HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrishna 16-11-10
IN THE MATTER OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT
-and-
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
– The Union
-and-
RYERSON UNIVERSITY
- The Employer
In the Matter of the Classification
of
the position of
IT Systems Administrator, FCAD
BEFORE : Kathleen G. O’Neil, Single Arbitrator
APPEARANCES: For the Union
Kella Loschiavo, Vice-President, OPSEU Local 596
Bill Brishna, Grievor
Megan Harrington, Steward
For the Employer
Christine Danielewski, Senior Human Resources Consultant
Dan Greenwood, Director of FCAD Operations
Yvette Benavidez, Total Compensation Specialist
A hearing was held in Toronto on October 21, 2016
1
A W A R D
This decision deals with the grievance of Bill Brishna concerning the classification of his position, which
was reduced from Grade 15 to 14. This was the result of a reorganization which affected several
Information Technology jobs in Ryerson University’s Faculty of Communication and Design, known as
FCAD. The employer is of the view that the classification is correct for the job duties assigned to the
newly titled position of IT Systems Administrator, notably because it no longer includes lead hand duties.
The union maintains that Grade 15 is still appropriate despite the removal of the lead hand duties, as the
scope of the job has expanded from the former position of Lead Windows NT (New Technology) Server
Specialist.
Context of the dispute
The dispute is to be resolved by application of the parties’ agreed Job Evaluation Plan (referred to below
simply as “the Plan”) to the job duties set out in the Job Description (referred to below as “the JD”). The
Plan details a system aimed at providing an objective basis for the placement of a large variety of jobs
across the bargaining unit for the purposes of pay according to the terms of the collective agreement. The
system uses a method of point-rating job duties, based on the factors of Skill, Responsibility, Effort and
Working Conditions, broken down into 15 subfactors, to ensure compliance with the Pay Equity Act.
It is important to underline that it is the basic requirements of the job that are evaluated in such a system,
and not the performance, qualifications or worth of incumbents, even if they perform at a level or possess
skills that surpass the requirements of the job. This is because the classification of the job is meant to be
valid no matter who happens to be in it at any given time. As was acknowledged at the hearing, the grievor
brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to his position, and the findings below are in no way a
comment on his performance or level of contribution to the University.
The parties have also agreed on a document known as the “Rules of Application”. These rules expand on
the Plan’s fifteen subfactors, and their relationship to each other. Manage ment also uses a Position
Description Questionnaire (PDQ) as an information collecting device. Although the incumbent had input to
this, management representatives finalized its content, with changes reflecting their evaluation of the
position within the reorganized job hierarchy and university-wide comparator positions.
This dispute represents a difference of interpretation of the Plan in relation to five subfactors as applied to
the duties of the incumbent’s job after the IT services for FCAD were re-organized in 2013. In the union’s
2
view, Mr. Brishna’s level of responsibility has remained the same as before the re -organization, in that the
removal of the lead hand duties has been counterbalanced by the fact that his duties now extend to all of
FCAD, whereas before they were limited to the Rogers Communication Centre. By contrast, the employer
sees the situation after the reorganization as a fresh start, with a new model, and puts much less emphasis
on a comparison with Mr. Brishna’s former position.
The parties prepared detailed briefs and made helpful presentations at the hearing, all of which I have
carefully considered in the process of coming to this decision, even though only the portions most relevant
to the choices necessary to resolve this dis pute are referenced below, in the spirit of the collective
agreement’s provision that the arbitrator give a brief written notice of the decision.
A brief overview of the position
The title of the position in dispute is IT Systems Administrator, which reports to the Manager, FCAD
Operations Technology Services. According to the JD, the job is responsible for system administration by
“deploying software systems and applications, updating and maintaining IT system and network
infrastructure, maintaining computer system configuration, and providing technical support to FCAD
clients”. Because of the subject matter of the programs delivered within FCAD, including journalism,
performance arts, and fashion, there are very specialized technology needs, including the requirements of
a media production environment. The incumbent works closely with two other positions, the Lead Systems
Designer, classified at Grade 15, and the Media Systems Administrator, at Grade 14 , as part of the
Information and Technology Infrastructure (ITI) Group.
With that background in mind, I turn to the subfactor issues.
The Subfactors in dispute
The five subfactors in dispute are: Experience, Interpersonal/Human Relations, Accountability- Safety,
Accountability – Image and Physical Effort, which will be dealt with in turn below.
1. Experience
The Plan provides that this subfactor measures the amount of practical experience required to perform
the job duties after having considered the appropriate formal education and specialized training. This
includes:
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.
3
The employer rated the grievor’s position at Level 6, representing a requirement of a minimum of 4 years,
but less than 5 years, while the union argues for Level 7, a minimum of 5 years, but less than 6 years.
The Rules of Application make clear that the appropriate level includes the sum of pre-hire and post-hire
experience, apart from the educational requirements, necessary to be fully competent in “all aspects of
the job”. it is intended to cover the time required to learn the practical application of theoretical knowledge
to work problems, and to learn the necessary techniques, methods, practices, and routine. It is not a
reflection of the incumbent’s experience.
The JD provides for at least 4 years of relevant work experience before starting the job, and the QSD
relied on by the employer details a variety of kinds and lengths of experience. The 4 years’ relevant work
experience is to include at least 3 years of demonstrated experience in the administration of at least two
operating systems. Separately detailed experience includes advanced expertise in systems audit,
analyzing systems logs, performing forensics, troubleshooting servers, PC’s, networking routers/switches,
software, mobile devices, and vendor relationships for escalation of issues.
As for experience after hiring, the QSD provides “more than 6 months up to and including 1 year.”
On the basis of the employer’s documents, if one takes the upper end of the post -hire experience
required, one reaches 5 years, by adding the 4 years ’ pre-hire experience to the 1 year of post-hire
experience. However, the employer’s raters took the lowest point in the range, the 6 months’ figure,
which would place it at level 6.
The incumbent, by contrast, maintains that at least 5 years’ experience is requ ired prior to starting the job,
and with the additional time required to adjust to the new environment, one is easily at more than five years,
which would attract a Level 7 rating. Mr. Brishna broke the experience needed down as follows: a year in
server hardware, 2 years in operating systems, 2 years in networking protocol, design building and
troubleshooting and 6 months in virtual servers, a growing area at FCAD. In addition, Mr. Brishna
emphasizes that he is required to fill in for the Lead Systems Designer in his absence, for which he submits
that he needs an equivalent level of experience, i.e. Level 7, representing more than 5 years . He was firmly
of the view that, with less than 5 years experience, a new hire would lack the skill necessary to make the
optimal decisions required in the job.
The fact of the matter is that precision about this subfactor is not available, as what is a normal level of
experience is open to debate, as different individuals take different periods of time to integrate theory and
practice, and may come from very diverse educational and working backgrounds. Further, there is
imprecision in the Plan’s description of this subfactor in that it suggests a range of values is not intended to
be the focus, but all the levels, as well as the post-hire experience requirement, include ranges.
4
Nonetheless, and although the line between the two levels is very fine, I am persuaded that level 7 is a
better fit. Considering the very specialized needs of FCAD, and the need to fill in for the Lead Systems
Designer, it is my finding that it is more likely than not that the normal period of time to accumulate pre-hire
experience of the kind required, and up to a year of post -hire experience, would exceed 5 years. I have
carefully considered the employer’s submission to the effect that many of the things for which experience
is needed will be learned while obtaining the degree required. However, the JD and PDQ detail a very long
list of things that are needed as experience beyond the educational requirement, and the evidence did not
establish that there was no need for this additional experience , or give any detail about what it is about
current degree programs which would warrant re-allocating these items to consideration under the
Education subfactor.
Internal consistency is not disturbed by a finding that the grievor’s position warrants a level 7 for
experience, as The Lead Systems Designer, for whom the incumbent must be able to fill in, received that
Level for this subfactor. The other closest comparator, the Media Systems Administrator, received a level
6, but the evidence did not establish the same level of responsibility to fulfill the duties of the Lead
Systems Designer in his absence. The grievor’s position has now been agreed to have such duties,
warranting an increase in the subfactor Guidance Given to Level 3. Moreover, the Media Systems
Administrator does not have as broad a range of network responsibilities as the incumbent, another
aspect of the situation which supports a finding of a higher level of experience for the incumbent’s
position.
In the result, I find that the subfactor Experience should be raised to Level 7.
D. Interpersonal/Human Relations
This subfactor measures the level of person-to-person skills necessary for the performance of the job,
through contact with other employees of Ryerson, members of the public or other organizations.
The employer argues for Level 3, while the union argues that Level 4 is a better fit. The Plan describes
these two levels as follows:
Level 3 Person-to-person contact involves influencing other people.
Level 4 Person-to-person contact is critical to the nature of the work and involves negotiating,
motivating, or counselling other people.
Crucial to the finding on this subfactor are the definitions found in the Rules of Application, as follows;
Definitions
Influencing: To persuade or recommend to follow a course of action. Influencing involves
persuading others or recommending a course of action where the recipient of the influence has
more than one option.
5
Counselling: The act or process of giving competent advice. Counselling involves recommending
options to other, either personal or academic, based on the incumbent’s professional knowledge,
expertise and reputation.
Negotiating: To confer or bargain, one with another, in order to reach agreement. Negot iating
involves a number of components:
a) It must be a legitimate responsibility of the position;
b) It must be performed on behalf of the University, not on behalf of the incumbent;
c) It is accompanied by the authority to commit and the obligation to comply with the agreement
reached between parties and to incur liability for any non-compliance;
d) It is critical to the nature of the work; i.e. it is considered to be a primary focus of the job.
Motivating: To stimulate and provide incentive. Motivating involves stimulating or providing an
incentive to others to excel in their work.
Other pertinent instruction from the Rules of Application includes:
Note that the four levels are cumulative. The appropriate level is determined on the basis of the
highest relevant level which is consistent with the functions of the position and is formally
documented in the job description.
This subfactor must be rated and supported on its own merit. There is no direct relationship
between it and the Guidance Given subfactor. A person with lead-hand responsibilities, for
example, would not necessarily receive credit for influencing, negotiating or motivating under this
subfactor if it occurs only in the context of motivating or influencing staff supervised. To avoi d
double counting, these elements are rated under the Guidance Given subfactor.
For the two levels in dispute, the rules elaborate further:
Level 3 - Interactions with other involve influencing or persuading other people on a course of
action by providing advice or recommendations based on the positions’ specialized knowledge of
a given area.
Interactions requiring influence may involve issues whose options or outcomes are narrow in
scope and limited by the nature of the job.
Interactions influencing the decision making of others may also involve issues which are complex
in nature and which have the potential to seriously impact individuals, the University and/or the
general public.
Level 4 - Interactions with others are critical to the nature of the work and involve negotiating with,
motivating or counselling other people as a legitimate part of the job.
The counselling/advice given to the individual seeking it may affect that person’s life, career,
personal well-being or academic direction. The individual, however, has the option of following or
disregarding any or all of the counsel, advice or recommendations received. Generally, academic
counselling (excluding curriculum counselling) is not performed by non-academic staff, although
exceptions may exist in specific, unique situations.
Starting from Level 3, I find that the wording corresponds well to the main functions of the incumbent's job.
By contrast, because of the very specific definitions above, I do not find Level 4 to be as good a fit, for the
reasons set out below.
6
The incumbent gave several examples of how his very skillful technical solutions enhanced the work life of
his colleagues. Although this evidence was not disputed, I do not find that it fits well with the definition of
level 4, which requires at least one of negotiating, motivating or the specifically defined type of counselling
as an assigned part of the job.
As to negotiating, although vendor relations and collecting information for possible purchases is part of the
incumbent’s job, it is equally clear that he does not have an assigned responsibility to negotiate or to
commit. In this regard, I accept the union’s submission that only Directors and Managers have the actual
authority to commit, and that members of the bargaining unit, including the Lead Systems Designer , do not.
However, within the bargaining unit, there are different levels of assigned responsibility. For example, the
JD for the Lead Systems Designer, who received a level 4 for this subfactor, includes a line which reads,
“Negotiates with external vendors on costs and service agreements, for management approval,” which is a
different level of responsibility than that found in the grievor’s JD, i.e. “Analyzes requirements for
consistency, technical feasibility and costs,” or the assigned requirement to publish reports concerning
designs and costs. Although it is true that the incumbent fills in for the Lead Systems Designer in his
absence, the evidence did not establish that the incumbent fulfills the higher level of negotiation to an extent
that warrants the two positions’ receiving the same level. Therefore, I am not persuaded that Level 4 is the
best fit based on negotiating.
As to motivating, it is very clearly not intended to apply to motivating done while exercising lead hand
functions, as they are recognized in the Guidance Given factor. As well, the expert, respectful and efficient
troubleshooting service that the incumbent details in his materials, fits well at level 3. As well, although I
accept without hesitation the incumbent’s description of consulting with his colleagues on difficult issues,
because, as he notes, “Two heads are better than one”, I am not persuaded that conferring with and seeking
counsel from his colleagues, wise though it is, falls into the definition above. The counselling described by
the Rules of Application is very specifically focused on life and academic counselling, neither of which are
assigned duties of the incumbent’s position. When end users seek counsel from the incumbent concerning
an example like the Word Press server crashing, this too fits well at level 3, and better than at Level 4.
As to motivating, although I have no difficulty accepting that the incumbent’s expertise may motivate people
to adopt and use the solutions he proposes, the evidence does not establish that it is part of his assigned
responsibilities to motivate people in the way a coach or preceptor would, which seems to be the sense of
the term as defined in the Rules of Application. Further, it is not an assigned duty of the job to counsel
students or faculty about their academic work, although the work done by the incumbent on keeping the
systems running clearly does make much of their academic work possible.
In the result, I do not find the employer’s rating of this subfactor to be incorrect.
7
3. Accountability - Image
This sub-factor measures the responsibility for actions, as they pertain to people, resources and the
University, in terms of impact on image. The union seeks a level 4, while the employer favours a level 2.
The Plan uses the following language to describe the range of levels here in issue:
Level 2
Consequence of action can cause an adverse effect on the image of other
work groups and/or the University’s public image.
Level 3
Consequence of actions can cause a significant adverse effect on the
image of other work groups and/or the University’s public image.
Level 4
Consequence of actions can cause a substantial adverse effect on the
University’s public image.
Further, the Rules of Application introduce another set of indicators as to the intended levels, related to how
active/proactive the position’s responsibilities are, how wide the audience is, and whether there is a direct
link between the audience and the position’s incumbent.
The union seeks a level 4 on the basis that the security of the information technology systems is central to
the image of the University. By preventing disruption to the system as a focus of the incumbent’s position,
the image of the University is promoted and maintained, in the union’s submission.
By contrast, the University justifies its choice of Level 2 on the basis that the position in dispute is more
internally focused, consistent with the Level 2 attributed to the Media Systems Administrator, and the
Systems Administrator, Academic Computing, a comparator from the Chang School. The Lead Systems
Designer was rated at level 3 on the basis of duties requiring that incumbent to give tours and relate to
external parties as an integral part of the job.
Further, the employer is of the view that the function of the IT Systems Administrator’s job in keeping the
servers safe and secure has been credited under the Decision Making subfactor, and should not be the
basis of the rating for the Accountability-Image subfactor. The grievor’s position was rated at Level 4 for
the subfactor Decision Making, the highest available level. The Decision Making subfactor measures the
scope of decision making, and in terms of indicators for that subfactor relevant to the breadth of impact on
8
image, the Rules of Application provide: ”Decisions tend to be substantive and have University-wide
implications.”
In assessing the strength of the positions of each party, I note that the union’s view, which links the strength
of the IT system to the image of the university, is very similar to the articulation of the employer’s vision in
its document “FCAD Strategic Technology Plan 2011-2015”, when it wrote in the introduction:
Technology is a strategic asset and a key driver of performance and reputation. This is particularly
true in academic institutions that need to adopt, teach or use the latest technologies to ensure that
researchers, faculty and students explore new opportunities, teach and le arn with relevant
technologies.
Further, one of the three goals of the strategic plan was to improve operating sustainability, a key focus of
the incumbent’s work as well. Certainly, in that light, the incumbent’s work is very important to the exter nal
reputation of FCAD and the University as well as those who work and study there.
However, the employer’s position, to the effect that the incumbent does not have assigned duties for the
active/proactive promotion of the University and its external reputation, as required by the Rules of
Application for Levels 3 and 4, is supported by the absence of such assigned duties in the JD and other
information about the incumbent’s assigned duties. The fact that the incumbent does promote Ryerson
and FCAD when he is at conferences and dealing with external parties is commendable, but I am not
persuaded that it is an assigned responsibility.
The Rules of Application for Level 2, the one assigned by the University, reads as follows:
Position responsibilities focus on the University’s internal reputation among other departments and
work groups and support the immediate department or project, but may also have a limited service
orientation towards the public (e.g. students, suppliers, etc.) There is a direct link between the
audience and the position incumbent.
Although this description tends to under-describe the service orientation of the incumbent’s position, central
as it is to FCAD’s essential technology resources, its description of the support of the immediate department
or project does correspond to the evidence of the direct support that the incumbent’s systems administration
provides to FCAD, its students, professors and staff.
In respect of internal consistency, the fact that the Media Systems Administrator also received a Level 2 for
this subfactor tends to support it as a best fit for the position in dispute. This is also consistent with the
fact that the Lead Systems Designer was rated at Level 3 because of that position’s assigned duties to
conduct tours for guests, potential students and other external parties, which are not assigned duties of
either the Systems Administrator or the Media Systems Administrator.
In the result, I do not find that the employer ’s rating for this subfactor is inconsistent with the Plan.
9
4. Accountability – Safety
The plan describes the levels here in dispute as follows:
Level 2 Moderate degree of care is required to prevent injury or harm to others.
Level 3 Significant degree of care is required to prevent injury or harm to others.
Level 4 Significant degree of care is required to prevent injury or harm to totally dependent
individuals.
As with the subfactor related to Image, the Rules of Application provide further guidance. Raters are guided
that Level 2 is intended for positions requiring direct care or action while performing activities such as, most
relevant to this dispute, “installing, repairing and maintaining equipment.” Level 3, awarded to the Media
Systems Administrator and the Lead Systems Designer, is aimed at positions requiring direct care or
actions while performing activities such as “installi ng, repairing and maintaining hazardous equipment,
demonstrating dangerous procedures or the usage of dangerous materials”. Level 3 can also apply to
activities such as “complying with required safety codes/regulations (e.g. technicians, technologists). Level
4 is said to only apply to direct care or action on behalf of totally dependent individuals, including labelling
and/or storing of toxic chemicals or caring for an infant or toddler.
To start with Level 4, the evidence did not establish that there are people totally dependent on the
incumbent’s actions for their safety. The Rules of Application indicate that, when assessing the impact of
actions on others, one is to assess the degree of dependency, based on others’ level of knowledge,
experience, maturity and common sense. As well, the nature and seriousness of potential hazards/dangers
and the probability of their occurrence should also be considered. In his submissions, Mr. Brishna said
that, in installing and relocating services, switches and storage devices, there is risk of physical injury to
multiple staff if not planned and implemented with precision. As well, his work involves high-current Power
Distribution Units, which he described as potentially lethal, and high voltage circuits. He argues that a
significant degree of precaution and care is required to avoid short circuits and to ensure circuits are safe
for server deployment to avoid the risk of fire and damage to expensive equipment. He mentions that he is
required to follow strict safety protocols when dealing with hardware and high voltage power sources. As
well, in the grievor’s view, the increase in the number of servers he is now dealing with brings with it more
potential safety issues.
By contrast, the University maintains that all the equipment for which the grievor is responsible is approved
by the Canadian Standards Association. The employer submits that it is not the grievor who would be
required to work directly with the power supply, but a licensed electrician or service technician. As well, the
grievor’s education and experience, the precautions taken and his knowledge of his limitations makes the
risk of harm minimal, in the employer’s view.
10
In terms of internal consistency, the Lead Systems Designer and the Media Systems Administrator were
both rated at Level 3. The rationale for this higher level for the Lead Systems Designer is that there are
unknown and unpredictable set-ups for research in ad hoc environments that may require a significant
degree of precaution, and the position is required to operate, install and maintain high current AC systems,
as well as that an improper design could impact others. As for the Media Systems Administrator, the
employer submits that he works in a production environment where he is responsible for hanging large and
potentially dangerous lights, which are not involved in the grievor’s work. As to positions that received a
level 3 rating for indirect care, in the employer’s view, they are responsible for safety codes as part of
designing and installing non-standard equipment. By contrast, the employer sees the grievor’s work as
more standard and less risky. As well, the issue of the grievor’s own safety is accounted for in the
Environmental working conditions subfactor, in the employer’s view. He was rated at a level 3 for that factor,
corresponding to a requirement for frequent exposure to undesirable and disagreeable conditions.
Other systems administrators, in the Chang School and Image Arts context, were also rated at Level 2
because they do not have the extra level of safety responsibility in the employer’s view.
Although the grievor’s evidence that he that he is required to follow strict safety protocols when dealing with
hardware and high voltage power sources was not specifically contradicted, the idea that the comparators
which received a higher rating had more exposure to danger and an elevated responsibility for safety was
not disputed either. In the end, although there is a viable argument that the grievor’s responsibilities qualify
for a level 3 based on the potential hazards of the equipment he works with, internal consistency supports
the level 2 which he has been attributed.
In the result, I do not find the Level 2 rating for this subfactor to be inconsistent with the Plan.
5. Physical Effort
This subfactor measures the level and duration of physical exertion, including fine motor skills, required
by the job. The issue here is between Levels 3 and 4, which are described as follows in the Plan:
Level 3
a) Job requires light physical exert ion for sustained periods of time.
or
Job requires moderate physical exertion for moderate periods of time.
or
Job requires heavy physical exertion for short periods of time.
or
b) Job requires use of fine motor skills for sustained periods of time.
11
Level 4
a) Job requires light physical exertion for continuous periods of time.
or
Job requires moderate physical exertion for moderate or sustained periods of time.
or
Job requires heavy physical exertion for moderate or sustained periods of time.
or
b) Job requires use of fine motor skills for continuous periods of time.
Portions of the Rules of Application particularly relevant to this dispute are the following:
1. When determining the period of time, do not include scheduled breaks, as outlined in the
collective agreement.
Definitions
Duration of Physical Exertion:
Short: Up to 1 hour at a time, most days; Sustained: 2 to 3 hours at a time, most days
Moderate: 1 to 2 hours at a time, most days
Continuous: More than 3 hours at a time, most days
Most Days: On average, more than two and one half days per week.
Fine motor skills: Refer to the action of co-ordinating small muscles and auditory and visual
senses rapidly and with precision…
Tasks involving the use of fine motor skills require the incumbent to perform them both rapidly
and with precision. This implies that there is little or no interruption in the activity while it is being
performed. For example, straight copy typing from already composed at the same item [sic]. This
would also apply to computer programming activities or to the retrieval of electronic da ta. All of
these activities assume that the incumbent has the need and opportunity to stop or interrupt the
physical activity of typing to do other related tasks, and that the speed with which the activity is
performed is less important. As a result, writing and programming activities are generally not
rated above a Level 3. …
The parties agree that the computer work done by the incumbent requires fine motor skills to manipulate
the keyboard and mouse. They disagree about whether it is required for sustained periods of time, which
is consistent with the level 3 given by the employer, or whether it is continuous, which would warrant the
level 4, sought by the union.
In support of the contention that his use of fine motor skills is continuous, the incumbent referred to the
process of generating scripts from scratch to produce an effective solution to automate a chain of events,
which typically takes over 3 hours. Further, the incumbent’s job involves complex troubleshooting which
normally takes more than three hours, and involves typing complex commands with complete accuracy.
12
The employer does not dispute what the incumbent says, but differs over the interpretation of the Rules of
Application. The employer sees the Rules of Application as intending that the term “continuous” when
applied to the use of fine motor skills would correspond to situations such as data entry, where the task is
not interrupted by other activities. The issue becomes whether the incumbent is required to type or use
the mouse without stopping for more than three hours a day, with the exception of contractual breaks, on
most days. The employer maintains that the incumbent is free to, and needs to, change focus to get up
or deal with other things, and does so, even when working on scripts or troubleshooting. In terms of
internal consistency, the two other positions with whom the incumbent works closely also were rated at
Level 3 for this subfactor.
It is my view that the clarification in the Rules of application to the effect that programming and writing a re
not generally rated above a Level 3 resolves this issue in favour of that level. Although the union argued
that the incumbent’s case was the exception that proved the rule, the evidence does not establish that the
incumbent’s position requires continuous typing or mouse work of the kind associated with data entry, or
at a higher level than his colleagues who do similar systems administration work.
In the result, Level 3 is confirmed for the subfactor Physical Effort.
***
In summary, and for all the above reasons, I find that the rating of the Experience subfactor should be
raised to level 7, but that otherwise the employer’s ratings are consistent with the Plan and the Rules of
Application. In the result, the point rating for the position should be 438 rather than 431. This rating still
falls within Grade14, so that the request to raise the classification to Level 15, which would require at
least 450 points, is hereby denied.
I remain seized to the extent necessary to correct any errors or to deal with any issues arising from the
above decision that the parties are unable to resolve themselves.
In the result, with the exception of the Experience subfactor rating, the grievance is denied.
Dated at Toronto this 10th day of November, 2016.
________________________________
Kathleen G. O’Neil
Single Arbitrator