Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHooper 07-03-01 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: NORTHERN COLLEGE ("the employer") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF LYNN HOOPER - OPSEU FILE #665401 ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate APPEARANCES For the Employer: Cheryl Carbone, Supervisor, Staff Relations Loran Charbonneau, Executive Director, College Operations and Services F or the Union: Frank Wright, President, Local 654 Lucille Lachance, Chief Steward HEARING: In Timmins on January 10,2007 2 DECISION INTRODUCTION The grievor is an Administrative Secretary in the employer's Human Resources Department. The employer classifies her position as that of a Secretary B at payband 7. On February 23, 2006 the grievor filed a grievance in which she contended that she was improperly classified. She asked to be reclassified as a Secretary Cat payband 8. At the hearing the issue of the appropriate classification of the grievor's position was addressed using the job evaluation system that was in place when the grievance was filed. The employer explained that it had originally guide charted the position using the guide chart for. a Secretary B that is part of the job evaluation manual. At the conclusion of the hearing the employer contended that I should also guide chart the grievor's position as that of a Secretary B. Certain of the grievor's duties are in fact included in a list of typical duties of a Secretary B set out in the guide chart. Not all of the grievor's duties, however, are on the list. Accordingly I propose to classify the position by core point rating the job factors identified in the job evaluation manual. The parties agreed on the core point ratings for seven of the twelve job factors. They disagreed on the proper ratings for the five factors of judgement, motor skills, stain from work pressures/demands/deadlines, independent action and communications/contacts. Each of these is discussed separately below. The employer's ratings for all twelve job factors resulted in a total of 470 points under the job evaluation plan. This is within the 451 to 510 point range for payband 7. The union rated the position at 551 points. This is within the 511 to 570 point range for payband 8. The union in its brief stated that "some of the duties performed (by the grievor) at one time or other were being done by staff in the Human Resources Department that were at payband 8 or higher". At the hearing the grievor identified these duties as work related to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board ("WSIB") as well as certain functions relating to grievances that she noted had previously gone back and forth between her and another employee. Not knowing what other duties the employee(s) in question performed, or how those other duties had been rated, it is difficult to compare positions. More importantly, the job evaluation manual indicates that positions are either to be guide charted or rated on the basis of the job factors set out in the manual and not by comparing different positions. The employer prepared a position description form ("PDF") to describe the grievor's position. The union disagreed with the contents of the PDF. In its written 3 brief the union set out lengthy proposals respecting what it claimed should be included in the PDF. THE GRIEVOR'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The grievor commenced working in the College's Human Resource Department in 1989. She works at the campus in Timmins. Since the grievor joined the Department there have been a number of management changes. The union brief suggests that because of these changes as well as management absences and the press of work the grievor has taken on increased responsibilities. Ms. Cheryl Carbone is the employer's Supervisor of Staff Relations. At the hearing she described the grievor as her assistant. She noted that for formal supervision purposes the grievor reports to Ms. Loran Charbonneau, Executive Director of College Operations and Services. According to the PDF the grievor spends approximately 75% of her time providing confidential secretarial/administrative services. These include the coordination of management meetings, including those with individuals at other campuses who participate by way of video conferencing. The grievor testified that she makes contact with the appropriate managers or their assistants to ascertain their availability. Once a meeting has been scheduled the grievor sends out an email setting out the time and location of the meeting as well as who will be in attendance. The grievor arranges for a room and any required equipment for Union-College Committee meetings. Prior to each meeting the grievor sends a request to the union for agenda items and later prepares an agenda which she forwards to Ms. Carbone for approval. Once an agenda has been approved the grievor forwards copies of it to the committee members. She also prepares a "shell" based on the agenda for Ms. Carbone to use when taking minutes at the meeting. The grievor handles room bookings for two Human Resources boardrooms, one of which is a video room. She also checks the availability of office supplies such as paper and toner and prepares purchase orders as required. The grievor is responsible for preparing a wide range of letters, including hiring letters, letters advising internal job applicants that they were not selected for a position, letters confirming that someone is or was employed at the College and letters respecting garnishees from employee wages. These letters are generally prepared using standard formats although as noted in the union's brief the grievor must obtain the proper 4 information to put into the letters. The letters are usually signed by Ms. Carbone or, in the case of certain hiring letters, by the President of the College. The grievor prepares a variety of lists and charts, such as a list of summer job applicants and lists of employees whose service is to be recognized. She has developed a series of checklists with respect to her job duties. The grievor testified that she researches information. She gave the example of her obtaining an archived file in response to an outside employer seeking information about a former employee. She then prepares a letter listing the length of the individual's employment, their position and salary for Ms. Carbone to sign. Ms. Carbone testified that the grievor does not research archived files. I take it from the evidence that the grievor obtains specific information about previous employees from archived files but does not engage in general research using old files. The grievor testified that she researches arbitration awards using awards stored at the College as well as the College Compensation and Appointment Council's web site. She said that should she only be able to access the face page of an award she calls the Council and asks to be sent the full award. The grievor testified that her supervisor and an Information Officer have asked her for awards as have members of a Workload Committee. Ms. Carbone asked the grievor if she would look for a specific award. The grievor replied that either she would be told that Seneca College had an award on a topic or she knew there was an award relating to a particular issue and she would do the search. She added that she had done this a few times. Ms. Carbone subsequently testified that when she wants an arbitration award she provides the grievor with both the name and number of the award. The evidence of the grievor and Ms. Carbone is not necessarily contradictory if the actual practice has been for Ms. Carbone to ask the grievor to obtain specifically identified arbitration awards while others have at times asked her to obtain an award based on the issue involved. The union brief states that the grievor coordinates the grievance and arbitration process, including monitoring timelines. Ms. Carbone testified that the grievor does not monitor time lines. According to Ms. Carbone she is the one who monitors time lines in terms of providing employer responses to grievances. I take the grievor's evidence to be a reference to her keeping time lines in mind when performing the duties described in the following paragraph. The grievor testified that she keeps a record of grievances in a log book. She said that "they" will ask her to schedule grievance meetings and this involves coordinating times with a number of people and booking a meeting room. It was the grievor's evidence that she gets a list of tentative College arbitration dates and should the dates for Northern College cases be "OK" with "us" she will contact the employer's legal 5 counsel. She indicated that if the date is also suitable for legal counsel she advises the appropriate individuals of the scheduled date and tell them that additional information respecting the location and time of the hearing will be forthcoming. The grievor testified that about every two years a new photo rD is required for all full-time staff. She indicated that she books rooms at the various campuses where the photos are to be taken and she takes the photos at the Timmins campus. She arranges for someone else to take the photos at the other campuses and is sent diskettes containing the photos. The grievor prints the rD cards. The grievor arranges for the same process to be followed for newly hired employees. She also prepares purchase orders for new supplies of name tags. The grievor receives requests from employees for an annual boot allowance. The union brief notes that approximately 20 staff members are entitled to the allowance. The grievor prepares two types of letters for distribution respecting the boot allowance. One letter encloses a cheque. The other advises an employee that they still need to forward a proof of purchase. A copy of a form letter filed with the union brief indicates that the letters are generally signed by Ms. Carbone. The grievor said that if a member of management is not available to sign the letters she will do so. At times employees ask to see their personnel file. The grievor testified that she arranges for a time when an employee can see their file and is present when they do so. The grievor said that she reviews the file before the employee actually sees it. An Appendix which accompanied the union brief contains an entry which states: "Upon request from staff to peruse their file, have to ensure that all data is properly filed and up to date. Remove any information that might have been misfiled. Submit file to supervisor to review before releasing to staff." Ms. Carbone testified that she reviews an employee's file before it is shown to them. The employer's brief states that: "The supervisor reviews the file for accuracy and identifies the misfiled information for the incumbent to remove". It appears that the grievor reviews a file for material respecting other employees erroneously included in the file and also to see if the file is up to date and Ms. Carbone also reviews the file for these reasons as well as to ensure its accuracy. The grievor is involved in the hiring of summer students. She obtains deadlines for submitting funding requests to Human Resources and Social Development Canada ("HRSDC") and other agencies. Ms. Carbone said that she is the one who submits all funding requests. The grievor prepares a chart listing all management requests to employ students in the summer as well as a chart listing all student applications. The grievor testified that when a summer student is hired in the Human Resources Department she passes on assignments to the student from the manager or from another employee and explains to the student what is required. She gave the example of her 6 explaining to a student how a scanner works. She said that at the end of the summer she is asked how a student has performed and if the student was polite, punctual and followed instructions she would say that they were "OK". In its brief the employer contended that the grievor is not required nor asked to evaluate student work performance. It appears from the evidence that the grievor does not formally evaluate students but her input is requested for evaluations done of summer students who work in the Human Resources Department. It was the grievor's evidence that she gets calls from students complaining about not being selected for a summer position and she explains the funding criteria to them. She also said that students call her seeking a higher wage than what they have been offered and she tells them that the policy is to pay $8.00 per hour. The grievor coordinates a program whereby employees receive a pin in recognition of their service at the College in five year increments. In June of each year the grievor contacts each of the campuses and the College President's office to coordinate dates for the event. She also prepares lists of eligible recipients by campus. The grievor noted in her evidence that although the actual event is held in June employees must qualify in terms of service by the prior December. The grievor prepares invitations to the event and every year she updates a recognition booklet which lists all of those who have received a pin. The grievor referred in her evidence to employee recognition kits. She indicated that she receives costing information from vendors with respect to items that might be included in the kits as well as the cost of pins. Ms. Carbone's evidence indicated that the grievor provides this information to a committee which makes decisions respecting the contents of the kits. The grievor completes any necessary purchase orders. The grievor testified that when a Human Resources manager is not available she will complete a WSIB Form 7, Employer's Report of Injury/Disease, since the employer has only three days in which to file such a report. The employer contends that the grievor is required to ensure that all of the paperwork required by the WSIB has been gathered but only occasionally is she asked or required to complete a Form 7. The grievor, however, testified that she prepares 10 or 12 of the approximately 30 Form Ts filed each year and forwards them to the WSIB without obtaining management's approval. Her evidence suggested that this was particularly common between December 2005 and November 2006 when Mr. Rick Greco was Director of Human Resources based at the College's Kirkland Lake campus. Ms. Carbone testified that she is now responsible for completing Form 7s but acknowledged that when she is away the grievor fills in the form. It is not apparent from the evidence whether the grievor has been required to fill in a form 7 in complex situations such as where there was an issue about whether there was in fact an injury or the nature of the injury. Ms. Carbone testified that she is the one who deals with WSIB adjudicators. 7 The grievor testified that she often gets calls from employees asking if they need to report an injury and she advises them that if they went to see a doctor they should report it. She said that she has also been asked by employees if they could file a claim with respect to carpal tunnel syndrome and she has replied that they could. She also said that staff members have called her with questions such as whether they could see a chiropractor prior to filing a claim and in those situations she has called the WSIB to ascertain how she should respond. The grievor is responsible for coordinating the employee recruitment process. According to the PDF this takes approximately 15% of her time. A manager seeking to hire must complete a request to hire form. Ms. Carbone testified that she discusses such requests with the manager. The employer has a policy of requiring that all new support staff positions have a PDF and that the PDF be evaluated prior to the position being posted. The grievor testified that at times managers have requested a posting after receiving an approval to hire and she has advised them of the policy. Ms. Carbone testified that once a PDF has been rated by a committee she advises the hiring manager of the position's classification and payband. Union approval is required to post a position internally and externally at the same time. Ms. Carbone testified that she contacts the union with respect to such postings. The employer's brief, however, states that "very rarely" the grievor is asked to contact the union to obtain its approval to post a position internally and externally at the same time. Most postings are prepared by the hiring department, at times using previous postings provided to them by the grievor. Once a department has prepared a posting the grievor makes sure that it contains the proper salary and required standard language, including that a PDF for the position is available. If this information is missing she adds it to the posting. She also inserts a closing date and a competition number. Some postings are completely prepared by the grievor. The grievor testified that generally she shows a posting to management in Human Resources to review but if management is not present and the same posting has been used before she will proceed with the posting. At the hearing the grievor agreed with Ms. Charbonneau that Ms. Carbone has said that she wants to see all of the postings. The grievor again, however, said that she would proceed with the posting if Ms. Carbone was not available and it was "a standard posting". I infer from the grievor's evidence that she limits such a step to situations where the same posting notice has previously been used for the position in question. The grievor enters information about posted positions on College web sites. She also uses the web to provide information about external postings to HRSDC and to web 8 sites accessible to employees at other community colleges. In addition, she arranges for external postings to be advertised in local newspapers. The grievor said that she will at times contact a hiring manager to advise them that she had modified a closing date due to a newspaper deadline. With certain postings, including those for nursing or welding instructors, the grievor contacts a professional or trade journal about placing an ad in the journal or on their web site. She then checks with management about the cost before placing an ad. The grievor testified that she receives calls from potential applicants seeking more information about a job posting. She said that she might refer such callers to the applicable manager. If a potential applicant asks for a copy of the PDF for a posted position she will either email or fax a copy of it to them. The grievor receives all applications, including those submitted at other locations, and sends internal applicants an email confirming receipt of their application. She provides the applications to the hiring manager following the closing date. Usually she waits two days after the closing date to ensure that she has received all timely applications. Should there be an urgent need to fill a position, however, once the closing date has passed she releases those applications on hand to the hiring department with a caution that any applications postmarked by the closing date will also have to be considered. Ms. Carbone testified that interviews are normally arranged by the hiring department but at times this function is performed by the grievor. The grievor testified that she is given a list of who is to be interviewed and the date of the interviews. She said that she contacts the applicants by phone or email to make the necessary arrangements. She noted that she tries to accommodate out-of-town applicants by scheduling them later in the day. At times the grievor is asked to monitor a test, such as when an applicant is given an assignment to complete. She said that she puts the individual in an office close to her and advises them of the amount of time they have and then later advises them when the time is up. The grievor gave evidence about her providing advice to Mr. Greco when he was Director of Human Resources. Mr. Greco was hired from outside the College system. The grievor testified that in the spring of 2006 Mr. Greco advised her that because certain funding had not been received the employer would be issuing layoff notices to some employees at the Hailleybury campus and asked her about the process normally followed in such situations. According to the grievor she referred Mr. Greco to the requirements of Article 15 of the collective agreement which requires notification to the 9 local union and a meeting of an Employment Stability committee. She said that she explained to Mr. Greco that at this meeting there would be a need to have the seniority and resumes of the relevant staff available as well as job descriptions for any positions that might be affected by bumping. The grievor testified that a committee meeting was held following which Mr. Greco provided her with a list of employees who were to receive layoff letters. She indicated that she advised Mr. Greco that the practice was for such letters to be delivered personally but he directed that certain of them be sent by registered mail. The grievor noted that the relevant funding was subsequently received and the layoff notices were withdrawn. THE FACTOR OF JUDGEMENT This factor measures the independent judgement and problem solving required on the job. It assesses the difficulty in identifying various alternate choices of action and in exercising judgement to select the most appropriate action. It also considers mental processes such as analysis, reasoning or evaluation. The employer rated the grievor's position at level 3, which is worth 48 points. The union argues for a level 4 rating worth 66 points. The applicable level definitions and illustrative classifications for these two ratings are as follows: 3. Job duties require some moderate degree of judgement. Problem solving involves the identification and breakdown of the facts and components of the problem situation. Clerk General C; Secretary A, B; Security Guard 4. Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem- solving involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with established analytical techniques. ECE Worker; Nurse; Secretary C The grievor's evidence was that she exercises judgement when collecting material for committees. She gave the example of being told who might be affected by a layoff and her obtaining copies of their resumes and job descriptions and providing them to the members of the Employment Stability Committee. I note that Ms. Carbone testified that she asks the grievor to provide specific resumes and job descriptions for these meetings. 10 The grievor referred in her evidence to handling phone calls from managers respecting whether an Appendix D employee or a probationary employee could be considered for a posted position. She said that she would advise them that an Appendix D employee could not be considered on the first round but a probationary employee could be considered after having been employed for six months. The grievor testified that she uses judgement when students who have filed a discrimination or harassment complaint talk to her about their situation. She said that she advises them that the manager will be in contact with them. She added that she can listen to the student but not provide them with any information. During the hearing I asked the grievor whether she applies analytical techniques. She relied that she tries to analyze all of the questions put to her and to advance all relevant factors. Later during the hearing Ms. Carbone asked the grievor to provide an example of when she had applied analytical techniques. The grievor referred to a manager who had received approval to hire asking her about a possible posting and her explaining to the manager that the position still had to be classified. The grievor referred in her evidence to a situation where after discussing the matter with Ms. Charbonneau she contacted various managers to ensure that a sufficient number of managers would be on hand to monitor a staff vote being supervised by the College Relations Commission. In their written briefs the union and the employer referred at length to the grievor's various duties in support their respective positions concerning the proper rating for this factor. The criteria for a level 3 rating refer to the identification and breakdown of the facts and components of a problem situation. Presumably once this has been done the resolution of the problem becomes apparent. The use of analytical techniques, which is required for a level 4 rating, logically involves not only breaking down the component parts of a situation or problem but also addressing the various components to understand them and to determine how they relate to each other. The grievor engages in a wide range of functions and faces a wide variety of issues and problems. It appears, however, that once she has determined what the problem or components of the problem are her response is generally apparent. When asked by a manger about posting a position that has not been classified she indicates that the position must first be classified. When asked by a manager about the possible hiring of an Appendix D or probationary employee she advises them of the collective agreement provisions respecting these employees. When a student talks to her about a harassment or discrimination complaint she knows to refer the matter to a manager and not to offer 11 any information or advice. There IS generally not a need to employ analytical techniques. After Mr. Greco joined the employer he was faced with a situation where he felt layoff notices should be issued. He asked the grievor for information on the process normally followed at the College. Presumably when advising Mr. Greco the grievor put her mind to a range of interrelated issues relating to the issuance of layoff notices, the bumping rights of employees and the potential impact of bumping on other employees. This would have required the exercise of judgement beyond that contemplated by a level 3 rating. The evidence, however, is that this was a one time event. The job evaluation manual indicates that a rating is to be based only on a core or significant duty or responsibility. A rating is not to be based on an isolated situation. Another issue relates to the grievor's role in completing Form 7s on behalf of the employer. The completion of such forms by filling in the requested information can at times be relatively straight forward. A higher level of judgement, however, can be required when addressing complex or contested situations. Given that the grievor prepares a Form 7 an average of once a month it cannot reasonably be said that completing a Form 7 in complex situations is a core or significant duty. The same is true of when the grievor researches arbitration awards. It appears that such instances are relatively rare since when Ms. Carbone asks her to obtain an award she identifies it by name and number. As already noted, the job evaluation manual indicates that positions are not to be rated based on isolated or infrequent occurrences. Logically at some point a combination of tasks that call for greater judgement will together take up a meaningful amount of time and together justify a higher rating. It does not, however, appear that such a point has been reached. Having regard to the above considerations, I confirm the level 3 rating given by the employer. MOTOR SKILLS This factor measures the fine motor movements necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position. It considers dexterity, complexity, co-ordination and speed. The employer rated this factor at level D-3 worth 37 points. The union rates it at level D-4, the highest rating possible, worth 40 points. The level D rating agreed to by the parties relates to complex fine motor movement that involves significant dexterity, co-ordination and precision with speed being a major consideration. The disagreement 12 between the parties relates to the prevalence of this type of fine motor movement. A level 3 rating applies when it is present for 31 % to 60% of the time. A level 4 rating is appropriate when it is present for more than 60% of the time. The illustrative classifications for a level D-3 rating are Secretary A and B. Those for a level D-4 rating are Typist/Stenographer B, C and Data Entry Operator A, B. The employer's PDF contains a chart which indicates that the grievor uses fine motor movements for 40% of the time on computer operations, keyboarding, using a mouse and creating documents/ forms/ charts. It also indicates that the grievor uses fine motor movement for 15% of the time using the telephone. It appears from this that the employer views entering numbers on a telephone as requiring fine motor movements that involve significant dexterity, coordination, precision and speed. The union's brief also contains a chart but this chart suggests that the grievor is engaged in fine motor movements 95% of the time. This includes 35% of the time on the telephone. Given the amount of time involved it presumably covers all of the time when the grievor is on the telephone and not only when she is using fine motor movements entering numbers. Time spent talking on the telephone cannot reasonably be regarded as involving fine motor movements that require significant dexterity, coordination, precision and speed. Accordingly, for this function I propose to use the 15% figure referred to in the PDF. The chart in the union's brief uses the same 40% figure as does the employer for computer operations, keyboarding, using a mouse and creating documents/forms/charts. It also, however, refers to the grievor spending an additional 20% of her time researching data on websites. The employer took issue with this claim. It noted that 20% of the time equates to one day per week. It also contended that no research is involved since what the grievor does is to go to a WSIB web site and print off a Form 7 or to a HRSDC website and print off an application form for summer funding. In her evidence the grievor said that she spends 40 to 50% of her time on the computer keyboarding, entering information into websites and looking up information on web sites. Ms. Caroline subsequently testified that she views 60% as the uppermost limit on the amount of time that the grievor spends using fine motor movements since she has a number of duties that take her away from the computer. It is apparent from the grievor's evidence that she does not spend 60% of her time on the computer as contended by the union. I accept her evidence that it represents between 40 and 50 percent of her time. When to this is added 15% of time on the phone requiring fine motor movements the final number ranges from 55 to 65%. Although the matter cannot be decided with any precision, I conclude that the grievor likely does 13 spend more than 60% of the time engaged in the type of fine motor movements associated with a level D rating. In the result I find a level D-4 rating to be appropriate. STRAIN FROM WORK PRESSURES/DEMANDS/DEADLINES This factor measures the strain associated with, or caused by, frequency and predictability of deadlines, interruptions, distractions and/or workloads, multiple and/or conflicting demands and/or dealing with people in difficult situations. The employer rated this factor at level 3 worth 28 points. The union argues in favour of a level 4 rating worth 39 points. The relevant level definitions and illustrative classifications are as follows: 3. Job duties involve moderate work pressures or demands. Interruptions, changing deadlines, multiple demands occur regularly but are usually predictable. Occasionally, critical deadlines may occur. Clerk General C, D; Secretary A, B; SSG A, B 4 Job duties involve conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in workflow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and occasional critical deadlines. Secretary C; SSG C, D; Technical Support Specialist The grievor testified that she frequently moves between different tasks, such as working on a posting, scheduling interviews and meetings, getting photocopies made for a meeting and reviewing a WSIB form handed in the same day that it needs to be filed. Many of these interruptions are predictable in that they occur on a regular basis. The grievor, however, also referred to being interrupted with what appear to be unanticipated events, such as a problem with equipment being used for a videoconference and her attempting to resolve the problem and, if she cannot, calling an IT person. During her evidence the grievor noted that she might be preparing a chart and after attending to another matter she would have to return to her earlier state of mind. 14 The grievor contended that her priorities change, such as if she is planning to work on something and another assignment is put on her desk or some equipment is not working. She also referred to facing deadlines such as the three days in which to file a Form 7 and an ad deadline for a weekly newspaper. Ms. Carbone testified that for the most part deadlines which impact on the grievor are known. She referred in this regard to newspaper deadlines, the time when employee recognition ceremonies are to take place and when photo IDs are required. The employer's brief acknowledges that the Human Resources office is a busy place but contends that most of the grievor's work is known and predictable. It states that the grievor's work respecting job competitions is all deadline driven, with the deadlines being set by collective agreements, newspapers and internal practices. It also states that the grievor is required to answer the telephone and respond to email messages and faxes but these interruptions are inherent in the position and predictable and while there are occasional critical deadlines these are known. The PDF advanced by the employer is instructive with respect to this factor. Portions of the PDF read as follows: Pressures associated with the workload of this posItIOn range from moderate to high. Handles multiple/conflicting assignments regularly. Constant interruptions are inherent in this position as the incumbent may be involved in preparing an assignment and will be interrupted several times by the telephone and people at the desk. While deadlines are predictable, conflicts/interruptions may occur that will result in a change of priorities in order to meet deadlines. i.e.: While in the process of typing/preparing an assignment, the incumbent has to place/take calls, either to schedule/reschedule a meeting; deal with people at the counter and fax/mail information. The incumbent may be involved in several tasks simultaneously and must be able to handle constant interruptions and changing deadlines. Accuracy and confidentiality are extremely important. The incumbent must be able to determine priorities to avoid conflicting and overlapping deadlines and to exercise judgement in responding to routine and non- routine enquiries. 15 The criteria for both a level 3 and a level 4 rating refer to occasional critical deadlines. Both ratings contemplate interruptions and multiple demands. One difference is that for a level 4 rating there are conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in work flow. A level 4 rating is also associated with possible shifts in priorities. The grievor's evidence and the PDF indicate that the grievor faces conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in workflow. She moves between tasks to attend to pressing matters as they arise and later returns to her original task. In the PDF the employer acknowledged that conflicts and interruptions may result in a change of priorities in order to meet deadlines. Having regard to these considerations, I find a level 4 rating to be appropriate. INDEPENDENT ACTION This factor measures the independence of action and decisions required by a job. The job evaluation manual notes that controls can be in the form of supervision, policies, procedures or established practices. The employer contends that a level 3 rating worth 33 points is appropriate. The union argues in favour of a level 4 rating worth 46 points. The level definitions and illustrative classifications for these ratings are as follows: 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. Clerk General C, D; General Maintenance Worker; Secretary A, B 4. Job duties are performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which 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. Library Technician B; Secretary C; SSO A, B; Technician C; Technologist B When addressing this factor the union brief refers to a number of duties performed by the grievor. It submits that she works independently and prioritizes her own work schedule. It further submits that although she receives work assignments from a supervisor once she has received an assignment she carries it out with little supervision. 16 The union brief contends that the grievor "refines/modifies methods to handle new or unfamiliar situations and uses discretion in order to make customer sensitive and appropriate decisions". At the hearing the grievor provided an example of what she regarded as her modifying or adapting a past practice. It concerned the situation of a hiring manager wanting to immediately address applications filed in response to a job posting and the grievor forwarding available applications earlier than she normally would and later following up with any additional timely applications that she might receive. This, however, appears to reflect the practice described above that is followed whenever there is a need to quickly fill a position. The evidence does not suggest that on an on-going basis the grievor adopts or modifies past practices. When giving her evidence the grievor agreed with an entry in the PDP which indicates that she reviews with her supervisor unfamiliar or new situations not covered by policies or procedures in order to obtain verification or instruction. The grievor noted that although her manager normally reviews postings, if the manager is not available and the posting is the same as one previously used she will directly proceed with the posting. The grievor also noted that she initiates and prepares correspondence. The grievor was asked when she would go to her supervisor for assistance. By way of example she indicated that if she is setting up a meeting and determines that an individual will be unable to attend at a time when others are available she will check to see if this individual is actually required such that the meeting could go ahead without them or whether another time would have to be set. In terms of supervision of her work the grievor said that management might ask her if she had prepared some Article 15 letters, if she had a chance to copy some PDFs required for a meeting or if she had had a chance to complete a task she had been asked to do. Ms. Carbone testified that she reviews all of the work that the grievor produces for her and generally signs it. It is apparent that the grievor is familiar with the tasks associated with her position and performs them on her own initiative. Because she works as Ms. Carbone's assistant, however, a substantial volume of her work output is provided to and reviewed by Ms. Carbone. In addition, at times management checks on how the grievor is doing in terms of completing particular tasks. These situations go beyond supervisor input or verification when requested by the grievor, which is what is contemplated by the criteria for a level 4 rating. Having regard to these considerations I confirm the level 3 rating given by the employer. 17 COMMUNICA TIONS/CONT ACTS This factor measures the requirement for effective communication for the purpose of providing advice, explanation, influencing others, and/or reaching agreement. A note in the job evaluation manual states that many College jobs deal with some information that is confidential. It also states that raters are not to rate the content of confidential information but rather the communications responsibilities involved in handling it. The employer rated this factor at level 2 worth 52 points. The union contends that the appropriate rating is level 3 worth 88 points. The definitions for these levels and the related illustrative classifications read as follows: 2 Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing detailed explanations, clarification and interpretation of data or information. There may be a need to empathize with and understand the needs of others in order to handle problems or complaints. Occasional involvement with confidential and sensitive information which has minor disclosure implications. Clerk General B, C; Programmer A, B; Secretary A, B; Skilled Trades Worker 3. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures, policy or theory. There may be a need to promote participation and understanding and to secure co-operation in order to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive nature. Regular involvement with confidential information which has moderate disclosure implications. Clerk General D; Library Technician A; Secretary C; SSG A, B; Technician B, C In its brief the union contended that the grievor engages in verbal and written communications with staff and external clients for the following purposes: To provide guidance for the completion of forms such as WSIB, request to hire form. Provide guidance on job applications. To explain process and procedures on how to access forms on College web site; to forward requested 18 information such as PDF for job competitions; on Employee Recognition process; on Summer Student Hire process. The grievor testified that she provides guidance and advice. At another point in her evidence she indicated that she explains Human Resource procedures. She gave the example of a manager telling her that he/she wanted to replace an employee who was leaving or that they required additional staff. The grievor said that she would either advise the manager of the form they needed to fill in or provide them with the form and point out the sections required to be completed before it could go to management for approval. She noted that managers often ask her what salary to put on a posting. She said that she will refer them to the collective agreement. The grievor also said that a manager might ask her if an employee replacing someone else would start on the same step of the salary grid and she would tell them that they would not. During the hearing Mr. Frank Wright, the President of the Union Local, asked the grievor about her involvement with inquiries respecting College policies. The grievor said that staff members ask her about posting and hiring procedures and she explains them. She also referred to hiring managers asking her if they could interview a probationary employee and her responding that the collective agreement requires that a probationary employee first put in six months. The grievor testified that she gets calls from probationary employees complaining that they were not considered for a position. She said that in response to such a call she would read word for word from the relevant provision in the applicable collective agreement. The grievor testified that employees ask her why another employee is receiving more vacation time than them and she shows them the applicable collective agreement provision. She said that employees often call and ask her why they have not received a five or ten year pin and she explains that the cut off was in December and accordingly if they started in March they would have to wait a year. The grievor also said that she receives calls from support staff concerning when they will be receiving a car allowance or a boot allowance. Ms. Carbone contended that the grievor gives detailed explanations. She added that a lot of things, such as postings, occur over and over. She said that the grievor provides explanations in terms of how things are handled or the form to be used or advises people they need to bring a matter to Ms. Carbone's attention. In response to a question from Mr. Wright Ms. Carbone agreed that the grievor is asked questions and is expected to provide answers. She added that the grievor takes matters to a certain level but not beyond that. Mr. Wright then put it to Ms. Carbone that if she is not available and a manager asks the grievor how to interpret something she would expect the grievor 19 to answer. Ms. Carbone replied that the situation would not involve an interpretation but rather the grievor saying that this is the past practice or the process. When giving her evidence the grievor said that if the confidential information she handles were to be disclosed it would damage the reputation of the Human Resources Department and the College. She said that she deals with personnel files, grievances and medical record .files. She also said that she is often asked by staff about who has applied for a posted position and she responds that she cannot tell them. The union brief repeats an entry from the PDF which reads as follows: Nature of Contact: Ongoing regular involvement with sensitive and confidential material. Purpose: Personnel file, grievance files, competition files, complaint files Frequency: Daily The union brief also states that: "When staff or students inquire on status of Discrimination & Harassment issue, the incumbent has to adhere to Freedom of Information guidelines to ensure confidentiality of other parties are respected". The grievor's evidence respecting these complaints is touched on above. It suggests that she does not discuss the issues in a complaint with anyone, including the complainant, but rather indicates that they will be contacted by a manager. Ms. Carbone suggested in her evidence that should confidential information improperly be given out by the grievor it would cause embarrassment to the Human Resources Department. The evidence establishes that an important aspect of the grievor's job is providing information and answering questions from managers, support staff and students about a wide range of issues. Generally these involve providing responses to a specific question based on past practice, policy or the wording of a collective agreement. At times the grievor refers an individual to the applicable collective agreement provision or reads a portion of the collective agreement to them. The incident when the grievor explained layoff and related procedures to Mr. Greco clearly involved communication to him for the purpose of providing guidance. Other situations, however, appear to have been more in the nature of her providing an explanation or clarification, such as what form to use, what payband to put on a posting or why an employee did not qualify for a service recognition pin. When answering a question the grievor relies on policies and procedures. The evidence, however, falls short of establishing that it is a regular part of the grievor's job 20 to interpret policies or procedures. It does not suggest that she determines how a policy or procedure should apply to fact situations not expressly addressed in the policy or procedure or that she is required to interpret unclear or ambiguous language. Given these considerations I conclude that the grievor's duties require communication for the purposes of providing detailed explanations, clarification and information but not to provide guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature or to explain various matters by interpreting procedures, policy or theory. As noted above, the job evaluation manual states that raters are not to rate the content of confidential information but rather the communications responsibilities involved in handling it. Because she works in the Human Resources Department the grievor has access to personnel and other files which contain confidential information for which she has no communication responsibilities. She does, however, have communication responsibilities with respect to job postings in terms of confirming receipt of applications, scheduling applicant interviews and subsequently preparing letters by which management advises successful and unsuccessful applicants of the outcome. Any inappropriate release of information during these steps would likely cause only embarrassment to the employer. At times the grievor is contacted about discrimination and harassment complaints. Should she reveal confidential information in the course of such a discussion there potentially could be serious disclosure implications. The grievor's responsibility, however, is not to provide any information in response to such a contact but rather to indicate to the individual involved that that they will be contacted by a manager. Given the nature of the grievor's role I do not regard this as being sufficient to outweigh the other aspects of her communications responsibilities. Accordingly, I find level 2 to be the appropriate rating. CONCLUSION The various ratings assigned by the employer resulted in the grievor's position receiving a total of 470 points. The additional 3 points for a level D-4 rating for motor skills and 11 more points for a level 4 rating for the factor of strain from work pressures/demands/deadlines brings the total to 484 points. This is still within the range for payband 7. Although as already noted not all of the grievor's duties are included among the typical duties listed on the guide chart for the Secretary B classification, based on my finding respecting the appropriate payband I conclude that under the applicable job evaluation system the grievor's position should be rated as a Secretary B. 21 As a final matter I note that the evidence clearly establishes that notwithstanding a growing workload the grievor has consistently performed her job with dedication and has performed it very well. Dated this 1 st day of March 2007. Arbitrator