Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBagshaw 17-01-16IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 416 (FOR SUPPORT STAFF) (hereinafter called the "Union") -and- COLLEGE EMPLOYERS COUNCIL (FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS and TECHNOLOGY) In the form of ALGONQUIN COLLEGE (hereinafter called the "College") -and- GRIEVANCE OF MARY-KAYE BAGSHAW OPSEU File No. 2016-0416-0006 (hereinafter called the "Grievor" or the "Incumbent") ARBITRATOR: REPRESENTING THE COLLEGE REPRESENTING THE UNION: Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb. Connie Powers, Acting Manager, Organizational Effectiveness Helen Huang, HR Officer Kimya Keyhan, Manager Jan Strickland, Steward Local 416 Mary -Kaye Bagshaw, Grievor A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO ON 11 JANUARY 2017. AWARD Mary -Kaye Bagshaw (the "Grievor") is the incumbent in a position titled the Program Support Academic in the Academic Access Centre at Algonquin College (the "College"). The position was reviewed by the College on 9 November 2015. Both parties agreed ultimately with the contents of the Position Description Form (the "PDF"). However, there is no agreement on the pointing score for the position, leaving three factors under the Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (the "Manual") without agreement. The College evaluated the position of Program Support Academic and rated it at 384 points, placing the position within Payband E. The Grievor and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (the "Union") submit that the position ought to be evaluated at 425 points, placing it at the higher -rated Payband F. The Duties of the Position The position supports the delivery of the Academic Upgrading (AU) program, which entails approximately 23% of the time spent on the job. The Incumbent has specific responsibilities related to AU students who pay tuition themselves through the Institution Funded Special Bursary Program (ISBP) or through a sponsor, such as WSIB or an Aboriginal band. That work takes up approximately 60% of the time spent on the job. The position also supports the implementation of the Literacy and Basic Skills (LBS) Service Agreement for the ACElinks site through maintaining records in the Ministry's EOIS-CaMS database and in the hard -copy student file. The time spent on this aspect of the position is approximately 10% of the total time spent on the job. The remaining 7% of the total time spent on the position involves supporting the Nunavut Sivuniksavut contract (2%), as well as other duties (5%). Factors in Dispute There are three factors in dispute in this proceeding: Factor #5 — Guiding/Advising Others; Factor #6 — Independence of Action; and Factor #7 — Service Delivery. Each of these factors will be dealt with under separate headings below. Factor #5 — Guiding/Advising Others: Ratings: College Level 2 / Union Level 2 Occasional In Dispute The Parties agree that the Level for the position is correctly rated at Level 2. The difference between the Parties' positions is the Union's assertion that there ought to be an Occasional rating at Level 3 worth 3 points. At Level 2, a person Guides others to 2 complete specific tasks. At Level 3, a person would Advise others to enable them to perform their day-to-day duties or activities. The terms "Guide" and "Advise" are defined in the Manual. (i) Findings In order to be a Level 3 Occasional rating, the Incumbent must Advise others. The term is defined in the Manual as having "the authority to recommend, or provide knowledgeable direction regarding either a decision or course of action." The example the Union provided involved the identifying of a problem in the ledgers, which can be complicated to read, and then making the necessary changes. The Incumbent looks into the problem and then advises the counter person or gets back to the student to ensure that the correct payment can be accepted from a student. I do not find that there is any real authority vested in the position to recommend or provide knowledgeable direction. The Incumbent identifies problems and solves them, which usually involves changing aspects of the records, and then reports to the inquirer, which is either a student or staff person. Therefore, I find that the positon is not one where, on occasion, the person is required to work at a Level 3. For all the foregoing reasons, I find that the Union has not established that the classification of this factor is incorrect and ought to have an Occasional Level 3 rating. Factor #6 — Independence of Action: Ratings: College Level 2 / Union Level 3 The Manual provides that "This factor measures the level of independence or autonomy in the position. The following elements should be considered: 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. " The submissions are set out below. (i) The Union The thrust of the Union submission is that the Incumbent is expected to work independently and determine the best course of action within specific parameters. For example, the Griever would decide what payment plan for tuition is best suited to a 3 particular student based on information provided by the student and the general guidelines of the College. (ii) The College The College submits that the Incumbent has limited flexibility in decision-making, as the College has clear procedures and policies that direct outcomes based on specific checklists. Decision-making is based on clear AU policies and where additional information impacts the client/student, the Incumbent is expected to consult with the Supervisor. The Incumbent must work within the College's Service Agreement with WSIB, thus limiting the degree of freedom. Student files are checked by other staff for completeness in preparation for the annual audit. (iii) Findings In examining the Notes to Raters in the Manual, there is an attempt to clarify the difference between Levels 2 and 3 when it comes to this factor. Level 2 is described as involving duties that are completed based upon pre -determined steps with guidelines available to assist when needed. In contrast, a Level 3 function requires the selection of processes to achieve the end result, which may involve the assistance of general guidelines. The position has the autonomy to make decisions within these parameters. There are only two bursary possibilities for the student. One possibility is that they receive aid from Algonquin College to pay tuition, and the other is that they pay themselves. Therefore, the Incumbent worked within established procedures in making decisions against specific guidelines. There is no necessity to use a general process, defined as a series of activities, to carry out the duties of the position. Therefore, the Union has not established that the College has not correctly rated the position. I find that the rating for the Factor Independence of Action is properly evaluated at the Level 2. The submissions of the Union to the contrary are rejected. Therefore, there is no change in the rating. Factor #7 — Service Delivery: Ratings: College Level 2 / Union Level 2, Occasional in Dispute The Manual provides that: "This factor looks at the service relationship that is an assigned requirement of the position. It considers the required manner in which the position delivers service to customers and not the incumbent's interpersonal relationship with those customers. " 11 The Parties agree that the Level for the position is correctly rated at Level 2. The difference between the Parties' positions is the Union's assertion that there ought to be an Occasional rating at Level 3. At Level 2, a person provides service according to specification. At Level 3, a person would tailor service based on developing a full understanding of the customer's needs. The term "tailor" is defined in the Manual. (i) Findings If the Union submissions were accepted as establishing an incorrect rating, then it would arise in the context of dealing with the WSIB Student Success Specialist. In this context, the Incumbent must prepare a quote, which is accomplished by evaluating student input, that then equates to a particular monetary figure making up part of the overall quote for the approval of WSIB. While the quote is different for each student, the quotation process is not tailored for each individual student, as required per the definition of the term in the Manual. To meet this definition and tailor the quotation process for each student, the Incumbent would be required to do more to the application of the formula or template used to determine the quote. For all the foregoing reasons, I do not find that the Union has established that there ought to be an Occasional rating at a higher level than the agreed upon level for the majority of the duties of the job. Therefore, there is no change to the determination. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, I find that the position ought to have the rating established by the Job Evaluation Committee. Therefore, there is to be no change in the rating for the position of Program Support Academic, and the position remains within Payband E. The grievance is dismissed. DATED at London, Ontario this 16th day of January 2017. 12�/ Richard FV Mc aren, Arb. Arbitrator 9 Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification Colleae: Algonquin College Current Payband: E Incumbent: Mary -Kaye Bagshav Supervisore Claire Ramsay - Payband Requested by Grievor: F 1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form: The parties agreed on the contents 0 The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific details are attached. 2. The attached Written Submission is from: 0 The Union 0 The College Factor Management Union Arbitrator Regular/ Recurring Occasional Regular/ Recurring Occasional Regular/ Recurring Occasional Level Points Level Points Level Points Level Points Level Points Level Points 1A. Education 4 48 4 48 4 4A 1B. Education 1 3 1 3 1 3 .......... 2. Experience 4 54 4 54 4 54 N 3. Analysis and Problem Solving 2 46 2 46 2 46 4. Planning/Coordinating 2 32 2 32 2 32 5. Guiding/Advising Others 2 17 2 17 3 3 2 17 6. Independence of Action 2 46 3 78 2 46 7. Service Delivery 2 29 2 29 3 6 2 29 8. Communication 2 46 2 46 2 46 9. Physical Effort 1 5 1 5 1 10. Audio/Visual Effort 2 20 .............................. 2 20 2 20 11. Working Environment 2 38 2 1 38 2 38 Subtotals (a) 384 (b) 0 (a) 416 (b) 9 (03 8 4 VA (b) 0 Total Points (a) + (b) 384 425 '1 R 4 KEE Resulting Payband E F E Signatures: (Grievor) 0Q, (Date) (College Representative) 11 / 01 / 17 (Date of Hearing) (Date) 16 / 01 / 17 (Date of Award)