Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 11-11-11IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION OPSEU File No. 2010-15C BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION Loca 596 (hereinafter called the "Union") - and - RYERSON UNIVERSITY (hereinafter called "Ryerson") - and - CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES (hereinafter the "Grievor(s)") ARBITRATOR: REPRESENTING RYERSON: REPRESENTING THE UNION: Richard H. McLaren, CArb. Melissa Rotundo, Human Resources Management Consultant Monica Dacosta, Manager Total Compensation Louise .ichacz - Local 596, President Kella Loschiavo, Chief Steward A HEARING in RELATION to this MATTER WAS HELD at TORONTO, ONTARIO on 13 OCTOBER 2011. A CONTINUATION OF THE HEARING WAS HELD BY CONFERENCE CALL ON 27 OCTOBER 2011. `4 i IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION OPSEU File No. 2010-15C BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION Loca 596 (hereinafter called the "Union") - and - RYERSON UNIVERSITY (hereinafter called "Ryerson") - and - CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES (hereinafter the "Grievor(s)") ARBITRATOR: REPRESENTING RYERSON: REPRESENTING THE UNION: Richard H. McLaren, CArb. Melissa Rotundo, Human Resources Management Consultant Monica Dacosta, Manager Total Compensation Louise .ichacz - Local 596, President Kella Loschiavo, Chief Steward A HEARING in RELATION to this MATTER WAS HELD at TORONTO, ONTARIO on 13 OCTOBER 2011. A CONTINUATION OF THE HEARING WAS HELD BY CONFERENCE CALL ON 27 OCTOBER 2011. `4 AWARD The University evaluated and graded the position of "Customer Service Representative — Enrollment Services and Student Fees" (hereafter the "CSR-ESSF" or "CSR") and rated the position at 329 points, resulting in Grade 10 Level placement. The CSR-ESSF individuals who grieved were: Brenda Gumiran, Selena Willis, Carol Sutherland, Mira Mansour, Sharda Luckhee, Kella Loschiavo, Octavia Muller, Katayoun Ramezanpour, Daniel Anderchek and Kamaria Paisley, collectively the "Grievors". They grieve the University determination by job evaluation that the position is at the Grade 10 Level The Grievors and their Union dispute eight (8)factors, claiming the position ought to be rated at 390 points, making the position properly at the Grade 12 Level. The parties have also been unable to reach an agreement regarding the Position Description Questionnaire ("PDQ"). The Grievors consider that the PDQ currently used by the University does not adequately reflect their Job Description and take exception to the Rating Sheet and Job Title. The Grievors seek to receive retroactive pay and benefits back to July 1, 2007. Background Effective July 1, 2007, the work and services of the CSR-ESSF was performed by two different positions in separate physical locations. Effective July 1, 2007, the CSR — Enrollment Services, Registrariat (Grade 10) and the CSR — Student Fees, Financial Services (Grade 9) were amalgamated into one position within the Registrariat. There was no change to the work stations; however, onecounter for service was eliminated. The -elimination resulted. in all users attending at the same counter for service. As a result ofi the amalgamation, all work of the previous two positions was pooled, allowing all ,incumbents to perform the work of both prior positions. The University was therefore able ,to schedule all employees across the full range of tasks for the position. 0J An evaluation of the amalgamated position was completed by the University and communicated to the Gdevors on March 29, 2010. The evaluation resulted in a determination that the CSR-ESSF position was evaluated at Grade 10 and adjustments in pay would be retroactive to July 1, 2007. This adjustment affected only those individuals who were in the Student Fees CSR position. This position was previously rated at Grade 9. It is the Union's position that the Grievors' duties and responsibilities have increased. The University in contrast, has lowered 5 sub -factors. The Grievors filed a classification grievance claiming the position of CSR-ESSF was improperly evaluated and therefore inappropriately graded. Although the complaint stage process set out in the Collective Agreement was not followed, the Grievance was allowed to proceed. A grievance meeting was held on October 18, 2010. The University's position when presented with a classification grievance is that all sub -factors are reviewed and evaluated. Subsequent to the grievance meeting, the University provided the Union and the Grievors with a response that apart from the Experience sub -factor (to be discussed below), all other ratings were deemed appropriate and the position should remain at Grade 10 Level The University objected at the Hearing to the fact that the Union did not include the Experience sub -factor as being in dispute in its written submissions to the Arbitrator. The University asserted that the Union was precluded from raising that sub -factor at the Hearing. The Arbitrator mediated this problem at the Hearing. The result of the mediation was an agreement that the Hearing would not be concluded and closed until such time as the Experience sub -factor was dealt with by a written submission from both parties. The written submission was to be filed with the Arbitrator and provided to the opposing party by the close of business on October 21, 2011. A conference call was convened to continue the Hearing on October 27, 2011. Each party was given 30 minutes in which to submit their oral comments on the sub -factor and ask questions of the other side. After the conclusion of the conference call on October -27,201 1, theArbltrator declared the Hearings to be completed and osed the proceedings. Factors in Dispute Each of the factors in dispute is dealt with below under separate headings. Experience: Rating: Universit Level 4 / Union Level 5 This sub-factorwas dealt with byway of an extended hearing, as described above. The Experience sub factor "measures the amount of practical experience required to' perform the job -duties -after having considered the appropriate formal education and specialized training. , This includes experience in any related work or work in a lesser position which is necessary for performance of the job and the period of training and adjusted on the job itself': The initial review of the amalgamated position by the Total Compensation unit in September 2009 had resulted in an evaluation of the sub -factor at Level 5. As a result of the Grievance filed on July 15, 2010, the position was re-evaluated. This sub -factor was adjusted to Level 4. The principle reason for this readjustment was that an internal job posting for the CSR-ESSF on a term basis revealed in the University's view that the position should not require as many years of experience because an incumbent with a greater educational requirement should spend less time to gain experience. Furthermore, they had difficulty finding a person with the requisite experience. It was also claimed that the comparators supported the adjustment to Level 4. (i) Evidence An extraordinary conference telephone call continuation of the original hearing was held to discuss this sub -factor. During that call, the Grievors indicated that nothing had really changed in the job position or work activities to justify the downward revision. It also ecame ear over the course of the Hearing that the position had never been advertised externally and thus the Experience sub -factor requirement had only been assessed through a process of internal applicants for the posted position. (ii) Findings I do not accept the submissions on the barrier to hiring made by the University. The fact is that it has only hired once and only searched internally to do so. The broader employment market has not been tested to determine if people with the necessary experience at Level 5 are available for the position. I also do not find the hypothetical argument of the University that ifthe Education sub -factor is increased as it was here; then the new hire ought to require less experience, to be very compelling. That argument may , 1t have validity as a theoretical argument; howeverthe evidence of the Grievors indicates to ,V me that this position is likely an exception to any such theoretical point. Furthermore, the hiring of people for the position is not a matter to betaken account of in the rating of the position. (he evaluation unit had twice confirmed the Level at 5 and only lowered it in the course of responding to the Union. I find that the proper application of the Job Evaluation Plan ("JEP") ought to result in a Level 5 for the Experience sub -factor. Therefore, I accept that the Union has established that the sub -factor ought to be at the Level 5) 2. Communication: Ratings: University Level 3 / Union Level 4 The JEP describes this sub -factor as follows: ... measures the level of oral and written language skills required in the Job. Both comprehension and expression skills are included." The Grievors often provide students with comprehensive and complex explanations to guide the students through the academic process. The incumbents are regularly required to analyze, interpret, and convey detailed fee policies and calculations to students, and academic and administrative departments. The Grievors often act as the main 5 reference point for the academic calendar, interpreting dates and explaining the procedures and policies located within the calendar. The incumbents have created a manual for Sale Point (J Point and Global Payments) and a PowerPoint about these activities was provided. The University > response is that the information provided in response o an inquiry by a CSR-ESSF is fact -based and basic and is thus within L i, being the composition and presentation of basic information. There is an absence of counseling in what is being provided to the student as options. Therefore, the presentation of information to respond to an enquirer is not at a complex level. (i) Findings Level 3 involves "explaining in detail procedures or information which may involve multiple sources." The difference at Level 4 is that the procedures being explained are "complex procedures". The Grievors made the point frequently in evidence that the students do not bother to read the websites or to acquire knowledge of their own. They come and rely on the CSR. While very complex matters can be referred on to other employees of the University, the CSR is left to provide explanations of a very detailed set of information which can be complex when the enquirer is a part-time student, or in some other capacity other than the straightforward undergraduate member of the university. Thus, I am satisfied that from time to time, the explanation provided by a Grievor does involve complex procedures, particularly when the enquirer is anyone other than a typical undergraduate student. The issue then becomes, what is the degree of frequency that the CSR are engaged with these different types of enquiries. With the exception of the Grievors'submission that the University, and its programs are growing and expanding, thus resulting in an increased number of students who fall outside the "norm", there was little evidence of value on that point. I did however, receive evidence that when a CSR is required to provide an explanation regarding tuition and other tax deductions, the answers are not obvious and straightforward and depend on a given student's involvement in courses at the University and his or her status. In order to effectively respond to the 6 enquiry, the CSR is required to consult both internally and externally including verifying information located on govemmentwebsites. The enquirycan therefore become complex work. I do find that the procedures are complex enough to say that the work ought to be rated at Level 4. 3. Interpersonal/Human Relations: atin s: Universl Level 3 l 'on Level 4 The JEP describes this sub-faIterson ollows: "... measures the level o/persoskills necessary for the performance of the job, through contact with other employees of Ryerson, members of the general public or other organizations." The Grievors submit that they often counsel the students on course options and curriculum using tact and diplomacy. Incumbents are frequently called upon to provide assurances, motivation, and encouragement to students. The Grievors also state that they provide sound advice as to which path to follow for academic or nonacademic appeals. The University indicates that CSR-ESSF is to provide customer service support as it relates to enrollment and student fees activities only. To the extent the CSR is performing other activities, they ought not to be taken account of in the JEP because they are not part of the requirements of the position. (1) Findings The Position Description does not describe any negotiation, motivating, or counseling functions which are the requirement for a Level 4. To the extent that the Grievors are engaged in such activities, it is not within the job description and does not accordingly count as part of the JEP process. Therefore, the position has been correctly evaluated at Level 3 and the Union did not establish that it ought to be rated at the higher Level of 4. 1 find the appropriate rating to be as determined by the University at Level 3. The position of the Union is rejected. 4. D 'sion M king: Ratings: University Level 2 / Union Level 3 The JEP describes this sub -factor as follows: ... measures the increasing levels of independence in carrying out; b d fes and the scope of decision making required". nor to ama gamation, this sub -factor was at Level 3. This is one of the 5 sub - factors that were lowered in the JEP process from their Level in the pre -amalgamation positions. The JEP provides that Decisions at Level 2 are those that tend to be made in the course of carrying outjob duties covered byinstructions orestablished procedures". The difference at Level 3 is that the incumbent's duties are covered by general instruction or accepted practices" The University submitted that the difference is that Level 3 requires the incumbent to exercise considerable discretion. I note that discretion is not the distinguishing factor contained within the JEP. Indeed, the JEP contains a very subtle distinction in the levels, that being the distinction between "covered by instructions or procedures" and "general instructions or accepted practices". The variation between the two levels is not based upon the degree of discretion exercised in performing the job. There are no written rules for the reversal of late tuition fees. What is done in this regard, is an accepted practice and not an established procedure. Thus, there are aspects of the job which are within Level 3. The other way to examine the sub -factor is to examine the point at which the matter is referred to management. The evidence suggests that referrals to managers do not occur very frequently but that in part is likely to be the familiarity with the process. 91 The University is of the opinion that decisions made by the incumbents with respect to late fee reversals are relatively straightforward. The University maintains that decisions do not meet the criteria outlined in Level 3, such that the type and scope of decisions made are broader and more complex than those in Level 2 and require consideration of multiple options. Positions at Level 3 are required to make decisions that are in support of a function rather than made in the course of carrying out job duties. (i) Findings When there are only certain aspects of the decision making that involve accepted practices then the evaluation must be done on the basis of the best fit in respect of the core of the job. On that basis, the Union has not satisfied me that the decision-making ought to be at Level 3. Therefore, l find that the position has been properly evaluated on this sub -factor and I confirm the rating at Level 2. 5. Guidance Given: Ratings: Univers; M evel 1 / Union Level 3 The JEP describes this sub -factor as follows: "... measures the level of responsibilityfor the direction and guidance of the work of other employees. The JEP describes the Degree Levels as follows #1. May show other employees how to perform tasks. #2. Assigns work to other employees. #3. Assigns and co-ordinates the work of other employees from time to time and/or may assume the majority of the immediate supervisors responsibilities in that person's absence. #4. Assigns and co-ordinates the work of other employees on a regular basis. 91 The incumbents submit that they train and assign workloads for newly hired student staff, including assistance and work study students. The incumbents submit that they are also engaged in supervision of workload and mentoring and providing guidance to students and student queries. They also submit that there are periods of unsupervised time in the evenings for 1 to 2 hours. The University submits that line management assigns and co-ordinates the work of student employees and this is the responsibility of the Senior Customer Service Representatives ("Senior CSR"). Furthermore, the position is also not responsible for assuming the majority of the immediate supervisors responsibilities in that person's absence. The Senior Customer Service Rep has this responsibility. (i) Findin s At Level 1, the incumbent provides straightforward instructions to others on how to carry out specific tasks. At Level 3, the incumbent shows other employees how to perform tasks and also assigns and coordinates the work of other employees. The incumbent may also assume the majority of the immediate supervisors responsibilities in that person's absence. I find that the CSR does not perform on a regular basis work that involves showing other employees how to perform their work. Thus, the position cannot qualify as being rated at Level 3. The purpose of this sub -factor must be bome in mind. It is to measure the direction and guidance of others in the work force. This activity of supervision is not a part of the job function of the CSR-ESSF. Therefore, the position was correctly rated at Level 1. 6. Effort— Physical: Ratings: University Level 3 / Union Level 4 The JEP describes this sub -factor as follows: "... measures the level and duration of physical exertion, including fine motorskills, 10 required by the job." Prior to amalgamation of the CSR sub -factor, this was at Level 4. Therefore, this is one of the 5 sub -factors that were lowered in the JEP process from their Level in the pre - amalgamation positions. Level 4 job duties require light physics exertion for continuous periods of time or moderate physical exertion for sustained periods of time; or heavy physical exertion for moderate or sustained periods of time. The Union submits that the incumbents spend one hour per day at the desk; and one hour per day on the phone, both of which involve working while sifting. The balance of the day requires a combination of sitting and standing. The University's evaluation revealed that during the peak period, daily assignments showed incumbents waking at the counter for more than 3 hours at a time; however the peak period only represents 17 out of 50 work weeks. During non -peak periods, incumbents are rarely equired to work at the counter for more than 3 hours at a time. Itis the University's submssion that the position does not require light physical effort for continuous periods. (i) Findinos The tasks have not changed since the amalgamation. There is no evidence to show that the job was incorrectly rated for physical activity before amalgamation. I do not find any basis on which to alter the evaluation as it was before amalgamation. Therefore, I accept that the Union has established the correct evaluation is at Level 4. 1 accept the submissions of the Union that the evaluation ought to be at Level 4. 11 7. Environmental: Ratings: University Level 2 / Union Level 3 Prior to amalgamation the Environmental sub -factor was at Level 3. Therefore, this is one of the 5 sub -factors that were lowered in the JEP process from their Level in the pre - amalgamation positions. It is the Union's position that the noise factor is a sue. The Union states th t as the two positions me ged, so too did the number of employees placed into one office. Otherwise nothing he ; changed and the Level ought to remain the same. While the University in response to the Grievance advised that it is sympathetic to the fact that the incumbents wear gloves and coats during colder months and there is recurring issues with rodents in the office, these issues are not requirements inherent to the position but rather are the result of the location of the office. (i) Findings The working conditions have not changed from before the amalgamation. The noise level may well have increased, but it most certainly has not diminished. There is no evidenceto show that thejob was incorrectly rated for Working Conditions- Environmental before amalgamation. I do not find any basis on which to atter the evaluation as it was before amalgamation. Therefore, I accept that the Union has established the correct evaluation at Level 3. 1 accept the submissions of the Union that the evaluation ought to be at Level 3. ( 8. / Time Demands: Ratings: University Level 3 / Union Level 4 Prior to amalgamation the Time Demands sub -factor was at Level 4. This is one of the 5 sub -factors that were lowered in the JEP process from their Level in the pre - amalgamation positions. This sub -factor measures the extent of time demands inherent in the flow of work. The incumbents feel they are continuously interrupted or distracted. 12 This position is subject to successive, short interactions with the public. Each interaction is separated as Counter, Phone, or Desk assignments, and therefore the incumbents are not required to continuously deal with time demands. (i) Findings The time demands have not changed from before the amalgamation. There is no evidence to show that thejob was incorrectly rated for time demands before amalgamation. I do not find any basis on which to alter the evaluation as it was before amalgamation. Therefore, I accept that the Union has established the correct evaluation at Level 4. 1 accept the submissions of the Union that the evaluation ought to be at Level 4. CONCLUSION Five sub -factors, Experience (8); Communication Skills (8); Effort: - Physical (4); Working Conditions—Environmental (4) and Time Demands (5)were established as being rated differently than that by the Maximum Compensation unit of the University. The incremental adjustments in points are in brackets. With the adjustments implemented by this Award, the initial point total of 329 established by the Maximum Compensation unit, ought to have 29 points added to the total, making a score of 358 points. The points range for Grade 11 is between 350-374 on the "Points Band" chart in the JEP. Therefore, there is an adjustment required in the Level for the CSR-ESSF position and established by this Award. The Grievance is successful. The University is ordered to change its weightings in accordance with this Award. The foregoing order requires the parties to agree on the amount of retroactive pay to which the Grievors are entitled. The Arbitrator retains jurisdiction to determine the remedy in this matter in the event the parties are unable to agree on what the Grievors are entitled to receive in the form of retroactive pay. The University is ordered to pay the Grievors their 13 retroactive pay within 30 days of the date of this Award. Either party may on written request to the Arbitrator within the 30 day time frame, request that I reconvene the Hearing for the purpose of determining the retroactive pay in the event the parties are unable to agree on what is owed. If no written request is made within the deadline, the Arbitratorw'II no longer have jurisdiction to determine the remedy in this matter. DATED at LONDON, ONTARIO this 11' day of November, 2011. Richard H. MCLaren, C.Ar . Arbitrator 14