Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNg 06-04-04 . IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE BETWEEN OPSEU LOCAL 559 -and- CENTENNIAL COLLEGE Regarding the Classification of Eddy Ng BEFORE Kathleen G O'Neil, Single Arbitrator For the Union Larry Goldin, President, Local 559 Eddy Ng, Grievor For the College Nancy Fisher, Manager, Labour/Management Relations Tyrone Gangoo, Manager, Facilities and Services A Hearing was held in Scarborough, Ontario on February 7, 2006 AWARD This decision deals with the classification grievance filed on February 28, 2005 by Eddy Ng, who is employed in the position of Building Operator or Engineering Services Technologist. He is currently classified as a Skilled Trades Worker, at pay band 9 The grievance seeks the reclassification of his job upwards to Skilled Trades Worker - Atypical, Payband 11 The employer maintains that the job is properly classified By way of background, the union submits that the grievor has been employed as a Skilled Trades Worker since July 1989 and has seen vast changes in the duties and responsibilities of his job since that time, as HVAC systems, computerization and more electronic components have been introduced The incumbent can refer things to a contractor, but there are many things that need fixing which cannot wait for a contractor As a general matter, it was submitted that the job is of more crucial importance to the safe running of the College than it has been given credit for For their part, the employer submits that the College appreciates being able to benefit from the various qualifications Mr Ng has that help him do his job However, the employer notes that not all incumbents will have the same qualifications, and that the job evaluation must reflect the position requirements rather than an individual's training at any given time The employer is of the view that the buildings operate with infrequent problems, and the various equipment has indicators and sensors which assist in detection of problems For non-routine problems, the supervisor is to be contacted Before turning to the specific matters in dispute in this case, it is appropriate to refer to the CM T Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (referred to below simply as "the Manual"), a negotiated document, for some of the general guidelines which are intended to inform the more detailed process of rating jobs Read together with the collective agreement, one can discern the following general themes - Job evaluation is concerned with the content of a position and not with the assessment of an individual's performance or with the setting of an individual's pay rate This is in recognition of the fact that different individuals may occupy the position at different 1 times, and the classification, which is part of the collectively negotiated pay structure, should not depend on the individual characteristics, strengths or weaknesses, of the person in the position at any point in time Once the job is evaluated, experience on the job, which is usually associated with a higher level of performance, is recognized by the steps in the salary grid set out in the collective agreement. When applying this general theme to the facts of this case, it is important to keep in mind that one is not measuring Mr Ng's performance, or the contribution he is making after many years of experience and in light of the several qualifications he possesses The job evaluation system is based on the idea that it is the job itself, and its core requirements, which are the focus of our attention Obviously, as a person goes about his daily duties, it is difficult to separate the person from the job Individual employees make a job their own, each in a special and unique way However, the extraordinary or unusual contributions of talented individuals are not what is measured by this system - Those who rate the jobs are not to evaluate on the basis of a single word or phrase without assessing the entire definition. One looks for the factor level which most accurately reflects the integral functions of the position, not incidental or minor functions I. THE PDF It is important to start with the disputes relating to the PDF, since it is the position description that forms the basis for the evaluation of the job By way of background, on June 14 2005 the College and the union agreed that the Physical Demands factor was correctly pointed at Level 4 (39 points) The PDF was sent for re-evaluation which did not result in a change to the payband The following items are still in dispute for the PDF Dual Tkkets/quaHficauons Under the heading "TraininglTechnical Skills", section C 1 1 (2), the PDF currently requires the following Certificate of qualification in a trade such as Stationary Engineering 4th class, Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC mechanic, etc. 2 The union submits that dual tickets or qualifications should be required, so that this section of the PDF would read "Electrical and Plumbing Certificate/License" The College maintains that only one ticket is needed since holding any trades ticket indicates that the incumbent has the requisite mechanical aptitude, which is necessary to diagnose problems as they arise The employer notes that specific trades work that is complex in nature is referred to a qualified tradesperson The union agrees that the work may be referred if necessary However, the PDF provides for a number of duties that are hand-on, and employees in the grievor's classification are expected to do minor repairs themselves Further, the grievor and his colleagues are the first point of contact and are required to do the assessment of who should do the work. The union was of the view that this assessment may itself require hand-on work for which a ticket is required, but the College disagrees The grievor holds two tickets, electrical and plumbing, which allow him to do such repairs himself when they are minor in nature The other current incumbent has a motor vehicle repair certificate, and does not hold two qualifications In considering whether to add the desired wording to this section, it is important to keep in mind that the qualifications section of the PDF is meant to set the minimum requirements for the job, rather than the most desirable level, or that of an experienced incumbent. The College is of the view that one trades qualification is sufficient, and the fact that another incumbent is performing in the job with only one is persuasive evidence that it is not necessary to have two to perform the job As well, the grievor did not have his second qualification in plumbing when he started in the job, further evidence that two tickets are not necessary to do the job In the result, this section of the PDF will remain as it is Three vs. Five Years of Experience Under Item 2.1, the union seeks to add the wording "a minimum of five years experience" rather than the current three The College emphasizes that the three years of experience is after the period of apprenticeship required to get the trades qualification, which is, in the example of an electrical qualification, a five-year period The union 3 . asserted that five years was necessary to be able to perform the job, requiring interdisciplinary skills as it now does. However, there was no specific evidence identifying core duties of the job which would not be able to be performed with the lower level of experience In the result, I am not persuaded that more than three years experience after obtaining a trade qualification is required to perform the building operator job at an entry level Therefore, this section of the PDF will remain unchanged Class I and /I Buildinq Environmental Systems Operator Certificate The union seeks to add "Class I and II Building Environmental Systems Operator Certificate" as a basic qualification for the job The College says that this is not a job requirement, but at best, a "nice to have" The grievor and the union note that employees are encouraged to obtain this certification However, the grievor started the job without it and had no problem doing the job As with the other requests in the area of qualification, I am not persuaded that it is necessary to add this to describe what is required for an employee to do the core requirements of the job Percentaqe of time for various tasks The union wished the percentages to be readjusted in the table on page 2 of the PDF After some discussion at the hearing, the parties were agreeable to collapsing the last four items into an overall 20%, rather than trying to put a specific percentage on each component. As well, they were agreed that the sentence "Remove garbage and litter from Plant Services areas" could be removed, as long as it was understood that the remaining wording "Maintain all Plant Mechanical rooms in a neat and orderly condition" includes the expectation that incumbents are required to clean-up after themselves when they are working As well, it was agreed that the wording "Assist with the outdoor sign updates as assigned" could be removed from the table The union wished the element of the PDF that reads "Respond to emergency calls on 24 hour basis as required" to be removed, or to have more points awarded if it were to stay in The grievor does carry a pager, but does not receive calls at home The employer emphasized that emergency calls happen very rarely I am not persuaded that the wording is an inappropriate description of an expectation of the job, albeit an 4 infrequent one However, the employer acknowledged that replacing the wording "as required" with "as available" would better describe the actual situation Accordingly, that change should be made to the PDF The discussion also indicated that the parties could agree to add the following wording which related to health and safety issues to page 8 of the PDF Must respond to emergency gas leak reports through checking and investigating reported alerts. and Must respond to emergency requests for reported electrical system breakdowns other than those which apply to the mechanical systems As to the other wording proposed in the union's brief as more desirable, I am not persuaded that it is necessary to describe the basic requirements of the job Many of the proposals are differences over phrasing and emphasis in drafting, I am of the view that the current wording is sufficient to describe the job Thus, the PDF should be changed in accordance with the above directons, but I am not persuaded to order further changes to the PDF II. FACTORS IN DISPUTE The five factors still in dispute will be discussed in turn TraininQlTechnical Skills The College has attributed a rating of Level 4 which is described in the Manual as follows Required skills normally acquired through attainment of secondary school graduation and completion of additional job related training courses, or one year Community College diploma, or equivalent. Job duties require the ability to apply specialized skills. The Union seeks Level 5 with the following wording Required skills normally acquired through attainment of a two year Community College diploma, or equivalent. Job duties require the ability to organize simple statistical information and to understand the elementary principles of a science or a professional discipline 5 It is the College's submission that the union's request is based on what the incumbent has, rather than on the actual basic requirements of the job and that Level 5 is not required because no compulsory trade is required to do the work. The employer requires some trade qualification as an indication of mechanical aptitude, rather than a specific mandatory qualification, such as in a job requiring a registered electrician The union requests Level 5 as a better description of what is needed to do the job In my view, on the evidence, the rating at Level 4 is not too low for the basic requirement of the job, although further qualifications would always be an asset. Experience The College has given Level 3, the criteria for which reads as follows in the Manual More than one year and up to three years of practical experience The Union asks for Level 4 which is described as follows in the Manual. More than three years and up to five years of practical experience As with the related request for a change in the wording of the PDF, it is my view that three years of practical experience in addition to the trades qualification is not too Iowa requirement for a person to be hired into the job An incumbent with more experience will likely perform the job at a higher level, but the basic job evaluation is not intended to measure the level of either the most or least skilled incumbent, but rather the necessary, core requirements of the job Complexity As defined in the Job Evaluation Manual, this factor measures the amount and nature of analysis, problem-solving and reasoning required to perform job-related duties It focuses on the conceptual demands of the job as characterized by. - analysis and interpretation required for problem and solution definition, - creativity - mental challenge, - degree of job structure, - planning activities, and - the variety and difficulty of tasks. 6 The College has attributed points at Level 4, which is defined as follows Job duties require the performance of varied, non-routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated process and/or methods The Union requests Level 5 as follows Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized process and/or methods In discussing this factor, the union made reference to computer tasks as something that electricians and plumbers would not normally do, and pointed out that the College had sent the incumbents for computer training The College replies that the computer system is now 15 to 20 years old, and can no longer be thought of as unusual It can be seen that both levels in issue for this factor speak of the performance of complex tasks. What is necessary to achieve Level 5 is that the tasks be relatively unusual, and involve specialized processes and/or methods It is important to keep in mind that what is being measured is the level of the conceptual demands of the job Although the tasks described in the PDF certainly warrant the description of complex, which is common to both Level 4 and 5, I am not persuaded that the conceptual tasks are relatively unusual, which is required for Level 5 Rather, it appears that the regular work of the job, including the evaluation of maintenance needs and performance of a variety of maintenance tasks, is well described by the Level 4 wording "non-routine, complex tasks" The comparator jobs listed in the manual are of assistance here as well Level 4 is associated with that of a computer Programmer A or B, jobs requiring a quite high level of conceptual complexity I am not persuaded by the evidence that the Building Operator job requires a higher level of conceptual complexity than a Programmer In the result, I confirm the College's attribution at Level 4 Judgement This factor measures the independent judgement and problem solving required on the job It assesses the difficulty in identifying various available choices of action and in 7 exercising judgment to select the most appropriate actions. It also considers mental processes such as analysis, reasoning or evaluation The dispute between the parties is between Level 4, attributed by the College, and Level 5, sought by the union The Manual's Description of Level 4 is Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem solving involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with established analytical techniques. By contrast, Level 5 is described as follows Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used In supporting its claim for Level 5, the union gave as examples situations in which the grievor had solved a problem with the timing of an outside light at the Progress campus which the contractor had been unable to solve, and had given advice which saved the College from changing a whole transformer which had been proposed by a contractor The College does not disagree but feels that Level 4 adequately describes the tasks of the job which includes advice on how to accomplish maintenance tasks. The College submitted that the incumbent must analyze certain situations in order to determine the basis of the problem Once determined, for the most part, the incumbent is able to either fix the problem or refer it to the Manager who hires a contractor The day-to-day problems arising are generally typical and/or repetitive to the extent that the incumbent can rely on past experience to solve the problem or refer it to the Manager It is appropriate to return to what is being measured by this factor as set out in the Manual It is the difficulty in identifying various available choices of action and selecting the most appropriate one (See section VII, page 11) It is not essentially measuring how often judgment must be exercised, but how hard the choices are to make In my view Level 4, which is in the upper half of possible ratings for this factor is a better fit for this job, than Level 5 This is because the problems appear generally to be conventional ones, although varied, as set out in Level 4, which are solved by established analytical 8 techniques, such as checking the electronic devices when breakdown occurs on the fan system and reporting the findings to the supervisor For instance, in section 4 1, the PDF provides Central plant chillers have certain operating characteristics The Building Operator must be able to evaluate and analyze the readings and adjust the operating parameters to ensure the proper operations If problems occur during this procedure, the person must be able to respond with an alternate plan of action This type of function is better described by Level 4 than by Level 5, since the data from the readings on the chillers does not appear to be complex, and there was no evidence that refining work methods was a recurring part of the core requirements of the job The comparator classifications given in the manual are of some use here as well For example, from the submissions made at the hearing, I am not persuaded that the judgment required is higher than what would be required of a comparator classification associated with Level 4, such as nurse In the result, I confirm the College's rating for this factor Sensory Demand This factor measures the demand on mental energy while performing tasks The two levels in dispute are Level 3 supported by the College, as follows Job duties require moderate visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy OR Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy OR Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and periodic careful attention to detail and accuracy and Level 4, sought by the union, which the Manual describes as follows Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy 9 OR Job duties require extensive visual auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy The College submitted that the second paragraph of Level 3 is the appropriate description of the expectations of the job This is because the incumbent is required, at times, to pay close attention to specific readings on equipment that controls temperatures in the building, and that listening skills are at peak demand when investigating a problem with certain pieces of equipment. This kind of problem solving requires a sensitivity to the machinery's operation, but more on an occasional basis than as a day-to-day matter, in the College's view The employer refers to the percentage of time indicated for "listening to plant equipment noise" in the PDF, in section 7.2, which is 25% of the time, as additional support for this position The union sees the second paragraph of level 4 or more appropriate, underlining that the incumbent has to very aware of the electrical system all the time, and that the overall demands of the job are better captured by Level 4 The competing descriptions for this factor are worded in a way which makes it difficult to be precise, especially as the demand is clearly greater when there are problems, the frequency of which is difficult to ascertain In such a situation, the comparator jobs in the Manual become particularly useful Level 3 lists Skilled Trades Worker as one of the comparator jobs, as well as nurse There was no evidence suggesting that this job was more demanding in terms of sensory demand than other skilled trades worker jobs As well, similar to the discussion concerning the factor of judgement above, the evidence was not convincing that the level of demand for this position was higher than that for a nurse This consideration, along with the fact that the very classification in question, Skilled Trades Worker, was considered squarely at Level 3 by the designers of the evaluation system, tips the balance towards confirming the attribution of points at Level 3 Strain from Work Pressures The parties' positions are as follows College Level 4, described by the Manual as follows 10 Job duties involve conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in workflow Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and occasional critical deadlines. Union Level 5 described by the Manual as follows Job duties involve continuous work pressures and unpredictable interruptions in workflow Numerous conflicting demands and tight deadlines occur frequently The union submitted that climbing up and down ladders, checking ballasts and installing exit lighting creates a strain While the College does not disagree that these are duties of the job, the employer argued that these demands were more appropriately considered under the factor of Physical Demand The College is of the view that Level 4 is the appropriate description of the core expectations of the job, because, although priorities can shift, or there may be multiple work orders to prioritize, this does not occur regularly or daily Problems are usually predictable and require the incumbent's attention but are not critical to the operation of the College, in the employer's submission Further, the incumbent can always ask for help and he will be given it. The incumbent indicated at the hearing that he no longer has a helper, and is on his own to do his work by himself Further, when he gets a radio call concerning an emergency, he has to respond right away, leaving whatever he was in the process of doing The emergency calls are an example of tight deadlines for his job However, he acknowledged that priorities do not change regularly or daily It is important to note that Level 4, attributed by the College, is the second highest possible rating for this factor, while Level 5, sought by the union, is the very highest. I am not persuaded by the evidence before me that the demands of the Building Operator position are at the very highest level of the bargaining unit in terms of what this factor is measuring: strain from frequency and predictability of deadlines, interruptions and such elements as conflicting demands or difficult people As a result, the College's attribution is confirmed 11 Independent Action The Manual sets out that this factor measures the independence of action and decisions required by the job, noting that initiative, creativity and decisions are governed by various controls which can be in the form of supervision, policies, procedures or established practices The levels in issue here are ColleQe. Level 3 Job duties are performed in accordance with general procedures and past practices under periodic supervision with occasional periods of Supervisor input or verification There is moderate freedom to act independently Union. Level 4 Job duties are performed in accordance with procedures and practices that may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems There is considerable freedom to act independently with Supervisor input or verification when requested The College argued that Level three is appropriate, because there is little room to adapt or modify procedures, there being set ways to repair or test the equipment. For instance, there are manufacturer's specifications that the incumbent can rely on when investigating a problem Specific procedures must be followed when repairing equipment and/or testing equipment to ensure it is running safely and properly Further, even though the incumbent works away from his supervisor, his work is reviewed, through the logbook, phone calls and visits, not just when requested by the incumbents. Should a problem arise that is outside the scope of the incumbent's expertise, he knows to alert the Manager The incumbent does act independently, but there is daily/weekly review of the work by the manager The grievor indicated that he sees his supervisor about twice a week, when they go over the logbook and discuss any problems. They also have conversations by cell phone and pager The grievor emphasizes that he supervises six plant staff and various outside contractors each day 12 . Having considered all the material before me, it is my view that Level 3 adequately describes the basic requirements for independent action in this job The fact that an experienced incumbent does not need frequent direction or supervision, or to seek out a supervisor very often does not mean that Level 3 is inappropriate Level 4 appears a less accurate description, as the supervisor's input or verification, on the evidence, is not just when requested * * * To summarize, for the reasons set out above, I have found that certain changes discussed at the hearing should be made to the PDF, as described above Concerning the factors in dispute, I have found that the job is correctly rated in terms of the core requirements of the job as represented in the evidence As a result, the position remains classified as a Skilled Trades Worker at Pay Band 9 The arbitration data sheet, amended as necessary to indicate the positions of the parties at the outset of the hearing, and to record my decision, is attached to this decision Dated at Toronto this 4th day of April, 2006 ~fW Kathleen G O'Nei. Arbitrator 13 I ~ .\ Arbitration Data Sheet. Support Staff Classification College. C~f'(\ {-.en l'\ I (.~\ In~bent: ~ ../'" 6-~DO Supervisor _ ~ (0 1\ e Present ClassifICation. 0 Present Pay band ~ Job Family and Payband Requested by Grievor' 1 Conceming the Attached Position Description Form o The parties agreed on the contents; J The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific details are attached 2. The Attached Written Submission is from o The Union J The College , Factor Management Union Arbitrator Level Points Level Points Level Points 1 TrainingfTechnical Skills ~ 1- ~ 11 '5 q I 1 1/ 2. Experience ~ ~Jl~ rf)" .3 31--> 3 Complexity <-\ ~~ ) 1cf J ~ 4 Judgeme:lt y (o~ ) ~~ ~ folP 5. Motor Skills C ~ ~S- C!J;;2.5 C~ J. ~ 6 Physical Demand ---'::L ::\ q =r ~ ~ 3 ~ 7 Sensory Demand ;) ~~ 4 <6 3 2}?: 8 Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines ~_~~ !J-o ~ 3~ 9 Independent Action ~3~-1 4ftJ 3 33 10 Co m m un ica tions/Contacts ~ <5;). ~ 5lJ 0\. ~)) 11 Responsibility for Decisions/Actions -S-- ~ '1""3. hz; ~ (p-V 12. Work Environment ~L~ ~1~' if 1T '1/ Total Points ~ !f4 " tog y s15 2--- For the Union: Rtc '/05 (Grievor) (Date) (Date) (Union Representative) (Date) For Arbitrator's Use. Resulting Classification: ~. j'1V Payband: q ~)~ ~ 1 U9tJ0 (Arbitrator's Signature) (I:>at of Award) 1 revioed June 2002 ~