HomeMy WebLinkAboutMcMartin/Repic 06-03-20
IN THE MATTER OF A
CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE
BETWEEN:
OPSEU LOCAL 245
-and-
SHERIDAN INSITITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
AND ADVANCED LEARNING
Regarding the Classification of Diane McMartin and Nikki Repic
BEFORE : Kathleen G. O’Neil, Single Arbitrator
For the Union: Jay Jackson, President, Local 245
Mary Anne Kuntz, OPSEU Grievance Officer
Diane McMartin and Nikki Repic, Grievors
For the College: Sarah A. Eves, Counsel
Diana Lindner, Manager, Davies Campus, Registrar’s Offi ce
Anupama Nair, HR Assistant, Employee Relations
A Hearing was held in Oakville, Ontario on January 20, 2006
A W A R D
This decision deals with the classification grievances filed on November 5, 2004 by
Dianne McMartin and Nikki Rep ic, who are both employed in the position of Student
Service Associates in the Registrar’s office at the Institute’s Trafalgar Campus. They are
currently classified as Support Services Officer B (SSO B), pay band 9 and seek the
reclassification of their j obs upwards to Support Services Officer - Atypical, Payband 10.
The employer argues that the jobs are properly classified, and sees the grievances as
attempts to obtain increases which would amount to merit pay, something not
contemplated by the collectiv e agreement or the classification scheme.
Before turning to the specific matters in dispute in this case, it is appropriate to refer to
the CAAT Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (referred to below simply as “the
Manual”), a negotiated document, for som e of the general guidelines which are intended
to inform the more detailed process of rating jobs. Prominent among these are the
following:
- Job evaluation is concerned with the content of a position and not with the assessment
of an individual’s perfor mance or with the setting of an individual’s pay rate. This is in
recognition of the fact that different individuals may occupy the position at different
times, and the classification, which is part of the collectively negotiated pay structure,
should not depend on the individual characteristics, strengths or weaknesses, of the
person in the position at any point in time.
- Raters are not to evaluate on the basis of a single word or phrase without assessing
the entire definition. One looks for the fac tor level which most accurately reflects the
integral functions of the position, not incidental or minor functions.
By way of background, the job of Student Services Associate was created in 2002, at the
time of a reorganization of some of the College’s a cademic services. The focus of the
job is on information and problem solving related to registration, records and fees. The
grievors work at the Academic Services counter, inside the main entrance, which must
be staffed at all times. A wide variety of s ervices are provided, including requests for
1
transcripts, address changes, withdrawals, course drops and adds, as well as accepting
payment for a large variety of fees. The grievors underline that, at the time of the
reorganization, the College described their position as “an expert resource for resolving
both internal and external client concerns in relation to records and registration, financial
and academic issues,” and “as the authoritative source for student academic records”.
They also point out tha t they brought years of experience in the Registrar’s office to the
new job and that the transition would have been much less smooth without their
expertise. It is the grievors’ view that the Position Description Form (referred to below as
PDF) was drafte d during a time of change when it was their level of experience that
made the job work, and that it remains to be seen if the jobs could have been done as
successfully with any less experience.
For its part, the College underlines that the job has been evaluated three times since its
creation in 2002 and the classification has been confirmed on each occasion. Further,
they note that there are specialists in various areas to which more the complicated
problems can be referred, and that the position no long er deals with full time students
with respect to course and program information and adding and dropping courses.
I. THE PDF
The grievors have asked for a large number of amendments to the PDF. In considering
these requests, it is important to keep in mind the nature of the PDF. As a general
approach, the PDF should be a concise document, concentrating on the basic/core
functions required by the employer of a person hired into it – not examples that are likely
to change over time, occur rarely, or whic h illustrate the degree of expertise acquired
over years in the job. From that standpoint, I am not convinced that the majority of the
additions requested are necessary to communicate the expectations of the employer for
this position, which ought to be t he focus in a classification dispute. As it stands, the
wording of the PDF is adequate to cover the specific issues raised by the grievors and
the union, and it is thus not necessary to add them to the PDF – with the exception of
the issue of training. Non etheless, the examples raised are important illustrations of the
grievors’ case, and I have taken them into consideration in the areas of the specific
disputes over point rating.
2
Turning to some salient points of the grievors’ requests:
Training
The grievors requested the wording “the training of full time, part time and casual staff to
perform the duties of a Student Services Associate” and asked that it be inserted under
Section C I of the job description. The employer does not object to putting wor ding
about training into the PDF, as they acknowledge that shadow training is a practice used
in the Registrar’s office, but disagrees with inserting it at that point. The grievors also
addressed it under Point 9, Independent Action. Training others appear s to be a notable
expectation of the job, which is not referred to in the current wording, and thus deserves
to be mentioned in the PDF. I will leave it to the College to determine where they prefer
to place it. The last section of the PDF, “G Supplement al Data” is always available if it
does not fit conveniently elsewhere.
Skills/Complexity
”
The grievors and the union request that the words “Exceptional memory recall replace
the current wording “Good memory and quick recall skills” in section C 3.1. H aving
heard the parties, I am not persuaded that exceptional memory is required as a basic
skill in this job, although it certainly would be a great asset. This is an example of a
request that would record the highest level of functioning, rather than the ordinary
requirements of the job, something not intended by this evaluation system. The
evidence was persuasive that a good memory together with the ability to navigate the
computer system is sufficient to perform the job.
Physical Demand - Keyboarding
The union asked that keyboarding and navigation on the information system be added to
the PDF under this category as well as under motor skills. The College maintains that its
practice is to only count keyboarding under Motor Skills. Since the category of physical
demand measures the strain from rapid and repetitive fine muscle movements as well as
other types of physical demand, it does not appear inappropriate that this large portion of
the job be mentioned under the category of Physical Demand as well. However, if all the
College’s jobs involving keyboarding have been rated in the same way, it would
potentially bring distortion to the system if keyboarding were dealt with under both
headings for this one job. As this is one of the last round of griev ances to be decided
3
under the existing evaluation system, it does not seem practical to deal with whether the
practice of only listing keyboarding under Motor Skills, the existence of which was not
disputed by the union, should be revised. However, it is something that would merit
being reviewed as conversion to the new system takes place to see if it is appropriate or
pertinent under the new job evaluation system. In any event, as will be seen below,
adding keyboarding under this section would not have c hanged the point rating.
Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines
As to the proposed changes in the table under point 8.2, the point rating for this item is
not in dispute, and it is difficult to be precise about the percentage of time spent on any
particular category of work based on the material before me. In the result, it is my
decision that point 8.2 of the PDF should remain as currently drafted.
Independent Action
The grievors proposed a number of additions to the language of the PDF in this section,
which are set out in their brief. Having heard all the evidence on this issue, it is my view
that the PDF adequately describes the basic requirements of the job. The fact that
incumbents with as much experience as the grievors operate with very l ittle supervision
is not surprising, but does not mean that the PDF should be changed to reflect their
particular level of functioning, or to include the many examples requested that I find to be
compatible with the existing wording.
Responsibility for decisions
I am persuaded that the current wording adequately describes the position.
Working conditions
The proposed PDF includes changes to the percentage attributions in this area.
However, the point rating for this factor is not in dispute, and for reasons similar to those
noted under the heading strain from Work Pressure above, I am not inclined to the view
that any change to the PDF should be ordered.
Supplemental data
The grievors wish the sentence: “An in-depth knowledge of College programs,
processes and services is required.” to be inserted in this last section of the PDF.
4
Paragraph 2.1 already provides that the incumbent must have a “thorough
understanding of all program offerings, Ministry and College guidelines, policies and
procedures.” Th e evidence persuades me that the current wording suffices to describe
the level of knowledge required. If there is a meaningful difference between “in-depth
knowledge” and “thorough knowledge” it is a deepening of knowledge that occurs over
time, but does not appear to be a basic requirement of the job.
***
In sum, with the exception of the addition of the wording as to training, I am not
persuaded that the PDF is in need of amendment to record the core expectations of the
job.
II. FACTORS IN DISPUTE
The five factors still in dispute will be discussed in turn:
Complexity
As defined in the Job Evaluation Manual, this factor measures the amount and nature of
analysis, problem-solving and reasoning required to perform job-related duties. It
focuses on the conceptual demands of the job as characterized by:
- analysis and interpretation required for problem and solution definition,
- creativity
- mental challenge,
- degree of job structure,
- planning activities, and
- the variety and difficulty of tas ks.
The College has attributed points at Level 4, which is defined as follows:
Level 4
Job duties require the performance of varied, non-routine, complex tasks
involving different and unrelated process and/or methods
The Union requests Level 5 as follo ws:
Level 5
Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively unusual
tasks involving specialized process and/or methods.
5
As can be seen from the criteria for the two levels in question, both relate to complex
tasks. The difference is that level 4 describes “varied, non-routine” complex tasks, while
those at Level 5 are “relatively unusual”. Further the process and methods at Level 4
are described as “different and unrelated”, while those at Level 5 are said to be
“specialized”. So in orde r to qualify for Level 5, there has to be evidence that the
conceptual demands of the job involve relatively unusual mental tasks involving
specialized processes or methods, something more than “non-routine”.
It is my view that the idea of non-routine, complex tasks is the better description of the
tasks of this job, and therefore I confirm the level attributed by the College. Although
there is a great variety of requests, justifying the term varied and non-routine, the
evidence did not support the idea t hat the norm for this job is “relatively unusual”
conceptual tasks. Rather, the policies of the College as to fees, admissions
requirements, and the like provide a highly structured backdrop to the tasks performed
by the incumbents. Their conceptual role is to use different and unrelated processes
(e.g. Banner, Peoplesoft, cash control, etc.) to respond to requests from students and
other clients. There are clearly several of these processes, and there are detailed steps
to sorting out many of the reques ts which justifies their description as complex tasks.
Nonetheless, the tasks involved in using these processes of which I heard evidence
appear to be the standard ways of accessing the tools organizing the College’s
administrative services rather than re latively unusual ones. Further, many of the
examples given, such as a specific request from a Vice-President, or the speed and
expertise brought from the incumbents’ years of experience in the Registrar’s office,
indicate elements that are not the core re quirements of the job. Moreover, a specific
request from a Vice-President, or an issue about a laptop payment for a student who
was sponsored under the workers compensation scheme, would undoubtedly be
unusual in terms of frequency, but what is required f or level 5 is something different -
that relatively unusual conceptual tasks be part of the core duties of the job. The
grievors’ individual speed, skill and experience are very valuable assets, but they are not
what is measured by the classification syst em. Under the system in place under this
collective agreement, an employee’s increased experience and skill are remunerated by
the steps in the salary grid, rather than by upgrading the classification.
6
The fact that the comparator positions at Level 5 in clude SSO B and C, part of the family
of jobs in which this job falls is a consideration that weighs against the College’s
attribution at Level 4. However, it is not unusual for there to be aspects of a particular
job that are rated higher or lower than i ndicated by the template for the job family,
something noted in the “Note to Raters” at the foot of the template description of the
Support Services Officer B job in Section VI, page. 3 of the Manual. In other words,
when the level attributed is the best fit for the job, the comparator jobs are not binding.
This is particularly so in a case such as this where there are different levels of computer
programmers as comparators for both Level 4 and 5. Programmers perform very
complex work, an indicator that Level 4 in itself is indicative of a relatively high level of
complexity.
Judgment
This factor measures the independent judgment and problem solving required on the
job. It assesses the difficulty in identifying various available choices of action and in
exercising judgment to select the most appropriate actions. It also considers mental
processes such as analysis, reasoning or evaluation.
The dispute between the parties is between Level 4, attributed by the College, and Level
5, sought by the union.
The Manual’s Description of Level 4 is:
Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem solving
involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or
solutions with established analytical techniques.
By contrast, Level 5 is described as follows:
Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem solving
involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and
techniques to be used.
The union points to the fact that there are no manuals for many of t he issues they deal
with. Further, given the workload of the managers, there are many times when they are
not available to be reached so that the incumbents need to solve problems without
assistance or reference to a Manager. They must prioritize tasks an d resolve each
request or problem.
7
Examples given at the hearing to support the higher level include a time when the point
of sale technology was not working, which meant no transactions could be entered. The
incumbents had to try to solve it themselves, and then call around until the technical
problem was fixed. The incumbents underlined that the situation had to be managed,
judgment had to be used; the situation could not just be left as it was and there was no
manual to use. Other examples in the brie f include issues such as full-time students
registering for some of their courses through continuing education with differing credit
values which had to be noted and communicated.
The College maintains that the job does not require interpreting complex da ta, and that
the majority of inquiries will be resolved by the obtaining of policies, procedures and
other information stored in the Institute’s computer system or through contacting other
College officials. It is the College’s position that judgment come s into play when the
incumbents determine what questions to ask the customer, the appropriate searches to
conduct and/or determining which Student Service Specialist or other official should deal
with the matter. While each individual circumstance may be different, it is the employer’s
position that each inquiry will usually require the use of the same established analytical
techniques.
It is important to return to what is being measured by this factor as set out in the Manual.
It is the difficulty in id entifying various available choices of action and selecting the most
appropriate one (See section VII, page 11). It is not essentially measuring how often
judgment must be exercised, but how hard the choices are to make. In my view Level 4,
which is in th e upper half of possible ratings for this factor is a better fit for this job, than
Level 5. This is because the problems appear generally to be conventional ones,
although varied, as set out in Level 4, which are solved by established analytical
techniques, such as figuring out what has been paid, and what is owing. Moreover, I am
not persuaded that the job requires more difficult judgment calls than the comparator job
of nurse, found at Level 4.
The College’s rating for this factor is confirmed.
8
Physical Demands
This factor measures the demand on physical energy required to complete tasks.
Consideration is given to the type and duration of physical effort, the frequency and
strain from rapid and repetitive fine muscle movements or the use of larger muscle
groups, lack of flexibility of movement. Consideration is given to the type and duration of
physical effort, the frequency, strain from rapid and repetitive fine muscle movements or
the use of larger muscle groups, lack of flexibility of movement th at is caused to the
incumbent by speed and repetitive use of various muscles or lack of flexibility of
movement.
The College has rated this factor at Level 3, which reads as follows:
Job duties require regular physical demand. There is a regular need for
speed and repetitive use of muscles. Employee is in uncomfortable or
awkward bodily positions for short periods of time with some flexibility of
movement.
Employee uses continuous light physical effort,
OR
Recurring periods of moderate physical effo rt,
OR
Occasional periods of heavy physical effort.
The Union seeks Level 4, which reads as follows:
Job duties may require frequent physical demand. There is a frequent
requirement for repetition and speed. Employee may be in awkward
bodily positions over extended periods of time with limited flexibility of
movement.
Employee uses continuous moderate physical effort,
OR
recurring heavy physical effort.
The issue of adding Keyboarding to this part of the PDF has been dealt with under the
section dealing with the PDF above.
It is the College’s position that even taking the keyboarding into account, Level 3 is
appropriate for this position, as it requires only light physical effort. Further, the
9
incumbents are not in awkward positions for extended per iods of time as they have
regular freedom of movement.
For their part, the union maintained that there is continuous moderate physical effort,
and that in peak periods, the hours can be very long.
The level attributed by the College for the factor of phy sical demand is level 3, one
higher than the one in the template for the SSO B family of jobs, which is listed as
attracting a level 2. The union seeks two levels higher than the template. The work is
office work, and although it does require standing an d walking, the evidence was not
persuasive that the moderate physical effort was continuous. Rather, there are periods
of sedentary and light physical activity as well. Even considering the keyboarding as
continuous, it is Level 3 that applies as keyboard ing is light in the range of physical
activity. Further, it is instructive that a Caretaker job, generally involving a considerable
amount of physical work, is intended to attract a Level 3 in this evaluation scheme. In
sum, I find that the wording of Lev el 3 adequately captures the activity referred to in the
briefs and at the hearing.
Independent Action
The Manual sets out that this factor measures the independence of action and decisions
required by the job, noting that initiative, creativity and de cisions are governed by
various controls which can be in the form of supervision, policies, procedures or
established practices.
The levels in issue here are:
College: Level 4
Job duties are performed in accordance with procedures and practices
that may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or
problems. There is considerable freedom to act independently with
Supervisor input or verification when requested.
Union Level 5
Job duties are performed in accordance with general instructio ns and
policies involving changing conditions and problems. There is significant
freedom to act independently.
10
The grievors and the union emphasize that the incumbents operate with minimal
direction and are very often on their own with no access to manag ement who have many
other responsibilities. They assert that work is reviewed by exception only. Further,
they are responsible to train new staff on the front counter work.
The College emphasizes that, although there is considerable freedom to make deci sions
in this job, that is adequately reflected by Level 4. Further, there are established specific
procedures, often quite detailed, as with the fee information guidelines, for most matters
dealt with by the Student Service Associates, which does not fit, in the College’s
submission, with the idea of general instructions required for Level 5.
Having considered all the material before me, it is my view that Level 4 adequately
describes the basic requirements for independent action in this job, which is r eflected as
well by the fact that SSO B is one of the Level 4 comparator positions in the rating guide.
Incumbents are able to obtain supervisor input or verification when requested. It is clear
from the College’s uncontested evidence that there are a nu mber of system-based ways
to review work on an ongoing basis, as well as the ability of an incumbent to raise things
with management at any time. The fact that an experienced incumbent does not need
to seek out a supervisor very often does not mean that Level 4 is inappropriate. And the
procedures and practices dealing with the incumbents’ work may be adapted and
modified to meet particular situations and/or problems, as described in Level 4. Level 5
appears a less accurate description, as the instructi ons and policies relating to the work
of the Student Services Associates are not general in nature.
Responsibility for Decisions/Actions
The College rated the job at Level 3 for this factor, which reads as follows:
Decisions and/or actions have moderat e impact on the organization.
Errors are usually detected by verification and review and may result in
disruption of the workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited waste of
resources.
The union seeks Level 4, which is as follows:
Decisions and/or act ions have considerable impact on the organization.
Errors are detected after the fact and may result in considerable
interruption and delay and in work output and waste of resources.
11
The Union argues that Level 4 is typical for SSOB and C, as reflected in the Manual, and
that the evidence does not justify pegging it at a lower level. The example is given of a
mistake as to expiry of admission offers, or taking payment when the student is not
eligible, which could result in a whole extra class being requ ired, with additional faculty
wage costs. The grievors underline that they are responsible for handling large amounts
of cash, as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars in a day.
Although the College does not dispute that mistakes do occur, they submit that the
impact should be considered a moderate impact on the organization, rather than the
considerable impact required for Level 4. Further, they submit that error reports are run
at least daily in peak periods, with a full-time enrolment specialist an alyst watching the
numbers, so that the errors are usually detected as they occur. Further, some of the
errors described by the grievor, such as not receiving information in time from others as
to when a course or programme was closed, would not be errors of employees in this
position, but those who failed to send the information on to them in time.
This factor measures the impact on internal and public relations, the responsibility for
information management, equipment, assets and records and the consequ ences of
decision and/or actions. Applying this criterion poses some difficulty, due to the
inherently ambiguous terms of whether something is a moderate or considerable impact
on the organization, terms that can vary greatly depending on what reference po int is
used as a baseline, which is not defined in the Manual. The portion of the criteria that is
less troublesome in terms of definition is whether or not the errors are usually detected
by verification and review, or whether they are detected after the fact. However, there is
some difficulty in applying this portion as well. Since no error can be detected until “after
the fact” (Level 4) in the sense of after it has been made, this criterion has to be given
sense by comparison with the criteria below, w hich is detection by verification and
review (Level 3). The comparison suggests that with the Level 3 jobs, verification and
review procedures catch most errors before they have their impact, whereas this may
not be the case with Level 4 jobs. The exampl e of the review process that catches
whether or not a student who has paid fees has been assigned to a student group so
that they will count for funding, is an example of a verification and review procedure of
the type referred to in the Level 3 definition.
12
The union did not dispute management’s submission that there are review processes in
place which catch errors as they come up, but they did present some examples of errors
which were not caught before their impact. For example, the acceptance of a stu dent
when the offer had expired is one where the impact happens immediately. Errors on
transcripts can go undetected until after their effect on student eligibility for jobs or
further education. Other errors have impacts on the accessibility of OSAP to a student or
the cashflow of the College which could take some time to show up. If one looks at the
criteria in terms of the potential effect on assets of the College, the large amounts of
cash handled by the incumbents is quite relevant. The responsibil ity for reconciling cash
sessions are verification and review procedures, but I am not persuaded that they
prevent errors from being discovered until “after the fact”. Further the PDF as drafted by
the College notes in section G that information provided by the incumbent must be
accurate and complete, since a student/client’s important career/education decisions can
be based on this information.
Regardless of when the errors are caught, the College says that the impact will only be
moderate on the organiz ation, and the waste of resources to rectify the problem will be
limited rather than considerable. The union disagrees. In my view, either level can be
said to describe the job, depending on the nature, number and gravity of the errors one
is talking abo ut. In such a situation, it is appropriate to make reference to the
comparator jobs, which include SSO B at Level 4. Level 4 also includes ECE workers,
and stationary engineers, jobs that would not appear to make decisions that impact on
the financial affairs of the College and students as this job does, supporting a finding that
Level 4 is not too high a level for this job. In the result, it is my determination is that the
job should be rated at the same level as SSO B for this factor - Level 4.
* * *
To summarize, for the reasons set out above, I have found that the element of training
should be added to the PDF, as described above. Further, the rating of the factors
Complexity, Judgment, Physical Demands and Independent Action should be confirmed
at the level attributed by the College. The rating for Responsibility for Decisions/Actions
should be raised to Level 4, bringing the point rating from 604 to 622, which is still within
Pay band 9. As a result, the position remains classified as an SSO B at Pay Band 9.
13
I will remain seized to deal with any problems in implementation of the above decision
which the parties are unable to resolve themselves.
th
Dated at Toronto this 17 day of March, 2006.
______________________________________
Kathleen G. O’Neil, Arbitrator
14