Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLuo 16-03-30IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 561 (FOR SUPPORT STAFF) (hereinafter called the "Union") COLLEGE COMPENSATION and APPOINTMENTS COUNCIL (FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS and TECHNOLOGY) In the form of SENECA COLLEGE (hereinafter the "College") And GRIEVANCE OF JEFF LUO OPSEU File No. 2013-0561-0009 (hereinafter the "Grievor or the Incumbent") ARBITRATOR: REPRESENTING THE COLLEGE: APPEARANCES FOR COLLEGE: REPRESENTING THE UNION: APPEARANCES FOR UNION: Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb. Daniel Michaluk Barrister and Solicitor Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP Radha Krishnan, Dir. Information Solutions Santo Nucifora, Associate Dir. Architecture & QA Amy Hsiung, H.R. Consultant Dennis Stupinski, Consultant Janice Hagan Steward Jeff Luo Grievor Frank Stunn Steward A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT 'MARKHAM, ONTARIO ON MARCH 24, 2016. -2 - Jeff Luo, the Grievor or Incumbent, is employed by_ the College as a Business Intelligence Analyst (Intermediate). An analyst supports the business intelligence function by using software tools and techniques that help an organization derive insight from their data sources. The tool used before the "0" project became fully operational was known as "Cognos Impromptu". After his secondment for the "i3" project the Incumbent used a tool known as "Hyperion" which draws its data from the new "0" system. The Incumbent's position is part of Seneca College's Information Technology Services (ITS) Department. The PDF describes the position as providing the ITS, administration and faculty with analysis and profile information related to technology and organizational Iandscape that involves trends, performance improvement and data analysis. Specifically, the Grievor is "responsible for the design and implementation of database structures, policies and procedures". As a Business Intelligence Analyst ("BIA") the Grievor "manages data warehouse resources and services and ensures data quality. Supporting client needs, builds query tools to extract and build additional data repositories and subsets of production setups." The Grievor integrates databases and data warehouses at various levels of complexity to create information tools to be used by the College client organization; assessing key business issues while responding to ad hoc and recurring analysis requests. At the Hearing the Grievor described his work as: 1. Hyperion, 2. Customization and integration; and 3. User support and trouble shooting. On December 9, 2013 the Grievor filed a classification grievance requesting that his Position Description Form ("PDF") be amended to reclassify his position with -3 - full redress, including but not limited to reclassification to Payband K, with reimbursement of the difference in wages retroactively, to June 15, 2012. The parties agree on the content of the PDF except as to the years of Experience. There is a lack of agreement on how to apply the Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (the "Manual") in the rating of two factors. The College evaluated the position of Business Intelligence Analyst (Intermediate) and rated the position at Payband J and assigned 661 points, The Incumbent and the Union evaluated the position at 708 points; thereby placing the position within Payband K. There are two factors in dispute: Experience and Independence of Action. Background The Information Technology Services Department ("ITS") of Seneca College underwent a major restructuring which began in June 2012. At the time that the ITS transitioned to different software known as the "i3 Project", the College and the Union agreed that all classification grievances filed after the ITS restructuring and before December 11, 2013 would be dealt with as set out in a Memorandum of Understanding. The Incumbent was to be considered part of the block of ITS employees with a revised PDF retroactive to June 15, 2012. The Grievor was moved from the College's Institutional Research Department to the Information Technology Services Department in 2012 and a new PDF was created for his position. Subsequent to his departmental relocation the Grievor was seconded as a Research and Database Analyst, on a limited -term appointment to the i3 Project that was scheduled to run from April 8, 2013 to June 15, 2015. By letter dated April 15, 2013 the Grievor was advised, "On the expiration of your appointment, you have the right to return to your regular position". By letter dated November 6, -4- 2013 the Incumbent was informed that his position had been revised to Intermediate BIA. Approximately one year later, by letter dated November 17, 2014 the Grievor was advised "recent updates ... have resulted in a change to the requirements of your secondment. As a result, you are scheduled to return to your position in Information Technology Services on Monday, November 17, 2014 to begin the normal operations of the B Project you are currently on." Factors in Dispute The two factors in dispute will be dealt with below under separate headings. 2. Experience: Ratings: College Level 41 Union Level 5 This factor measures the typical number of years of experience, in addition to the necessary education level, required to perform the responsibilities of the position. Experience refers to the time required to understand how to apply the knowledge described under "Education " to the duties of the position. .It refers to the minimum time required in prior positions to learn the techniques, methods and practices necessary to perform this job. This ' experience may be less than the experience possessed by the incumbent, as it refers only to the time needed to gain the necessary shills. At the outset the Union submits that the title assigned to the Grievor's position is "artificial", claiming the PDF for the Senior BTA is almost identical to that of the Intermediate BIA. The Union proclaims that the Senior/Intermediate positions "are parallel" ... "each responsible for a different data management and processing system , .." The College agreed to alter some of the wording in the PDF acknowledging that the Intermediate BIA does not report to the Senior Analyst but to the Supervisor. The Grievor's area of expertise is data management and _5_ warehousing. The data is primarily related to finances, human resources or student records. The Incumbent administers the Hyperion system used to retrieve, write, modify, process and report on data, including budgets, actuals, and forecasting for strategies, financial and operational planning. There are four Hyperion systems at Seneca, systems for Production, Testing, Development and Training. The Grievor is the sole application administrator for these systems and he has attended several training sessions throughout the transition period in an effort to hone his skills specifically to Hyperion. The Grievor disagrees with the PDF only in that the description of experience should be rated at 5 years instead of 3. The Union submits that two years of entry-level experience are required before one commences the three year experience listed in the PDF and makes the minimum experience required five years. In further support of this submission the Union claims that during the B Project two Intermediate BIA positions were posted that required five (5) years' experience. While it is noted that the position is rated and not the Incumbent it is important to note that the Incumbent's experience does exceed the five year benchmark. For all of the above reasons the Union believes the position should be rated at Level 5. The College submits Level 4 is the best fit for a BIA Intermediate position as an individual with the required education and three (3) years of relevant experience would be a well-trained and knowledgeable professional. The College states that the Grievor's current job responsibilities are to support the operation of the Hyperion tool by "pulling" data from i3 into Hyperion (thereby ensuring the data sources used as the basis of Hyperion reports is up to date); and implementing changes made by end users to Hyperion's reporting capability by working through a process that requires coping files and script, configuration and some testing. The College submits that the Grievor is not and has never been responsible for: (a) _6.. design and development; or (b) research. In support of this claim the College submits the Grievor never designed and developed functional changes to a business intelligence tool in the pre -i3 period, and now this task falls to end users. The College contends that research is not a business intelligence function. The College asserts the Incumbent's duties changed with the implementation of the new B system. As an aside, the College claims that the minimum experience requirement for a Senior BIA is five years, thereby making the three year requirement for the Intermediate BIA position proportional. In support of its request to confirm the Level 4 rating the College reiterates its position that the BIA Intermediate position does not require any knowledge or skill that cannot be derived fiom the required education plus three (3) years of related experience. Findings It may well be that both the Grievor and the Senior BIA should be given the same analytical title as suggested by the Union and it is noted that one does not report to the other; however, I am not to compare the two positions. I am only to determine the time needed to gain the necessary skills to master the duties and responsibilities of dealing with the Grievor's position. The Senior and Intermediate BIA use different tools but perform similar technical functions using the tool. It is the intention that each position be able to back up the other position by having familiarity with the tool of the other BIA position. The Incumbent has familiarity with both tools but the Senior BIA does not have familiarity with Hyperion. This is a reflection of the fact it is still in the early days of the transition to the i3 system. However, I find that given the secondment to the D Project and the demands of working in the new system do require greater experience today than maybe the case in the future. The primary argument of the _7 - College is that there is a progression in experience from Intermediate to Senior. While that seeming symmetry may be present in the future, at the moment the positions are new in respect of the use of the tools and particularly in view of the fact that both positions must be able to use the opposite analyst's tool, it is necessary to have 5 years' experience. For the foregoing reasons I find that the Union has established that the appropriate level ought to be 5 years. I order that the adjustment be made to the PDF and that the Union has established the proper Manual rating is 5 years' experience. 6. Independence of Action: Ratin s: College Level 3 / Union Level 4 This factor measures the level of independence or autonomy in the position. The following elements should be considered.- - onsidered: - the types of decisions that the position makes - what aspects of the tasks are decided by the position on its own or what is decided by, or in consultation with, someone else, such as the supervisor - the rules, procedures, past practice and guidelines that are available to provide guidance and direction These considerations, when taken as a whole, will define the parameters and constraints of the position within which the incumbent is free to act. The Union submits that Level 4 should be the proper rating as the Incumbent is the only Hyperion specialist at Seneca and as such has significant independence to make decisions related to the Hyperion application of data management and warehousing systems. The Union claims that decisions are made using industry practices but there is little opportunity for specific direction from the supervisor or -8 - manuals. It is the Incumbent's responsibility to identify all problems and determine solutions; that it is he who must determine all Hyperion technical details of tasks, testing and deployment required to implement a specific goal as requested by clients or management. The Union further submits in many cases the Hyperion manuals do not cover the issues Seneca has experienced. The Incumbent is frequently left alone to independently research and find solutions. The Union states that solutions often involve programming with Hyperion specific script and there are no Seneca manuals or procedures for this. The language of the Manual states "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 the supervisor (or others) on issues that were outside these parameters". As the only ITS employee trained in administering Hyperion applications it is the Incumbent who must customize and integrate the technology to meet Seneca's needs. The Incumbent has had and continues to have on-going training to be effective in his position, which allows him to independently make pertinent decisions. The College submits that the Level 3 rating should be upheld as the duties of an Intermediate BTA are completed according to general processes and general guidelines and that the Grievor's position has limited autonomy. Many of the reports are prepared using pre-existing script or follow a routine "Extract, Transform and Load" process. Specific ad hoc reports required at certain times of the year are created by specific instruction given by the Supervisor to the Incumbent. M Findings Level 3 in the Manual contains a description that provides for significant autonomy within the parameters of either applying general process or following general guidelines to determine outcomes required. The person in the position is given general outcomes by the user. Then the person selects the processes by which those outcomes are to be determined. The end users define the desired outcomes then the Incumbent selects those processes which will achieve the desired outcomes. In so doing reference may be made to vendors of the system's technical logs but that is not the use of industry practices as contemplated in the Manual description at Level 4. For all of the foregoing reasons I find that the Union has not established that the rating determined by the College is inappropriate. The Union has failed to provide the evidence that would satisfy me that the position ought to be rated at Level 4. Therefore, the rating of the College at Level 3 is confirmed CONCLUSION The Union was successful in establishing that the Experience factor ought to be at 5 years' experience. The Union failed to establish that there ought to be any adjustment in the Independence factor. Therefore, the points rating for the position is increased by 15 points from that determined by the College. The total point rating as found by this Award is adjusted to 676 points. In order for there to be a payband adjustment the total points must be greater than 700. Therefore, the payband is confirmed as being Payband J. For all of the foregoing reasons the grievance is partially upheld. It is ordered that the PDF rating for Experience be recorded at 5 years. No other adjustments are MKIN required, There is no Payband adjustment thus there will be no retroactive back pay. Therefore, I do not need to deal with the issues surrounding the potential for retroactive back pay. In all other respects other than the adjustment to the Experience factor and the PDF the grievance was unsuccessful and is dismissed in part. DATED at London, Ontario this 30"' day of March, 2016. Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb. Arbitrator arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Ciassification College: Seneca Incumbent. Jlanu (Jeff) Luo Supervisor - Current Payband- Payband Requested by Grievor., K 1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form, a The parties agreed on the contents X The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific details are attached. 2. The attached Wtitten Submission is from: g The Union 13 The College Factor vfl�b, It 1 ?01 6 CAV "IeA Management -(Date) ( Union Arbitrator RegWarl ReaaAng c3ecaooluS Regiparl occnbnal RqVarl Rewrting occasional Leve! Parts Lever Int5 Level _r"ts wtratorg Sig. .r., lure) Levd Mom Level ftLnu level RKS lk Education 4 48 4 49 10. Education 4 4 30 j, '-7z - 4 3o r E-4 15 2. Experience 4 54 5 'S 69 3. Analysis and Problen) 110 4 Soiling4 110 4. Planning/Coordinating 4 so 4 so S. Guiding/Advising Others 3 29 3 29 6. Independence of Action 3 78 4 110 7. Service Delivery 3 _F 51 51 3 51 B. Communication 4 110 4 110 9. Physical -Effort 1 5 10. Audio/Visual Effort Int 7= �7 3 Int 50 11. Working En%ironrnent 1 1 7 2 9 1 7 2 9 Subtotafs (8) 652 1 (b) 9 (a) 699 (b) Total Points (a) + (b) 661 708 Resulting Payband J K ;57 Signatures - 4 13- vfl�b, It 1 ?01 6 CAV "IeA -(Date) ( - Re nta n 14e) (Date) -Wel Representa TE h2 rd wtratorg Sig. .r., lure) (pate of }tearing) (Date of Award) I