Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAguillon 19-06-25IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 109 (FOR SUPPORT STAFF) (hereinafter called the "Union") M:e COLLEGE EMPLOYER COUNCIL (FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS and TECHNOLOGY) In the form of FANSHAWE COLLEGE (hereinafter called the "College") GRIEVANCE of NATALIA AGUILLON OPSEU File No. 2018-0109-0004 (hereinafter the "Grievor" or the "Incumbent") ARBITRATOR: REPRESENTING THE COLLEGE: REPRESENTING THE UNION: Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb. Julie McQuire, Employee Relations Consultant Laura Holmes, Human Resources Specialist Michelle Giroux, Associate Dean, School of Digital and Performing Arts Ron Kelly — Second Vice President Natalia Aguillon — Grievor Dana Copeland — Local 109 A hearing in relation to this matter was held at London, Ontario on 18 June 2019. 1 AWARD 1. Natalia Aguillon was employed by the College as Technical Support — Media from August 2013 until April 2017. The position was revised to Project Specialist — Reactr. Rethinking Education through Applied Collaborative Technology Research ("Reactr") is an experiential program at the College that links student teams with companies to develop Web and digital media solutions for the client company or community entity. Ms. Aguillon held the position of Project Specialist for Reactr from April 2017 to January 2018. Her current position, which she has held since 1 February 2018, is Reactr Project Coordinator. The Grievance 2. Ms. Aguillon (the "Grievor" or the "Incumbent") filed her grievance on the day she commenced her current position as Reactr Project Coordinator. She claimed that her position was improperly classified as Payband H and should be reclassified as Payband K. A Step 1 meeting was held. The Position Description Form ("PDF") was revised and the position re -rated to Payband I on 12 September 2018. The Grievor was not satisfied and confirmed her intent to continue with the grievance. 3. The College evaluated the position and rated it at 593 points, placing the position within Payband I. The Grievor and the Union submit that the position ought to be evaluated at 722 points placing it in the higher rated Payband K. Should there be any change in the Payband as a result of this decision it will be retroactive to 1 February 2018. The Union is disputing six (6) factors in the Job Evaluation Manual (the "Manual"). 2 The Position and Duties 4. The College through its School of Digital and Performing Arts (the "School") offers diploma and certificate courses and programs specializing in Media, Design and Arts at the Fanshawe Downtown Campus. The position of Reactr Project Coordinator at the Downtown Campus is one of three support staff employees who report to the Associate Dean of the School. 5. The Grievor works with faculty and staff in the Centre for Research and Innovation (the "CRI") to develop, implement and perform day-to-day management of all Reactr client projects. Some projects are funded in whole or in part by the client of the College. The Incumbent's duties and responsibilities include recruiting and overseeing completion of the work of all student employees working on Reactr/research projects. This includes linking student teams with companies to develop Web and digital media solutions. The Grievor also creates schedules to maintain records and timelines to keep Reactr projects on track. That work comprises about 30% of the tasks of the position. 6. The Grievor meets with potential clients to assess a project's potential and works within curriculum requirements and with the faculty to develop research activities. She is also involved in planning and organizing Reactr projects and showcasing them by planning and developing industry events and producing project posters/papers for conference presentations. In this role she also coordinates student rules/regulations pertaining to Reactr projects and labs and has the responsibility to purchase Reactr lab material within authorized limits. These duties comprise approximately another 30% of the duties of the position. 3 7. The Grievor also engages in preparing necessary agreements and contractual information with industry/community partners for appropriate College approval. These activities comprise approximately 20% of the duties of the position. 8. The remaining duties involve working with the faculty team to help develop student employee skill sets through demonstration of correct practice, and direction on completion of work to Reactr standards. This work, which is approximately 15% of the duties, includes coaching student employees on the skills required in the work force after graduation as well as strategies to adapt to technology trends. Finally, as a catchall about 5% of the time she performs any other duties as assigned. Factors in Dispute 9. Each of the six factors in dispute for rating the position is dealt with below under separate headings. ANALYSIS & PROBLEM SOLVING Rating: 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. (i) Union 10. It is submitted that problems and situations in the projects of the Reactr are not readily identifiable, thus satisfying the requirements at Level 4 of the factor. The Grievor claims that extensive research and planning is needed to get projects ready for students during the entire school year, including summer semesters. Reference was made to a project a few years ago that took months to complete, submitting that her example is reflective of all the C! processes and phases necessary in developing a project and the application of same, including a database created by her for future development. The Grievor also proffers the suite of tools she created for an information system application that pertains to internal company information. This "mind map" has been edited and adapted as more information was obtained or other factors changed. (ii) College 11. It is the College's position that Level 3 is the appropriate rating as problems and their solutions are identifiable but may require further inquiry to define them precisely. It was submitted that faculty will identify what projects are needed to meet curriculum needs. As defined in the Notes to Raters, at Level 3, the problems are identifiable and the Grievor merely identifies what additional information is required to understand the problem. It was submitted that issues or problems encountered are identified by student employees or clients and communicated to the Grievor. The Grievor then analyzes the issue at hand and seeks additional information from faculty if required. (iii) Findings 12. 1 find that the Grievor is at the center of activity for this experimental program alongside the faculty person whose inspiration, initiative and foresight brought the system of Reactr projects into being. While the faculty has input, the tasks of analysis and problem -solving fall squarely within the Incumbent's sphere of activity. The distinguishing feature between the Grievor's position and a Level 3 rating is that the clients frequently are not able to identify what the problem is nor its solution. It is the Incumbent who identifies the problem and solution through her discussions with the clients and interaction with faculty. 5 13. Further, I find that the program being novel, experimental and in its early stages does throw up many problems that are not readily identifiable and require further information and analysis using established techniques which the Grievor has to know as do the faculty. The constraint on her work is that the project must fit the curriculum of the academic side of the program and be capable in most cases of being completed within the College's teaching calendar. For all of these reasons I find that the Union has satisfied the burden to establish that the position is a Level 4. Therefore, it is ordered to adjust the rating for this factor to the points of Level 4. PLANNING/COORDINATING: Rating: 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. Union 14. It is submitted that the Grievor plans, creates and coordinates multiple activities throughout the year. The Grievor is required to create work periods for a project's lifetime; she schedules weekly meetings and client meetings that are often modified and may then have a ripple effect on later meetings. 15. The students receive their academic schedules from the College. The Grievor, having undertaken the selection of students for projects with some assistance from faculty but largely done independently by her, creates the work periods and thus the schedule for the students selected to do the project. She notes the many elements involved — not only the people but n also the meeting times, the working hours, and the time available in the lab. As the Coordinator she must be cognizant of the number of weeks available, the academic schedule which cannot be disrupted, the number of hours already worked, and the hours available for future development. ii College 16. The College submitted that at Level 3 the Grievor plans/coordinates activities that affect the work schedule of others. The Grievor is responsible for hiring student employees in consultation with faculty, based on projects and academic cycles. The College submitted that the planning and coordinating which may affect work schedules of others are merely requests for materials/information by specific deadlines in order for the position to plan events or activities. Further, the College submitted that the Grievor works around student and faculty academic schedules and would not have the authority to require them to modify those priorities to meet objectives. While the Grievor monitors project progress, the Associate Dean determines the work and staffing changes that would have to be done in consultation and with approval of both faculty and Associate Dean. ffiq Findings 17. The analysis of this factor should not focus on what the Grievor cannot or does not do, which is the thrust of the College position. The focus is required to be on what planning and coordinating the Incumbent does do. In making changes to student work periods the Incumbent is constrained by the academic schedule of both the faculty involved and the students on the project. There are many inputs that can cause scheduling changes, from illness and absence from work; to barriers to doing the project; and, client modifications or demands concerning the project. Within the defined sphere the Incumbent has the necessary authority to change the work schedules of 7 all those involved in the project be they faculty or students. There are constraints on the exercise of authority to not interfere in the academic schedules but otherwise the authority is unrestricted. Furthermore, there is a considerable ripple effect caused by the revisions of schedules which makes the planning and the coordinating more complex than just changing one individual's work schedule. 18. For all of the foregoing reasons I find that the Union has established its case that the appropriate rating for the Planning/Coordinating Factor ought to be set at Level 4. Therefore, this adjustment is ordered to take place. INDEPENDENCE OF ACTION: Rating: 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. [These considerations, when taken as a whole, will define the parameters and constraints of the position within which the incumbent is free to act] fil Union 19. It is submitted that the Grievor must follow and update the Reactr program guidelines, technology and other elements according to industry practice for every project under management in Reactr. Three examples of the processes involved were submitted. ii College 20. Faculty, along with approval from the Associate Dean, determines the curriculum that will be taught to the students in the Reactr project program. The learning objectives and outcomes are predetermined through the development of the curriculum. The curriculum acts as a guideline for the Grievor in her role. The position does not have the autonomy to make decisions within the predetermined curriculum parameters. The College submits this factor is appropriately rated at Level 3 as the position's duties are completed according to general processes and decisions are made following general guidelines to determine how tasks should be completed. iii Findings 21. 1 do not find that the Union has established its case that the rating of Level 3 is inappropriate for the Incumbent. The discretionary aspects of the job are in the areas of the two previous disputed factors. The Grievor does act individually with the client participants in Reactr, but that is not done with independence or autonomy which is what the factor is evaluating. The curriculum acts as a guideline for the Grievor in her role. For these reasons I find that the Union did not establish that this factor is incorrectly determined. There will be no change in the rating for this factor. SERVICE DELIVERY: Rating: College Level 31 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. All positions have a number of customers, who may be primarily internal or external. The level of service looks at more than the normal anticipation of what customers want and supplying it efficiently. It considers how the request for service is received, for example directly from the customer, through the Supervisor or workgroup or project leader; or by applying guidelines and processes. It then looks at the degree to which the position is required to design and fulfill the service requirement. Union 22. The Grievor, in carrying out her responsibilities toward the clients, engages in risk assessment of problems. In so doing, she tries to anticipate, in advance of any real risk, what might happen and what the solution might be. 9 In this fashion she is able to keep projects on target and on time. It is submitted that she must anticipate risk from the outset, beginning with planning the project phase and re -applying risk management throughout the entire project life to assess project feasibility and potential success. 23. The Grievor submitted that she is proactive, that she creates contingency plans, assesses and reassesses risk and then makes predictions according to trends in different situations. From her self-made management plan the Grievor anticipates the potential issues a project could have and their impact on the project. The assessment of risk is done on a regular and continuing basis because issues can appear or disappear during the lifetime of the project. Finally, contingency protocols are established for each of the potential risks and ways to mitigate them. Jjq College 24. The position requires the Grievor to obtain information to have a full understanding of the project and the client's needs and thereafter to create project documentation to meet those needs. While information and additional details are acquired through questioning, the Grievor is not required to proactively anticipate needs. The position is not required to seek out new clients or business opportunities outside of what is determined through the curriculum and/or research grants. The College submitted Level 3 is the appropriate rating for this factor. iii Findings 25. The "Notes to Raters" does not clarify the difference between Levels 3 and 4. This creates somewhat of a gap in the Manual. 10 26. The projects within the Reactr program, which of itself is novel and experimental, are not well-defined by the client in many cases. Many clients are apparently vague and uncertain how to get to their desired objective. In part that is what entices them to participate in Reactr. The Grievor holds brainstorming sessions with the clients and the faculty. Therefore, I find that the Union has established that the Service Delivery Factor is at Level 4 at least for those clients who are uncertain in how to achieve their objectives. For this reason, I find that the Union has established its rating as being appropriate. Therefore, it is ordered that the rating be changed to Level 4. COMMUNICATION: Ratings: College Level 4 / Union Level 4 + 5 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 - interpersonal skills to obtain and maintain commitment and influence the actions of others 0) Union 27. The Grievor submitted that she is continually negotiating contracts and getting the clients to commit to achievable projects and deadlines that can be met by the Reactr teams. ii College 28. The College acknowledged that the Grievor gains cooperation of others through discussions and documentation of client meetings. The Grievor is the main point of communication between the client and the Reactr team. Further, the Grievor is responsible for training and guiding student employees in the Reactr lab on new technology tools. 11 29. The College submitted that a Level 5 rating would require the Grievor to have the skills/tools to reach an agreement that is binding on the College. The College pointed out the position does not have the authority to sign contracts or enter into binding agreements on behalf of the College. Sign - off and final approval on proposals and agreements are the responsibility of the Associate Dean with input from the faculty and/or Centre for Research and Innovation. It was the College's position that Level 4 is the appropriate rating as it encompasses explaining and/or interpreting information to instruct, train and/or gain the cooperation of others. iii Findings 30. The dispute here is whether the Grievor acts on an occasional basis at Level 5. Both parties acknowledge that the regular and recurring rating is correct at Level 4. For Level 5 to come into play the Incumbent must be imparting information in order to obtain agreement. The College interprets that to mean entering into contracts that bind the College. The Union concedes that the Grievor does not enter into contracts that bind the College. The factor makes no mention of such an aspect being a requirement of what the Level 5 describes as "obtaining agreement". The Incumbent does engage in negotiations with clients which from time to time may require high level negotiation skills in order to resolve complex situations or ones that are vague and uncertain in so far as the client's methods of obtaining their goals are concerned. I do not accept the College's write into the factor of negotiating to obtain binding agreements which are legally enforceable on the College. For all of these reasons I accept that on an occasional basis the Grievor is working at a Level 5. Therefore, it is ordered that the Communication Factor be adjusted to include an Occasional Level 5. 12 AUDIOVISUAL EFFORT: Ratings: College Level 1A / Union Level 2A 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). Union 31. The Grievor submitted that she spends long periods of concentration doing many activities (project research, project planning and documentation, meetings). Many of the projects begin with meetings and interviews — many of those take longer than 4 hours a week. Presentation materials for conferences and events are prepared a few times a year. The Grievor noted that internal meetings happen often. Presentations done regularly for Reactr teams may take from a few hours to a few days to create and up to 2 hours to present. ii College 32. The College submitted the activities undertaken by the position require short periods of concentration with maintained focus. The Grievor's activities are varied but do require focus for those periods of time. Conversations to assist with technical problems are usually short and focused. Time spent monitoring project processes is completed in a short time frame but are a priority and require maintained focus. The College submitted that answering questions and clarifying students' requests are an integral part of the position and are not seen as disruptions. The Audio/Visual factor being appropriately rated at Level 1A, regular and recurring short periods of concentration; or occasional long period of concentration, focus maintained. 13 Jjjq Findings 33. The difference between the parties here is on whether the longer periods of time of 30 minutes are regular and recurring and go upwards of 2 hours at a time and involve extended periods of time. If one focuses on the student meetings the Level 1 might be appropriate, as most of those meetings would not regularly take longer than that period of time. Some technical meetings would likely be of a similar duration. However, that is only part of the work of the position, albeit an important part. There are also the planning of project meetings, the meetings with clients, and the meetings that give rise to revisions of project goals and objectives or techniques to achieve the same. Those meetings are regularly and on a recurring basis up to 2 hours, as required for Level 2. For all of the foregoing reasons I find that the Union has established that the factor ought to be rated at 2 on a focus -maintained basis, which is Level 2A. It is ordered that the rating be changed to that Level. CONCLUSION 34. Based on all of the above adjustments, the total points assigned for the position as a result of this arbitration procedure is to be 695. That point score places the position in Payband J on the Schedule in the Manual. It is ordered that the College alter the PDF ratings in accordance with this Award. In so doing, the Grievor is entitled to retroactive pay from the 1 st of February 2018 to the date of payment in accordance with this Award. The College is given two pay periods from the date of this Award to make the retroactive payment to the Grievor. 14 35. In the event that the parties have a disagreement as to the remedies provided by this Award, they can request in writing that the Arbitrator re- open the hearing to make a final determination of what is owed to the Grievor. The Arbitrator reserves the right to make the Grievor whole and determine the amounts to be paid to the Grievor for the next 60 days after which he will no longer have any jurisdiction to re -open the hearing and determine the monies owed to the Grievor. DATED at London, Ontario this 25th day of June 2019. Richar H. McLaren, C.Arb. Arbitrator 15 Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification College: ^�.. -Jncumbent: it i'- A42'.1160 - Supervisor-As5Q &-kt 2e r) C� -A ' Current Pay6and1 Payband Requested by Grievor: I. Concerning the attached Position Description Form: Q The parties agreed on the contents ❑ The Union disagrees,With the contents and the specific details are attached. 2. The attached Written Subt-issiou Is from: n The Union ❑ The College- Regula J Recurring Occasional Regular/ Recurring:Ooraa�ia t nd Regular/ Recurring Occasional ... ::, •}rr, e Level -Points Level - Pofnrs Level Poing Level ° .Points . Le+iei - points Level pd[nts `: i IA. Education:.- y ::.. $18. EdLicaddh'", /Q lU- J J 2. Experience Jr( 5. 601 3. Analysis and Problem Shcving �$ 110 4. Planning/CoordinaVng G� gC� g o 5. Guiding/Advising Others 6. Zridependence of Action C� i 7. Service i?elivery5 W . 73 vt - 3 +2_72 8. Communication - 1.16 9. Physical Effort a .. 10. AudioNsuaE.EfFoit O � t / 5'' I Ii. Working Environment 7 a <. Subtotals(a) @). (a)©q (b) ' (a) Total Points (a) f (b) 5S3 7X7 1�1 9 5.` ftasuiting Payband ppSignatures: (Grievor.) - (Da (College Representative) (Date) i o tl/ 11� (Uni n Re res n } te) June 18, 2019 June 25, 2019 ate of Hearing) (Date of Award)