HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0317.Davidson.92-12-03 ~, . ;,. ONTA RIO EMPL OYeS DE LA COURONNE
'~, ,...:: ,: CROWN EMPLOYEES DEL'ONTARIO
.... GRIEVANCE · COMMISSION DE
SETTLEMENT, R~:GLEMENT
BOARD DES GRIEFS
180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE 2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. MSG IZ8 TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE I~IS) 325-1588
180, RUE DUNDAS OUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO (ONTARIO], M50 IZ8 F,&CSIA41£E/TELECOP~E ,'4 16) 326- 1395
317/91
IN THE MATTER OF ;tNA RBITRATION
Under.
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
CUPE 3096 (Davidson)
Grievor
and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Housing)
Employer
BEFORE: A. Barrett Vice-Chairperson
W. Rannachan Member
D. Montrose Member
FOR THE J. Lynd
GRIEVOR National Representative
CUPE 3096
FOR THE C. Peterson
EMPLOYER Counsel
Winkler, Filion & Wakely
Barristers & Solicitors
HEARING: May 28, 1992
October 6, 1992
DECISION
This is a classification grievance arising out of a new
classification system negotiated by the parties in 1989. The~re are 50
housing authorities throughout the province, of which Ottawa-Carletont
this employer, is the biggest having appro×imately 225 employees nf the
450 employed province-wide.
The new system assigns point values to positions, after an analysis
of six compensable factors: knowledge, skitlr judgment, accountabil~ty~
Qroup leadership and community leadership. Pursuant to the ne~.= system~
all 450 administrative positions in the administrative ~roup of
employees throughout the province were classified in 1989. After the
initial process 370 employees were satisfied with their classifications
and 80 were not. Those people went through an informal~ then a forma!~
internal appeal process, and half of those employees were sati~fied. The
remaining 4~ launched formal ~rievances under the collective aqreement
and, durin~ that. grievance process 20 more were resolved. The union then
decided to take four unrelated cases to arbitration, and this is one of
them.
This grievor, who is a Payroll Output Clerk~ started the appeal
process classified as Administrative Grou'p 7~ but was reclassified as
Administrative Group 8 d%lrin~ the appeal process. She thinks her
position is still undervalt~ed and she should be an AG9 or AGI0
classification.
The employer published a manual describing the new c!assific~tion
system and how it is to be applied in assessin~ individual positions to
arrive at a point value. Of the six compensable factors mentioned above~
only four apply to the Grievor's ~ob: knowledge, skill~ judgment and
accountability. Knowledge and skill are called the input factors and
contain four levels. Judgment and accountability are described as output
factors and are evaluated on three levels. The manual contains example
positions and describes the analysis undertaken to award points in each
cateQory. Each classification level has a point band within which a
position fits. For instance, the AG8 level has a point band ran~in~ from
460 to 524. The grievor's job~was awarded 475 points and therefore fits
within the lower range of the point band. In order to be reclassified
as an AG9, she must achieve between 525 and 599 pointa, and for an AG10,
600 to 699 points are required. Point values are ascribed to each level
of the compensable factors. For instance, in the knowledge factor~ ths
lowest level 1 attracts 40 points~ while the hiQhest level 4 attracts
190. The ~rievor's position was assessed as follows:
knowledge - 3
skills - 2
judgment - 3
accountability - 2
The grievor says that all of these factors, except for judqment~
should be upgraded by one level.
The classification process is described in the manual as a ~teD-
by-step approach to classification. The eva!uator is required to proceed
as fellows:
"Working from the lowest levelr compare each factor in the
subject position with the factor level definitions at each
successive level until a 'match' is identified,
Review comparisons also with level definitions above and below
the ones tentatively established for each factor. Mote thatr
wh~le few 'match' precisely with any one level description in
a factor: the use of a 'best-fit' approach should enable an
allocation at the appropriate level.
To appreciate more fully the relationship of the factor/level
definition to a whole job~ comparisons should be, ~ade to
relevant Example Positions. These have been included in 'the
Standards to exemplify the levels and to illustrate
relationships among factors.
Add the point values for each factor level selected to
determine the total point value."
If the above steps do not yield a, comfortable classification
because the position itself has factors in it that can be related to
more than one statement at more than one level and does not fully r~!at~
to any one level~ or in a situation where the position ca'not readily
be related to specific statements in the factor/level definitionsr then
the valuator is required to use a "best-fit" approach by eliminatin~
weaker or stronger levels and finding the appropriate mne as that in-
between the two. As a oeneral rule, minor Pr..occasionaI "higher'" level
requirements should not result in a valuation hi~her than that which
would otherwise have been made. The higher level requirement must be
siqnificant and critical to the functioninQ~of the position in order to
raise the position to the hioher level.
The orievor's position specification which is attached as Appendix
"A" to this decision is admittedly an accurate description of her
duties~ skills and knowledge.
The orievor testified about her job duties in relationship tm the
factor levels of each of the three compensable factors in which she
feels her position has been undervalued.
With respect to skills, the 2 level is described in the manual as
follows:
"Requires skills to:
- Communicate/discuss/explain detailed admihistrative
procedures orally or in writing7
- Compose routine correspondence such as
acknowledoements, coverin~ letters and memoranda
following standard guides and/or transcribe, using
acceptable grammar, spelling~ punctuation and
appropriate terminology;
- Detect errors in a volume of drafts~ input forms and
documents for typing, processino or keying, and
either making minor corrections or returning to
source~
- Sort, index, classify, store and retrieve a variety
of types of information/records, using filing
systems and related indices, (electronic or manua!) 7
fractions, decimals and percentages in areas such
as balancing cashier journals, calc~lating price
extensions and discounts~ or making employee
payroll calculations."
Ms Davidson thinks her skills should more properly be assessed at
]~vel 3, which is described below:
"Requires skills to:
matters s::.~h a.s new nr changed regulations
procedures er 'exceptions to the rule'~ which
require ..... ~ .... ia!~ zed ~ermino!ogv
technics!);
- ~=~ comp~= cor~e~n~~/r~p~= requirinc'
conceptua!izat~..~., and expression in wri
~eneral instruction~ received from principal (s};
th= work uni+ tn ~+ 1 ..... a! , req~ire~ents
information coding and filing;
- ~,~ :rithmeti~ ~n~== .~nd ~n~,,~=
=,,~h as .... ~ =~ account in~ and
ca!culaticns7"
The ~ ..... t~st~ed ~ha+ m=~ of what sh~ ~ ..... ~ =*~ .... : .... :
calculations and bi-weekly payroll reports. Ms. Davidson uses H!PPS
.~ c~ deductinn= nd benefi+=
manual= tn do the ............ for payroll .~. a ....... , ........
~,,h~ ..... '~ ten .... c~d,~= for p~yro!! ~ .... +~
Workers' compensation and garnishment payments must be ca!cu!ar~d and
1 ...... ~ Finance and ~n~=~on for ~inc end ~n~t
~ ..... ~ ~e~,,4~i~ ..... ~ou~h the Accoun~.s Pavab!e Department ~
~ ~=~ =~ reconciled In =~4,4~ ~ bi-weekly ~=,,~
-_.h ............................................ ~.,,..~ ....... reports
n=,,~son ~n~l~ overtime report~, T4'= and -~~,,~+ ~n=,,~a~
reports. The ~rievor dnes ~mme manual ma~h~mat, ica! calculations, which
~ ~ "~= =~; ..... ~=~*; ~ mu!~ip!ying dividing =nd .... ~
~rcentace= U~on crn~.s-examinat~ Ms
.... n Davidson ..... d~d that =~=
~+ ~ ..... ~== accounting and statistical ~ca!~,,~:+~n~ nor ~ .....
We cannot find on the evidence that Ms. Davi~son'._~ position
requires skills beyond level 2.
With respect, to the knowledge factor, the' 3 level where Ms.
Davidson is now placed regl~ires the following:
"Knowledge of a broad 'variety of methods and procedures
required to perform a series of involved or semi-routine work
tasks.
Know!edQe of computer terminals/prooram/system.sufficient to
interpret pro~ram/output and conduct a variety of searche~.
Knowledge of methods~ procedures relating to specialized areas
such as accounting, le~l proceedin~A, required to perform
involved tasks.
Knowledge of electronic office equipment with a network of
controls, such as fully electronic (2nd ~eneration) word
processino equipment sufficient to %{tilize a broad range of
its capabilities (e.~o global search and replace, graphic.~
re-paoination~ editino).
Mnowledge of own work unit's functions sufficient to provide,
to internal/external clients~ comprehensive explanations of
unit's services.
Knowledge of relevant reoulations, manuals of administratio__n
sufficient to allow incumbent to resolve own work problems."
The ~rievor seeks to place herself in the level 4 category~ which
requires the following:
"Knowledge of specialized methods and procedures required to
perform very involved work tasks.
Knowledge of complex office computer systems/components
sufficient to control and deyelop prooram input/output.
7
Knowledge of housing authority programs and activities
sufficient to provide to interna!/e×~efna! clients
comprehensive explanations re programs/services.
Knowledge and understanding of content of acts~ regu!ation~
manuals applying to own and related other jobs sufficient to
ensur~ consistent application to work problems~ and where
necessary, knowledge of legislation in other jurisdictinns
where program interface occurs."
Again the evidence did not b~ar out Ms. Davidson's claim that she
works at the 4 level. Interfacing with the Royal Bank compu~iers to
ensure proper payroll deposits is more fairly called one of "a broad
variety of methods req%lired to perform a series of involved tasks"~
rather than a "specialized method required to perform very involved
tasks" The Royal Bank system deploys different codes from other
systems~ but it is not otherwise-unique or special. Ail payrn!t
departments have a computerized system. With respect to the level 4
"knowledge and understanding of the contents of acts~ regulati,~ns and
manualm"~ the grievor concedes that she only refers to the employer's
guides relating to the Income Tax Act~ the Unemployment Insurance Act~
the Workers' Compensation Act~ etc. She does not delve into the Acts
themselves. This knowledge level more fairly fits within the [level 3
requirement "knowledge of relevant !regulations~ manuals of
administration sufficient to allow incumbent to resolve own work
problems",
With respect, to the output factors, Ms'. Davidson's account~bi!ity
has been assessed at level 2, which is described as follows:
"Responsibility for performing a mix of different kinds of
assigned tasks/services/assignments where the employee is
accountable for their production in a co-ordinat~d, efficient
manner.
Responsibility for providing detailed and involved
information/explanation/assistancetoemployees/clients/public
within established procedures.
Errors could normally be readily traced and be corrected with
some inconvenience and expenditure of time and resources;
serious errors would usually have some impact, on other work
groups/clients."
Ms. Davidson feels her accountability level should be 3~ which
requires as follows:
"Responsibility for performing a signific_~nt variety of
assignments/operations which are sufficiently comj0!ex that
they would often require the co-ordination by employee of own
activities with those of other organizations and where the
employee is accountable for re~rching objectives with minimal
supervision.
Responsible for providing authnritative
decision~/recommendations/analyses to other work ~roups
regardin_q own area of work, within available or established
guidelines.
Errors could normally be traced and corrected, but with
significant expenditure of time and resources7 serious errors
would have signific.~nt impact on other work groups/clients."
On the evidence, we learned that payroll is calculated separately
for each individual, so that errors do not apply across the board. All
of Ms. Davidson'$ calculations are checked by the Finance Department.
Errors are usually caught while totalling and reconciling~ but without
"significant expenditure of time and resources" Serious errors would
not have "significant impact on other work groups/clients".
9
In summary, we cannot find that the grievor's Dosition has been
imDroDerly classified. While she performs a variety of involved tasks
~xercising a range of knowledge and skills and appears to be very
Droficient at her job, we cannot find that she has been imDroDerly
assessed at knowledge, skills and accountability levels. The union bears
the onus of Droving on a balance of probabilities that the grievor is
imDroDerly classified, and it has not done'so ih this case. Accordingly~
the grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 3rd day of December, 1992.
A. Barrett, Vice-Chairperson
W. Rannach~n, Member
D. Montrose, Member