HomeMy WebLinkAboutGodfrey 88-08-12 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION ·
between
SAINT LAWRENCE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter referred to as the College) "
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 418
(hereinafter referred to as the Union)
Classification grievance of Sharon Godfrey
Arbitrator: G.J. Brandt
Appearances:
For the College: John Flegg, Manager, College Employment
For the Union: John Molleson, President, Local 418
Hearing: Kingston, Ontario
August 11, 1988
INTRODUCTION
This is a grievance of Sharon Godfrey claiming that her
position of Clerk, Basic Studies has been improperly classified
as Clerk B General and should be reclassified as Clerk C General
retroactive to June 1, 1986.
The position in question no longer exists and the grievor
was assigned to a different position at the Clerk B level. The
question for determination is the proper classification of the
position on June 1, 1986. That determination will set the level
at which she should be "g'randfathered" (or perhaps,
"grandmothered) in her new position°
There are 3 factors in dispute° The following table sets
out the evaluations of the College and Union respectively of the
factors in dispute.
· College Union
Job Difficulty B2 75 pts. C3 122 points
Knowledge: Skill B2 21 pts. B3 34 points
Working Conditions
Visual Strain C3 15 pts. C4 18 pts.
The parties are in agreement on the content of the position
description which summarizes the position as follows"
Maintain student record system for all students in
Basic Studies, including attendance, transcripts and
related documentation; provide typing and reception
services.
FACTS
The grievor works in the Department of Basic and General
Studies. Most of her work is student related. Generally the
duties which she performs can be grouped in 3 categories:
1. working at a word processor typing agendas, correspondence,
objectives, maintaining student records concerning attendance and
grades.
2o attending to inquiries either from students in person or from
phone calls from students, counsellors, teaching masters.or
college managers.
3. assessing or interpreting the results of student tests for the
purpose of ~etermining the level to which entering students
should be assigned.
Approximately 40% of her time is spent working at the word
processor, of which approximately 2/3 of the work done involves
her in copy typing where she does not create the data. Other
work she performs at the word processor involves her in
extracting information from various other sources (eg. student
records), organizing it in some fashion and entering it into the
data bank. While she is at the terminal she sits approximately 3
feet away from the display screen' located on the neXt desk.
The dut'ies which she performs at the word processor are
frequently interrupted either by phone calls (approximately 10
calls per hour of which 5 or 6 may require her attention for
periods of up to 5 minutes at a time) or by students approaching
her personally for assistance. Direct student approaches occupy
her time for about 5% of her day.
The great majority of the calls, either personal or by
telephone, require some information or assistance respecting
academic matters, such as test results, complaints concerning
courses or teaching masters,- etc. A small percentage (5%)
involve the grievor in attending to various personal problems
which students bring to her° These include problems relating to
money, loss of sponsorship by some government or social agency,
etc~ Occasionally students are emotionally upset about these
problems and, .on one occasion, the grievor was the subject of a
physical threat by a frustrated student.
Generally the kind of service which she provides in relation
to students is a referral service. For academic problems she
arranges .for an appointment with the appropriate academic
officer, i,eo the Dean; for other problems she refers makes
appointments with various agencies listed in a book, "Where to
turn", which she has in her possession.
The College acknowledges that the grievor is temperamentally
well suited to the performance of these duties, particularly
those which require her to be supportive of students and to have
the ability to. serve as a liaison between them and the community.
To some extent this has led her into spending more time attending
to. these problems than the position calls for.
The grievor stated that when she is interrupted by phone
calls it is sometimes difficult to return quickly and pick up the
task on which she was engaged prior to the interruption.
5
However, she admitted that this problem was less acute when she
was engaged in straightforward copy typing.
The third category of duties referred to involved the
grievor in assessing and interpreting the results of student
tests° This task occurs once a year when students are applying
for admission to the College. In that regard they are required
to complete 3 tests and to include a written submission which is
designed to measure their writing ability and ability to express
themselves.
The grievor was required to "process" these results. This
involved her in taking the grade on the tests and the written
submission and selecting the appropriate level into which
students are assigned. There are 4 levels each of which has an
upper and lower range of "grades" and a part of the grievor's job
was to compare the grade on the tests with the relevant range for
the various levels and assign the student accordingly. _
That is a relatively routine and mechanical function.
However, the written submissions required an assessment done by
the grievor herself of the worth of the written work. That
required the exercise of some judgment on her part. Indeed there
is some question as to whether or not this particular function
should have been performed by a member of the academic staff.
In addition judgment was required where the results of the 3
tests and the assessment of the written submission did not
clearly suggest the proper level. The grievor was then required
6
to "interpret" these results in order to select the appropriate
level, having regard to all of the data.
DECISION
As indicated the Job factors in dispute are Job Difficulty,
Knowledge:Skill, and Working Conditions: Visual Strain°
1o Skill
The issue between the parties concerns the appropriate level
for recognizing the fact that the grievor spends the majority of
her time working with a computer or word processor°
The skill element in the knowledge matrix does not mention
computers specifically until level 3 where it speaks of
"moderately complex" computer equipment. The Union maintains
that since this is the first mention of computers the grievor
should be classified at this level. The Union concedes that it
can now be said that word processors are now "standard office
equipment" within th~ meaning of level 2. However, it submits
that that was not the case in 1985 when the classification manual
was implemented and that, notwithstanding the current general use
of word processors as standard office equipment, the manual
should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the situation
which obtained when it was drafted.
I am unable to agree with this submission. I cannot accept
the argument that the term "standard office equipment" must be
limited in its application to that equipment which was in
existence and in use at the time that the manual was drafted.
That would introduce considerable inflexibility into the system°
7
Moreover, even accepting the Union's claim, nothing was presented
to me which would indicate that the equipment used by her was
"moderately complex". It was essentially a typewriter key board
and the grievor was required to be familiar with 4 kinds of
software, 'a familiarity which she obtained after as little as one
month of training. Once she became familiar with the software
her duties at the word processor were essentially typing duties.
In this connection it is worth noting that all of the
Typist/Steno positions are ail classified at level 2 under the
skill factor.
Consequently, I reject the claim that the grievor should
have been classified at level 3 for the Knowledge:Skill factor.
2. Visual Strain
The Union claimed that, since according to the Position
Description Form, 38% of the grievor's time was spent at the word
processor, that should be reflected in the evaluation for visual
strain, that is, that is should be increased from "occasional"
(10-30%) to "frequent" (31-60%). The Union also argued that the
Position Description Form, by concentrating on VDT exposure,
ignored the' visual strain associated with the need to read
written materials while using the word processor.
The last point can be dealt with first. In my opinion it
was not intended that visual strain resulting from reading
printed work should be rated highly under the visual strain
factor. In this connection it may be noted that all of the
Typist/Steno positions, are classified at level B4, reflecting
8
the view that, while prevalence is relatively high, the degree of
visual strain involved in that work is only "moderate" It may
be noted that, in any event, the parties here are agreed that the
degree of strain is appropriate set at level C. The dispute is
over the prevalence of that strain.
I agree with the argument of the College that, in
determining prevalence, account should be taken of the fact that
the grievor was frequently interrupted in her duties at the word
processor. Such interruptions, which were commonly for as long
as 5 minutes at a time, resulted in a break in the visual
concentration required of her. It is that "concentration" on
small objects over a protracted period of time which produces
visual strain and where that concentration is broken the strain
is reduced.
Although it is not intended that other arbitration awards
involving the classification scheme be in any sense binding it is
instructive here to note that in Durham College (Dranski], the
arbitrator, in a case where the grievor worked at a word
processor but was frequently called away to attend to other
duties, classified the Visual Strain factor at the level of B4.
That produces fewer points than does the level of C3 which the
College has chosen.
Consequently, I reject the claim that the grievor should be
classified at the level of C4 for Working Condition: Visual
Strain.
3. Job Difficulty.
Both the elements of Complexity and Judgment are in dispute.
The agreed upon position description form describes the
complexity and diversity of task as follows:
Centre one's mind on statistical information while
providing services and information to students and/or
staff and concomitantly reporting to telephone calls.
Particularly difficult due to continuous intake of
students.
I am satisfied that, for the Complexity element, the grievor
should be classified at level C. The manual describes this level
as follows" "work involves the performance of Various complex'
tasks that include both routine and non-routine aspects requiring
different and unrelated procedures and methods."
While the total amount of time spent during the day
attending to various phone calls or personal interviews was not
substantial these interruptions added to the complexity of the
tasks being performed. Thus, while a particular job being done
on the word processor, if done without interruption, may not have
been particularly complex, it becomes more complex when it has to
be performed in stages, between "interruptions" as it were.
Moreover, as much as 1/3 of the grievor's time at the word
processor involved her in the task of extracting information from
other sources, organizing it and entering it on the data bank.
An interruption which occurred in the middle of that process
makes the whole job somewhat more difficult to perform.
Furthermore, I am impressed by the fact that the nature of
the calls and interruptions varied. Each one required a
different kind of response. In that respect the attending to
10
calls and visits is non routine and requires "different and
unrelated...methods.:
However, I am not persuaded that the judgment required of
the grievor, is as high as that claimed by the Union, viz, level
3 - "moderate judgment - problem solving requiring the
identification and breakdown of facts and components of the
problem situation." First, it should be noted that the "problem
solving" part of the Job occupies only 5% of her time of which
95% are academic problems requiring a simple referral to the
Dean. While the personal problems are more difficult they
occupied a very small proportion of her time (5% of 5%) and, even
then, the solution involving consulting a book which directed the
grievor to the appropriate person or agency to contact.
Admittedly the grievor may have directed a good deal of her
time and energy to the solution of these personal problems.
However, that is not what the position requires and ought not.to
be taken into account in a determination as to what is an
appropriate classification for the position as opposed to the
incumbent in the position.
As for the assessment of student test results, the
assessment of the written submissions and the selection of the
appropriate level does require "moderate judgment". However, it
occurs only once a year and for a relatively small number of
students. In my opinion this would not be sufficient to raise
the classification for the judgment factor from level 2 to level
3.
11
Therefore, I conclude that this factor should be classified
at C2. I find support for the classification of the Complexity
element at level C in the list of Typical Duties set down for the
Clerk C General position, in particular:
completes and analyzes documents related to student
admissions~ and registration.
disseminates detailed information in response to a wide
range of inquiries
gathers and compiles statistical data
maintains.and verifies various records
I find this description of the typical duties to describe
more closely the duties of the grievor than the duties set out
for the Clerk B General classification.
Thus, to summarize, I accept the claims of the Union, in
part, with respect to the factor of Job Difficulty and dismiss
the claims advanced with respect to the factors of Skill and
Visual strain.
In the result the grievor's point total should increase from
75(B2) to 100 (C2). That brings her point total to 353 puts her
in pay band 5 which is the pay band appropriate for Clerk C
General.
It is therefore directed that the appropriate classification
for the period in question was that of Clerk C General.
12
Dated at LONDON, Ont.this day of ' ~ - ~ · , 1988
G. J. Brandt, Arbitrator
COLLEGE
~z~o~
C~SIFICATION/ POSITION
HE~ING DATE
APPEARANCES:
MANAGEMENT UNION
DECI SION:
Degree Points
Job Difficulty
Guidance Received
Communications
Training
F., Exper.
Knowledge
Skill
Manual
Effort
Working
Conditions Visual 6. [ / ~-'
Environ.
Total Points
Pay Band Number -%"
COMMENTS:
DATE~;c,~¥_{~../~- ARBITRATOR'S/'~/SiGNATURE