Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO'Hara 07-02-22 9. IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION between Ontario Public Service Employees Union and St. Clair College Classification Grievance of Linda O'Hara Before: Louis M. Tenace For the College: Joan Pocock, l\.1anager, Recruitment and Salary Administration Patricia France, Chief Information Officer F or the Union: Linda O'Hara, Grievor Ross Langill, Steward Sue Mclelland, Chief Steward Heard in Windsor, Ontario, Tuesday February 20,2007. ~ 1. AWARD Linda O'Hara is currently employed at the Chatham Campus of St. Clair College as Student Employment and Recruitment Coordinator. According to her Position Description Form (PDF), she is responsible for the employment counselling of students, graduates, alumni and community clients and for facilitating employment/career related group sessions. As such, she works with the business and volunteer community to assist students and graduates to find jobs. This is done through personal contacts and various other forms such as job fairs, workshops and other marketing techniques. The position also has a significant student recruitment dimension which includes working with other responsible areas of the College to fulfill the recmitment needs of the College. Her position is classified as a Support Services Officer B, Atypical, Payband 10. She is requesting that her position be reclassified to Support Services Officer C, Atypical, Payband 12, retroactively to September 2005. At the time of this hearing, the grievor was the sole person performing these functions at the Chatham Campus. I mention this because the College representatives noted that the College has since created several 'recruiter' positions which have been rated at Payband 7. During the course of the discussions between the parties leading up to this hearing, the College agreed to meet some of the grievor's demands resulting in moving her position rating from Payband 10, 649 points, to Payband 11, 720 points. This was not acceptable to the grievor and the matter proceeded to this arbitration. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the Job Family(Support Services Officer). I was presented with an appropriately signed and dated PDF .with the job title of Student Employment and Recruitment Coordinator, stamped January 23,2006 by Human Resources at St. Clair College. What is in dispute concerns the Level and Points attributed to four of the Job Evaluation Factors for this position, pursuant to Section VII - Core Point Rating Plan of the CAP.T Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual( hereinafter referred to as the Manual). I shall now deal with each of these disputed factor evaluations separately. Factor 3. Comvlexitv Management has rated this factor at Level 5, 74 points; the Union has rated it at Level 6, 90 points. The definition for this factor at Level 5 states that the "Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods. " The Manual includes Support Services Officer Band C as illustrations of positions at Level 5. 2. The definition for this factor at Level 6 states that the "Job duties require the investigation and resolution of a variety of unusual conditions involving the adaptation and/or development of specialized processes and methods. " The A1anual includes Support Services Officer D as an example of a position at Level 6. It was clear from the interchange of the parties that Linda O'Hara is a valued employee who does her job very well. That is not an issue. Because she works at the Chatham Campus which is significantly smaller than the Windsor Campus as well as being about one hour's drive away, there is a tendency for good, conscientious employees in such circumstances to take more upon themselves than the job requires, often out of necessity - certainly, not something an employer would wish to discourage. For example, the grievor explained that she created an electronic job posting at the Chatham Campus long before it was done at Windsor. Based on what was said during the hearing, this seems to be the situation in this case. Management seemed genuinely surprised with some of the things she was doing. If some of these functions are not really part of the position requirements, then that is something management will have to address. After hearing the parties extensively on this factor, I am reasonably satisfied that rating it at Level 5, 74 points is an appropriate evaluation for the factor of Complexity. Factor 4. Jud2ement Management rated this factor at Level 5, 84 points; the Union rated it at Level 6, 102 points. The definition for this factor at Level 5 states that the "Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be used. " The definition for this factor at Level 6 states that the "Job duties require a high degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves adapting analytical techniques and development of new ip.formation on various situations and problems. " The Manual indicates a Support Services Officer C as an example of a position at this level. The definition for this Factor at Level 7 states that the "Job duties require a very high degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves originating nelA; techniques and utilizing them in the development of new information. " It is to be noted that the PDF states that "A very high degree of independent judgement and problem solving are required for this position. The incumbent basically acts alone in the performance of the main responsibilities of this position professionally to all customers, internal and external... ...Delivery of data/information or workshops must be tailored and suitable to the timeframe and audience involved - students, senior JJ 4. communication and the confidentiality ofiriformation involved... ... The focus in this factor is on the manner, purpose and responsibilities involved in communicating, rather than the content of the information being communicated Therefore, raters should not rate the information, but the communications responsibilities involved in handling it. " It is obvious to me that everything connected with this position revolves around communications, whether it be giving advice to students, dealing with employers, the community, job fairs, dealing with other areas within the College or with other Colleges, etc. While it may be trite to say that the role of the College may be to teach, the success ofthe College may be measured in large part by the extent to which its' graduates readily find employment in keeping with the education/training they received. The incumbents of these positions would appear to me to contribute significantly to that outcome. The grievor was clear and convincing in explaining both the nature and purpose of the communications aspect of her duties. Certainly, as far as the Chatham campus is concerned, the incumbent bears the major responsibility on behalf of the College for preparing her clients for their contact with the labour market. In my view, based on the information presented to me, this factor should be rated at Level 5, 160 points. In summary, therefore, I find that the following factors should have their levels and ratings altered as follows: 4. Judgement - from Level 5, 84 points to Level 6, 102 points; 8. Strain from Work Pressures/ DemandsIDeadlines - from Level 4, 39 points to Level 5, 50 points; 10. Communications/Contacts - from Level 4, 124 points to Level 5, 160 points; Adding the total point ratings with the revised changes noted above results in a new total of785 points which situates this position at Payband 12 (751-810 points). Applying the Manual, Section VIII - Payband/Classification :Matrix, this position must be denoted as Support Services Officer, Atypical, Payband 12. The completed Arbitration Data Sheet is attached. As I indicated during the course ofthe hearing, an arbitrator must reach a conclusion based on the evidence and iflJormation presented by the parties. In this case, I received convincing evidence from the grievor that she was performing the duties as described in her PDF. If, on the other hand, the duties as outlined in a PDF are not what management requires or believes them to be, then it is up to management to bring forward the necessary changes. Having said that, I am thankful to the parties for their presentations and, particularly, for their candid discussion of the issues. Signed in Ottawa, this 22nd day of February, 2007. " 2. 0 The partie::; agree on the contents of the attached Position Description Form OR PAYBAND/TOTAL POINTS JOB CLASSIFICATION I ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: I .. .1 ;F.OR THE~. _ ., '~~/ '.~^-. ...~~.. \'I"'~IO R~presentatl'w'e; I. . . lh----- The specific details of :hls AWARD r FACTORS MANAGEMENT Lillie! PoInn 1, Trainin ,Technical Skills , t~~g]<perience .3. Com texit 4, Judgement 5. Motor Sk.ills 6, Physical Demand 7. Sensory Demand 8. Strain from Work Pressures/Demands/Deadlines 9.lndeoendent Action , O. Communications/Contacts 11, Resoonsibilit for Decisions/Actions , 2, Work Environment ~ I . The Union o The College FOR MANAGEMENT e o u,n UJ...Jt..( fj._t. L ,- liege Representativel ()~~II(jy, iOatel ,~ t.vR20L2.t>01 iData of Hear,rl\:j: rJ2..Z- 12 0(/)1 {Data oi Awardl 93.12.09 b:oa[dSn~e!.;~'