Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCole-Abdul 16-03-09IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION brought pursuant to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995, as amended, and pursuant to section 34 of the collective agreement, BETWEEN: THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF RYERSON UNIVERSITY (the “employer”) - and - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION on behalf of its Local 596 (the “union”) DECISION Sole Arbitrator: Marilyn A. Nairn Hearing held: February 24, 2016 (Toronto, Ontario) APPEARANCES For the employer: Rhonda Kupfer Christine Danielwski Yvette Benevidez Marilou Cruz For the union: Kella Loschiavo Joaney Cole-Abdul 1 DECISION 1. This is a job evaluation grievance brought pursuant to Article 34 of the collective agreement. That provision contemplates an informal process to determine disputes regarding the application of the parties’ job evaluation plan. Extensive written briefs were provided by OPSEU (the “union”) and by Ryerson University (the “employer” or the “university”) in advance of the hearing. The union’s brief was largely prepared by the incumbent in the disputed position and all are to be commended for the quality of the submissions provided. The hearing was conducted in the more inquisitorial and informal manner contemplated by the collective agreement. Article 34.10(c) of the collective agreement also contemplates that a “brief written notice” of the decision issue. The reasons contained herein are therefore limited. 2. The position at issue is Marketing Coordinator-Publications (“MC-P”) at the G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education (the “Chang School”) at the university. The position has historically been assessed at a grade 13 under the job evaluation plan. The union asserts that the MC-P is properly at a grade 15, higher than all of the comparators. It is the employer’s assertion that the position properly remains at a grade 13. The job description and position title have been revised as a result of the review process leading to this grievance. 3. In very brief summary, the MC-P is responsible for the preparation and distribution of the Chang School calendar and its online updates as well as certain other publications, whether print or online. That role is, broadly speaking, focussed on editing, coordinating, and production functions rather than content creation. The MC-P is also part of the Chang School marketing team and is assigned as primary marketing and communications liaison for a particular program area within the Chang School. That assignment has been the Gateway for International Professionals program, which has an annual marketing budget not exceeding $5000. 4. There were outstanding issues with respect to the updated job description for the position. The parties agreed that, while it was the employer’s right to establish the duties required of the position, issues of accuracy in describing those duties could be raised and determined. That agreement appears to be consistent with Article 34.04 of the collective agreement. 5. The outstanding job description issues were reviewed with the parties at the hearing. All of those issues were able to be resolved between the parties. The employer is to prepare a revised job description for the union’s review based on that agreement. I remain seized should any issue arise with respect to finalizing this job description for the MC-P position. 6. The employer’s assessment of eight sub-factors in the job evaluation plan was at issue. Each of those sub-factors has been reviewed in the context of the requirements of the position, the criteria established by the job evaluation plan, and the asserted job comparators, while having regard to the parties’ written and oral submissions. 7. In terms of comparator positions, the union referred primarily to the Undergraduate Publications Editor (“UPE”) position, at grade 14. The employer referred primarily to the Digital Marketing Coordinator (“DMC”) position, at grade 13. However, the duties and responsibilities and the job evaluation ratings of the positions of Client Support Team Coordinator (grade 12), 2 Communications Officer (grade 13), and Marketing Officer (grade 13) were also referred to. It became apparent at the hearing that the union had not been provided with up-to-date Position Description Questionnaires (“PDQs”) for comparator purposes, as the employer had not revised and finalized those documents in circumstances where no change to a grade had been effected. This resulted in the union having incorrect or unclear information regarding certain particulars of the job requirements of various comparators and the associated ratings. 8. The following general comments are appropriate at this juncture. It is the position that is assessed for purposes of the job evaluation process, not the person performing that role at any given time. The incumbent has been in the MC-P position for some time. The employer made clear that the incumbent is a highly valued and experienced member of staff at the university. The fact that a sub-factor may previously have been assessed at a higher level is not persuasive that the higher level ought necessarily to continue. Such an approach would also then suggest that a rating ought never to be adjusted upwards. Each assessment is to be done in accordance with the terms of the plan in place at the time of the assessment having regard to the duties and responsibilities of the position and in comparison to appropriate comparator positions at that time. So, for example, should the complexity of all jobs increase, their relative comparison may remain the same. 9. I am persuaded that the UPE position is a more complex role than the MC-P position. While certain tasks are the same or similar to those required by the MC-P, the UPE is required to perform additional tasks and has additional responsibilities for the benefit of a larger, university- wide community. 10. Each of the disputed sub-factors is dealt with briefly below. Experience 11. As a result of this position review the employer increased the educational requirement for the MC-P position, correspondingly increasing the level assessed for the education sub-factor. The employer also then decreased the level of experience required by the position. The employer’s assessment of a level 5 requires a minimum of three years but less than four years of experience. The union seeks a level 6 rating, reflecting the requirement of a minimum of four years but less than five years of experience. 12. According to the job evaluation plan, this assessment of experience takes into account both prior related experience and on-the-job training and orientation. Although separately assessed in the PDQ, the job evaluation plan speaks to a combined assessment. There is no dispute that the MC-P position requires “more than 6 months up to and including 1 year” of on- the-job training. The dispute essentially rests on the level of prior experience required. 13. This is the most difficult sub-factor to apply in my view, as the job evaluation plan is arguably ambiguous. The plan notes that the experience sub-factor measures “the minimum level of practical experience required to perform the job duties”. However the plan also provides different definitions for the two types of experience recognized. Prior experience is defined as “the amount of time normally required, during or after formal education, to develop practical 3 skills and knowledge necessary to perform the job…”, a description consistent with the stated sub-factor measurement. On-the-job training is defined as “the amount of time required, once in the position, to become fully competent in all aspects of the job”, arguably a higher test. The plan provides some clarity by stating, “[t]he purpose of this sub-factor is to determine the normal amount of experience that is necessary for an incumbent to assume the position and perform the job duties”. 14. I also have some difficulty with the description of the levels as compared to the PDQ. The updated PDQ for the MC-P position indicates that a minimum of three years of relevant experience is required under the prior experience category. In addition, on-the-job training is required. However level 5 of the job evaluation plan sets a requirement of a minimum of three years, but less than 4 years of combined experience. A minimum three years of combined experience would necessarily represent less than three years of prior experience given the on-the- job training to be included. That inconsistency is only partially resolved by the included reference in level 5 to “but less than 4 years”. 15. All of the comparators now require completion of a post-secondary degree or four years of specialized training in terms of the educational requirement. (The educational requirement for the MC-P position is now a degree in Business with a major in Marketing, Communications or a related field or four years of related specialized training.) That is consistent with a general evolution from diploma to degree programs for many fields of study that were previously offered primarily in college settings. The CM-P position was accorded the higher education rating in circumstances where the job had not been evaluated since 2001. It is the employer’s position that some of what would have previously been gained through experience is now acquired through the educational component. It is the case that certain skills would be acquired by an additional year of formal education or specialized training. However, the example provided in the job evaluation plan indicates that the practical application of theoretical knowledge and the learning of necessary “techniques, methods, practices, procedures, use of forms, routine, etc.” is not to be limited to ‘hard’ skills but includes interpersonal and other skills that are typically measured on a spectrum and are developed over time. The definition also stipulates that no consideration is to be given to the maturing of the individual, such that required prior experience arguably reflects a kind of ‘day one’ assessment, notwithstanding that on-the-job experience is also required. 16. The salary rate and grade evaluation for the MC-P position both indicate that the MC-P (even assuming a grade 13 evaluation) is not an entry-level or junior bargaining unit position. The job evaluation assessments for communication skills, analytical reasoning, responsibility/accountability-finance, independent action, and decision making are all at the highest levels of the job evaluation plan, indicating that the position requires significant skills and knowledge in order to be able to perform the required job duties. However, with the exception of a lower rating for responsibility/accountability-finance for the DMC position, those ratings are the same as those for both the DMC and UPE positions, notwithstanding a higher assessment for experience for the UPE. 17. On balance, and notwithstanding my concerns about the job evaluation plan description of the experience sub-factor, I am not persuaded that the CM-P position warrants the same 4 experience rating as the UPE position. Therefore, I find that the experience sub-factor is appropriately rated at level 5. Interpersonal/Human Relations 18. The MC-P does not engage in counselling, negotiating, or motivating in accordance with the definition of those terms at level 4 in the job evaluation plan. Unlike the Communications Officer position, the MC-P does not counsel by recommending personal or academic options to a person that may affect that person’s life, career, personal well being or academic direction. Rather, the MC-P seeks to persuade or recommend a course of action (such as the use of a particular supplier) based on the position’s specialized knowledge. According to the plan definition, motivation provided as a lead hand is to be assigned credit under the sub-factor ‘Guidance Given’. There is recognition within level 3 that the position requires tact and diplomacy in interactions with others and that influence is required in persuading or recommending that others follow a particular course of action. The responsibilities of the MC-P position do not amount to motivating as defined in the plan. 19. Nor is the MC-P responsible for negotiating as defined, in that the position does not have the authority to commit the employer. While I accept that the MC-P engages with suppliers in order to obtain a better rate and/or service based on the Chang School’s requirements, the MC-P does not have the authority to commit the employer to that expenditure. Nor does the MC-P have the authority to negotiate with Program Directors regarding calendar and/or course requirements. By comparison, faculties are required to consult with the UPE with respect to potential course and calendar changes to determine who may be affected, whether the change can be accommodated, and whether there would be any legal obligations or implications arising from a proposed change (for example, whether a student would continue to be able to complete degree program requirements following a change to a program). While the MC-P is expected to identify such potential discrepancies and provide possible solutions with respect to Chang School programming, the MC-P’s role is advisory. The UPE has the authority to deny a proposed change and in that regard may negotiate with the faculty in order to settle an outcome. 20. It appears that the DMC position was assessed at a level 4 as it had significant involvement in the university’s one-time purchase of CRM software, amounting to an expenditure of approximately $250,000 and the university relied heavily on the position’s IT and analytics expertise in committing to the purchase. Whether or not a level 4 assessment is appropriate to the DMC, the MC-P position has not been engaged in a similarly large and expertise-driven exercise. I find therefore, that the interpersonal/human relations sub-factor is appropriately rated at level 3. Responsibility - Image 21. I find that this sub-factor is appropriately rated at level 3, consistent with the job evaluation plan definition that recognizes a limited audience and promotion of the university’s external reputation. The impact of the MC-P work is directed to the audience interested in the Chang School community and the promotion of the university’s external reputation in that regard. That is consistent with the rating accorded to the DMC position, which also focuses on 5 the Chang School community. That may be compared to the UPE and Communications Officer positions, which are responsible for a wider audience (the university in its entirety) and promotion of the university’s external reputation in that broader regard. Guidance Given 22. I find that this sub-factor is appropriately rated at level 3, consistent with all of the comparators except the Client Support Team Coordinator position. While the MC-P and UPE intermittently act as lead hands on a project basis, the Client Support Team Coordinator position is lead hand to a full-time team of Client Support Specialists. Effort-Mental 23. I find that this sub-factor is appropriately rated at level 3, requiring fixed or focussed attention for sustained periods of time, consistent with all of the comparators except the UPE. The disputed assessment of ‘sustained’ versus “continuous’ is a question of whether the uninterrupted duration of the fixed or focussed attention exceeds three hours at a time most days. The expectation of an ‘open door’ policy supports this rating. While the position may require that much of the work be performed on a computer, that fact is insufficient to draw a higher rating when that computer work involves various and different tasks requiring changing and different attention levels. The level 3 rating recognizes that a sustained level of mental effort is required by the position. Though calendar preparation work done by the UPE is similar to the focussed work required of the CM-P, it is reasonable to draw a distinction between the greater quantity of focussed work necessarily required to be completed by the UPE in the preparation of the university calendar as compared to the smaller Chang School calendar. Effort-Physical 24. The employer increased this sub-factor rating in its evaluation. I find that it is appropriately rated at level 2, consistent with the job evaluation plan and all of the comparators. Environmental 25. I find that this sub-factor is appropriately rated at level 1, indicating that the job occasionally requires exposure to undesirable and disagreeable conditions. This rating is consistent with the DMC position, which shares office space in the Chang School with the CM- P. It appears that the union understood that the position had previously been rated at a level 3. The employer confirmed that it was previously rated at level 1. The fact that work is routine and repetitive is not sufficient, according to the job evaluation plan, to warrant recognition of a higher level. It is routine and repetitive job duties that “create a monotonous work environment” that affect this environmental sub-factor. The union acknowledged in its submissions that the repetitive work requires focus. That focussed repetitive work is assessed under mental effort. The level 2 sub-factor rating for the UPE position historically recognized that the production of the university calendar was done manually and that the UPE was ‘periodically’ exposed to fumes and odours in the manual preparation of the manuscript. Whether that assessment continues to be 6 appropriate for the UPE position is not before me. However, it is not an assessment appropriate to the MC-P position. Time Demands 26. I find that this sub-factor is appropriately rated at level 3, consistent with all of the comparators except for the Communications Officer position. In order to assess a level 4 rating the job evaluation plan requires that the flow of work “continuously” (as opposed to “frequently”) involves dealing with time demands which are specifically defined as a combination of five factors involving changing and/or multiple deadlines, frequent interruptions and/or distractions, emergencies, and/or successive, short interactions with the public. The Communications Officer position is a front line position requiring continuous interaction with a variety of clients, including students, applicants, the public, and co-workers via various means including phone, in-person, and e-mail. It would be inconsistent to assign a level 4 rating to this sub-factor while assessing a level 3 for the mental effort sub-factor, which requires that fixed or focussed attention be applied without interruption for 2-3 hours at a time. The parties agreed that at least two of the six factors within the PDQ time demands assessment need to be at a particular level in order for the rating to be scored at that level. Summary 27. Having regard to all of the above, I find the employer’s assessment of each of the disputed sub-factors to be appropriate. Therefore there is no change to the appropriate grade. I find that the Marketing Coordinator-Publications position is properly evaluated at a grade 13. 28. Subject to remaining seized as noted at paragraph 5 herein to deal with any issue that may arise with respect to finalizing the revised job description for the MC-P position, this grievance is otherwise hereby dismissed. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 9th day of March, 2016. __________________________________________ Marilyn A. Nairn, Arbitrator