Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSummerfield Group 06-05-06 BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union and St. Clair College Group Classification Grievance: Doris Summerfield, Marian Allen (Grievors) Before: Louis M. Tenace For the Union: Pauline Abbott (Steward) Doris Summerfield, Grievor Marian Allen, Grievor For the College: Patti France (Chief Information Officer and Corporate Secretary) Joan Pococe (Manager, Recruitment and Salary Administration) Hearing held in Windsor, Ontario on Thursday, April 26, 2006 AWARD The grievors, Doris Summerfield and Marian Allen work at the Chatham Campus of St.Clair College. Both are classified as Support Services Officer B, Payband 9. They are requesting that their positions be reclassified to Support Services Officer B, Atypical, Payband 10. The grievors’ rationale is that they perform, essentially, identical functions to their counterparts at the Windsor Campus and have virtually identical Position Description Forms (PDF’s). Their counterparts at the Windsor Campus, however, are classified as Support Services Officers B, Atypical, Payband 10. According to the grievors, their counterparts at the Windsor Campus number eight whereas only the two grievors perform these functions at the Chatham Campus. The parties provided me with various PDF’S including the final one approved by the PDF Committee for the grievors as well as one for Continuing Education - Windsor. Also provided were ratings for each as part of their written submissions. After hearing the opening remarks from both sides, I determined that an appropriate method of procedure would be to review each of the PDF’s with the parties, highlighting similarities and differences and hearing the parties’s comments with respect to each. While there were some differences brought forward, I remain convinced that the differences were minor in most areas. For all practical purposes, I could see no major differences between the relevant positions at Windsor and the corresponding positions at Chatham. These employees really perform the same function, albeit in different locations. There is no question in my mind that these persons could switch campuses without skipping a beat. Turning now to the core point rating of the Job Evaluation Factors, I found that I had considerable problems with the rating of both parties for some of the factors. I shall review these now in the order they appear on the Arbitration Data Sheet and comment accordingly. 1. Training/Technical Skills: Management’s rating is Level 5, 91 points; the Union rating is Level 6, 110 points. The major difference noted by the parties is that Level 5 requires a 2-year Community College diploma or equivalent and Level 6 requires a 3-year Community College diploma or a 3-year undergraduate University degree or equivalent. One indicates a need to organize simple statistical information and to understand the elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline; the other refers to complex statistical information and the need to understand and apply the elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline. In my view, the roles as explained by the I consider Level 5, 91 parties are the same and there is no need to distinguish between the two. points to be appropriate . I would note that Support Services Officer A and B are cited in the Job Evaluation Manual as examples of positions at Level 5, 91 points. 2. Experience: Management’s rating is Level 4, 45 points; the Union rating is Level 5, 57 points. Level 4 requires three to five years of experience, Level 5 requires five to eight years of experience. I believe that five to eight years of experience for these positions is excessive. An employee should be able to do these jobs with three years of experience. No convincing arguments to the contrary were I consider Level 4, 45 points to be appropriate raised. . 3. Complexity: Management’s rating is Level 4, 58 points; the Union rating is Level 5, 74 points; Based on the submissions of the parties, I find that the Union position is sustainable. Moreover, the tasks performed by the incumbent of these positions on both campuses require the “performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods.” These are precisely the words used in the complexity factor of the job evaluation criteria for Support I consider Level 5, 74 points to be Services Officer B, which has a rating of Level 5, 74 points. appropriate. 4. Judgement: Both parties have rated this factor at Level 4, 66 points. This causes me some difficulty. The comparable position at the Windsor Campus, position review SUP03 82, dated October 25, 2004 (one of the documents submitted to me) has rated this factor at Level 5, 84 points. The words used in the Windsor PDF are as follows: The incumbent exercises a significant degree of independent judgement interpreting complex data. Problem solving can also require the incumbent to analyse a situation and develop new procedures for improving work methods. The position requires that the incumbent assess the appropriate course of action and develop and implement solutions for problem situations. Impact on decisions may have serious consequences to clients and to the institution, e.g. loss of revenue, credibility, confidentiality or exams, audits, licensing, agencies, policies and procedures from outside governing bodies. The corresponding sections from the grievors’ PDF contains the very same words except for the following words which are found in the first sentence of the first paragraph as follows (words in italics): The incumbent exercises a considerable degree of independent judgement in order to anticipate and resolve client/teacher concerns. All other words in the two paragraphs are identical in both documents. The remaining paragraphs are identical except for a brief reference to the need to remove a student suspected of cheating from the examination room in accordance with College/Ministry guidelines. In my opinion, there is really not enough difference between the two to justify different ratings. The Windsor PDF may very well be inflated for this factor. Even if it is, it does not justify keeping Therefore, I consider this factor should be rated at the Chatham rating at a lower level. Level 5, 84 points. 5. Motor Skills: Both parties have rated this factor at Level C4, 28 points. The equivalent position at the Windsor Campus is rated the same. The position requires keyboarding skill, accuracy, speed and I consider attention to detail. There are frequent interruptions at times with a heavy workload. this factor to be to be properly rated at Level C4, 28 points. 6. Physical Demand: Both parties have rated this factor at Level 3, 28 points. These demands result from constant and rapid fine muscle movements as well as visual strain during proofreading and I consider this factor to be properly rated at Level 3, 28 points. preparation of reports. 7. Sensory Demand: Both parties have rated this factor at Level 3, 28 points. The duties require frequent and considerable visual, auditory and tactile demand and significant concentration. However, the comparable position at the Windsor Campus noted above is rated at Level 4, 39 points. In my view, based on the submissions of the parties, there is little difference in the duties from one place to the other, except for the number of clients served. Even this difference becomes less relevant due to the fact that there are eight persons doing the job at Windsor whereas there are but two at I consider Level 4, 39 points to be appropriate. Chatham. 8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines: Both parties have rated this factor at Level 3, 28 points. A reading of this factor in the PDF for this position and the PDF for the Windsor position shows little difference between the two. The parties were unable to offer any concrete evidence to convince me otherwise. Yet, the Windsor position rating for this factor is Level 4, 39 points. In my view, either one is too low or one is too Under the circumstances, I consider Level 4, 39 points to be appropriate. high. 9. Independent Action: Management’s rating for this factor is Level 4, 46 points; the Union rating is Level 5, 60 points. The Union contends that because there are only two such persons at the Chatham Campus, they must exercise greater independence than those at the Windsor Campus. It was also submitted that the Manager was often not present because of being called to attend meetings, etc. at the Windsor Campus. Management submitted that the Manager was readily available. I am satisfied that scope for independent action is not dissimilar for the two locations. The Windsor PDF rates this factor at Level 4, 46 I consider Level 4, 46 points to be appropriate. points. 10. Communications/Contacts: Both parties rate this factor at Level 3, 88 points. The Windsor PDF rates it at Level 3, 88 points. I consider Both PDF’s are similar in terms of the Nature, Purpose and Frequency of the Contact. Level 3, 88 points to be appropriate. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions: Both parties rate this factor at Level 4, 62 points. The Windsor PDF rates it at Level 4, 62 points. . I consider Level 4, 62 points to be appropriate I see no reason to alter it. 12 Work Environment: Both parties rate this factor at Level 1, 10 points. The Windsor PDF rates it at Level 1, 10 points. I consider Level 1, 10 points to be appropriate I see no reason to alter it. . It is important here to point out that the College representatives at this hearing explained that these positions were going to be reviewed in about a year, very likely resulting in changes to the overall ratings. While that may very well be the case, given the present anomalies that exist in the PDF’s and the ratings of these positions at the two campuses, it is not equitable that the two grievors should have to wait for that event to occur. Moreover, the outcome of that exercise is not and should not be predetermined.. In view of what has been discussed, the levels and point ratings of these two positions at the Chatham Campus should be altered to reflect the conclusions reached above. Adding the points results in a total of 634 points. This situates them at Payband Level 10 (631-690 points). Applying the 634 point total to the Payband/Classification Matrix results in these two positions being Support Services Officer B, Atypical, Payband 10. classified as The Arbitration Data Sheet is attached. The grievances are, therefore, granted and the PDF’s should be altered to reflect this decision. I wish to thank the representatives of the parties for their frank and open discussion of the issues related to this classification arbitration. They made my task easier. Signed in Ottawa, Ontario, May 6, 2006. Louis M. Tenace