HomeMy WebLinkAboutTurner 19-01-31IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 238
(FOR SUPPORT STAFF)
(hereinafter called the "Union")
-and-
COLLEGE EMPLOYERS COUNCIL
(FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS and TECHNOLOGY)
In the form of CONESTOGA COLLEGE
(hereinafter called the "College")
-and-
GRIEVANCE OF GORDON TURNER
OPSEU File No. 2017-0238-0010
(hereinafter called the "Grievor" or the "Incumbent")
ARBITRATOR:
REPRESENTING THE UNION:
REPRESENTING THE COLLEGE
Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb.
Vikki-Lee Poirier, President Local 238
Troy Mantle, Vice -President of Local
Gordon Turner, Grievor
Carolyn Galvin, Manager Labour
Relations Human Resources
Ian Smith, Facilities Manager
Pete Schlei, Senior Manager Maintenance and
Operations
A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT CONESTOGA
COLLEGE IN KITCHENER, ONTARIO ON 28 JANUARY 2019.
AWARD
Introduction
There are two General Maintenance Shipper/Receiver persons that work within the
Facilities Management Department based exclusively at the Guelph Campus of the
College. That campus is on a 10 acre site with a building size of approximately
130,000 square feet, including 20 industrialized shops designed to teach Motive
Power Apprentices such trades as Heavy Equipment, Heavy Truck and other
Automotive Power Trades programs. The two individuals work separately from
their supervisor and lead hand and, work independently of each other.
Gordon Turner (the "Grievor" or "Incumbent") is employed by the College as a
General Maintenance Shipper/Receiver Worker in the Facilities Management
Department at the Guelph Campus of Conestoga College. The Incumbent
performs building and equipment maintenance, repairs, inspections and
installations to both the interior and exterior of the campus grounds and buildings;
including working on the rooftop areas where 32 HVAC units and other equipment
are located. In addition to the 40 hour work week the Incumbent's position
includes after -hour emergency service response and seasonal snow removal in the
period from the 15th of November to the 151 of April.
The Grievor has worked at the Guelph Campus for 21 years having started in June
of 1998. He was laid off and then reassigned. As a consequence his Position
Description Form ("PDF") was rewritten and re-evaluated. The significance of
this was that his former payband had been evaluated at Level G. The current
rewritten and re-evaluated PDF has resulted in a lower payband of Level E.
The Union and the Grievor disagree with the contents and specific details of the
current PDF. Those issues will be dealt with as they relate to specific factors in the
PDF in the discussion of each factor.
The College evaluated the General Maintenance Shipper/Receiver Worker position
and rated it at 378 points using the "Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual" ("the
Manual"). In accordance with the Manual that point score places the position
2
within Payband E. The Grievor and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(the "Union") submitted that the position ought to be evaluated at 533 points,
placing it at the higher -rated Payband H.
The Duties of the Position
The Incumbent is responsible for performing semi -skilled work in the area of
installations, maintenance, repair and general upkeep of buildings, equipment and
facilities at the Guelph Campus of the College. He responds to work orders and
maintenance calls from various departments. When the shipper/receiver is not
available due to vacation the Incumbent performs the shipping and receiving
function.
Factors in Dispute
There are five factors in dispute in this proceeding: Factor #113 — Additional
Education; Factor #2 — Experience; Factor #6 — Independence of Action; Factor
# 10 — Audio/Visual Effort and Factor #I I — Work Environment. Each of these
factors will be dealt with under separate headings below.
Factor #1 B — Additional Education: Ratings: College Level 2 / Union Level 3
This factor looks at both the level of formal education required as well as the need for
additional education that is not normally obtained within or is beyond the scope of the
primary educational level.
The Union submits that before the Incumbent's previous position was made
redundant he was required to have, and did obtain, a certificate in a College
program Building and Environmental Operators Class II. It is submitted that now
that the Grievor has been transferred to his current position a similar certificate
ought to be added to the Additional Education Factor as a requirement.
The College submits that any additional education required beyond that set out in
the PDF can be achieved by on the job training and is not necessary to be part of
the job requirements to be eligible to hire a person into the position.
11
(i) Findings on the Additional Education Factor 1(8)
It is very understandable that given the redundancy the Grievor would like
recognition in his current position of the training certificate he had to hold for his
prior position. However, the College is establishing the minimal level of additional
education required for someone to be hired into the position. The fact that in a prior
position which no longer exists there was a requirement for a certain certificate does
not mean that because the Incumbent has the certificate it is required as part of the
Additional Education Factor in his current position. While I sympathize with the
Grievor about what has occurred here it is not a reason to find that the certificate
should be part of the Additional Education Factor. Therefore the Union has not
established its case. There is to be no change in the Factor.
Factor #2 — Experience: Ratings: College Level 3 / 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 refs only to the time needed to gain the necessary skills.
The Union submits that it is not unreasonable to require more than 5 years of work
experience to gain the knowledge and skills required to perform all of the many
duties and responsibilities of the position. Those responsibilities include but are not
limited to: life safety and fire alarm testing, hot water boiler inspections and
maintenance; general plumbing maintenance and installations — inspections, flush
valves, drains, hydration stations; equipment maintenance — oil changes, greasing
bearings, checking belts and related filters, working at heights to perform lighting
inspections and repairs; maintenance of landscaping equipment to keep up with lawn
and grass cutting, pruning, etc. This position requires extensive multi -tasking,
organizational skills and critical thinking to keep up with the carpentry, electrical,
plumbing and locksmithing duties.
The College submits that two years of practical experience is adequate and one would
be capable of learning the techniques, methods and practices necessary to perform
this job.
(i) Findings on Experience Factor
There seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of the Union in its submission.
This Factor is intended to determine the level of work experience beyond the basic
education and additional education factor which will be required to apply for the
position. In other words, it is additional work experience to be brought to the job
and required before obtaining the job and receiving on-the-job training. The
submissions of the Union focus on the length of time it may take to fully learn the
job once in the position rather than what prior work experience beyond on-the-job
training is necessary. While the Incumbent has trouble shooting skills as a result of
his previous position and uses them in his work, the objective of job evaluation is
not to rate the person doing the job but what are the requirements of the job.
The Incumbent, formerly being a Facilities Management Team Leader at the
Guelph Campus, has considerable knowledge and brings considerable experience
to his new position which was also a downgrade in pay from Level G to Level E.
To evaluate the Experience Factor it is necessary to separate the Incumbent and his
considerable experience and knowledge from the requirements to do the job.
When the Factor is looked at in this fashion then it becomes apparent that 5 years
job related experience is excessive and is not required to be obtained by a person
before being able to be considered for the job.
For all of the foregoing reasons the Union has not established that 5 years prior
experience is required to perform the work of the position. The Union has not met
the burden of establishing that the rating is incorrect. Therefore, the Factor is
found to be properly set at 2 years additional work experience beyond any on-the-
job training. No adjustment in the Factor is justified.
Factor #6 — Independence of Action: Ratings: College Level 2 / Union Level 4
The Manual describes the Factor as measuring the level of independence or autonomy
of the position and prescribes that:
E
... 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.
The Union submits that the Incumbent is the first line contact for essential services
and urgent situations. He examines the circumstances and determines the problem
at hand. He is expected to work to resolve situations if he can or advise that others
need to be brought in to assist. It was submitted that there is very limited input
from supervisors and in particular limited instruction on how to do the majority of
the work assignments.
The College submits that the Incumbent's assignments are largely triggered by
work orders, work requests or directions from supervisors. Indeed, it was the
implementation of the centralized service delivery model where work orders are
centralized at the Doon campus that resulted in the declaration of redundancy and
the transfer of the Grievor. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the two persons on
site have no direct supervisors on site and are initially left to their own devices and
knowledge to define problems and effect solutions or report the problems so others
can be assigned to deal with them.
(i) Findings on Independence of Action Factor
Many of the inspection duties are completed based upon pre -determined steps
where guidelines or report sheets are available and require completion. However,
the trouble shooting requirements of the position may require the Incumbent to do
whatever is necessary to do with the problem or recognize that it is beyond his
capabilities and must report same for others to act upon. The repair function of the
work is a mix of the use of guidelines, industry practices or skilled trade practices
related to electricity, plumbing and other trades. Then when it comes to the use of
pesticides in the summer period from 15 April to 15 November there is virtually
complete autonomy, which is part of the reason for requiring the Pesticide
Technician certificate in the Additional Education Factor. Finally, the urgent call -
C
in situations require assessment of what the problem is, proactive steps being taken
that are urgent, like shutting off electricity or water and fixing the problem that has
been identified if it is within the abilities of the Incumbent. Therefore, in on-call
situations the Incumbent is acting in a highly autonomous fashion without
supervision.
Therefore, I find that the best fit when considering the varied activities of the
position is more at Level 4 than at Level 2. The Union has established that many
aspects of the job are beyond Level 2 and some are at Level 4. I find that there is a
level of autonomy that justifies the Level 4 rating. For all of the foregoing reasons
I find that the Union has established the position is at Level 4.
Factor #10 — Audio Visual Effort: Ratings: College Level 1/ Union Level 3, FI
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)
(i) Findings on the Audio/Visual Effort Factor
At the Hearing there was considerable disagreement and confusion surrounding
this Factor and its application to the position. I have not set out the submissions of
the parties deliberately for I did not find them particularly helpful and provided me
with little assistance. Both parties do agree that the focus is "focus interrupted" so
there is common ground there.
The College states that while grass cutting and snow plowing occur for extended
periods of time the tasks are routine, and it is easy to resume when interrupted
without going back and re -doing some of the work accomplished before
interruption. That puts into question the length of the task being undertaken and
the interplay of the interruption suggesting it is a short period; and, the Union that
it is extended meaning more than two hours at one time including scheduled
7
breaks. I find that the College position is incorrect in that many of the tasks would
exceed the 30 minutes beyond the obvious ones of grass cutting and snow plowing.
Repairs and problem identification could be quick but also could be lengthy. The
units that require filter changes every quarter take the two individuals a day and a
half together to complete. Therefore, I find that the Union has established that the
better fit is Level 3.
Factor #11 — Work Environment: Ratings: College Level 2 + 03/ Union Level 3
This factor looks at the environment in which work is performed and the extent to
which there exists undesirable or hazardous elements.
(i) Findings on the Work Environment Factor
The College has rated the position at Level 2 with an Occasional Level 3. The
Union submitted that the work is more appropriately rated at Level 3 all the time.
The feature of the position that puts it in Level 3 is the hazardous substances that
have to be handled. Beyond that the more appropriate conditions are those of
Level 2. Therefore, I find that the rating as set by the College is affirmed and the
Union has not established that the bulk of the work is at Level 3. For all of the
foregoing reasons I find that the Union has not established that all work of the
position is at Level 3. The rating remains unchanged.
CONCLUSION
Based on all of the above adjustments, the total points assigned for the position is
to be 472. That point score places the position in Payband G on the Schedule in
the Manual. As a result, the Grievor is to have his 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 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 31 st day of January, 2019.
Richard H. McLaren, C. rb.
Arbitrator
6
Arbitration Data Slice( —Su1)I)ort St:Il`f'CIm"ifitation
college: fnncsjobu lilcuui'acllt: Gardon'I'urncr Supt:rvisor lan Snaith
Gtnrcnl Payband: li Payband Requested by GricvO r:
i. Catucrning the attached I'asitiirt I)esta•ipiiun hUrn):
D 'I fie parties agreed on the contents 'I'ftc Unum disacirces with I'le contacts alld the Soccific details are au.lclwd.
3. The sitached Written Submission is tions: 0 The Uttion iltc CoaeBe
IIcioI, Maul rcmeut Union ..._..._ _.Arbitt ilor _
Regular/ Occasional Ragulnr/ Occasional Regultirl} Otca.,ioarnt~ V
ltccurring _ ### _ Recurring _ Recurrinit�- _j!
_ I cvei Points_ I,cvcl 1 Points Level Points Level Points Level _ Points ! hevc) Points
t,' _(1)I:dttc Hutu � 1 _t)
[. (I1) Additional 2 12� 3 21
?- i �iticrtctuc 3 V 39
3. An,ahsis & 2 46 2 46 I
Puthlcm Solvin
4 Pl,mniul t(:onrdiaa 2 32 2 32 I j
UtudinevAdvising 1 S t 5 l
~ Othtt
G tndvpct ldcncc of 2 •16_ 4 Ito f f C7
ituu.r I
? Scivio, Dclivrry 2 29 2 29 i
t
R Caanmauaic:anion 2 46 7 aI{s
9 Pltytacel };Hort 3 47 3 47
M. Audio/Visual 1 20 3 sit yu{
lii7itr( }<i
1 t, Wtxl 2 39
9 3 69 Ti ^ g 3
IinYittnlatlCUL . _ _ ,-,_. •_,_„_,_�..�_.___._ __._ /
Sublotats (1)369 U)tl (:►} 533 (h)
Total Points (a) + (b} .+78 533
Resulting 11uy6autl i. it
Signattlrc`: '
a _
IT -
r f
Cn i�ut r •r . Hatt Coliecc rt cutativc ate
JOAA
i)t Chi'CSClitiallVL` 1)iill
}
2S 2-019 1 0 1-/
rnl I7atc of l lcazit,g t)atc of Award
rlrtattration 1),11a.tilaCct it. c ass:6catitm t°,rimumx Gordt,n I unit r ttuc