percent of the time. This met the criteria for a 3 rating (10 to 30 percent of the time) for prevalence. Accordingly, we find that C-3 was the appropriate rating. CONCLUSION The College's rating of the grievor's position resulted in it receiving a total of 608 points under the job evaluation plan. Our finding that E-4 was the proper rating for the guidance received matrix results in an additional 27 points, Our D rating for the experience element of the knowledge matrix and C-3 rating for the work environment element of the working conditions matrix raises it by an additional 13 and 12 points respectively, This brings the total to 660 points, which is'within the point range for payband 10, Having regard to the above, we find that the grievor's former position should have been classified as being within payband 10, This board will remain seized of this matter %0 deal with the issue of the compensation payable to the grievor, 2~ Dated at Toronto this 15th day of February, 1994, Chaq r "David Guptill" College Nominee "Sherril Murray" Union Nominee