HomeMy WebLinkAboutSalvadori 14-02-27IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF RYERSON UNIVERSITY
and
(The University)
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION AND ITS LOCAL 596
(The Union)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF LESLEY SALVADORI RELATING
TO JOB EVALUATION, NEWS MEDIA TECHNICAL COORDINATOR, SCHOOL OF
JOURNALISM
ARBITRATOR: Kenneth P. Swan
APPEARANCES:
For the University: Caroline Riley, Manager, HR Consulting
Monika Dacosta, Manager, Total Compensation
Yvette Benavidez, Total Compensation Specialist
Michel Kouadio, Director, Technology Planning and Innovation
Suanne Kelman, Associate Chair, Journalism
Christine Danielewski, HR Management Consultant
Sharon Tso, HR Management Consultant
For the Union: Kella Loschiavo, Chief Steward, Local 596
Lesley Salvadori, Grievor
This is an arbitration arising from the application of the OPSEU Local 596 Job
Evaluation Plan to a position entitled News Media Technical Coordinator in the School of
Journalism, in the Faculty of Communication & Design at Ryerson University. The incumbent
of the position is Ms. Lesley Salvadori, who has held the position for some years.
The Job Evaluation Plan is a joint plan established by the parties during an
evaluation of all positions in the bargaining unit in 1995, and subsequently adapted and
integrated. The administration of the Plan is covered by Article 34 of the Collective Agreement,
which specifies how positions are evaluated, and provides a right of grievance and arbitration to
an employee who believes his/her position is improperly classified. The present arbitration
resulted from an evaluation of the position in 2009 which assigned the current job title,
established a revised job description and made some changes to the sub -factor analysis, but
without resulting in a change in grade from the previous Grade 14, which had been established in
2001.
A grievance was filed on September 27, 2010, and was processed through the
grievance procedure. In the course of the grievance procedure, amendments were made to the
job description and to the sub -factor analysis, but without a change in grade, and without
satisfying the concerns of the grievor and the Union. The grievance was thus referred to
arbitration.
A substantial body of written material was presented prior to the arbitration
hearing, and the precise ambit of the dispute was unclear from a review of this documentation.
At the hearing, however, the parties were able to clarify that the essence of their dispute
comprised the ratings assigned to four sub -factors: Education, Experience, Effort -Mental and
-2 -
Working Conditions -Time Demands. The Union asserts that a correct evaluation in relation to
these sub -factors would lead to an evaluation at Grade 15; the University disagrees, and
maintains that Grade 14 is correct. The parties are agreed that the effective date for any change in
grade resulting from this award would be December 13, 2007. A copy of the final version of the
job description is attached to this award.
As background, the job summary included in the job description describes the
position as follows:
Coordinates, administers and oversees the day-to-day technical support operations
in the School of Journalism under the guidance of the Chair; assigns and
coordinates the work of the News Media Production Specialists; works with
faculty and Program Directors to ensure that curriculum objectives are met;
advises on technical needs and the presentation of technical course materials to
students; ensures efficient operation and maintenance of news media production
equipment and facilities; researches new equipment, systems and industry
standards to keep the School's new media technology current.
As suggested in the summary, the incumbent reports directly to the Chair of the
School of Journalism, which is one of eight schools in the Faculty of Communication & Design
(FCAD), located in the Rogers Communications Centre (RCC), a research and operations facility
of broadcasting, TV and advanced new media technologies. RCC was described as both a
department and a building; in the former capacity it runs its own programs and provides
technical support to the other schools in FCAD, and in the latter capacity it houses itself and
three of those schools, including the School of Journalism.
The Union proposes some 14 comparator positions; the University agrees with
five of those as being appropriate. For obvious reasons, I have focussed on the five agreed
comparators as representing the shared view of the parties as to what positions should be
considered. Many of the other Union proposed comparators are at a lower level, to illustrate the
-3 -
enhanced requirements of the position in dispute, and so are less helpful in evaluating the
position itself. One of the University's comparators, the one that does not appear on the Union's
list, is of a similar nature.
On that basis, I turn to the sub -factors in dispute. The sub -factor definitions for
the disputed sub -factors are attached to this award for ease of reference. As a preliminary
observation, I note that the Education and Experience sub -factors are directly related, as they are
in many similar factor analysis job evaluation systems. They also have the highest weightings of
all of the sub -factors, more than three times the weighting of the other two sub -factors in dispute.
The first two sub -factors thus take on particular importance in this arbitration.
As will be seen from the Education sub -factor definition, what is measured is the
minimum level of formal education and specialized training normally required as a basis for
learning and performing the job. The actual educational attainments of the incumbent are not
relevant; it is what a successful applicant for the job must bring to the job in order to learn to
perform it successfully. On the other hand, the Experience sub -factor definition is compound in
nature; it measures both what practical experience must be brought to the job by a successful
applicant, and how much practical experience on the job is necessary to learn and become
proficient at performing its duties. There will likely be some counterbalancing of pre -hire and
post -hire experience; the more practical experience that is needed to begin the job, the less, at
least to some extent, might be needed to become proficient at doing it. The sub -factor includes
"on-the-job training and orientation", thus contemplating that, particularly for more technical
positions, some of that training might be delivered in ways which are difficult to distinguish from
the "specialized training" contemplated under the Education sub -factor.
Beginning with the Education sub -factor, the Union claims level 7, or completion
of a post -secondary degree program plus at least 1 year of specialized training; the University
seeks to maintain level 6, completion of a post -secondary degree program or 4 years of
specialized training.
Both parties accept that a post -secondary degree program or the equivalent is
required; the dispute is about what else is necessary. The grievor's position is that she has had
to become familiar with a growing number of new technologies in the course of her work, and
that any new hire would have to attain this knowledge before being able to take over her duties.
While there is not, apparently, any one-year program of specialized training that would provide
education in relation to all these technologies, the grievor asserts that there are a number of short
training programs and on-the-job training strategies that would provide the equivalent of such a
one-year program of specialized training.
As I read the sub -factor definitions for the Education and Experience sub -factors,
the claim the grievor makes is one which fits more readily into the latter sub -factor than into the
former. Just as jobs and technologies evolve, so does technological education. While the grievor
has been learning new technologies while at work, students can be expected to learn them in
their courses as they become established. The case for an additional year of education simply
cannot be made out. I note that all of the five agreed comparator positions, including
technologist positions, have a level 6 rating for Education; none is at the level 7 claimed for this
position.
The more obvious fit for the additional expertise acquired by the grievor is, if
anywhere, under the Experience sub -factor. Here again, however, it is important to follow
closely the sub -factor definition in applying it to the present case.
-5 -
The sub -factor does not address career experience, but assesses the amount of
experience needed, both before and after assuming the duties of the position, to translate formal
educational requirements into practical expertise until the new incumbent is able to perform the
job adequately. There is no doubt that the grievor would have become more and more capable in
her work as her experience increased, and as she absorbed more practical knowledge through on-
the-job exposure and training, but it is not her experience that is measured here, but that required
by a theoretical new appointee to reach not the grievor's stage of expertise but that sufficient to
perform the job. The rules of application make this clear.
In the 2010 job evaluation, the University accepted that the previous rating for the
Experience sub -factor was too low at the previous level 5, and agreed to increase the rating to
level 6. The Union argued that even that increase was insufficient, and that the appropriate
rating was at level 7.
Four of the agreed comparators are at level 7, and it is instructive to compare the
job summaries of those positions with that of the job at issue. Three of those positions are Lead
positions in technological specialties in the RCC; one is a similar specialty in the University
Computing and Communications Services (CCS). There is no doubt that there is a considerable
overlap in duties between these four comparators and the job under review. However, the
University argues that the significant feature of those jobs is that they involve both the
application of actual technological analysis and solutions, as opposed to coordination of
solutions to user problems and identification and referral of technology issues for resolution, and
that they involve providing such services across all of the FCAD, in the case of the RCC
positions, and across the university in the CCS position. This broader scope of service, coupled
with the more technological involvement of the service provided, is sufficient in the University's
submission to justify an additional required year of experience.
Determining the appropriate level rating for a disputed sub -factor is a blended
exercise of assessing the words of the sub -factor definition and considering the way those words
have been applied in the rating of similar or related job evaluations which are not in dispute
between the parties. In my view, although the onus is on the Union, the University has
successfully demonstrated that the difference in scope of positions that provide technological
services across the RCC or the university, as compared to a position that serves only the School
of Journalism, is a relevant consideration. It is also relevant that problems arising in the School
that are "more complex technical problems", to use the words of the job description, as opposed
to user issues and "immediate and common repairs", are escalated to the RCC positions for
resolution. There is a sufficient difference in complexity to justify the rating of those four
positions at level 7 while holding the rating for the present job at level 6 for the Experience sub-
factor.
The other two sub -factors, Effort -Mental and Working Conditions -Time
Demands, clearly have a direct relationship. The University argues that these two sub -factors
require careful consideration to ensure consistency and to avoid double counting, and thus ought
to be considered "in tandem" with a view to determining how each sub -factor impacts on the
other. I note that this linkage is not expressly included in the job evaluation plan, as is the
linkage between Education and Experience. Nevertheless, there is some logic to the University
position, since the two sub -factors may be seen as the inverse of each other.
The former sub -factor involves fixed or focussed attention, and is assessed on the
basis of the length of such attention on most days. The latter involves the frequency of dealing
-7 -
with time demands, defined as working subject to a combination of frequent interruptions and
distractions, changing or conflicting deadlines, assignments from more than one person, and
urgent or emergent situations, insofar as applicable here. There is thus a tendency for a high
score in one sub -factor to be offset by a low score in the other, since it is unlikely that a job will
involve both long periods of fixed or focussed attention, and constant interruptions and
competing claims on one's time.
The Union argues that both sub -factors should be rated at level 4, while the
University maintains that its rating of level 3 for both is correct. Only a few jobs in the
bargaining unit are rated at level 4 for both sub -factors, and they are among the very highest
scoring jobs, mostly at grade 16 and 15. None of the agreed comparators is rated at that level for
both sub -factors; four of them are at level 4 for Effort -Mental and at level 3 for Time Demands;
the other is at level 3 for both.
Looking first strictly at the wording of the sub -factor definitions, I am unable to
identify anything in the job description or the other documentation related to the evaluation to
justify a rating above level 3 for either sub -factor. Level 3 is the second highest level, and it is
clearly justified for Effort -Mental, but I am not convinced that there is evidence to support
continuous fixed or focussed attention, defined as lasting for periods of three hours or more,
most days.
Similarly, level 3 is clearly justified for Time Demands. Indeed, the multiple
claims on the incumbent's attention are very significant, although she is somewhat insulated
from such interruption by the four Production Specialists for whom she is the Lead, who respond
to emerging issues in the first instance, and by her ability to work with some protection from
distraction in her office. Because of those considerations, it is difficult to apply the test for level
4, that there is a continuous requirement to deal with time demands, that is, occurring very often
or most of the time. While I am more persuaded by the argument for level 4 for this sub -factor
than for the other, I must still conclude that the Union has failed to make out the case for a higher
level.
Turning to the agreed comparators, the four of them with level 4 for Effort —
Mental are all sufficiently different in job duties from the job under review to justify placement
at the higher level. The comparator rated at level 3 for this sub -factor appears to present about
the same degree of intensity as does the job under review. Similarly, the rating of these jobs at
level 3 for Time Demands is consistent with a finding that level 3 is the correct rating for this job
as well.
Therefore, both on the basis of the application of the sub -factor definitions, and
on the basis of a comparison of the agreed comparators and, to a lesser extent, the comparators
advanced by only one party, I have come to the conclusion that the Union has not shown that the
University evaluation of the grievor's job is incorrect in respect of any of the disputed sub -
factors.
The evaluation is thus confirmed, and the grievance is denied.
DATED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO this 27th day of February, 2014.
P. bitrator
6PSVUJOB DESCRIPTION
JOB SUMMARY
Coordinates, administers and oversees the day -to -day -technical operations in. the, .$chool of
Journalism under the guidance of theChair; assigns and coordinates the workofthe News Media
with .. I I I a'. Program -1 D.
. " �, ensure'
, . . , ".. .
— . 0 .
Production Specialists: 'woris faculty an r9gram irectors' to ensure ., itai,;,,Curri6ulum.
objectives are met; advises on; technical needs and the and ,presentation ',6f,technical
course materials to students; ensures efficient operation and maintenance of news media production
equi.p.ment,land,facilities; 'researches new equipment, systems and industry standards to keep the
School's -news media technology'current.
MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES
- Assigns and coordinates the work of the News Media Production Specialists, work study
students a d"other tei "16" l' siaff, as required; ensures that appropriate actions are taken to
deliver quality technical services, maximize use of available resources and facilities and
meet curricular needs. Organizes work schedules, provides day-to-day work dsre'ctton
assigns and monitors tasks, and ensures that deadlines are met. Supports the Chair in the
recruitment of new technical staff, and handles the recruitment process for workstudy
students; provides for the training of staff. -
- Plans and liaises with the graduate and undergraduate Program Directors and faculty ta.; ,
ensure that the facilities, equipment and technical needs of both programs are supported.,
Reviews course outlines for technical requirements and ensures that support and equipment
needs are met. Oversees the planning and conducting of technical„workshops by„the News
Media Production Specialists to ensure alignment with the curricular objectives.
Oversees training of technical staff and faculty on the correct operation anduse of compute .
- news r
systems and media recording, editing and broadcast equipment. Provides advanced
technical support to staff and faculty. Reviews user manuals created by teehmcal; staff for r
correct procedures and guidelines for all facilities and equipment and ensures necessary
updates are made.
-. Coordinates the distribution of portable equipment by overseeing the "equipment booking'
software Monitors student flow and use of equipment, and troubleshoots v facility
booking concerns.'
- Liaises with Faculty of Communication.and.Design (FCAD), and Rogers Comxnun cat2ons. w
Centre (RCC) personnel to maintain equipment compatibility in, shared facilities .and
coordinate regarding any building renovations that may affect the operation of the
Journalism news media production facilities. Represents the School of Journalism in the
RCC Operations Committee and the RCC Technical Services Committee meetings; advises
and provides technical advice to the Chair on any news media production changes and
capabilities within the RCC. Keeps current on latest technology and system developments.
for potential design upgrades to existing facilities based on academic needs.
Job Title: News Media Technical Coordinator
- Works with.the Chair in the annual planning of facility and/or equpment:upgradesand
repairs needed :by:the School of Journalism:. Researches=:and-;makes reeoiu, nendations
regarding,equipment repairs, upgrades or replacement/new, purchases based on an
assessment, of equipment replacement options, technological changes and opportunities to
improve services. Investigates workable solutions for equipment and software used by
students with disabilities. Estimates expenditures necessary to ensure the maintenance of all,
technical areas:
Prepares purchase requisitions for technical supplies and equipment through Oracle
Financials: Monitors -and reconciles month-end purch-a§el=;d statements and provides
details to Program Manager. Coordinates the removal and/or sale' sl,ofobsolew,equipment.
-' Coordinates and°oversees completion- of major system and facility" upgrades, and conducts
testing of new equipment and software. Develops,,coordinates and provides technical
training for all technical;,staff,and faculty on the, use of new .and updated equipment,
facilities and processes involved in news media productions.
Oversees the day-to-day, safekeeping, maintenance and,,repair;of all,technical equipment and
facilities under the School of Journalism, including set-up and coordination of repairs as
required. Performs any immediate and common repairs of damaged equipment or
replacements of missing parts; refers more complex technical problems as appropriate.
Works with RCC technologists and IT personnel to ensure a sound maintenance program for
equipment and facilities. Schedules the annual maintenance plan for all equipment and
facilities, and any emergency repairs needed. Oversees key control of the equipment
n room.
Monitors adherence to health and safety standards within production facilities. Ensures that
all production areas are safe, and that students, staff and other users have adequate training.
Performs regular safety inspections of equipment and facilities and ensures that repairs have
been completed.
Works with the Chair and the technical team in developing and enforcing policies to control
the security of the equipment, including the application of penalties for students with
outstanding fines for late equipment, edit suite infractions, as well as missing or damaged
equipment. Coordinates with the Student Affairs Coordinator for all approvals for the after -
hour access of students, faculty and staff to production facilities.
Oversees and ensures proper operation of computer systems and presentation technology
within production facilities and labs. Schedules IT maintenance and support, including
computer and software updates, system backup and user support, and set-up and
maintenance of database accounts. Coordinates and conducts demonstrations and
workshops for users; troubleshoots hardware, software and system problems; liaises with IT
personnel, suppliers and system users on system developments, upgrades, needs and
improvements; upgrades software on computer systems and ensures that maintenance,
service and license agreements are kept current. Conducts file management and archival
procedures to maintain backup systems and shared servers.
Maintains current knowledge necessary in online, television, web development and audio
technology and news media production software to provide support to the News Media
n Production Specialists. This includes, but is not limited to, assisting with preparation for
show production; preparing, calibrating and arranging professional audio and television
equipment; training students how to work professional studio equipment and perform
Job Title: News Media Technical Coordinator
r'1
I
EDUCATION
This subfactor. measures the minimum level of. formal education and specialized training/skill normally required as
a basis for teaming and pertorming the, job. These requisites may be `met by formal education or Independent
studies.
Decree Levels
1. less than secondary school graduation diploma
2. completion of secondary schooi,,graduation diploma
3. completion of a 1 -year post, secondary program or 1 year of specialized training.
4. completion of a post -secondary certificate program, or 2 years of specialized training.
5. completion of a post -secondary diploma program or 3 years of specialized training.
S. completion of a -post-secondary degree program or4 years of specialized training.
4.
7. completion of a post -secondary degree program plus at least 1 year of specialized, training.
Rules of Application
1. The factor measures the level of formai education and specialized training required to perform the
job duties and is not, a reflection of the incumE'ant's quarfications
Z Secondary school graduation diploma is grade 42.
3. Post -secondary education refers to community college, technical institute and university.
4. Although the necessary speck and general knowledge or education maybe acquired. by casual
or informal study (such as Correspondence Courses, Night School) the most common or logical
source is through formai education or schooling (such as Secondary School, Business School,
Trade School, Vocational Centre, College of Applied Arts and Technology, Institute of Technology,
University, etc)
Specialized.araining. refers to. a concentrated course of study in a specific field applicable to the
work.
4).. Use of specialized,tenninoiogy is considered under this factor.
b) Where second language is required, -the rating shall be no less than'ft%level at which
the required expertise in the second language can normallybe-obtainedin' an Ontario
curriculum.
2
EXPERIENCE
This subfactor measures the 'amount of practical expenence required to perform theJob dunes alter having
considered the appropriate formal education and specializedgaining. This inciudes.
a) experience in any related work or work>in a lesser position which is necessary for performance of
the job,
and
b) the period of training and adjustment on the job itself.
Degree Levels
I. less than 6 months.
2. minimum of 6 months but less than 1 year.
3. minimum of 1 year but less than 2 years.
4. minimum of 2 years but less than 3 years.'
S. minimum of 3 years but.less than 4 years.
6. minimum of 4 years but less than 5 years.
7. minimum of 5,, years but less ;than 6"years..
a. over 6.. years.
1. This factor deals with practical training and job knowledge. It should hot be' dealt with until an
appropriate degree of education has been established.
Z This factor covers the time required to learn the practical application of"theoretical knowledge to
work problems, and.to learn the, necessary. techniques, methods, practices, procedures, use of
forms,, routine, etc.
3. Under this factor, no consideration is given to the maturing of the individual.`
4. This factor measures the experience required to perform the job and is not a reflection of the
incumbent's experience.
S. When considering the period of training and adjustment, do not take into. account the cyclical
nature of the job, e.g. the academic year.
9
'7FORT - Mental .
This subfactor measuies the extent to which the_job requirements contribute to mental fatigue:in"terms of the length of .
:<
mental, auditory or visual attention to detail requiring feed or focused attention.
Dearee Levels,:
1.. The job duties require fixed or focused attention for short periods, of time.
2 The ;job .duties .require face>d or focused atterrtion for moderate periods of time.
3. The job duties require foxed or focused attention for sustained periods of time.
4. The job duties require fixed or focused attention for continuous pedods`oftime.
Rules of Aablication
1. To determine the level for this factor, analyze the job duties' to` determine the tasks'or phases of work which
contribute -to -mental fatigue. .Select a. job.task performed most days to determine the level..' A job task may be
a single task: or A sequence of related tasks.
2, Fixed or focused attention is measured in terms of ,the length of mental, auditory or visual attention to detail to
perform such duties as, word processing, data or spreadsheet manipulation; editing, budget preparation or
,. reconciling accounts.
3. When determining the: period,.of time do not include scheduled breaks, as outlined in the collective agreement.
4. Short: up to 1 hour at a time, most days
Moderate: 1 to.2 hours.at a time, most days.
Sustained: 2 to 3 hours at a time, most.,days
Continuous: more than 3 hours at a time, most days
5. Most days means, on average, more than two and one half days per Week
12
WORKING CONDITIONS - Time Demands
This subfactormeasurestheTextent of inherent, in, the -flow
of
Dearee.1evels....
1. The flow of work occasionally .involves,, dealing WMI time demands—,
2. The flow of work periodically., invokeq.dealing,.W#htim,
e. demands. m ds
3. The flow of work frequently-jrwply indearwith.tim-pe demands..
..,
k The flow of work, continuo4s-ly, involves dealing with time, demands.
Rules of Appllcaflon
1. Time demands is the requirement to meet work demands. when, subject to acomblnat199 of:
freqpent. interruptions. and, distractions.
constantly changing or multiple ''coni'lictin'g d eiadlinep,,
receiving work assignments from more than one person at a time
dealing with urgent situations/emergencies
successive short interactions- with public (queues)
0 ionally: occurring from time to time
Periodically: occurring from. time to time, with reasonable regularity.
Frequently: occurring often
Continuously: occurring very.., o4pri., or Mqptof ;he time