HomeMy WebLinkAboutBergmann 18-02-22
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
Fanshawe College
(“the College”)
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 109
(“the Union”)
Classification Grievance of Uwe Bergmann
ARBITRATOR: Mary Lou Tims
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE COLLEGE: Julie McQuire – Employee Relations Consultant
Anthony Fields – Senior Manager, Technical and
Support Services
Colleen Maloney-Nettleton – Human Resources
Specialist
FOR THE UNION: Ron Kelly – Classification Steward
Dana Copeland – Local 109, Treasurer
Uwe Bergmann - Grievor
A Hearing was held in London on February 12, 2018.
AWARD
1. The grievor, Mr. Uwe Bergmann, holds the position of Technologist in the
College’s Technical Support Services Department. He filed a grievance
dated May 10, 2011 (“the grievance”) alleging that his position was
improperly classified at Payband H and that it should be reclassified at
Payband J. In November 2017, I was advised that the parties agreed that
this matter would proceed to arbitration in February 2018.
2. Both parties filed detailed written submissions for my pre -hearing review,
in accordance with article 18.5.3.4 of the collective agreement. They
indicated therein that the rating of six factors was in dispute.
3. The hearing was convened on February 12, 2018. In the circumstances
addressed at the hearing, the College raised no objection to the
arbitrability of the 2011 grievance. The parties’ representatives further
advised that they agreed that I was to determine in these proceedings the
appropriate classification of the grievor’s position based upon the grievor’s
role from July 2009 to the present. They further advised at the outset of
the hearing that they agreed that the grievor will be entitled to payment
retroactive to May 10, 2011 should his position be reclassified to a higher
payband through these proceedings.
4. While I have only the one grievance before me for determination, the
parties asked that I note their agreement that the decision herein will be
applied to an April 18, 2017 grievance filed by IT Technologist Mr. Kevin
Battle, with the exception that any payment owing as a result of these
2
proceedings will be retroactive in Mr. Battle’s case to April 18, 2017, the
date that his grievance was filed.
5. After reviewing the parties’ pre-hearing briefs, and after hearing their initial
submissions during the hearing, I considered it appropriate in the
circumstances of this case to offer the parties’ representatives a further
opportunity to address with each other whether any or all of the matters in
dispute could be resolved through agreement. The parties’
representatives chose at that time to engage in further discussion with
each other, and advised shortly afterwards that they had reached
agreement on all matters in dispute raised by the grievance before me and
did not seek to proceed with the arbitration.
6. The parties’ representatives jointly asked that I issue an Award at this time
incorporating the terms of their agreement by which the grievance is
resolved. I therefore issue this Award incorporating as follows the terms to
which the parties agreed:
(i) Analysis and Problem Solving: The parties agreed and I order
that this factor be rated at level 3, regular and recurring, and level 4,
occasional.
(ii) Planning/Coordinating: The parties agreed and I order that this
factor be rated at level 3, regular and recurring, and that no
occasional rating is warranted.
(iii) Independence of Action: The parties agreed and I order that this
factor be rated at level 3, regular and recurring, and level 4,
occasional.
3
(iv) Communication: The parties agreed and I order that this factor be
rated at level 3, regular and recurring, and that no occasional rating
is warranted.
(v) Audio/Visual Effort: The parties agreed and I order that this factor
be rated at level 2A.
(vi) Working Environment: The parties agreed and I order that this
factor be rated at level 1, regular and recurring, and level 2,
occasional.
7. Given the factor ratings agreed to by the parties and ordered herein, the
point rating for the position held by the grievor changes from 552
(Payband H) to 585 (Payband I). As agreed by the parties, I order the
College to compensate the grievor accordingly, retroactive to May 10,
2011.
8. I thank the parties and their representatives for their assistance in the
resolution of this grievance. I retain jurisdiction in this matter to assist the
parties in the implementation of this Award.
DATED at TORONTO this 22nd day of February, 2018
"M. Tims"
________________________________
Mary Lou Tims, Arbitrator
Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification
1�1«— �• a ��,���"
College,Incumbent: Supervisor
Current Payband- Payband Requested by Grievor:
1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form:
❑ The parties agreed on the contents ❑ The Union disagrees with the contents and the
specific details are attached.
2. The attached Written Submission is from: ❑ The Union ❑ The College
IM
Egg
acor
Manaoelent ti�oi
x
.. ,�a Ex ate,.>,. E .A.,.v.<u��,<e. � ... .�. z. � , _..`�z.
<A6Yrl°rte°
Regular/ Recurring Occasional Regular/ Recurring Occasional
Regular/ Recurring Occasional
'
Level
Points Level Points Level Points
Level
Points Level Points
1A. Education
L16.
EducationlJ2.
flPoiintsLevel
Experience
y
y
3. Analysis and Problem
7� 2 7�
y Q
Solving
Q .1
7 Y 1
4. Planning/Coordinating]
3,56
3
56
5. Guiding/Advising Others
JS j
5
6. Independence of Action
3
-7 a �/
7. Service Delivery
3
51
�5 )
8. Communication
3 7f
—7
9. Physical Effort
2,6 3 'a 6
0 b
1
10. Audio/ visual Effort
,Z
7 22— 1 7
J�
a 0
•7 9
11, Working Environment
I
Subtotals
(a) jS--;� (b) j j (a) (b) 3 3
(a) S a (b) 3
Total Points (a) + (b)
i8 Jr `
s: S—
Resulting Payband
l
•)
f,�4 lz---/3
(Date)
r,i 1,2 fQ,
(College Representative) (Date)
(Arbitrator's Signature) (Date of Hearing) (Date of Award)