Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-1378.Makela.92-11-12 ONTARIO EMPLOY£S O£ LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L'ONTARIO GRIEVANCE ' C,OMMISSlON DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS ~80 OUNOA~ STREET W~3~ SUITE?]O0~ TORONTO, ONTARIO MSG tZ8 TELEPHONEzTELEPHONE: (4 ~5i 326- 180, RUE DUNDA~ OUEST, BUREAU 2 100, TORONTO (ONTARIO}: MSG 1Z8 FAC$1MfLE/TEL~CQ~E : ~4 161 326- 1378/91 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Makela) Grievor - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Environment) Employer BEFORE: W. Low Vice-Chairperson I. Thomson Member A. Merritt Member FOR THE R. Healey UNION Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE C. Peterson EMPLOYER Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors HEARING April 29, 1992' June 29, 1992 August 21, 1992 D~CISION The Grievor, Diane Makela, who was classified Systems officer 1 at the date of the grievance and as Systems officer 2 at the time of the hearing, grieves her classification and seeks an order that she be reclassified to Systems Officer 3 or alternatively, a Berr~ order. Ms. Makela works for the Ministry of the Environment at Thunder Bay. Her position title is programmer/analyst. The position specification for her position is annexed as Appendix A. The class standard for Systems Officer 2 is annexed as Appendix B and the relevant portion of the class standard for Systems officer 3 is Appendix C. The salient portion of the preamble is Appendix D. It is the Grievor's position that her responsibilities, functions and duties substantially exceed those contemplated in the Systems Officer 2 class standard and that she falls within the class of "working level computer systems analyst responsible for the analysis and development of detailed design and for associated systems support, activities.". The evidence discloses that Ms. Makela works under the chief of planning approvals and electronic data processing unit, Mr. Mackie, at the technical assessment section for the North West 2 Region of the Ministry. Also reporting to Mr. Mackie is a systems specialist, Mr. Her~inger, who is classified Systems Officer 3. Ms. Makela's job, to put it as succinctly as possible, is to w~ite all the programs for the North West Region. Her work originates with a request to her to get a program writ%en. She reviews the request to determine if it is viable; she estimates the time required to complete the work, designating the task as a large development (i.e. one that takes five days or more) or a small development (four days or less). She makes a recommendation whether to go ahead with the .development or not and speaks to the chief to determine if the request should be carried out. Mr. Mackie has never to date disagreed with Ms. Makela's recommendation. If the development is large, it must go to the Electronic Data Processing Users' Committee for priority assignment; if small, it is approved immediately and work starts. On large projects, Ms. Makela will meet with the sponsor and other interested parties to flesh out the particulars of the requested development. She will then analyze the project and determine how it is to be accomplished, including choosing the .language and hardware with a view to optimizing disk space and usability to the clients. She prepares a scheme of the system on paper with screens and sample reports, and then proceeds to write the project, module by module, until a prototype version of the program is produced. She then goes through it with the sponsor to ascertain what if any revisions or changes should be made until the development is completed. She produces the documentation for the program and she trains the users. Small developments follow essentially the same process, the difference being that tess time is required to complete the development. Ms. Makela spends three days of five on large projects and the balance of time is spent on small projects, this depending on the amount of training that Ms. Makela is doing in a particular week. Ms. Makela has worked on the "AQUIS" development, which had 20 - 30 modules, "PHYDMS" of 30 - 40 modules, "MIDS" of 50 modules and on "ORIS" These are projects that all took a number of months to complete. Mr. Garth Lefresne was called on behalf of the employer. His evidence was that the Ministry considers a "large" project to be one of over 150 modules and over 100,000 lines of code. ~uch projects are not undertaken at Thunder Bay but rather are done at Downsview, and accordingly the Grievor has never worked on projects of such magnitude. The Employer considers projects of the type worked on by 4 Ms. Makela to be small ~and contrasts them to projects involving a budget of over $500,000.00, entailing a five to six month feasibility study, requiring approval of Management Board, and involving teams of personnel in the development process, which projects are considered larqe. The union's position is that Ms. Makela's core duties take her outside the Systems officer 2 class standard: she is responsible on her own for computer analysis and design activities, and is not merely a participant; she performs technical support duties in training users and in working with clients toward program or systems development; she does not work under the supervision of a more senior programmer or analyst. The evidence is that her position specification faithfully sets out her duties. The purpose of the position is as follows: "To analyze, plan, implement, project manage, document and maintain software applications and systems in the NWR's sophisticated mini-computer environment and extensive network within the framework of the Ministry's information systems plan, policies and standards. To provide backup to the Regional systems specialist in the operation and maintenance of the Region's complex computer system and network. To provide and coordinate the training of all staff in the use of computer resources." It is the Employer's position that the essence of the class structure in this series is size. It is said that everyone in the series is required to do all facets of a systems analyst's 5 job and all positions require knowledge and skill in all areas and phases of systems development. It is said that the level of classification is determined by the size of the developments worked on, and accordingly, because the Grievor has not worked on developments which the Employer considers large (though no definition of "large" exists), the Grievor does not fit into the Systems officer 3 class standard which, it is contended, pre- supposes work on large projects. With respect, I cannot accept the proposition that the class standards are demarcated by the magnitude of the projects worked on. The language of the class standards does not bear out such a position. The language of both the Systems Officer 2 and Systems Officer 3 standards contemplates that a person in either of those classes may work on large developments or small developments and there is nothing in the class standards for Systems Officer 3 that requires that a person holding that +standard to work on projects of any particular magnitude. Nor is there any definition of what is small or large anywhere in the class standard. While one subset of employees defined in the first paragraph of the Systems Officer 3 definition speaks to designing, developing and maintaining very large or complex computer programs, the elements in that paragraph are disjunctive. The standard also includes senior programmers who provide technical leadership to program staff and working level computer systems analysts responsible for 6 the analysis and development of detailed design and for associated systems support activities. Similarly, the definition for Systems Officer 2 is not restrictive as to the size of developments worked on. The difference, in my view, inheres in the degree of responsibility, the scope of the functions performed and the level of client/user contact. Ms. Makela is not merely, a programmer. I'n my view, sh~ is a systems analyst. She does not merely "participate in minor computer systems analysis and design activities" - she is the' systems analyst in and for the Region, she carries the function through from project assessment to pre-design client consultation, design and programming, documentation, testing and user training. Her contact with client staff is more than occasional. It is an important facet of her duties. In my view, the substance of Ms. Makela's job is not contemplated by the Systems Officer 2 class standard but is neatly defined in the opening lines of the Systems Officer 3 standard. One has only to compare the provisions of the position specification with the class-standards for Systems Officer 2 and Systems officer 3 to glean that the degree of responsibility and %he scope of duties expected of Ms. Makela considerably exceeds that 7 contemplated by the language defining the role of a Systems Officer 2. Accordingly, I would order that Ms. Makela be reclassified to Systems Officer 3 retroactive to' 20 days prior to the date of her grievance. DATED this 12th day of November, 1992. W. LOW ~. MERRITT ~o~Itlon ~pec~nc&t~on & ~;l&~ Atloc&tlon-C$¢ ~150 I { 37-4105-10 nec~=x v~h~n the z=~k of ~ X~zst~'e 'Lnfa~atton nyanza ~lafl, ~l~c~es and com~te~ nlt~k ~de~ 34 hour to~LCO %o ~t& dlltf~Ct Off,ce ~n Keno~& ae ~ll al over 1. The semite thl c~l~ ~1 of ~Lonll I~if~ and ~nlgemont, through coflsultatLon, the SSt ln~nt ~l r~lr~ to Lflde~d~ntlyt - deel~, devel~, pr~, tel2, c~rdiflato and maintain the e~nentl of the r~lofla~ and ol~lfla~Lflg manual da~a ent~; p=~uc~ng sL~Lf~cint t~o eav~flgs, ~o= example, tn L C~. lllomtl~ Cia tl~e CIw ~ O~uMtloflol ~p fl~Y OIY Mo~th S~e~e~s Off,car 2 1715~ ~-02 OI I ~2 ~,XeSponoible for ~he support and maiuCe~nce of software products, pros~ams and u~iltcies for 'the NOrchves~ Reales, through the desisu, development, tescin8 a~ coo~dinecion of the ponen~s of 'the database management syat~ a~cht~ecture. {'Accountable for evaluation, CesCt~ ~d ~odii~cagton of sof~vare and p~oi~ pg~uc~s, by adap- cin{,tn~esra~tn~ and deve[opi~ n~ sol.are for use tn ~he region. :.Kn~ledie t{' used co ~lemeuc, ~est ~d tn~esra~a pro{ra~tn8 routtues/proceduges; co evalua~f and modiiy s~audard sof~are packa{as, prosr~'pgoduc~s; and to daval~ ~ocumenra~tou and pro- cedures for users. ~ [ 0'~'[ Ezra Hoses. R.~. Consultant. Position Specif£catio~ & C14 Allocation CSC-6150 37-4~2e-11 member of the Operatiofl~..C.omm£tt. ee, analyze alternative product capabllitiee end attg~utea a~d make rec~naation. ~or ~chaaing software pr~uc~e in accordance wi~h 2.To provide tre£n£ng, support and techntcal assistance to all ceq£on&l and district the l~c-~ent w£11~ - make technical recoe~endat£ona to the Olers Ooe~ittee o~pr£sed of rig£ona! and d£etrict staff as veil al to the operations Coagulates. vhLch £e comprised of technical experts in ~he use of the r~lon'l ~puter lyl~ and mof~wlrel ~roviding educational teminare on - p~lde bac~p ~d lu~ ~o ~he ~e~ 8~c~il~s~ In ~he o~ra=lon ind ~ain=e~ance of ~he =~onaI c~utet system by eaiucLng ~he ~n~enance of ~he ~eharing c~pu~ec graphics ~d pc~ntout cap~l~tiil, data itocage devices, c~tnica~o~ l~nks, ~s, ~d o~h~= relat~ EDP ~n~ ~n~o= lyet~ ~rfo~ance and ~ecognize d~lnl~hed ~rfo~snce ,nd ~ike corrective i~epl ~o ~nc=ease efficiency~ ~o enmure the scarify and integrity of c~te= daf, ~d * di{~noml myetem ~Ifunc~{on~ and ~plemen= corrective - ~nmtlll and u~ate Ioftw~e packagel; : - e~iure the at, lift,on of Ill IDP consumables. '-" Ita21it~cal'.ual~l~l tmlml ltrOng oral and ~lt~in'c~un~catlon /k~llml demonitrated " CLASS CODE: 1 APPENDIX B S¥STEH50FFICE~ 2 This class covers pdsitions of. .computer respon~i~!e for design of small pro,rams or modules for large p~ograms, and for coding, testing, modifying and co~puter progr~ms~ These e~ployees may also Darticipatm in minor to sof~ware ana!ys~s/systems programmers who are responsible for support and ~ainteaance of pro,ram products, sof~ware ~ro~rams and utilities for a specific client community. ~hich do not have a major impac~ on ~hecvera!l harclware/softwar~ system. Work is performed under general supervlsien of a more senior programmer or analyst, with technical ~uidance and assistance given on more complex applications, design problems, or on software programming asslgnments which require detailed knowledge of the design and 'special features of major operating or software systems components. These employees are accountable for meeting functional objectives i,t the design of app!ica~ions programs and p. o¢~ures within the ~ramework of a detailed spec'ification, or in ~he evaluation. %eating and mod~ficatic~ of a~-eezen% with' a c~ ::m~ £rro~s wou!~ be de~ected at delays in imp!e~entin~ p. ro~ra~s or software proCuct chan~e~, or The~e em~Lcyees must have a mood understandin~ of how tm us.r., =nd prepare time and cost estlma~es .for pro~raa~, and a working knowledze of interactive far,ina! use~ and d~ta storage an~ retrieval methods is needed %o determine Ca%a Drocessin~ and ~ata entry requirements for programS, file design u'iii%ies. ocaasionai contact wi~h user and line management to technlca; m'atters. T~ey occasionally particlpate in user Systems Officer 2 to i~rove office or ~dmini~trative prcductlvity. ~si~ta,nce or gu%dance is ~5ovided on prob!em5 requiri'ng the in~egra~io~ of automated office techno!o¢ies, for communications networks, or to link into computer prccess~n~ for data retrieval purposes. These emp!oyee~ are ~ccou~ab!e for the comprehensiveness of their analysis of client requirements and office equi~zen% for increased office e?fic~enc)' and c~fflcu'ty in unders~an~in~ and fo!!o~in~ ~rocedures. '' ltv %co!~. Ai~c. neons% i~ %he =~i~itv to ~eve!~ =nC a~slstance to junior staff. There i~ occasional contac: ~'ith ~uC~:de ~up~!ie~$ to eva!u~te equipment and services. SS STANDARD: .... ' ............ · e ~ CLASS CODE: 17156F. APPENDIX C SYSTEMS OFFICER 3 This class covers positions of working level computer systems analysts responsible for the analysis and development of detailed design and for associated systems support activities, or senior programmers who provide'technical leadership to programming staff, or who. design, develop and maintain very large or complex computer programs, i.e. using a large number of files and performing a large variety of computations, and capable of generating many different output reports for a large and diverse user group. Assignments are performed under the general direction of project leader or supervisor. On a Large pr oj ecl . 'where busine~s/functiona! design is a major component, a ~enera! design specification will be prepared by other~: 0n a smaller projgct criteria for the detailed ProgrmmminB or sgs~ems design pha~e may be obtained direct from %he client. Completed work is expected ~e technicm!!y accurate amd operatio~ml!y efficient, ~ith review occurring only ~% scheduled project checkpoints to ensure allen% requiremen%s are met. These employees are accountable for the quaiitM end practicality of de~i~n of detailed system or cri'~ris . !ncludin~ the selection, edapts~ion amd in~e~ratic~ could c~use_~=riou~_ set-~acks cr dollar _~os~e~_ in in_t=~ -lllnE s':'s~e~ en~ in hi~er o~eratLnE )~n~.wl=~E_~ _ ~ ~ and skills, requCred include: =- scum~. k~cwlecE~ ar.~.~,'~. .... ' cc~p~t~nc:. _ in standa-~. _ .and s~ia!ize~~ ..... la~u~ and/ar sauna practical knowledge end competence in computer . ~u~omated and manual ~ystem$, imc!udin~ ~evelopmen% user an~ machine procemdures and form~. A soun~ know!edge of s~cra~e amc retrieval method~ and an under~tanCin~ of da~ base ccnceD%~ i2 required to analyze datm requirements, deve!o~ end i~p!ement methods for co!leo{ion, organization and star,ge d~ta . amc ~o impiemen~ ~:andard~ a~d procedures for data management. A practical understanding of m~n'i-com~utor end large comau%er hardware mhd software capa~!it~e~ is required to des~ ~n~ i~p~emem% systems or computer function~ appropr:ate ~& the envlromment . A sound knowledge of curremt computer methoCo!cgie~ smd standards, and ieadershi~ ski!~s are e_~!oyed !n cccrC~mating activities of zssigned staff and en~urln~ ~roper c',ient's current work processes, makes r ¢co,,,mend ations for organizational or functional changes', and. where a computer or other automated system is to be used, develops a .general design framework for this. This stage is usually referred to as "business~functional design", or "general systems design". On a large system this activity is frequently carried out by a team, and a senior analys: is of:eh assigned project leadership function~. The-next activity, de:ailed ana'iy~is and design, is concerned with ~he m development o~ detailed procedures ~or preparing, entering and pr.ocessing da~a. A detailed sy$Cees specification ~ produced, which becomes ~he ~asis fo~ the design of eompute~ programs for %he system. However, on ma:ual o~ au%om.ted office systems projects, and on small EDP projects, 5choral systems design and detail design are of:en indistinguishable, and the analyst ~ill cover both in the sa~e step. In a computer system the nex~ activity will be programming design, resulting in programmin& specifications. In large computer systems. "programs" will be composed of a number of program modules, each of which defines for the computer the procedures :o be followed in processin~ data. The overall programming design is u:ually assigned :o a senior ~ro[rammer, who will delegate the design of lndtv.idual modules to other pro~rammer=, but who has overall responsibility for the integration of these modules, a~ '~ell as for supervising all pro~ramming and testing activities. In .a smaller system, ~here the pro,ram requires only a small number of modules, program design, coding and tes:ing may be performed at :Se programmer level, under the general supervision of an analvst.