Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDugas 18-03-29IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 416 (FOR SUPPORT STAFF) (hereinafter called the "Union") -and- COLLEGE EMPLOYERS COUNCIL (FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS and TECHNOLOGY) In the form of ALGONQUIN COLLEGE (hereinafter called the "College") -and- GRIEVANCE OF JULIE DUGAS OPSEU File No. 2017-0416-0006 (hereinafter called the "Grievor" or the "Incumbent") /_lV0.111:7_�riT:il REPRESENTING THE COLLEGE REPRESENTING THE UNION: Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb. Helen Huang, HR Business Partner Krisha Stanton, Senior Manager Enrolment & Student Financial Support Christine Kelsey, President Local 416 Cinds Chapman, Union Steward Julie Dugas, Grievor A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO ON 22 MARCH 2018. AWARD Julie Dugas (the "Grievor") is the Incumbent in a position referred to as a "Financial Aid Representative" at Algonquin College (the "College"). Both parties generally agree with the contents of the Position Description Form (the "PDF"). The parties disagree on the point scoring for the position. This disagreement centers upon five Factors contained in the Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (the "Manual'). A discussion of each of these Factors follows. The College evaluated the position and rated it at 424 points, placing the position within Payband F. The Grievor and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (the "Union") submit that the position ought to be evaluated at 564 points, placing it at the higher - rated Payband H. The Duties of the Position The position of Financial Aid Representative is a customer facing one that involves providing counseling and assistance to students and others by in-person, telephone, and e-mail or fax communications. The position involves the administration of three financial aid programs: Full-time ("f.t.") and Part-time ("p.t.") applications to the Ontario Student Assistance Program ("OSAP"); and applications to the Institutional Special Bursary Program ("ISBP"). These three funding programs: f.t., p.t. OSAP and ISBP form the basis of the work to be carried out ("the Funding Programs"). The Incumbent joins others in sitting at desks suitably segregated so as to assure some privacy for student clients. The face to face in-person communications occur with the applicant sitting opposite the Incumbent. Depending on the demand, affected primarily by the time of year, some or all of the employees in this position will be assigned to the queue dealing face to face with students; or, there will be some who do daily tasks involving the non face to face communications in regard to the Funding Programs. In the daily task assignments the Grievor is the only person who is assigned to update the training manuals, guidelines and other materials related to the carrying out of the performance for the position. The position being evaluated was changed in 2017 and the role of the Incumbent was significantly altered at that time. The change involved the introduction of the p.t. OSAP and ISBP funding. Previously decision for those funding programs was performed by Financial Aid Officers. After the change of the work functions the Financial Aid Representatives were tasked with dealing with the applications of these two programs making up the trilogy of Funding Programs referred to above. N The general duties of the position being evaluated are divided into approximately 20% segments of the annual time spent on the work of the position with some variations. The key Duties and Responsibilities are to: provide client service in person; advise clients regarding OSAP applications; do daily task work; review p.t. OSAP applications; administer the ISBP Program. In the residual administrative work the duties of the Incumbent in regard to editing and updating of manuals and other administrative forms and publications is found. Factors in Dispute There were five Factors in dispute in this proceeding: Factor #3 — Analysis and Problem Solving; Factor #4 — Planning/Coordinating; Factor #6 — Independence of Action; Factor #7 — Service Delivery and Factor #10 — AudioNisual Effort. At the Hearing the representative of the Grievor advised that the dispute concerning Factor #4 — (Planning/Coordinating) was being withdrawn. Therefore, this Award deals only with the four remaining Factors in Dispute. Each of these Factors is dealt with under separate headings below. Factor #3 — Analysis and Problem Solving: Ratings: College Level 2 / Union Level 3 This factor measures the level of complexity involved in analyzing situations, information or problems of varying levels of difficulty; and in developing options, solutions or other actions. (i) The Union The Union submits that the problems the client faces and the Incumbent needs to solve are easily identifiable. To that extent they agree with the College. However, it is the inquiry necessary to determine the reasons for the denial that make the problem solving more complex. The Incumbent has to explore with the student why they may have been denied funding or other barriers to receiving the funding. Typically the students do not know why their application has been denied. The Incumbent has to engage in a series of eliminations of possible reasons to get to an understanding of the problem and thus a solution or course of action for the student to take. The PDF has 24 bullet points of further investigative actions. The Union submits that the addition of the p.t. OSAP is where the difference comes that makes the position a Level 3. They submit that the "Incumbent decides if p.t. OSAP should be denied or not". There being no manuals or checklists for the p.t. OSAP program the Incumbent created them to be used as a starting point for investigations and a guide for herself and others doing similar work. They further submit that the 3 templates cited by the College as simplifying the tasks in fact nearly universally needs modifications and adaptation. (ii) The College The work at the service counter is triggered by the student approaching with their problem. They note as the Union concedes that the problem from the client's perspective is clearly identifiable. It is submitted that the work is structured and follows straight forward procedural steps involving common and recurring follow-up with regular contacts/stakeholders. Beyond that the decision becomes one of the Manager. (iii) Findings The work of the Incumbent on f.t. OSAP is squarely within Factor Level 2. The modifications to the position by adding the p.t. OSAP and ISBP does change the activity of the position. In these two prongs of the Funding Programs more analysis and collection of information is required and there are not the ministry policies of the f.t. OSAP, which are only revised once a year. In particular the ISBP policies apparently evolve on a more frequent basis and can require analysis or problem solving at more advanced or unfamiliar levels not otherwise used in the position before the change in the position. Therefore, I find that the Union has established that the Factor ought to be rated at the Level 3 and it is so directed by this Award. Factor #6 — Independence of Action: Ratings: College Level 2 / Union Level 4 The Manual provides that: "This factor measures the level of independence or autonomy in the position. The following elements should be considered.• - the types of decisions that the position makes; what aspects of the tasks are decided by the position on its own or what is decided by, or in consultation with, someone else, such as the supervisor; the rules, procedures, past practice and guidelines that are available to provide guidance and direction. " (i) The Union The Union submission focuses on the revisions to the work that was brought into the work by the p.t. OSAP and the ISBP. Work was moved from the Financial Aid Officers to the Financial Aid Representatives. The more complex decisions of these streams of the Funding Programs previously not made by the Incumbent now are made by her. Judgement based on the Ministry guidelines is required to determine if an applicant is qualified or does not qualify for the funding. Furthermore, the Incumbent edits the manual to better reflect the changes to the Ministry guidelines and the departmental polices. ld (ii) The College The College expresses the view that the manuals and substantive changes to the documentation reflect changes in process based on Ministry directives or approval by the Manger. The Incumbent prioritizes her own activities. The work that is done does not affect the work schedule of others. The updates of manuals are not driven by deadlines and are not used by everyone. The job is a very self-contained one. (iii) Findings The Incumbent plans and prioritizes her activities within the face to face discussions or the daily task activities. The work is very self-contained and does not affect the work schedules of others as is required at Level 3 in the Factor Level definitions and point descriptions. If the work does not reach Level 3 in the Manual it cannot possibly meet the Level 4 rating. In the words of Level 4 there is no planning or coordinating going on that integrates activities and resources. It is a stand-alone problem the student has that needs resolution. The Union has not met the level of proof to substantiate its rating of a Level 4. 1 find that the rating by the College is proper and within the parameters of Level 2. Therefore, there is no change to the point rating for this Factor. Factor #7 — Service Delivery: Ratings: College Level 2 / Union Level 3 The factor looks at the service relationship that is an assigned requirement of the position. It considers the required manner in which the position delivers service to customers and not the incumbent's interpersonal relationship with those customers. ... The level of service looks at more than ... what customers want and supplying it efficiently. It considers how the request for service is received (i.e., directly from the customer; through the Supervisor or workgroup or project leader; or by applying guidelines and processes) It then looks at the degree to which the position is required to design and fulfill the service requirement. (i) The Union The principle position of the Union on this Factor is the characterization of the work of the position as being to tailor the service the Incumbent provides to the needs of the students she is serving. In dealing with the p.t. OSAP the Incumbent must approach each student individually, there is no "cookie cutter" approach as each student presents 5 different parameters in their problem which require resolution. Checklists do help to guide the decision but must be fully cognizant of both federal and provincial student loan programs and tailor the service and information provided to the student whose issues are being reviewed. Each student has a different conversation with the Incumbent when speaking about their situation and how they are qualified or not qualified for p.t. OSAP. (ii) The College The College submits that while the conversation with each student will be different what the Incumbent must do is complete their duties and tasks on pre -determined steps using the criteria in checklists to determine the outcomes. Therefore, the decision making is scoped based on established procedures and guidelines. There is no autonomy to make decisions that fall outside the scope. While the Grievor submits that she makes the final decision in fact that is not the case the final approval of the application is a decision of the Ministry. If the application meets all the criteria then it will most certainly be approved but as a final legal step it is the Ministry's decision not that of the Incumbent. Furthermore, extraordinary situations will be referred to the Financial Aid Officer or the Manager for clarification. (iii) Findings The Incumbent's activities and actions are related to a series of pre -determined steps that take account of the p.t. OSAP program. There are guidelines that can be consulted. To the extent there is autonomous action it is focused on determining the order or sequence of steps to be gone through to explain to the student what is going on or where the application has to be changed to make it one that the Ministry will accept. The end product of the activities results in an application that meets the criteria of the Ministry. Therefore, the independence of the position is pre -determined by the Ministry. If the guidelines are met; then, the application will be accepted. The actions of the Incumbent are not mechanical but interactive within a defined scope or channel. In reviewing the "Notes to Raters" for this Factor in the Manual the discussion at Level 2 uses as its illustrative example "positions working in the Financial Aid area". The work of the Incumbent fits within the language in Level 2 in the "Notes to Raters". All the foregoing means that the better fit of the two levels is that of Level 2. Therefore, I conclude that the Union has not established that the position should be rated at Level 3. There is to be no alteration in the points to be awarded for this position. I$ Factor #10 — AudioNisual Effort: Ratings: College Level 2 / Union Level 3 This factor measures the requirement for audio or visual effort. The factor measures the following two aspects: a) the degree of attention or focus required, in particular for: - periods of short, repetitious tasks requiring audio/visual focus - periods where task priorities and deadlines change and additional focus and effort is required to achieve the modified deadline b) activities over which the position has little or no control that make focus difficult. This includes the requirement to swtich attention between types of tasks and sensory input (e.g. Multi -tasking where each task requires concentration). (i) The Union The Incumbent writes manuals and checklists and edits and updates the same as required because of Ministry updates or college changes for the ISBP which occur randomly rather than on a fixed time scale as do the Ministry changes. Interruption during this process which frequently requires following the ripple effects throughout the document being edited or updated breaks concentration and frequently requires retracing one's steps to complete the task. (ii) The College The f.t. OSAP application on average takes 30 minutes to complete. The applications for the other two Funding Programs may take longer as there is a process of obtaining information and then eliminating possibilities to create an acceptable application. These tasks when interrupted can be without much back tracking picked up where they left off. On the daily tasks portion of the work responding to e-mail traffic takes on average 5 to 10 minutes. There is no extended period of concentration in the regular work of the position and focus can generally be maintained or easily regained. (iii) Findings The work on the manual and guidelines which the Union relies upon to rate the position as at Level 3 does require extended periods of concentration which may exceed on occasion 2 hours and so qualify in the definitions in the Factor as an "extended period". However, that work is proscribed in the PDF as being of approximately 7% of the time for the work involved in the position. The work on the Funding Programs would likely never be in the extended period of time definition. Therefore, there is simply not 7 enough time in the work of the position to consider it as sufficient to justify the Level 3 which in the Factor Level chart requires for "extended periods of concentration". This simply does not occur frequently enough to justify rating the position at Level 3. 1 find that the Union has not established the basis for a rating point change in this Factor. Therefore, the rating of the College remains and there is no change to the scoring of this Factor. CONCLUSION There was only one adjustment directed to the point scoring for this grievance. The "Analysis and Problem Solving" Factor was proven by the Union to be incorrectly rated at Level 2. An order directing the College to alter the rating to a Level 3 has been made in this Award. The result is an increase in the point scoring by 32 points. There were no other adjustments made in this Award. Therefore, I find that the position ought to have a rating of 456 points. Such a point score means that the position remains within Payband F on the Schedule in the Manual. Therefore, the grievance is partly upheld in respect of the one Factor but is otherwise dismissed. DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2018. 10, )O�m 'r chard H. McLaren Arbitrator N Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification College: Algonquin College Incumbent: Julie Dugas _ Supervisor Krisha Stanton Current Payband. F Payband Requested by Grievor: H 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 Su bm Ission is. from: 10 The Union (D The College Fact Regular/ Recurring Occasional Regular/ Recurring Occasional Regular/ Retuning Occasional Levet Points Points Leve� Paints Level Points LP-veJ Points 'ntg Level Points Points Level Points Level Points 1A. Education 1B. Education 2. Experience 3. Analysis and Problem Solving 3 1 4 2 35 3 1 54 46 3 1 4 3 jejPjons 35 3 A3 54 1 54 78 -6 4 35- -7� 4. Planning/Coordinating 2 32 2 32 3 7 S. Guiding/Advising Others 3 29 1 31 1 29 1Zq 6. Independence of Action 2 46 4 110 L LI � 7. Service Delivery 2 29 3 51 Z 2-cl 8. Communication 3 78 3 78 3 9. Physical Effort 10. Audio/Visual Effort 1 2 5 20 1 3 5 351, 1 2- 57 -2,o 3 C� 11. Working Environment 2 38 3 9 2 38 1 3 9 2- -3 Subtotals (a) 415 (b) (a) 548 (b) 16 74 (a) ��q '4..T (b) -0'9 Total Points (a) + (b) 424 564 'a Resulting Payband Signatures; ( a — C d7, l0/,' 4& C� dpf� 1�4 (Gri6bjr Mate) (College Representativer/ (Date) Ariz n' Re —In Date) M AP, C- IA 2- 2 2-o 19 ma e c, (i 7-c, Z-0 (Arbitrator's ligp�F (Date ofHearing) (Date of Award) nature)