Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPennel & Murdock 08-04-07 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ST. LAWRENCE COLLEGE ("the College") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION ("the Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCES OF GYSLAINE PENNELL (#541805) AND HEATHER MURDOCK (#541806) ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate APPEARANCES For the College: Pennie Carr-Harris Jim Gibson Leah Wales F or the Union: Julie Lott Heather Murdock Gyslaine Pennell HEARING: In Kingston on March 18, 2008 2 DECISION INTRODUCTION This is a highly unusual classification case. It relates to September 2005 grievances in which Ms. Heather Murdock and Ms. Gyslaine Pennell contended that they were improperly classified. At the time M:s. Murdock was a Bookstore Operator at the College's bookstore in Brockville while Ms. Pennell held a similar position at its bookstore in Cornwall. In July 2004 the College contracted out the operation of both bookstores to the Follett Higher Education Group. Notwithstanding this contracting out the grievors remained employees of the College. They reported to and took direction from Follett while at the same time reporting to College management and being paid by the College. The College understood that this situation would best protect the ongoing interests of the grievors. Both grievors, however, encountered difficulties with the arrangement. In April 2007 Ms. Murdock voluntarily transferred to another position at the College. In December 2007 Ms. Pennell retired from the College and took a position with Follett managing the stores in Brockville and Cornwall. When the grievances were filed both grievors were classified as a Clerk General D at payband 8. This was under a former job evaluation system that has since been replaced. In their grievances the grievors asked to be rated at payband 10. At issue is how the grievors should have been paid in their previous positions pursuant to a former job evaluation system that is no longer in operation. F or a variety of reasons the grievances took some two and a half years to get to arbitration. The provisions of the applicable collective agreement respecting the processing of classification grievances were not adhered to. At the hearing the spokesperson for the College raised a formal objection to the arbitrability of the grievances. She also indicted, however, that the College was prepared to waive the objection in order to allow the grievances to be addressed. Because of the manner in which the grievances were handled it was not until after the parties had filed their written briefs that they became aware of each others final ratings for all twelve factors under the former job evaluation system. In the result, their briefs did not address all of the factors in dispute and addressed some factors that ended up not being in dispute. The parties did not complete a joint arbitration data sheet. At the hearing it was clarified that the parties disagreed on the ratings for seven of the factors under the former classification system. Each of the seven factors is discussed separately below. The College's ratings for all twelve job factors totaled 530 points. This was within the 511 to 570 point range for payband 8. The Union rated the position at 647 points, 3 within the 631 to 690 point range for payband 10. The intervening 571 to 630 points fell within payband 9. In March 2006, following a series of meetings, the College understood that agreement had been reached on a revised position description form ("PDF") for the grievors' positions. The Union subsequently indicated that it had certain concerns about the wording of the document. At the hearing, however, the Union indicated that it was now prepared to accept the revised PDF. Given the agreement of the parties to the revised PDF I have given its provisions considerable weight. This includes in instances where the PDF contains language also found in the criteria for various factor level ratings. At the hearing the parties agreed that Ms. Pennell would serve as a representative grievor. Ms. Pennell gave evidence. Ms. Leah Wales, the College's Director of Student and Business Operations, also gave brief evidence. According to the College's brief both grievors reported to Ms. Wales. At the hearing Ms. Pennie Carr-Harris, the College's Executive Director of Human Resource Services, acted as the College spokesperson. She also addressed certain factual issues relating to the grievors' situation. Issues related to the two grievances had initially been the responsibility of an Employment Manager. The College's brief, however, noted that when this individual retired the responsibility had "defaulted" to Ms. Carr-Harris. Steward Ms. Julie Lott acted as the Union's spokesperson. As touched on below, during the hearing reference was made to ratings formerly assigned to Ms. Pennell's position and to differing views about whether changes made to those ratings by the College had or had not been appropriate. I have, however, limited my approach to determining appropriate ratings for Ms. Pennell's position at the time she filed her grievance. MS. PENNELL'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES In her evidence Ms. Wales noted that the bookstore in Cornwall had annual sales of about one million dollars. Ms. Pennell testified that when she was a College Bookstore Operator reporting to Follett she would receive order forms from faculty listing required textbooks and she would enter the information into a computer system. She indicated that based on a number of considerations, including the demand for used books, she would decide how many of each textbook to order. She said that she might later order additional texts if supplies ran low, which again involved deciding how many to order. She noted that this 4 included situations where a new course section had been opened without anyone notifying the bookstore. Ms. Pennell said that when new textbooks were delivered she would match packing slips with purchase orders and the number of books actually received and forward this information to Follett. In addition she checked the condition of the books and generally returned those not in good condition. Ms. Pennell said that she ensured that textbooks were properly priced so that when they were scanned the appropriate retail price would come up. In addition, she ensured that the books were shelved according to course codes. Ms. Pennell stated that about eight weeks into a semester "we" would start returning unsold texts, which involved counting them, entering the information into a computer system and sending the information to Follett. She also said that "we" would pack the books into boxes weighing a maximum of 50 pounds. She noted that if there were a number of boxes to be returned to the same publisher she would take the boxes to shipping and receiving, put them on a skid and shrink wrap them. Ms. Pennell indicated that she had received sheets listing supplies that might be sold in the bookstore and she would decide which ones to order. She said that this information went to Follett's home office which then prepared a purchase order. Ms. Pennell indicated that at times Follett would prepare a purchase order for giftware without her input but she could ask to be sent additional items. Ms. Pennell testified that unsold giftware and supplies were not returned to the supplier but instead Follett would instruct her to do markdowns. She said that "we" would then re-ticket the items and enter them on markdown sheets. She also said that for items that had been in the store for over a year she could recommend that the price be marked down. Ms. Pennell testified that when there were only a couple of items left of a slow moving item she could mark them down on her own initiative. She noted that clothing sold in the stare was purchased by a national buyer without any input from her although she did reorders when a particular size was running low. Ms. Pennell testified that she had downloaded lists of textbooks and certain clothing and giftware onto a bookstore website so that students could order them online. She said that online orders would be put through the cash and the items then sent to the student or left in a secure place for them to pick up. Ms. Pennell indicated that she was provided with a book which addressed how to do displays and to market properly. She said that Follett set details, such as not having tags hanging down, but she had to ensure that the store looked appealing. She testified that Follett would tell her about displays to be set up in the store and she would have to 5 implement the displays. Ms. Pennell noted that at times her store was shopped by "secret shoppers" who would rate the store based on things such as neatness, how staff were dressed, whether or not they had on name tags and whether the shelves were in proper order. Ms. Pennell said that if a student had a complaint, for example if she refused to allow them to return a book with a bent cover and bent pages, she would try to resolve the matter by explaining why she could not take the book back. She said that if she could not resolve the matter she would call Ms. M. Lemmon who worked at the College's bookstore in Kingston to see what she would do in the situation. She added that Ms. Lemmon might tell her that she had done everything that she could have. When giving this evidence Ms. Pennell referred to Ms. Lemmon as the manager in Kingston. Later, when discussing the factor of judgement, she referred to Ms. Lemmon as her supervisor. Ms. Pennell said that she would tell Ms. Lemmon about any student complaints she could not resolve so that Ms. Lemmon would know about them should they should end up on someone' s desk. Ms. Pennell worked within tight controls in terms of inventory and cash handling. She indicated that through her computer entries Follett was kept advised of what was happening. She said that at the end of each day she would reconcile a cash registrar and cash and then punch the numbers into a mainframe and if the numbers did not balance she would have to fix the problem. She also said that she would input bank deposit amounts and amounts to be placed in a safe and if the system detected a problem she would have to locate the error. Ms. Pennell took deposits to the bank. Ms. Pennell indicated that every day she would receive a list of items to be inventoried using a scanner and if what was in inventory did not match what should have been there she had to find out why. She said that on a yearly basis three individuals would come to the store to scan the inventory. Ms. Pennell testified that she dealt with students from sponsoring agencies. She said that an agency would send in a sponsorship letter and she would then set up an account for the student. She noted that when the student purchased a book it would be entered on their account and an invoice sent to the sponsoring agency. When payment was received it would be applied to the student's account. Should a payment not be received Ms. Pennell would follow up with the agency. Ms. Pennell testified that a person called a Sales Associate who was paid by Follett worked 24 hour per week in the store under her direction. She said that she had advertised this position in a newspaper, reviewed the applications and decided that two of the applicants should be interviewed. She said that she alone interviewed one of the applicants and she had Ms. Lemmon jointly interview the other one with her. Ms. 6 Pennell said that she made the decision to hire the individual who she alone had interviewed. She also said that she had to explain policies and procedures to this individual, including how to receive in the back office. In addition, she gave the example of her explaining to this person that if she took a roll of tape off the shelf to use she had to make a record of it and take the roll out of inventory. Ms. Pennell testified that in September and January, when the bookstore was particularly busy, she would hire a "casual person" who was paid by Follett. She said that on her own initiative she had placed an ad for the position on a government web site. She indicated that she had selected an individual for the position and then continued to use the same person's services during subsequent busy periods. She said that this individual had primarily done front end cash and provided help to students. Ms. Pennell indicated that she sent payroll information respecting Follett staff employed at her store to Ms. Lemmon. She said that Follett would provide her with a copy of a payroll budget and tell her to stay within it and in order to do so she would at times give a staff member fewer hours. Ms. Pennell testified that at times one or two bursary students from the College worked in the store for 12 hours per week. She said that she would review student resumes and availability, decide which students to interview and then decide which ones to hire. She also said that she had trained the students on how to do cash and cash out, advised them about a dress code, showed them a training video and told them how to help students. Ms. Pennell testified that there had been an occasion when she encountered problems with one of two bursary students who were working in the bookstore. She indicated that she raised the situation with Ms. Wales but came to understand that Ms. Lemmon did not want to take any action with respect to the situation. Ms. Pannell said that she decided to deal with the matter by letting both students go and telling them that she did not currently need any students. THE FACTOR OF EXPERIENCE The job evaluation manual for the applicable job evaluation system stated that the factor of experience was designed to measure the amount of practical experience in any related work necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position. Earlier in the manual it stated that it was up to a College to determine the qualifications and skill level required to do a job. Logically any levels set by the College had to be reasonable and reflect the actual requirements of a position as well as the performance level expected by the College. 7 The College rated this factor at level 3, which was worth 32 points. The Union contends that a level 4 rating worth 45 points would have been more appropriate. The relevant factor level definitions as well as the illustrative classification set out in the job evaluation manual read as follows: 3. More than one year and up to three years of practical expenence. Caretaker B; Clerk General C; Library Technician B; Support Services Officer A, B 4. More than three years and up to five years of practical expenence Clerk General D; Secretary B, C; Technician C; Technologist B The College contended that someone in Ms. Pennell's position would require two years experience in a retail environment, including experience in purchasing, accounting and inventory control. Ms. Pennell said that the College had previously rated this factor at level 4. In response Ms. Carr-Harris indicated that the College had subsequently increased the required level of training (and associated rating) by referring to skills normally acquired through a two year college diploma in business administration. She said that the College felt that someone with this level of training would only require two years of experience in a retail environment and certainly not more than three years. Ms. Pennell stated that she felt someone newly hired into her previous position with a two year diploma in business management and with up to three years of retail experience might possibly be able to do the job although with a lot of steep learning curves. Ms. Pennell noted that despite their bookstore experience after the transitioning of the stores to Follett both she and Ms. Murdock had considered quitting. She said that they did not quit only because a Follett trainer had come up from Texas to assist them for three weeks. It appears from Ms. Pennell's evidence that the training provided by this individual related to Follett's methods of operation and did not involve expertise that could have been gained through prior retail experience outside the Follett organization. As noted above, the job evaluation manual stated that it was up to a College to determine the qualifications and skill level required to do a job. In light of this statement and Ms. Pennell's evidence referred to above, and recognizing that any new hire would require training on the Follett methods of operation, I conclude that an 8 individual who had a two year college diploma in business management would likely have required no more than three years experience in a retail setting in order to perform the minimum requirements of the position. Accordingly, I confirm the level 3 rating assigned by the College. JUDGEMENT This factor measured the independent judgement and problem solving required on the job. It assessed the difficulty in identifying various alternate choices of action and in exercising judgement to select the most appropriate action. It also considered mental processes such as analysis, reasoning or evaluation. The College rated Ms. Pennell's position at level 3, which was worth 48 points. The Union argued for a level 4 rating worth 66 points. The applicable level definitions and illustrative classifications were as follows: 3. Job duties require some moderate degree of judgement. Problem solving involves the identification and breakdown of the facts and components of the problem situation. Clerk General C; Secretary A, B; Security Guard 4. Job duties require a considerable degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves handling a variety of conventional problems, questions or solutions with established analytical techniques. ECE Worker; Nurse; Secretary C The PDF contains the following entries with respect to this factor: Describe the degree of independent iudgement and problem solving required to perform the duties of the position. Work is performed independently; however, problems or unusual situations are discussed with the Supervisor and/or District Regional Manager. Problem solving requires a considerable degree of judgement, tact and diplomacy in dealing with a wide variety of clientele. A strong emphasis on customer service must be displayed at all times. 9 Example: Product arrives that is deficient. Determination needs to be made as to either return or accept shipment, based on multiple factors such as client needs, timeline, price impact and reputation. Provide examples that illustrate how the incumbent identifies the options available and determines the most appropriate course of action. Use examples that are clearly the responsibility of the position and show the level of analysis and evaluation that is used. Incumbent must use judgment in ordering and purchasing of textbooks, reference materials and supplies. With respect to deficient product Ms. Pennell gave the example of twenty damaged textbooks arriving on a Monday for a Continuing Education class that was to start on Wednesday evening. She indicated that one option was for her to accept the books, although this would carry with it a risk that the publisher might not take any unsold texts back due to their condition. Another option was to return the books and have the students do without while waiting for replacements to arrive. She indicated that still another option was for her to phone the publisher and try to work out some arrangement. Ms. Pennell said that on this occasion she went with the course instructor to look at the books and the instructor indicated that she wanted Ms. Pennell to accept them because the students would need the texts. At the hearing Ms. Pennell said that biggest problem she had to deal with concerned the bursary student who did not work out. She testified that she dealt with the College about the matter because the student had been an employee of the College. As contemplated by the PDF Ms. Pennell raised the matter with Ms. Wales but in the end she fashioned a resolution on her own which involved laying-off two students. Ms. Lott indicated that in the past the judgement factor for Ms. Pennell's position had been rated at level 4. Ms. Carr-Harris indicated that the College felt that a level 3 rating reflected the decreased judgement exercised by Ms. Pannell due to the increased controls instituted by Follett. She also contended that a level 3 rating was appropriate because the problems faced by Ms. Pannell had involved the identification and breakdown of facts and components of a problem situation following which the solution would become apparent. She also submitted that the situations faced by Ms. Pennell had tended to be repetitive. As noted by Ms. Carr-Harris, most of the issues faced by Ms. Pennell were repetitive in nature. The criteria for a level 4 rating, however, referred to conventional problems, questions and solutions, which suggests a repetition of the same general types of issues. 10 The PDF stated that problems or unusual situations were to be discussed with the Supervisor and/or District Manager. Ms. Wales identified the district manager as the individual from Follett who she had dealt with concerning the company's contract with the College. As touched on above, Ms. Pennell indicated that she informed Ms. Lemmon of student complaints that she was unable to resolve in case the complaint was taken any further. Ms. Pennell raised the situation of the problem bursary student with Ms. Wales but in the end she was left to come up with a solution on her own. It is apparent that Follett's approach to running a bookstore involved the standardization of operating procedures. This, in turn, reduced the need for staff to exercise their individual judgement. Notwithstanding this, it appears that on a recurring basis Ms. Pennell, as the senior on-site person, was required to resolve problems which involved going beyond simply identifying the facts and components of the problem situation. This included deciding what to do with the last minute arrival of damaged texts and reducing a Follett employee's hours in order to stay within budget. It is noteworthy that the PDF states that problem solving "requires a considerable degree of judgement", wording also used in the criteria for a level 4 rating. Having regard to the considerations discussed above I conclude that on a recurring basis Ms. Pennell was required to handle a variety of conventional problems which required a considerable degree of judgement and accordingly a level 4 rating was appropriate. MOTOR SKILLS This factor measured the fine motor movements necessary to fulfill the requirements of a position. It considered dexterity, complexity, co-ordination and speed. The College rated this factor at level D-2, which was worth 34 points. The Union rated it at level C-4 which had a lower score, namely 28 points. The criteria for a level C and D rating, which are set out below, both referred to complex fine motor movement. The key difference was whether speed was a major or a secondary consideration: C. Complex fine motor movement involving considerable dexterity, co-ordination and precision is reqUIred. Speed is a secondary consideration. 11 D. Complex fine motor movement involving significant dexterity, co-ordination and precision is required. Speed is a major consideration. A level 3 or 4 rating related to the prevalence of the type of fine motor movement being utilized. A level 3 rating reflected a prevalence of 31 to 60% of the time. A level 4 rating applied when the prevalence was over 60% of the time. The PDF refers to Ms. Pennell as having used fine motor movements 30% of the time when on a cash register and 50% of the time inputting information in a computer. Ms. Pennell testified that speed in scanning was a major consideration in her job, especially when there was a line up of students. She noted that she had also spent considerable time inputting information. Ms. Carr-Harris said that the College had focused on the grievors' use of a cash register and their inputting information into a computer. She said that although the type of fine motor movement involved was hard to tie down the College had decided to err on the side of a D rating. Having regard to the above, I find that speed was a major consideration for Ms. Pennell's position. In the result I conclude that the higher level D-2 rating proposed by the College was the more appropriate of the two ratings advanced by the parties. STRAIN FROM WORK PRESSURES/DEMANDS/DEADLINES This factor measured the strain associated with, or caused by, frequency and predictability of deadlines, interruptions, distractions and/or workloads, multiple and/or conflicting demands and/or dealing with people in difficult situations. The College rated this factor at level 4 worth 39 points. The Union argued in favour of a level 5 rating, the highest rating possible, worth 50 points. The relevant level definitions and illustrative classifications for level 4 (none were provided for level 5) were as follows: 4 Job duties involve conflicting work pressures and frequent interruptions in workflow. Work situations may be unpredictable with shifts in priorities and occasional critical deadlines. Secretary C; SSO C, D; Technical Support Specialist 12 5 Job duties involve continuous work pressures and unpredictable interruptions in work flow. Numerous, conflicting demands and tight deadlines occur frequently. Ms. Pennell testified that she was interrupted frequently by students, faculty and staff. She indicated that the issues which gave rise to these interruptions were generally repetitive in nature. Ms. Pannell said that Follett had been "high" on surveys and analysis and had set deadlines as to when she needed to make corrections and also set deadlines for her on a daily basis. The PDF includes the following entry with respect to this factor: There are three peak periods during the academic year and a short time frame to get orders placed, received priced and shelved. Order placement and used book buy back is on-gong throughout the year. There are various requirements for daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and year-end reporting to be completed for submission to head office by specific deadlines. This position is the only full-time position in the store thus there is constant interruption while performing any task and at the same time meeting critical deadlines. Example: A sponsored student comes in and wants to pick up textbooks. Incumbent checks and finds out that the sponsoring agent has not forwarded the authorization form. The student wants the textbooks now - the incumbent must explain the procedure, attempt to calm the student down and come up with a solution to satisfy student. Indicate the predictability of the strain and percentage of time that is required in performing each of the tasks discussed above. Task Interruptions/distractions Peak Periods Volume of workload % of Time 50% 20% 50% Predictability Not Predictable Predictable Tends to be Predictable According to the above entry in the PDF Ms. Pennell was constantly being interrupted. These interruptions generally involved repetitive issues. The example respecting a sponsored student and how Ms. Pennell would address the situation, however, suggests that there would have been a meaningful time lapse before she could 13 return to what she had previously been doing. Presumably the length of interruptions in work flow could not be predicted. In addition, the graph in the PDF refers to interruptions and distractions occurring 50% of the time and not being predictable. The PDF also describes various reporting requirements, including daily reporting requirements, as having involved "specific deadlines". Given the contents of the PDF I conclude that the wording for a level 5 rating applied and accordingly a level 5 rating was appropriate. INDEPENDENT ACTION This factor measured the independence of action and decisions required by a job. The job evaluation manual noted that controls could be in the form of supervision, policies, procedures or established practices. The College contended that a level 3 rating worth 33 points was appropriate. The Union argued in favour of a level 5 rating worth 60 points, the highest rating possible. The level definitions and illustrative classifications for both of these ratings as well as the intermediate level 4 rating worth 46 points were as follows: 3. Job duties are performed in accordance with general procedures and past practices under periodic supervision, with occasional periods of Supervisor input or verification. There is moderate freedom to act independently. Clerk General C, D; General Maintenance Worker; Microcomputer Operator B; Secretary A, B 4. Job duties are performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and modified to meet particular situations and/or problems. There is considerable freedom to act independently with Supervisor input or verification when requested. Library Technician B; Secretary C; SSO A, B; Technician C; Technologist B 5. Job duties are performed in accordance with general instructions and policies involving changing conditions and problems. There is significant freedom to act independently. SSO C, D; Systems Analyst; Technologist C 14 The PDF contains the following entries with respect to this factor: Describe the kind of instructions that that are required or provided at the beginning of a typical work assignment. Head Office outlines basic end result to be achieved and is available by telephone and email to answer any questions as to other methods to be used if required. Describe the procedures, policies and past practices that are available to serve as guidelines for typical work assignments and indicate how often they are referred to. Basic guidelines are in place for pricing. Guidelines are in palace for ordering, refunding and financial reporting. Indicate how regularly work is checked (i.e. several times daily, in progress, weekly monthly, or at the completion of a proiect.) Described how the work is reviewed (i.e. by detailed review, by exception, by report or by discussion). Incumbent performs the functions of the position in accordance with general guidelines and past practices that may need to be modified or adapted to meet different situations. Submitted financial reports are reviewed by head office on a daily basis. Describe the duties that are the incumbent's responsibility where independent actions require initiative and/or creativity and indicate how often the duties occur. Setting up displays and text areas according to store standards. Maintaining all financial data according to Head Office guidelines and procedures. Outlining the number of staff required to work during peak periods and monitoring their work. Assigning hours to part-time staff keeping in mind financial constraints. Identify the typical situations or problems that are normally referred to the Supervisor for solution. Budget / staffing / customer disagreements when incumbent cannot resolve. Ms. Pennell described Ms. Wales as her contact at the College and said that she did not deal with her very often. As noted above, during the hearing she referred to Ms. Lemmon as her supervisor. Ms. Pennell testified that during the relevant 3 1/2 year period Ms. Lemmon was in her store a total of four times, including once when they did the joint interview of a job applicant and twice when she had accompanied a senior 15 Follett employee from Chicago. Ms. Pennell said that she talked to Ms. Lemmon on the phone when she had needed information. Ms. Pennell noted that she was in contact with Follett's Chicago office every day. This included dealing with a support system about problems with a cash registrar or a server. She also said that until she "learnt the ropes" she had frequently called Follett for assistance. Ms. Pennell said that Follett had a policy for everything that went on in the store and it was not often that she could modify a practice or procedure. She noted that there was even a policy respecting donations although "we" could decide what to donate and to who. Ms. Pennell said that Mr. Scott McCrady, a long-time Follett employee who was at Carleton University, assisted her in terms of company practices and procedures. Ms. Pennell agreed with Ms. Wales' suggestion that Mr. McCrady had served as a mentor. In its brief the Union contended that Ms. Pennell had performed her job in accordance with general instructions from head office and general principles for pricing etc. and she had significant freedom to act independently. At the hearing Ms. Carr- Harris contended that Ms. Pannell's actions had been constrained by the highly structured nature of Follett's operations. It is apparent that the nature of Follett's operations did constrain much of Ms. Pannell's freedom of action. There were, however, areas, including addressing matters related to the delivery of damaged texts, where she adapted established procedures in order to resolve a problem. This is reflected in the statement in the PDF that "incumbent performs the functions of the position in accordance with general guidelines and past practices that may need to be modified or adapted to meet different situations". This is language which parallels the criteria for a level 4 rating. The PDF entry also touches on Ms. Pennell's involvement with part-time staff. The evidence indicates that Ms. Pennell's role with respect to part-time staff included but went beyond what was recorded in the PDF. She decided who would be hired as employees of Follett and she could reduce an employee's hours to stay within budget. In addition she selected the students who would work in the store. Ms. Pennell could seek Ms. Lemmon's input, as she did when she was seeking information and also when Ms. Lemmon assisted her in interviewing a job applicant. Ms. Pennell was not, however, required to seek this input. Indeed, with respect to the interview Ms. Pennell selected a job applicant who she alone had interviewed. Ms. Pannell approached Ms. Wales about the bursary student who was not working out but when nothing was done about the situation (perhaps on account of reporting issues) Ms. Pennell alone decided on a course of action. 16 I conclude that although much of Ms. Pannell's actions were constrained by Follett's style of operation she did on a regular basis perform certain key functions in accordance with past practices that could be adapted or modified to meet particular situations. With respect to such matters she could act independently but could also seek her supervisor's input when she felt it appropriate to do so. Given these considerations I conclude that a level 4 rating would have been a "better fit" than a level 3 rating. As noted above, in its brief the Union contended that Ms. Pannell's duties were performed in accordance with general instructions and policies. This reflects language contained in the criteria for a level 5 rating. The same criteria, however, stipulated that the general instructions and policies must involve "changing conditions and problems". The clear implication is that for a position to have been rated at level 5 the incumbent must have acted independently in the context of changing conditions and problems as opposed to dealing with similar types of problems that differed only in the details. Apart from the incident involving the bursary student neither the evidence nor the PDF suggested that Ms. Pannell performed her duties in the context of changing conditions and problems. Accordingly a level 5 rating was not warranted. I find that Ms. Pannell's position should have received a level 4 rating for this factor worth 46 points. COMMUNICATIONS/CONTACTS This factor measured the requirement for effective communication for the purpose of providing advice, explanation, influencing others, and/or reaching agreement. A note in the job evaluation manual stated that raters were not to rate the content of confidential information but rather the communications responsibilities involved in handling it. The College rated this factor at level 2 worth 52 points. The Union contended that level 3 worth 88 points would be more appropriate. The definitions for these levels and the related illustrative classifications were as follows: 2. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing detailed explanations, clarification and interpretation of data or information. There may be a need to empathize with and understand the needs of others in order to handle problems or complaints. Occasional involvement with confidential information which has minor disclosure implications. Clerk General B, C; Programmer A, B; SecretaryA, B; Skilled Trades Worker 17 3. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature, or for the purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures, policy or theory. There may be a need to promote participation and understanding and to secure co-operation in order to respond to problems or situations of a sensitive nature. Regular involvement with confidential information which has moderate disclosure implications. Clerk General D; Library Technician A; Secretary C; SSO A, B; Technician B, C The PDF indicates that Ms. Pennell communicated with students to provide them with information and that she dealt with faculty and departmental staff to resolve problems respecting students, orders and returns. It states that she dealt with publishers and suppliers to resolve problems with shipments and to arrange returns. The PDF indicates that Ms. Pennell also dealt with sponsoring agencies to check sponsorships and to resolve problems respecting invoicing and pricing. None of these situations appear to have gone beyond the criteria for a level 2 rating. In addition, a level 2 rating took into account a need to empathize with and understand the needs of others in order to handle problems or complaints. Ms. Pennell indicated that she saw a lot of confidential material, including invoicing information, and that she had ensured that confidential information was put into the system for Follett. She indicated that she did not know what the impact to the College might have been had she improperly disclosed this information. Ms. Pennell contended that her detailed reporting of information to Follett had constituted communication for the purpose of providing guidance or technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature. Her role in this regard, however, appears not to have involved her providing guidance or advice to Follett staff but rather her transmitting factual information to Follett. Ms. Pennell noted that she had dealt with technical support at Follett over the phone for problems involving cash registers and other equipment. It appears that in such situations Ms. Pannell's role was to inform Follett support staff about a problem she had encountered and for the support staff to provide guidance and technical advice to her, not the other way around. The one area where Ms. Pennell clearly did provide assistance to others concerned other staff in the bookstore. Her evidence was that she showed bursary students how to do cash, how to help students and about a dress code. Presumably she also did this for 18 the casual person who came in during busy periods. Demonstrating and explaining cash and other matters to bursary students would have been a recurring function since the individuals involved changed over time. Ms. Pennell's role in explaining cash and other matters to them and the casual employee could, however, reasonably be described as communication for the purpose of providing detailed explanations and clarification, which met the criteria for a level 2 rating. It appears that the regular 24 hour Follett employee performed a wide range of services in the bookstore. When this individual began work Ms. Pannell would have given her detailed explanations. She might also have provided her with guidance and technical advice of a detailed or specialized nature and interpreted procedures and policies. This, however, appears not to have been a regular aspect of Ms. Pannell's job. Instead it appears to be something that she might have done once when the individual in question was initially hired. In all the circumstances I conclude that level 2 was the more appropriate rating. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISIONS AND ACTIONS This factor measured the impact on internal and public relations, the responsibility for information management, equipment, assets and records, and the consequences of decisions and/or actions. The College rated this factor at level 3 worth 44 points. The Union contended that a level 4 rating worth 62 points would have been more appropriate. The criteria and illustrative classifications for these ratings were as follows: 3. Decisions and/or actions have moderate impact on the organization. Errors are usually detected by verification and review and may result in disruption of the workflow, duplication of effort, and/or limited waste of resources. Clerk General C, D; General Maintenance Worker; Reproduction Equipment Operator B, C; Secretary B, C 4. Decisions and/or actions have considerable impact on the organization. Errors are detectable after the fact and may result in considerable interruption and delay in work output and waste of resources. ECE Worker; Sanitation Engineer C; SSO B, C; Technologist B,C The PDF contains the following entries with respect to this factor: 19 Describe the impact that the incumbent's decisions and/or actions have on internal and public relations, the responsibility for information management, equipment. assets and records Incumbent must provide excellent customer service at all times. Poor customer relations would lead to loss of revenue as students may purchase supplies and texts from other local establishments. Responsible for collections and balancing of cash ranging from $50,000 daily during peak periods to an average of $2,000 weekly during slow periods. Reports on daily, weekly, monthly basis. Identify the processes used to detect errors and the effect on the organization if errors are not discovered and corrected. Daily cash balance, any cash reconciliation errors must be corrected on a daily basis before close. Should non-cash errors not be detected, there could be a considerable loss of revenue for the organization, particularly when it comes to unsold, non- returnable items. Ongoing head office monitoring to detect errors. In her evidence Ms. Pannell stressed the extent to which she felt she had been held accountable by Follett. She referred to demonstrating to head office that she had forwarded unpaid invoices, her calling sponsoring agencies that were in arrears and her constantly completing reports. I note, however, that this factor was not designed to measure the range of an employee's duties or to provide a second measurement of their independence of action. Rather, it related to the impact of decisions and actions on the organization, specifically with respect to possible errors, and how and when such errors might be detected and their impact. Ms. Pennell testified that errors on her part could include her not properly calculating textbook prices/markups or her entering the wrong price for used books purchased from students. She said that these could cause "shinkage" and if there had been continual shrinkage Follett would have sent an auditor to check into it. She also said that the College received a percentage of sales and so errors on her part could have impacted on the College. In terms of non cash errors Ms. Pannell referred to the example of text books that were not returnable to the publisher. She said that if she purchased twenty copies of such a text but only five sold she would be stuck with fifteen copies. She said that she could hope that the same text would also be used in a subsequent semester but if this did not happen or if a new edition were released then there would have been a loss. 20 Ms. Carr-Harris described Follett as having electronically monitored the operation of the store. The evidence indicates that errors in cash handling on the part of Ms. Pennell would have been caught almost immediately by Follett's control systems. Errors in inventory levels would also have been discovered relatively quickly. There would have been some disruption caused by Ms. Pennell's need to locate the cause of a discrepancy. Such a situation, however, could reasonably be characterized as leading to a disruption of workflow, a duplication of effort or a limited waste of resources, which qualified for a level 3 rating. The criteria for a level 4 rating referred to actions having a considerable impact on the organization with errors being detectable after the fact and resulting in considerable interruption and delay in work output and waste of resources. It appears that most non cash handling errors, including acting on estimates that subsequently proved incorrect, would only be detected after the fact. The PDF noted that should this occur with non returnable items "there could be a considerable loss of revenue for the organization". This language indicates that the College accepted that such lost revenue could be characterized as considerable. It was also language that paralleled language used in the criteria for a level 4 rating. In addition, the PDF referred to possible poor customer relations leading to a loss of revenue as students might purchase supplies and texts from other local establishments. It is apparent that many aspects of Ms. Pennell's position met the criteria for a level 3 rating. In light of the wording of the PDF respecting the potential impact of errors and poor customer service, however, I conclude that level 4 was a more appropriate rating. CONCLUSION The various ratings assigned by the College resulted in Ms. Pannell's position receiving a total of 530 points. An additional 18 points resulting from a level 4 rating for judgement, 11 more points for a level 5 rating for strain from work pressures/demands/deadlines, 13 more points for a level 4 rating for independent action and 18 additional points for a level 4 rating for responsibility for decisions/actions raise the total to 590 points. This was within the range for payband 9. Having regard to the above, I conclude that Ms. Pannell's position should have been rated at payband 9. In that it was agreed that Ms. Pannell would be a representative grievor, I further find that Ms. Murdock's position should have been rated at payband 9. 21 I retain jurisdiction to address any issues that might arise directly out of this decision which the parties are unable to resolve. Dated this 7th day of April 2008. Arbitrator