Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAuchterlonie 18-06-27IN 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 PAM AUCHTERLONIE OPSEU File No. 2017-0416-0008 (hereinafter called the "Grievor" or the "Incumbent") ARBITRATOR: REPRESENTING THE COLLEGE: REPRESENTING THE UNION: Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb. Penny Dockrill, Human Resources Business Manager Rebecca Trueman, Chair -Applied Science and Environmental Technology Daniel Beaulieu, Steward Local 416 Pam Auchterlonie, Grievor HEARINGS IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WERE HELD AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO ON 15 MAY 2018 AND FOLLOWING A SPECIAL PROCEDURE OF THE ARBITRATOR ON 15 JUNE 2018. AWARD Pam Auchterlonie (the "Grievor") is the Incumbent in a position titled the "Technologist Academic" under the direction of the Chair of Applied Science and Environmental Technology at Algonquin College (the "College"). At the time of the hearing on 15 May 2018 it was apparent to the Arbitrator that the parties were not ready to proceed to conduct a hearing. As a consequence the Arbitrator designed, with the assistance of the parties' representatives, a "Special Procedure" to deal with this particular case'. The balance of the hearing day in May was used to discuss the disagreements with the Position Description Form (the "PDF") and the arbitration hearing was put over to 15 June 2018. There was no final resolution on the PDF as a result of the discussions of the 15 May 2018. In accordance with the Special Procedure the PDF as revised was reviewed by the College Joint Evaluation Committee (the "CJEC") on 1 June 2018. There was disagreement on both the PDF and the point scoring performed by the CJEC on 1 June 2018 and provided to the Union on 5 June 2018 in accordance with the Special Procedure. Therefore, this Award will constitute the final and binding resolution of the contents of the PDF and also resolve the difference on the point scoring. The language in the PDF which is not in agreement involves a dispute on the contents of the Title, Position Summary, Duties and Responsibilities. The parties worked diligently on the 15 May 2018 and resolved the language differences in the PDF except in respect of one factor under the Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (the "Manual") and the PDF in the area of the "Experience Factor". There was a greater gap in the point scoring in respect of the factors set out in the Manual. There remained in dispute at the time of the hearing six factors with regard to regular and recurring duties under Experience, Analysis and Problem Solving, Planning/Coordinating, Guiding and Advising, Service Delivery and Physical Effort. At the Hearing on 15 June 2018 the Union advised that the AudioNisual Effort was agreed in both the PDF and the point scoring of the CJEC. In this Award there is further discussion of the Physical Effort Factor because of the down -grading of the point scoring to Level 2 from a previous scoring at Level 3 by the CJEC. The College evaluated the position of Technologist Academic and rated it at 622 points, placing the position within Payband I. The Grievor and the Ontario Public Service ' See letter from the Arbitrator 16 May 2018. 2 Employees Union (the "Union") submit that the position ought to be evaluated at 780 points, placing it at the higher -rated Payband L. The Duties of the Position and the PDF As a consequence of the Special Procedure the "Title"; "Position Summary" and the "Duties and Responsibilities" portions of the PDF were under challenge by the Grievor as requiring adjustment. At the Hearing on 15 June 2018 the Arbitrator ruled that the Title was for management to determine. They had done so in accordance with the descriptions used across the entire College. I ruled there would be no change in the Title. At this College, the manager of the Incumbent typically writes the Position Summary, as was the case here. While the Grievor submitted variations in wording the Arbitrator did not accept them. Therefore, the Position Summary as set out in the PDF provided under the Special Procedure will remain unaltered. Finally, there was considerable discussion of the use of the word "coordinating" as being descriptive of the Incumbent's activities with respect to part-time staff and students. Through discussion with the Arbitrator at the Hearing the Grievor relented and accepted that "coordinating" could be the action verb in the PDF. Therefore, the Duties and Responsibilities description in the PDF remains as presented in the PDF for rating on 1 June 2018. Based on the foregoing resolutions the Duties of the Position can now be discussed. The Incumbent is responsible for the daily technical and administrative operations in the science laboratories and provides the technical expertise and support to the Faculty, staff, students and the Chairperson. She is also responsible for the ordering of supplies, repair of equipment and the optimal functioning of the laboratories. Aside from the foregoing the Incumbent, along with the Chairperson, maintains and delivers the health and safety training to the staff and students. The Incumbent is also the Biosafety Officer for the College. In that capacity, she ensures compliance with the Public Health Agency of Canada ("PHAC"). She also must monitor government legislation for compliance. An illustration is the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act ("HPTA") and its accompanying regulations. The laboratory is licensed under provincial legislation and it is the Incumbent's responsibility to ensure compliance with all licensing restrictions and permissions. 3 Factors in Dispute There are five factors in dispute in this proceeding: Factor # 2 — Experience; Factor #3 — Analysis and Problem Solving; Factor#4 — Planning/Coordinating; Factor #5 - Guiding and Advising; and Factor #7 — Service Delivery. As a result of the Special Procedure some mention of the following four factors is required despite the fact that there is no disagreement in the point scoring. Thus, there is a discussion of Factor #6 - Independence of Action; Factor #8 — Communication; Factor #9 — Physical Effort and, Factor #10 - AudioNisual Effort. Each of these factors will be dealt with under separate headings below. Factor #2 — Experience: Ratings: College Level 4; Union Level 5 This factor measures the typical number of years of experience, in addition to the necessary education level, required to perform the responsibilities of the position. Experience refers to the time required to understand how to apply the knowledge described under "Education" to the duties of the position. It refers to the minimum time required in prior positions to learn the techniques, methods and practices necessary to perform this job. This experience may be less than the experience possessed by the incumbent, as it refers only to the time needed to gain the necessary skills. The Union submission is that the experience required is at Level 5 in the Manual, being a minimum of 5 years. There is no supporting documentation provided by the Union. The problem with the assertion of the Union is that it focuses on the actual experience of the Incumbent, coupled with the fact that there is only a single Biosafety Officer at the College. I find that the submission is focused on the experience of the Incumbent which is extensive; however, there is nothing to establish that the Level should be 5. It is the burden of the Union to establish the change by evidence which is not present. Therefore, the point rating will remain at that established by the CJEC. Factor #3 - Analysis and Problem Solving: Ratings: College Level 3; Union Level 4 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. To establish the Union position it was submitted that it is the pathogen work requiring a risk assessment that makes the Factor a Level 4. It was submitted that the process to do the analysis and problem solving is not readily identifiable and requires investigation which is in accordance with established techniques. The difficulty with that submission is that there are sources available to consult. The College has interpretation guidelines I! that comply with both the legislation and the College license under the applicable legislation. The difference between Level 3 and Level 4 in the factor description in the Manual comes down to analysis and investigation required to solve the problem. At Level 3 a person is required to do analysis to find a solution from information provided but perhaps not normally used by the position. Whereas at Level 4 the analysis to find a solution requires the interpretation of information according to "established techniques". That phrase has a definition in the Manual. It is defined as "an individualized way of using tools and following rules in doing something". The work of the Incumbent does not require the use of information in an individualized way. The risk is identified and analyzed as to its impact through the experience of the individual and the knowledge she has. However, there is no interpretation of the information; it is a process of identification of a problem and then reporting it as such. Therefore, I find that the work of the position does not require the techniques described at Level 4. For all of the above reasons I find the Union has not established a case for a higher rating on this the Factor of "Analysis and Problem Solving". The Factor ought to be rated at a Level 3. Therefore, the point rating will remain at that established by the CJEC. Factor #4 — Planning/Coordinating: Ratings: College Level 3 / Union Level 4 This factor measures the planning and/or coordinating requirements of the position. This refers to the organizational and/or project management skills required to bring together and integrate activities and resources needed to complete tasks or organize events. There may be a need to perform tasks with overlapping deadlines (multi -tasking) to achieve the decided results. (i) Language in the PDF The Union submits that the PDF does not reflect the assignments of tasks properly when it comes to part-time staff and students in the third "Regular & Recurring" description in this Factor. As result of the Special Procedure and the discussion amongst the parties and the Arbitrator, the contents were ultimately agreed upon as presented in the PDF sent to the CJEC on 1 June 2018. It is unnecessary for me to make a ruling on this matter for it was resolved in the course of the arbitration procedure and hearing. That compromise agreement is merely recorded here for the sake of good order and completion of the matter. (ii) Point Scoring the PDF The Union submission centered upon the part-time staff and students who work along with the Grievor in the laboratory and support her own efforts at supporting the various 5 users of the laboratory. On this basis it was submitted that the Incumbent was modifying individuals' priorities which justifies the position being scored at Level 4. I find that the Incumbent provides a service to users of the lab. In that respect the Incumbent supports the users' use of the laboratory. In the process of doing so it is also possible that because of safety or other issues the Incumbent may well recommend that some activity be stopped or performed differently than the user is intending to do. I do not find that to be modifying an individual's priorities as would be required for the scoring to be made at Level 4. 1 find that the Union has not made out a case for a higher rating on this Factor to alter the scoring established by the College. Therefore, the scoring of the Union is not accepted and the point rating will remain at that established by the CJEC. Factor #5 - Guiding/Advising Others: Ratings: College Level 3 / Union Level 4 This factor refers to any assigned responsibility to guide or advise others (e.g. other employees, students, clients) in the area of the position's expertise. This is over and above communicating with others in that the position's actions directly help others in the performance of their work or skill development. The Union submission on this factor is centered upon the portions of the PDF which are not completed for the position of the Incumbent. They are not completed because the College submits the latter two boxes are for lead hand and coordinator positions. This disagreement refers back to the description in the PDF of "Coordinating the activities of part-time staff and students". I find that the Grievor is neither a lead hand nor a coordinator in the special use of that descriptor in the system of the College. Therefore, the scoring of the Factor is in accordance with the Manual and the Factor scoring remains at Level 3. Factor #6 — Independence of Action: Ratings: College Level 3 / Union Level 4 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. At the time of the first day of this arbitration procedure the Arbitration Data Sheet for this Factor was showing both sides had agreed to a Level 4 with the scoring of 110 points. The Special Procedure did not contemplate the College, through that procedure, placing a lower point scoring than had already been determined by the time of the first hearing 0 in May of 2018. Therefore, I find that this Factor was agreed upon at Level 4 and must remain so despite the College now suggesting it is a Level 3. Therefore, the 1 June 2018 scoring of the Factor is directed by the Arbitrator to be at Level 4 and 110 points. Factor #7 — Service Delivery: Ratings: College Level 3 / Union Level 4 This 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. Some confusion arose between the parties over the role that the- Incumbent played in assisting the Dean in writing the College policy. However, it is now settled that it was a one-time occurrence and it was agreed that reference to this would be removed from the PDF. The Grievor emphasized that the template now in place was not available over the last 8 years. However, it is now available to be referred to. The arbitration procedure is examining the situation and the position as it is now, not what it was historically. The College submits that the scoring is based upon the risk assessment being a reaction to the customer's plan and what they want and are trying to accomplish. The Faculty writes the lab manuals and the problem with this area is caused more by the Faculty than the Incumbent. However, there are new materials in place that may help this situation in the future because what was formally a practice is now in written form for consultation of Faculty and others. In order to rate the Factor at Level 4 there is a need for the Incumbent to first anticipate a customer's requirements and having done so, to "pro -actively" deliver service. The risk assessment does not require any anticipation of future problems, although in the course of performing the assessment it may well be that a future possible problem could be foreseen and raised by the Incumbent. Aside from only rarely anticipating a problem in the future for the user, the Incumbent does not pro -actively deliver service. She reacts to the plans of those who are users of the lab. For these reasons I find that the Union has not established that the point scoring is incorrect. Therefore, the point scoring of the CJEC will remain in effect for this Factor. 7 Factor #8 — Communication: Ratings: College Level 3 / Union Level 4 This factor measures the communication skills required by the position, both verbal and written and includes: - communication to provide advice, guidance, information or training; interaction to manage necessary transactions; and interpersonal skills to obtain and maintain commitment and influence the actions of others. As a result of the Special Procedure and the second day of hearings this Factor was agreed upon to be scored at Level 4. 1 recognize and record this agreement in this Award. Factor #9 — Physical Effort: Ratings: College Level 2 / Union Level 3 This factor measures the degree and frequency of the physical effort required by the position but does not include stiffness and strain from poor posture or work habits. This is another Factor where the scoring of the 1 June 2018 PDF resulted in the reduction of the points scored because of setting the Factor at Level 2. As indicated above, the Special Procedure did not contemplate the College moving away from its former scoring where there was no change in the PDF scored previously for the first day of hearings. The College could not explain why the change was made. At the 15 June 2018 Hearing I directed that the scoring ought to remain as it was in the first day of hearings. Therefore, I record the Factor at Level 3. Factor #10 — Audio Visual Effort: Ratings: College Level 2 / Union Level 2 As noted above this Factor was agreed in both the PDF and the point scoring of the CJEC at the Hearing on 15 June 2018. CONCLUSION Based on all of the above adjustments, the total points assigned for the position is to be 675. That point score places the position in Payband J on the Schedule in the Manual. As a result, the Grievor is to have her pay adjusted from the date of the grievance, being 21, September 2016 up until the present. The retroactive payment under this Award is to be paid by the College no later than two pay cycles after the date of this Award. The parties are hereby directed to take the necessary steps in order to implement this decision. If there are any disputes as to the implementation of my Award, I retain 8 jurisdiction to resolve those disputes and issue a Supplementary Award to complete the process of ensuring that the remedy is complete and the Grievor is made whole to the extent that may be required. I will remain seized of this matter with jurisdiction to complete the remedy in this Award for a period of 45 days from the date herein. Either party may, on written request to the Arbitrator, ask me to reconvene the Hearing for the purposes of determining the remedial aspects of this Award. If no written request is received within the stipulated time frame, I will no longer retain jurisdiction over the implementation of the remedy arising from this Award. DATED at London, Ontario this 27th day of June 2018. "'o Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb. Arbitrator G Arbitration Data Sit - Support, Staff Classification Incumbent College Algonquin College, Pam Supervisor Auchterlone Rebecca Truemi � .. : . - Current Payhand- l Payband Requested by lGrievor. L 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. Z. The attached Written Submission is from.. The union ie The Collegej Factor management Union Arbitrator Regular/ Recurring Ocrasional Regular/ Recurring I Occasional Regular/.Recurring ilccasiOnal Level Points Level Level PoJrAs Po'o5 Level Points IA. Education IB, Education 2. Experience 4 1 4 48 3 54 4A 2) 60� A, 3. Analysis and Problem Solving 3 78 Lk -7 IZ2 Q, 4. Planning/Coordinating 3 56 q �, 5, Guiding/Advising Others 3 29 LA q1 & Independence of Action 3 78 Li tto 7. Service Delivery 3 51 Vi 1-6 8. Communication 4 110 9- Physical Effort 2 26 10. Audio/Visual Effort 2 20 go 11, Working Environment 3 69 10 lot Subtotals (a) 622 (b) 0 (a) 0 (b) 0 (a) (b) 0 'total Points (a) + (b) 622. 0 Resulting Payband I It lu --- I "I I A ?Date) ;esN prekn—tative) TAe 15 June 2018 27 June 2018 "VICT of Hearing) (Date of Award)