HomeMy WebLinkAboutMorris Group 18-09-20IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 658
(FOR SUPPORT STAFF)
(hereinafter called the "Union")
-and-
COLLEGE EMPLOYERS COUNCIL
(FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS and TECHNOLOGY)
In the form of CANADORE COLLEGE
(hereinafter called the "College")
-and-
GRIEVANCE OF TROY MORRIS, DAVID BONANY, SANDRA BROUGHTON
OPSEU File No. 2017-0658-0001
(hereinafter called the "Grievors" or the "Incumbents")
ARBITRATOR:
REPRESENTING THE COLLEGE
COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE:
REPRESENTING THE UNION:
Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb.
Mike Miscio, Director, Health, Safety,
Security & Environmental
Jodee Brown Yeo, Director,
Organizational Development and Talent
Management
Nadine Zacks
Hicks Morley LLP
Troy Morris, Grievor
David Bonany, Grievor,
Chief Steward
Sandra Broughton, Grievor
Vice President of the Local
A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT THE COLLEGE IN
NORTH BAY, ONTARIO ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2018.
Introduction
David Bonany, Sandra Broughton and Troy Morris are the Grievors in this matter and
work as Security Officers at the College. The Position Description Form ("PDF") for this
position is agreed between the parties and is dated 7 April 2017.
The College evaluated the Security Officer position and rated it at 449 points using the
"Support Staff: Job Evaluation Manual" ("the Manual"). In accordance with the Manual
that point score places the position within Payband F. The Grievors and the Ontario
Public Service Employees Union (the "Union") submit that the position ought to be
evaluated at 560 points, placing it at the higher -rated Payband H. The Union at the
hearing withdrew the claim of an Occasional Level 5 for the disputed Factor
"Independence of Action" thereby requiring an adjustment on the "Arbitration Data
Sheet".
The Duties of the Position
The "Position Summary" in the PDF provides a concise description of the overall
purpose of the position as being:
responsible for providing essential security and emergency first
responder services and is under the immediate direction of the Manager,
Health, Safety, Security & Environmental. The purpose of the position is
to minimize adverse effects on the health and safety of students, staff and
visitors; prevent property and equipment damage, and ensure
College/University policies are followed. Incumbents must hold a valid
license under the Private Security and Investigative Services Act."
The Incumbents are also required to have and keep certificates, renewed annually, in
Frist Aid, CPR, and Use of Force.
The particular Grievors are well versed and knowledgeable about how to respond to
various security and emergency situations based on jobs they held before working for
the College. The lowest level of years of service of the three Security Officers is 15.
The work of the position is performed at three campuses of the College. One is
Commerce Court located in the central part of the City of North Bay; then there is the
Aviation Campus, and The Education Centre Campus. The Incumbents work out of two
security offices located at The Education Centre Campus and the Commerce Court
2
Campus. There are three shifts: day, evening and night shift and the Grievors typically
rotate through all of the shifts.
Factors in Dispute
There are three factors in dispute in this proceeding: Factor # 6 — Independence of
Action; Factor #8 — Communication; Factor #10 — AudioNisual Effort. Each of these
factors will be dealt with under separate headings below.
Factor #6 — Independence of Action: Ratings: College Level 2 +30 / Union Level 4
The Manual describes the Factor as measuring the level of independence or autonomy
of the position and prescribes that:
... The following elements should be considered:
- the types of decisions that the position makes,-
-
akes,- 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,-
-
upervisor,- the rules, procedures, past practice and guidelines that are available to provide
guidance and direction.
The College is at Level 2 and the Union is at Level 4. The Union bears the
responsibility of establishing its case that the position ought to be rated a Level 4. The
Grievors acknowledge that their duties are largely defined by "industry standards". In
making their submissions they rely upon the range of decisions that are being made.
The range is very wide, from determining which parking lot best suits the needs of a
customer, to what life saving techniques should be applied; or, how much force should
be used to subdue a person about to be arrested. However, as the above quote from
the Manual indicates, that is only one of several elements that should be considered.
The Incumbents are typically the first on the scene in response to a request beyond
response by email. The first step is to determine the authority under which the Grievors
may have to act before doing so. Experience and training are important so that the
correct authority, such as the Trespass Act or the Criminal Code warning are
recognized and govern their autonomy to act within the applicable boundaries.
Following that assessment their role is to assess what needs to be done and get it
accomplished amicably and effectively. In doing so they are acting in reliance upon
Standing Orders and policies which, in these circumstances, are proxies for advice of a
supervisor. On occasion where the authority may have some statutory basis to it that
must be considered but that is not most situations. The typical response is apparently
3
related to the parking system of the College which occupies a good deal of the
Incumbents' time.
I find that the second element listed above comes into play in that virtually all situations
the initial tasks are decided by the Incumbents. There is no opportunity to liaise with the
lead officer or the supervisor.
The College submits that independence of action can be assessed by the antonym
being limited by procedures and policies which are an indirect substitute for direct
supervision. The policies and procedures are the form of control that defines the duties
and limits them thus making the position a Level 2.
When I examine the scale of the autonomy moving from Level 2 to Level 3 or 4 it is
intended to escalate. In this case the Incumbents have established the evidence to
make the case that the position fits Level 4. First, for every incident there is a specific
goal determined by the nature of the incident. In many cases, and in particular the
parking cases, the objective may be the same that is amicable resolution of the incident
or issue. Nevertheless that initial assessment of authority required before entering into
the facilitation phase of the process is not going to be found in a guideline or policy. Yet
that step in the process can have significant consequences for the individual employee
and the College if an improper assessment is undertaken. That is a very high level of
autonomy exercised because of training, or policies or procedures but will be different in
most cases and is crucial in the first step and especially so when acting as a first
responder. Therefore, I conclude that the Incumbents have established that the
appropriate Level according to the criteria in the Manual is Level 4. Their duties are
completed in accordance with specific goals or objectives frequently involving
departmental policies or the use of industry practices. It is directed that this rating be
substituted on the PDF to a Level 4.
Factor #8 — Communication: Ratings: College Level 2 + 40 / Union Level 3 + 40
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.
Written communications includes letters, reports, proposals or other documents.
First it should be recognized that the parties have agreed that the Occasional rating for
this position is Level 4. This is done to recognize the infrequent but difficult
11
communications when dealing with criminal or suicidal situations and other urgent
emergencies. The parties also agree that these incidents are limited to a few over the
years but the frequency is increasing. The Occasional rating takes some of the more
complex and infrequent communication response out of the evaluation described below.
Communications in the Incumbents' work is multi -faceted. The principal types of
individuals that they must communicate with include young adults, many of whom are
international students from overseas whose first language is not English. They also
must communicate with parents and relations of students, Faculty and staff of the
College. The audience is diverse and receptive to different types of approaches
depending on who they are. In some cases, the person being spoken to by the
Incumbent may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol or stressed by their -school or
domestic life. Those factors make the audience on many occasions difficult to respond
to appropriately.
The College submits that a significant part of the work involves explaining or clarifying
general information to individuals who may be familiar with the subject matter of the
conversation.
I find that in order to achieve the objective of trying to find a consensual resolution to the
problem the Incumbents are being increasingly challenged, particularly by students, to
explain because the student claims of being unable to understand. The students want
to understand despite the fact that the College does not necessarily require that the
Incumbents secure an understanding. However, the persons in the diverse group with
whom the Incumbents interact are requiring understanding. The role in first responses
does not require an understanding.
Much of the work requires providing of general information about the College, its rules
and explaining: (i) college policies and procedures;
(ii) by-laws;
(iii) traffic control procedures; or,
(iv) how the parking system works and showing how to register for
a parking pass.
This is not technical and while it involves some explanation and clarification there is no
"interpreting information to secure understanding". I conclude that the Incumbents did
not satisfy me that they had established that the College rating is inaccurate. Therefore,
the College ranking is well founded and no adjustment has been established by the
Union to suggest a higher ranking for the Factor than that assigned by the College.
5
Factor #10 — Audio Visual Effort: Ratings: College Level 1/ Union Level 1
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 switch attention between types of tasks and sensory input
(e.g. multi -tasking where each task requires concentration)
The Grievors and the Union agree with the College assessment of the question of
concentration or focus being maintained throughout the duration of the activity. As
noted in the Union brief this may require a change in the answer to the question.
Both parties agree that the appropriate Level is 1. The difference between them is
whether the focus is maintained or interrupted. No call can go unanswered by the
Security Officers because they have no knowledge as to what will be said in the call.
For example, it could be as banal as a parking question or as critical as a suicide threat
or substance abuse misbehaviour. By means of necessity in their job the Incumbents
will have their focus interrupted. Therefore, the Union has established that their rating is
correct. It is directed that the ranking be changed to Focus interrupted.
CONCLUSION
Based on all of the above adjustments, the total points assigned for the position is to be
519. That point score places the position in Payband G on the Schedule in the Manual.
As a result, the Grievors are to have their pay adjusted from the date of the grievance
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 herein.
The parties are hereby directed to take the necessary steps in order to implement this
decision. If there is any dispute as to the implementation of my award, I retain
jurisdiction to resolve those disputes and issue a supplementary award. Jurisdiction is
retained to complete the process of ensuring that the remedy is complete and that the
Grievors are 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 26th day of September, 2018.
RichardWMLa—ren, .Arb.
Arbitrator
7
Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification
College: Canadore College Incumbent: Troy Morris, David Bonanv, Sandra Broughton
Supervisor: Mike Miscio Current Payband: F Payband Requested by Grievor: H
1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form:
o The parties agreed on the contents X The Union disagrees with the contents and the
specific details are attached.
2. The attached Written Submission is from: X The Union o The College
Factor
Management
Union
Arbitrator
Regular/ Recurring
Occasional
Regular/ Recurring
Occasional
Regular/ Recurring
Occasional
Level
Points
Level
Points
Level
Points
Level
Points
Level
Points
Level
Points
1A. Education
3
35
3
35
3
3
113. Education
2
12
2
12,
k
2. Experience
3
39
3
39�a
M
,
3. Analysis and Problem
2
46
3
9
2
46
3
9
J,
Solving
4. Planning/Coordinating
3
56
3
56
3
S!v
5. Guiding/Advising Others
3
29
3
29
3
6. Independence of Action
2
46
3
9
4
110
5
9
7. Service Delivery
2
29
2
29
acl
8. Communication
2
46
4
9
3
78
4
9
L4L-7
9. Physical Effort
2
26
3
6
2
26
3
6
10. Audio/Visual Effort
1
5
_�¢'
_ �_^
1
20
w }
`
`
11. Working Environment
2
38
3
9
2
3$
3
9
a,
3
C�
Subtotals
(a) 407
(b) 42
(a) 518
(b) 42
!fig
(a) 4S
(b)
Total Points (a) + (b)
449
560
; -`
Resulting Payband
F
H
C
Signatures:
(Arbitrator's
1
- �;;C9
(Datel
jSept. 13, 2018
(Date of Hearing)
Sept. 26 , 2018
(Date of Award)
Al
(�olT IQ6reseniativej
(DAh)
jSept. 13, 2018
(Date of Hearing)
Sept. 26 , 2018
(Date of Award)