Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrenn 07-01-05 . , ^ ')(Jel /\ AA I ,) 60 fa - U.5 7 1- U C/l.1 f7\. BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union and Georgian College Classification Grievance: Jennifer Brenn Before:Louis M. Tenace For the Grievor: Jill Peacock, President, Local 349, OPSEU Murry Tapp, OPSEU Jennifer Brenn, Grievor For the College: Cathy Brown, Director, Human Resources Karen Rudachyk, Controller Hearing held in Barrie, Ontario on Wednesday, Januaf'j 3,2007 1. AWARD The grievor, Jennifer Brenn, has been employed at Georgian College since March 1, 1989. She is currently employed in the Accounting Department as a Clerk General D, pay band 8, in the position of Student Accounts Receivable. On April 3, 2006, she filed a grievance in which she alleges that her position is improperly classified and that it should be classified as Clerk General Atypical, pay band 9. The parties agree that the position description properly defines the duties and that the job family is appropriate. The differences arise from the evaluation of the duties by each of the parties and the level and point rating assigned thereto. There is no dispute about the follo"\\ring factors and ratings: 4. Judgement - Level 5, 84 points 10.Communications/Contacts - Level 3, 88 points l2.Work Environ..rnent - Levell, 10 points I shall now review and comment on the remaining factors in the order that they appear on the Arbitration Data Sheet as well as the submissions of the parties on each of these. 1. Training/Technical Skills Mallagement's rating is Level 5, 91 points; the Union rating is Level 6, 110 points. The major area in dispute revolves around whether the requirement is for a two-year Community College diploma (or equivalent) on the one hand, OR a three-year Community College diploma or a tpJ"ee-year undergraduate degree, or equivalent on the other. We spent a considerable amount of time during the hea..ring dealing "\\rith this factor and while I can appreciate the College's submission that they are seeking "minimum" requirements and not "ideal" requirements, the position description clearly states that the lI'..inimum requirement is for a "Three Year College Diploma in Accounting, or equivalent Post Secondary level courses in Accounting". In my view, this factor should be rated as Level 6, 110 points. 2. Experience Management's rating is Level 3, 32 points; the Union rating is Level 4, 45 points. The College again took the position that they are seeking "minimum" requirements and not "ideal" requirements". The position description states the requirement as follows: Three years of practical Accounting experience, with specific experience in performing high volume bank reconciliations. 2. The CAAT Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (hereinafter referred to as the Manual) uses the following ""lords to define Levels 3 and 4: Level 3 - More than one year and up to three years of practical experience Level 4 - More than three years and up to five years of practical experience Since the position description cited above states a requirement for "three years" of experience, the College has taken the position that Level 3 is the appropriate level. Murry Tapp, on behalf of the Union, submitted that in his past experience as part of an evaluation committee, the College had never adopted this narrow interpretation and application of "mh'1imum requirements" h'1 assessing factors. Of course, I am bound by the words of the position description as well as the Manual. The words are not ambiguous even if I believe that they may not accurately reflect the true intention of the parties. If so, it is up to the parties to revise them. I would offer one further observation, na..'TIely that in the Factor Definition for Level 4, the very first example cited is "Clerk General D" which is the precise classification of the position involved in this grievance. After careful review of all of the above considerations, I believe that I must conclude that the Experience factor has been properly rated as Level 3, 32 points. 3. Complexity Management's rating is Level 4, 58 POL.'1ts; the Union rating is Level 5, 74 points. The Manual cites Clerk General D as an example of a position at Level 4, 58 points. While both parties agreed that the position involves complex, non-routine and varied tasks, the College submitted that the same or similar processes were followed repeatedly and were not unusual or specialized. The Union did not convince me otherwise. I consider Level4~ 58 points to be appropriate. 5. Motor Skills Management's rating is Level4C, 28 points; the Union rating is Level4D, 40 points. According to the parties and the position description, most of the duties involve work with a computer and a calculator. Accuracy rather than speed is the major consideration. In view of these considerations and after reviewing the Manual, I believe that this factor is properly rated at Level 4C, 28 points. 6. Physical Demand Management's rating is Level 2, 16 points; the Upjon ratL.'1g is Level 3, 28 points. The duties are mainly sedentary but the incumbent is free to get up and move around virtually at vmI. Granted, movement affects concentration but the ability to vary one's position is a fact. The demands are consistent with the work of a secretary A,B or C or a Clerk General B,C or D. This factor is 3 properly rated at Level 2, 16 points. 7. Sensory Demand ~1anagement's rating is Level 4, 39 points; the Union rating is Level 5, 50 points. There is general agreement that this position is detail oriented and that accuracy is important. The incumbent must concentrate but the extent depends upon the tasks which require various degrees of concentration. It is considerable when doing reconciliations but less so when doing journal entries. In my view, this factor is properly rated at Level 4, 39 points. 8. Strain from Work PressuresIDemandIDeadlines Management's rating is Level 3, 28 points; the Union rating is Level 4, 39 points. Although there are regular deadlines for this position, they are predictable, i.e. weekly, hi-monthly, monthly and yearly. There are, of course, peak times, e.g. registration, year's end, etc. Generally, work pressures tend to be moderate. This factor is properly rated at Level 3, 28 points. 9. Independent Action ~1anagement's rating is Level 3, 33 points; the Union rating is Level 4, 46 pOhTltS. The position description specifies that "there are no formal detailed procedures" for this position, and that "Work is done in accordance ,\lith past practice". "The incumbent is responsible for identifYing discrepancies and making the necessary corrections. Initiative to create/revise personal work processes is "\\rithin the incumbent's responsibility... as long as the incumbent stays within the bounds of the assigned function and continues to meet departmental and Accounting requirements". When reviewing the various duties of this position and how they are performed, it seems to me that there is considerable freedom for the incumbent to act independently. In my view, this factor should be rated at Level 4, 46 points. 11. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions Man.agement's rating is Level 3, 44 points; the Union rating is Level 4, 62 points. The College stated that errors were detected "after the fact, upon audit" and that some areas/documents were reviewed by the supervisor who would look for anything that "stood out". There are, however, consequences and relatively serious impacts upon the College, particularly in terms of how the College is perceived by its various clients. I have carefully reviewed the position description and the comments of the parties during the course of the hearing and, while I am satisfied that the rating for this factor should probably be somewhat higher than it is, I am not convinced that it meets the requirements for a Level 4 as per the position description and the Manual. Therefore, I am obliged to leave it as it is at Level 3, 44 points. . . 4 In view of the foregoing, the levels and point ratings for this position should be revised to reflect the conclusions reached above. Adding the points as revised results in a new total of583 points. This would situate the position at pay band 9 (571-630 points). Applying the new 583 point total to the Payband/Classification Matrix results in this position being classified as Clerk General Atypical, Payband 9. The Arbitration Data Sheet is attached. The grievance is granted and the Position Description Form and Core Point Rating should be altered as necessary to reflect this decision. I "\\rish to thank the representatives of the parties for their co-operation during the course of the hearing. Signed in Ottawa, thisJth day of January, 2007. . ~ " < Arbitration Data Sheet. SUl!Port Staff Classification ColleFle: Georgian College Incumbent: Jennifer Brenn Supervisor: Karen Rudachyk Present Classification: Clerk General D Present PayBand: 8 Job Family and Pavband Reauested bv Grievor: Unknown Job Family - Payband 10 1. Concerning the Attached Position Description Form: m The parties agreed on the contents; D The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific details are attached 2 Th Att d W 'tt S b . . . f Th U . XT C e ache n en u miSSion IS rom: e nlon he olleQe Factor Management Union Arbitrator Level Points Level Points Level Points 1. Training/Technical Skills 5 91 6 110 " nO 2. Experience 3 32 4 45 ~ 31- 3. Complexity 4 58 5 74 t.f S~ 1 .' 5 84 5 84 9~ 4. Judgement b 5. Motor Skills 4C 28 40 40 LIe ~~ 6. Physical Demand 2 16 3 28 ~ It, 7. Sensory Demand 4 39 5 50 LI :!q 8. Strain from Work PressuresfDemandsfDeadlines 3 28 4 39 "3 1.~ 9. Independent Action 3 33 4 46 4-. 11' 10. Communications/Contacts 3 88 3 88 3 fg 11. Responsibility for Decisions/Actions 3 44 4 62 3 ~\f 12. Work Environment 1 10 1 10 J 10 Total Points 552 (Payband 8) 676 (Payband 10) ~f3Il~q For the Union 511 ~f~A4\- nevor. JIttJ 3(01 Date '1 For the College,,? ;.~;/1,171 ~ (College Representative) ::<)b-IY/ob Date -t. Resulting Classification: C{..E~\'\ G-1?Nt:~f\\.... ~ffL-r~"6~crDate: ~ ~~ 07 ~,2o()1 ~ ~ 2007 "!ate of AwareJ