Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVieceli 93-12-21IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Z. BETWEEN: ST. CLAIR COLLEGE ("the College") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE OF MARILYN VIECELI ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate APPEARANCES For the College: Kevin Mailloux For the Union: Sherry Sharon Marilyn Vieceli Ginny Smith Hearing: In Windsor on December 7, 1993, AWARD INTRODUCTION On February 15, 1993 the grievor filed a grievance 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. The grievance related to a job evaluation plan provided for in the collective agreement. Prior to the events giving rise to these proceedings the grievor was apparently classified by the College as a Technician at the payband 7 level. In her grievance she claimed that she should be reclassified to the payband 9 level retroactive to January 1991. On March 29, 1993 Mr. Kevin Mailloux, the College's Manager of Human Resources, wrote to the grievor advising her that her position had been evaluated at 538 points under the job evaluation plan. He also advised her that the College was raising her position to the payband 8 level retroactive to January 12, 1991. The written submissions of the parties indicate that the College also formally classified the grievor's position as that of a Technician B. In its written submissions filed prior to the hearing the Union contended that the grievor should be classified as a Technician C at the payband 9 level. The College and the Union agree on the wording of a position description form for the grievor's position. They disagree, however, on the appropriate rating for the position under the job evaluation plan. Prior to the hearing it appeared that. the disagreement was restricted to the proper rating for the complexity and judgement elements of the job difficulty matrix. At the commencement of the hearing, however, the representative of the Union indicated that the Union was also challenging the rating given by the College with respect to the experience element of the knowledge matrix. The representative of the College did not object to the Union raising such a challenge at the hearing. In her final submissions near the conclusion of the hearing the representative of the Union suggested that the grievor's position might be more properly classified as coming within the Support Services Officer job family rather than the Technician job family. She did not, however, explain why she felt the Support Services Officer job family might be more appropriate. Given the stage of the proceedings at which the issue was raised, and the lack of any meaningful submissions on point, I am not in a position to make any determination with respect to the issue of the appropriate job family. I note that the matter of the appropriate job family does not impact on the determination of the proper payband for the grievor's position. THE GRIEVOR'S JOB DUTIES The grievor is employed at the College's Learning Centre. Also employed at the Centre are a full-time faculty member who serves as the Centre's Co-ordinator, a part-time faculty member and a full-time technologist. The grievor indicated that a College chairperson serves as the Centre's manager. Students requiring tutoring and other assistance are referred to the Centre by members of the College's faculty. The grievor is generally the first person a student encounters at the Centre. She explains the Centre's sign in - sign out procedure to the student and also provides the student with information about the Centre. It is the Centre's co-ordinator, however, who sets up what the grievor described as a "prescriptive plan" for students who have been referred to the Centre. The Co-ordinator also reports on a student's progress to the referring faculty member. · 5 Part of the assistance which the Centre provides to students is in the form of "peer tutoring" This involves hiring some of the College's better students to tutor other students who are experiencing difficulties. The grievor testified that she is not involved in hiring the student tutors or in deciding which students wi]] receive tutoring. She indicated that student tutors are put on a schedule and she and other staff at the Centre match them up with students who are to be tutored on the basis of when these other students have their spares. The grievor is the one who distributes pay cheques to the student tutors. At times students on their own initiative attend at the Centre for assistance. The grievor testified that in such circumstances she will try to assist the student with something "off the shelf". She gave the example of a student saying he or she needs help with study skills and her suggesting that a particular book or video might be helpful. Another example she gave was of a student saying that he or she needs help in spelling and the grievor setting the student up with some spelling software. The grievor stated that a student might also ask her for assistance in setting up a computer software pack or obtaining an English as a Second Language ("ESL") text book. The grievor testified that at times she tutors students in basic mathematics, English and ESL. She indicated that this usually occurs when a student is having an immediate problem, such as when working on an assignment, By way of example she referred to helping a mathematics student do divisions or basic algebra or helping an ESL student with basic grammar, spelling, punctuation and minimal editing. The grievor testified that her tutoring is generally "a one time thing", although at times she does meet on a daily basis with an ESL group for 45 minutes to practice their English. The position description form indicates that the grievor spends 30 percent of her time on "tutoring", including her activities relating to peer tutoring. It is not clear how much of the grievor's time is actually taken up with tutoring and providing other forms of direct assistance to students. The evidence suggests, however, that it is a regular part of her job. Using a computer data base the grievor maintains an inventory of the books, cassettes and videos kept at the Learning Centre. The grievor receives catalogues from publishers listing the new material they have available. At times the grievor contacts publishers to request a catalogue or to inquire whether they have a new version of a particular test. The grievor testified that she and the other staff at the Centre all make suggestions about what new material the Centre might acquire. The grievor indicated that at times recommendations about acquiring new material are considered by a committee comprised of herself, the two faculty members at the Centre and certain other faculty. The grievor's evidence suggests that some of her recommendations do not go through this committee. She gave the example of her suggesting that the Centre acquire "HOoked on Phonics", and one of the faculty members at the Centre then considering her suggestion. The grievor's evidence suggests that her recommendations are usually, although not always, accepted. The grievor is involved in the actual ordering of material for the Centre. She fills in purchase orders which are signed by the Chairperson responsible for the Centre. The purchase orders are then forwarded to the College's central purchasing department. Students are referred to the Learning Centre for testing by the Registrar's office. They are generally tested on one of the following three standardized tests, namely: the Canadian Achievement Test, the Canadian Adult Achievement Test and the Michigan Test of £nglish Language Proficiency. The grievor does not decide which test a student referred by the Registrar's office will take. At times, however, a student will arrive at the Centre unsure of which test he or she is supposed to be taking. The grievor indicated that she will ascertain the appropriate test by either questioning the student and/or by checking referral sheets from the Registrar'$ office. At times a student will advise the grievor that he or she has taken a particular test before. In such a situation the grievor will obtain the student's permission for the College to obtain the previous test result so the student need not take the test again. At times a student will be referred for testing by a counsellor. The grievor testified that when this occurs she administers the Canadian Adult Achievement Test to the student. The grievor indicated that at times foreign students ask to write the Michigan Test of English Proficiency administered by the College prior to writing the same test on a "formal basis" When a student takes a test the grievor monitors the student to ensure that he or she is not cheating and does not have any unauthorized material. She also ensures that the time limit for the test is observed. At times the grievor administers tests outside the College. On these occasions she makes the necessary administrative arrangements. The grievor scores the tests taken by students using a scanner. She testified that she puts the answer sheets in the scanner and the information is transferred to a computer. The grievor then requests different standardized reports from the computer. Using information contained in a book she translates a student's raw scores into grades and then forwards the results to the appropriate person. The grievor indicated that at times she does troubleshooting on equipment. She gave the example of a disk or hardware error. She stated that she will either be able to identify and solve the error or will call in a computer technician. She stated that if the reader on a scanner is not working properly she might recalibrate it by putting in some sheets that will reconfigure it. When asked how often she did troubleshooting, the grievor replied that it was minimal. When they come to the Centre students use a terminal connected to the College's main computer to sign in with their student number, to indicate why they-are there, whether or not they were referred and the name of their relevant faculty member. They also use the terminal to rate the service provided to them. The grievor downloads this information, as well as certain additional information a.bout the student from student records, onto her own computer. The grievor obtains statistics-related to this information by following a documented procedure to ask her computer questions such as how many students from particular programs have used the Learning Centre, how many faculty members referred students, how many students were self-referrals and how students rated the service. She stated that the information she obtains is based on requests from others as well as what she feels would be helpful. She also stated that this year she discussed the issue of what information she should obtain with the chairperson responsible for the Centre. Once per semester the grievor prepares a report containing the type of information referred to above. This report goes to the Chairperson and the College Vice-Presidents. Every two weeks the grievor prepares an attendance report for faculty members. This report lists individual faculty members, the names of the students they referred, when the students attended the Learning Centre and the time they were there. At times the grievor is also asked for specific information from the data base by the College's administration or the Student Representative Council. The grievor testified that over the past two years she has done a couple of surveys, one on learning centres and the other on peer tutoring across the community college system. She indicated that she did one of the surveys by way of a mailed questionnaire and the other by telephone, THE JOB DIFFICULTY MATRIX As indicated above, the parties disagree on the appropriate rating of the grievor's position with respect to both the complexity and judgement elements o? the job difficulty matrix. The College gave the grievor's job a C rating in terms of complexity and a 5 rating for judgement. The Union argues for a D-6 rating. The criteria for these ratings are as follows: Complexity ¢. Work involves the performance of various complex tasks that include both routine and non-routine aspects requiring different and unrelated processes and methods. D. Work involves the performance of varied, non-routine complex tasks that normally require different and unrelated processes and methods. Judgement 5. Duties per?ormed 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 o~ judgement. Problem-solving requires adopting analytical techniques and development o~ new information on various situations and problems. · 12 The Union contends that the grievor's duties fit the criteria for a D rating for complexity since they are non-routine in nature. The College contends that while some of her duties are non-routine, the central functions of her job are routine and her position fits within the criteria for a C rating. It is clear that for most of the time the grievor is engaged in tasks that are routine, or have a combination of routine and non-routine aspects. As' such they ~it within the criteria for a C rating. These duties include her role with respect to peer tutoring, ordering material and administering and marking standardized tests. Certain of the grievor's tasks, however, appear to be non-routine in nature. This includes her role in assisting students who come to the Learning Centre without having been referred by a faculty member. In such situations she does a quick assessment of the student's needs and either suggests particular resource material or provides basic tutoring in mathematics, English or ESL. Presumably every student's needs are somewhat different. Accordingly, this aspect of the grievor's work appears to be non-routine in nature. The grievor's role in recommending the acquisition of new material also appears to be non-routine since presumably it · 13 Involves her assessing, in light of her experiences, whether specific resource materials being offered by a publisher are likely to be of assistance to the College's student population. While most of the grievor's time is spent performing duties which fall within the criteria for a C rating, I am satisfied that a regular portion of her job duties meet the criteria for a D rating. In my view this justifies a D rating with respect to the complexity aspect of her position. I am, however, unable to accept the Union's contention that the grievor's position justifies a 6 rating for the judgement element of the job difficulty matrix, the second highest such rating possible. The areas where the grievor must exercise the most judgement are those referred to above which justify a D rating for complexity, particularly her role in assessing the needs of students who present themselves for assistance and then providing them with resource material or basic tutoring. Assessing student needs involves interpreting complex data, namely the information provided by a student. Recommending particular resource material or providing basic tutoring tailored to a specific assignment may be seen as refining work methods. Both of these, however, are covered by the criteria for a 5 rating. · 14 The grievor's activities when dealing with students do not appear to involve adopting analytical techniques or developing new information on various situations, the requirements for a 6 rating. The development of a prescriptive plan to assist a student and assessing how well the student is progressing in the context of that plan may meet these requirements. The Centre's Co-ordinator, however, and not the grievor, engages in this type of activity. The preparation of computer generated reports listing information related to student use of the Learning Centre does not involve the grievor developing new information on various situations for problem solving purposes. The information compiled by the grievor is not used to assist her in problem solving. Rather, it is gathered for the use of faculty and administrative staff. The two surveys conducted by the grievor, if she did them in the context of addressing particular problems, can be viewed as the development of new information on situations and problems. The fact that the grievor conducted such surveys only twice, however, suggests that it is not an on-going regular part of her job duties which justify a change in the rating of her position. Given these considerations I affirm the 5 rating for judgement given by the College. Having regard to the above, I find that D-5 is the appropriate rating for the job difficulty matrix. Such a rating translates into 194 points, 28 points more than the C-5 rating awarded by the College. I note that a D-5 rating exceeds not only the "typical" C-3 rating for a Technician B suggested by the job evaluation plan, but also the "typical" D-4 rating for a Technician C. THE EXPERIENCE ELEMENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE MATRIX The position description form states that a minimum of one year's practical work experience in a learning centre/lab context or equivalent is required to perform the grievor's job. The parties disagree as to whether this justifies a B or C rating with respect to the experience element of the knowledge matrix. A B rating clearly applies to situations where the required experience is just short of a year. A C rating applies if the required experience exceeds one year. The difficulty in this case is that the position description form refers to one year precisely. The wording of the criteria for the various ratings for the experience element read as follows: · 16 A. Little or no practical experience B. Up to one year of practical experience C, Up to three years of practical experience D. Up to five years of practical experience E. Up to eight years of practical experience F. More than eight years of practical experience. It will be noted that the criteria for an F rating is "more than" eight years of practical experience. This wording indicates that a job requiring exactly eight years of practical experience justifies a E rating, and that eight years of experience falls within the criteria of "up to eight years". Applying the same approach for lesser periods of time, I interpret "up to one year" of experience as including exactly one year of experience. Accordingly the B rating given by the College was appropriate. CONCLUSION As indicated above, the College rated the grievor's position as justifying a point total of 538. I have concluded that it justifies an additional 23 points, raising the point total to 566. This point total is still within payband 8. Accordingly I conclude that the grievor's position properly comes within payband 8. · 17 Dated.at Toronto this 21st day of December, 1993. Arbi tr/ator DATA SHEET - SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATIONS COLLEGE St. Clair College INCUMBENT Marilyn Viecel~i PRESENT CLASSIFICATION Technician 8 AND PAYBAND 8 SUPERVISOR Carol ~ibby JOB FAMILY AND PAYBAND REQUESTED BY GRIEVOR Technician C, Payband 9 POSITION DESCRIPTION FORM: 1. Position Description Form Attached 2. 7~ 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: (USE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY) AWARD Management Union Arbitrator ELEMENTS Rating Pts. Rating Pts. Rating Pts. JOB DIFFICULTY C5 GUIDANCE RECEIVED D4 ~50 D4 150 COMMUNICATIONS C3 84 C3 84 KNOWLEDGE TRAINING/EXPERIENCE B5 78 B5 78 SKILL 4 47 4 47 WORKING MANUAL A5 3 A5 3 ~ .~- .,~ CONDITIONS VISUAL B3 7 B3 7 ._~ '7 ENVIRONMENTAL A5 3 A5 3 TOTAL POINTS 538 589 PAYBAND NUMBER 8 9 ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: ~ The Union ~ The College (Optional) SIGNATURES: FOR THE UNION, FOR MANAGEMEN~ '/ , 1/' -, - ___ · / /~/,,. . - ~ × . r./' V~Gr ie~or ) ( Date ) ' ( Date ) ~--~,~.,~f--~. ~.~~'1 ..~.: ~..., I1 ~.? ~ (U ,n~on Rep.) (Date) ARBITRATOR'S USE: ;~'c ? ~, ~ 3, ~a'c' ~a/ /F-~_.~ He~ring Date AQard Date