Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMorley 07-07-09 , ~. ~. 1 I . , IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: GEORGIAN COLLEGE ("the College") and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPOYEES UNION ("the Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF MARINA MORLEY (#634908) ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate APPEARANCES: F or the College: Cathy Brown, Director of Human Resources F or the Union: Jillian Peacock, President, Local 349 HEARINGS: In Barrie on April 4 and May 2, 2007 2 DECISION INTRODUCTION On April 3, 2006 the grievor submitted a grievance in which she claimed that she was improperly classified as a Clerk General Atypical at payband 9. She asked to be re-classified as a Support Services Officer ("SSO") C at payband 11. The various level ratings advanced by the Union in these proceedings would actually place the position at payband 12. In her grievance the grievor contended that the appropriate position description form ("PDF") for her position was one that she and her manager, Mr. Brain Muscat, General Manager of Housing Residence Life and Conference Services, had agreed to in December 2005. These proceedings were conducted pursuant to a job evaluation plan that was in place when the grievance was submitted but which has since been replaced by a different plan. THE ISSUE OF THE APPLICABLE PDF At the hearing neither the Union nor the College contended that the December 2005 PDF referred to in the grievance should be utilized in these proceedings. Ms. Jillian Peacock, the Local Union President and the spokesperson for the Union, contended that a PDF that was signed by the grievor and Mr. Muscat on February 14, 2006 and subsequently rated by a Classification Committee was the appropriate document. Ms. Cathy Brown, the College's Director of Human Resources and spokesperson for the College, contended that the applicable PDF was one dated July 13, 2006 that had also been evaluated by the Classification Committee. At the hearing Ms. Peacock and Ms. Brown addressed the issue of the applicable PDF and then agreed that I should reserve on the matter and address it in my decision. In their submissions Ms. Peacock and Ms. Brown put forth their understanding of the history respecting the various versions of the PDF. They appeared to be in general agreement with respect to the key events, which are discussed below. A September 2005 restructuring at the College impacted on a number of positions, including the one occupied by the grievor. In December 2005 the grievor and Mr. Muscat agreed on the wording of a proposed new PDF for the grievor's position. Certain entries in the document included language that was also found in , 3 the criteria for some of the factor ratings in the applicable job evaluation manual. This proposed PDF was sent to the College's Human Resources Department which expressed concerns about some of the entries in the document. This led the grievor and Mr. Muscat to produce a somewhat revised PDF which retained most of the language from their original proposal. Mr. Muscat and the grievor signed this document on February 14, 2006. A note on the front page of the PDF form states that an employee's signature indicates that they have read and understood the document. The Human Resources Department forwarded the February 2006 PDF to a Classification Committee to be evaluated. Based on this PDF the Committee rated the grievor's position that of a Clerk General Atypical at payband 9. This evaluation appears to have been done on March 10, 2006. The grievor submitted her grievance on April 3, 2006. In it she set out the following desired settlement: To have the position description that my Manager, Brian Muscat and I had agreed upon and originally submitted to HR for classification on December 5, 2005 be recognized as the true and accurate representation of my position and be classified as a SSO C, payband 11 and that the College make me whole. At a step one grievance meeting Ms. Brown asked the grievor if there was agreement on the PDF. The grievor replied that there was not. The College's written brief described what happened next as follows: During the grievance process, the grievor did not agree with the job description. HR worked with the grievor and her manager to re-write the position description. It was evaluated and remained a Clerk General Atypical at payband 9. The grievor rejected this position description as well and wished to proceed to arbitration without agreement on the position description. Although the grievor and Mr. Muscat were given the opportunity to address the terms of a proposed new position description it is clear that the document was drafted by Human Resources and rejected by the grievor. This version involved a 4 major re-writing of the document that had previously been evaluated by the Classification Committee and addressed at the grievance meeting. At the hearing Ms. Brown indicated that the College had come to recognize that there were difficulties associated with having a PDF written by an employee and his/her manager. She said that the approach was open to manipulation and also the employee and their manager would not have an overview of the College and how other positions had been evaluated. She gave the example of a manager and an employee saying that the employee faces many deadlines but unlike Human Resources they would not be able to compare the job with jobs in accounting. At the hearing Ms. Brown indicated that at about the time the grievor submitted her grievance several other employees had filed grievances which challenged their classifications although they did not take issue with the PDFs for their positions. I infer from her comments that the College did not prepare new PDFs with respect to the other positions. Ms. Brown indicated that because the grievor had disagreed with her PDF at the grievance meeting the College understood that it was open for Human Resources to re-write the PDF. The PDF prepared by Human Resources was assessed by the Classification Committee on July 13, 2006. The Committee changed certain of the ratings it had previously assigned to the position but the payband remained unchanged at payband 9. At the hearing Ms. Brown contended that the PDF rated by the Committee on July 13, 2006 should be the one used in these proceedings. Ms. Peacock contended that the PDF signed by the grievor and Mr. Muscat on February 14, 2006 should be the one used. The grievor said that she was willing to forfeit her claim that the December 2005 document should be the one utilized. THE WORDING OF THE JOB EVALUATION MANUAL AND THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT The applicable job evaluation manual addressed the role of a PDF in the job evaluation plan and who was responsible for its preparation as follows: 5 The PDF is intended to reflect the assigned duties and responsibilities of the position. It is not intended to represent a detailed working procedure or a list of infrequent or miscellaneous duties occasionally assigned to the position. The College defines the position duties and responsibilities and structures the position. The College: -Identifies and defines the job to be performed -Assigns the level of responsibility to the position ensuring that no duplication in accountability results. -Determines the qualifications and skill level required to do the job. Purpose of the Position Description Form The Position Description Form provides the incumbent with a clear statement of the duties assigned by the College. It provides valuable source data for the following acitivities: -classifying the position within the organizational structure of positions; -recruitment and selection processes; -performance appraisal; -other processes such as training, development and employee relations. The provisions of the collective agreement which touch on a PDF and the role of a PDF in the grievance/arbitration process read as follows: 7.2.2 Position Description Form Each employee will be provided with a copy of his/her current Position Description Form (PDF) upon the date of hire and/or at the employee's request. 6 7.2.3 Classification information Within ten (10) days of receipt of a written request by an employee, the College will provide to the employee, the point rating by factor for his/her position. 7.2.4 Reclassification When the College reclassifies a bargaining unit position to another payband, the College will notify the Local Union and provide the position title, name of incumbent, the former payband, the new payband and the effective date of the reclassification. Upon request by the Local Union, the College shall provide the Position Description Form (PDF) for the reclassified position. 18.4.2 Grievance Process 18.4.2.1 Step I - Meeting and Information Provided The College Official shall arrange a meeting within fourteen (14) days after receiving the grievance to permit the employee and a Local Union representative the opportunity of making representations in support of the grievance. The College Official shall ensure that the current Position Description Form (PDF), as per Article 7.2.2, is provided at least five (5) days prior to the meeting. At the meeting, the employee must first indicate in writing whether he/she is in agreement with the PDF and if not what specific disagreements he/she has with it. A discussion to resolve any differences shall then take place. At this meeting, following discussion on the PDF, both parties will exchange, in writing, the point rating by factor for the position in dispute. 18.4.2.2 College Official's Decision Within fourteen (14) days after the receipt of the point rating by factor from the Union, the College Official shall give his/her decision in writing. It is understood that the grievance cannot proceed further until 7 the point rating by factor and the specific disagreements on the PDF, if any, have been received by the College Official, in writing from the Union. 18.4.2.3 Referral to Arbitration After Step I Where the grievance has not been resolved at Step I but there is agreement concerning the PDF, the matter may be referred directly to Arbitration by notice in writing given to the College within fourteen (14) days of the date the grievor should have received the College decision under Step I. The matter will be referred to a single arbitrator as provided in Article 18.4.3. 18.4.2.4 Step II Where the grievance has not been resolved and where the grievor is not in agreement with the PDF, then he/she shall refer the grievance in writing to the President of the College within fourteen (14) days of the date he/she received or should have received the decision. The President or his/her designee shall convene a meeting concerning the grievance within fourteen (14) days of the presentation, at which the grievor shall have an opportunity to be present. The President or his/her designee shall give his/her decision in writing, within fourteen (14) days following the meeting. 18.4.2.5 Referral to Arbitration After Step II Where the grievance has not been resolved at Step II the matter may be referred to Arbitration by notice in writing given to the College within fourteen (14) days of the date the grievor should have received the College's decision under Step II. The matter will be referred to a single arbitrator as provided in Article 18.4.3. On mutual written agreement signed by the Local Union and the College, the matter shall be referred to an Arbitration Board as provided under Article 18.4.4 .1. 8 18.4.5.1 Restrictions The single Arbitration or Arbitration Board is restricted to determining whether the grievor's PDF accurately reflects his/her assigned job content (where disagreement exists) and to determining whether the grievor's job is properly evaluated pursuant to the CAAT Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual. THE FINDING WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICABLE PDF The statements in the job evaluation manual about the College defining a position's duties and structuring the position and about the College identifying and defining the job to be performed indicate that responsibility for the preparation of a PDF rests with the College. This is reinforced by the statement that a PDF provides an incumbent with a clear statement of the duties assigned by the College. It is also supported by Articles 7.2.2 and 7.2.4 of the collective agreement which refer to the College providing a PDF to an employee or the Union on request. Article 18.4.2.1 of the collective agreement indicates that during the grievance procedure and prior to a step I grievance meeting a grievor is to be provided with a copy of the current PDF and is entitled to challenge this PDF at the meeting. If there is such a challenge there is to be a discussion aimed at resolving the differences. The language of the agreement suggests that during or as a result of the grievance meeting the College might decide to agree with a grievor's position respecting the appropriate wording of the PDF, the grievor might come to acknowledge that the PDF as written is accurate or there might be agreement on changed language that satisfies both sides. If agreement is not reached on the PDF the grievance is not to be referred directly to arbitration but rather to the College President prior to a step II meeting. Logically at this meeting the parties will have another opportunity to try to resolve issues relating to the accuracy of the PDF. As discussed above, the College is responsible for producing a PDF. When doing so responsible College officials can seek input from the employee and his/her manager but the ultimate responsibility for producing the document rests with the College. Given the nature of the process, logically any views expressed by an employee's manager leading up to the finalization of a PDF or any agreement between the employee and their manager about what should be in the document cannot bind the College. Accordingly, there was nothing inappropriate about the 9 Human Resources Department seeking changes to the proposed PDF that the grievor and Mr. Muscat had agreed to in December 2005. The involvement of Human Resources resulted in a PDF which the grievor and Mr. Muscat signed on February 14, 2006. Human Resources forwarded this document to the Classification Committee to be assessed. By doing so Human Resources on behalf of the College effectively adopted the document as the PDF for the grievor's position. The initial rating given the grievor's position was based on this PDF. This was the PDF in place when the grievor submitted her grievance. It was also the PDF that was discussed at the step I grievance meeting. At the grievance meeting the grievor noted that she did not agree with the February 2006 PDF. As touched on above, the collective agreement indicates that during the grievance procedure the parties through discussions can seek to resolve a dispute respecting the wording of the PDF. Failing agreement the accuracy of the PDF is one of the matters to be placed before an arbitrator. The language of the collective agreement does not contemplate that an employee's objection to the accuracy of part of a PDF at a grievance meeting will enable the College to start the process all over again and write an entirely new PDF. Indeed, such an approach . runs directly counter to the grievance process outlined in the collective agreement. In light of these considerations I am satisfied that the PDF to be used in these proceedings is the one that was signed by the grievor and Mr. Muscat on February 14, 2006 and sent by Human Resources to the Classification Committee to be evaluated. THE FACTORS AND POINTS IN DISPUTE The applicable job evaluation system called for 12 different job factors to be rated and assigned points. The original rating of the grievor's position resulted in a total of 582 points. As noted above, the second rating changed the points for certain of the job factors. Attached to the College's written brief was an arbitration data sheet dated March 20, 2007 listing management's current ratings for all 12 factors. These ratings resulted in a total of 626 points. Both point totals come within the 571 to 630 range for payband 9. The Union advanced different ratings than the College for most of the job factors. The differences are addressed below. The Union's written brief also addressed the factor of training/technical skills although at the hearing this factor was no longer in dispute. The Union advanced higher ratings than did the College 10 for the factors of motor skills and sensory demand but did not address them in its written brief. It appears that when the brief was prepared the Union understood that the College was in agreement with the Union's rating for motor skills. The ratings advanced by the Union for the various job factors would result in a total of 789 points. This would place the grievor's position within the 751 to 810 point range for payband 12. One factor not addressed at the hearing was work environment. This factor had originally been rated at level 1 worth 10 points by both the College and the Union. The College subsequently raised its rating to level 2 worth 32 points, higher than what was being claimed by the Union. AN OVERVIEW OF THE GRIEVOR'S POSITION The grievor works in Housing, Residence Life and Conference Services. She reports to Mr Muscat the General Manager. There was at least one previous incumbent in her position. The grievor oversees admissions to the College residence and also oversees related accounts payable, accounts receivable, collections and financial information management. In addition to Mr. Muscat and the grievor the section employs a Residence Life Manger, an individual assigned to off-campus housing and employees who oversee residence maintenance. In the summer the residence operates as "Summer Suites", frequently in connection with conferences. There is a Summer Suites Operations Supervisor and a Conference Services Manager. The College residence has 525 beds. The grievor testified that she takes out of consideration rooms for staff members and students with disabilities as well as allotments for international and aboriginal students. She indicated that she also removes from immediate consideration three rooms with a total of six beds which serve as a "cushion". She said that a lottery is held to determine who will be offered the remaining beds during the large September intake. She noted that 50 of the beds are assigned to returning students. The grievor testified that offers of accommodation are made to more students than the number of beds actually available since some offers will be declined. She gave the example of her making offers to 385 students when there are 370 beds to fill. The grievor indicated that based on the number of declined offers as well as unused portions of the international and aboriginal student allotments additional offers are sent out to students on a waiting list. In response to questions from Ms. 11 Brown the grievor agreed that she over offers rooms by a percentage and should she want to double that percentage she would discuss the matter with Mr. Muscat. The grievor testified that a $150 deposit was formerly collected from all applicants and this amount was either applied to their residence fees or returned to them if they were not accepted. She said that the refundable aspect of the payment created a lot of work and she proposed that an application fee replace the deposit. She said that Mr. Muscat took the proposal forward and a non refundable $50 application fee was instituted. The grievor testified that she is the one who ensures that student accounts are in order. She said that she applies late payment charges to student accounts or has a member of the front desk staff do so. She said that she keeps in touch with students who are in arrears with their payments or who have run up large phone charges. She noted that she can revoke a student's long distance and internet privileges. She said that she can also ask the Registrar's office to put a hold on a student's academic record to stop them from graduating or registering for a course while their residence account remains outstanding. She indicated that she has threatened to refer an account to a collection agency but requires Mr. Muscat's permission to actually do so. The grievor testified that she had introduced new cash handling processes for the front desk staff which makes them individually responsible for money in their till, entries made during the day, deposits at the end of their shift and whether or not they balance. The grievor testified that she can arrange payment plans for students who are awaiting OSAP payments and in a September intake there might be five to seven such arrangements. She said there is a formal process by which subsequent deferrals of up to $1,500 in residence fees can be allowed although this is seldom done. The grievor testified that when students move into residence they are charged a $200 "community deposit" to cover potential damages. She said that she oversees these deposits and the sums are either returned or retained depending on the amount of damage to the residence. She said that when damage exceeds $200 she sends out notices to students for additional amounts and does collections for the sums involved. The grievor testified that two student employees do night audits, one of whom serves as her assistant. She said that these individuals raise any discrepancies they cannot resolve with her. She gave the example of a payment by Visa being posted 12 as having been a Master Card payment or funds posted to the wrong account. She said that she participates in the hiring of the night auditors and also trains them. The grievor said that students who work at the front desk are trained by a Front Desk Supervisor but recently due to the number of errors they were making she had the front desk staff come in one evening and updated their training. The grievor testified that her other duties include deciding whether or not to approve refunds for students who leave residence early. She said that she also receives accounts payable invoices, confirms that the work being billed for was done and forwards the invoice to accounting. THE FACTOR OF EXPERIENCE The job evaluation manual described this factor as one that measured: "the amount of practical experience in any related work necessary to fulfill the requirements of the position". The College rated this factor at level 4 worth 45 points. The Union argues for a level 5 rating worth 57 points. The criteria for these levels as well as illustrative classifications set out in the job evaluation manual read as follows: 4. More than three years and up to five years of practical expenence. Clerk General D; Secretary B, C; Technician C; Technologist B 5. More than five years and up to eight years of practical expenence. Programmer/Analyst C, SSO D; Technologist C The grievor testified that from 1989 to 1992 she had worked as a rental agent for a property management company and from 1992 to 1995 she was with a small business services company. The grievor started working in the College's Physical Resources Department in 1998 as a part-time office clerk. She was hired on a full- time basis in November 2001 as a Clerk General C reporting to the Manager of Building Services. The grievor described her job function as tracking expenditures for projects. The grievor started in her current position in or about August 2003. 13 When glvmg evidence the grievor contended that more than five years experience is required for someone in her position since the job requires a lot of collection experience as well as experience in conflict resolution. Mr. Muscat testified that if he were to hire someone for the grievor's position he would look for a good three years of accounting experience so that the individual would have had a variety of experiences, including in accounts receivable, accounts payable, reconciliations and collections. He said that on the admissions side he would look for a year or two of experience in a rental market, either at a residence hall or working for a landlord. Mr. Muscat subsequently said if he had carte blanche he would like a minimum of five years experience but he could do with less. He also said that some people could do the job with less than five years experience but some people might need more than this. The PDF contains the following entries with respect to the required minimum amount of practical experience: A minimum of five years work related experience with a focus on accounting duties, budgeting knowledge and experience reviewing/writing policies and procedures related to finance and admissions. Five years or more experience in conflict resolution and negotiations as this position meets with and negotiates with students, parents, department staff and Summer Suites clients regularly. A minimum of five years experience performing multifaceted positions simultaneously is required as this position manages all residence admissions processes and all fmancial requirements for two operations. It is apparent from Mr. Muscat's evidence that while he would prefer that anyone newly hired into the position have more than five years of relevant experience he feels that some individuals with less experience could perform the job. The PDF, however, states that what is required is "a minimum of five years work related experience" with a focus on accounting and related experience, as well as "five years or more experience" in conflict resolution and negotiation. This language is reasonably read as requiring more than five years experience and not more than three and up to five years of experience. Given the wording of the PDF I 14 conclude that the grievor's position should have been rated at level 5 for the factor of experience. COMPLEXITY The job evaluation manual said that this factor measured the amount and nature of analysis, problem solving and reasoning required to perform job-related duties. It measured the conceptual demands of a job as characterized by the analysis and interpretation required for problem and solution definition, as well as creativity, mental challenge, degree of job structure, planning activities and the variety and difficulty of tasks. The College rated the grievor's position at level 4 worth 58 points. The Union argues for a level 6 rating, the highest possible, worth 90 points. The criteria and illustrative classifications for these ratings as well as the intermediate level 5 rating wql1h 74 points were as follows: 4. Job duties require the performance of varied, non - routine, complex tasks involving different and unrelated processes and/or methods. Clerk General D; Library Technician B; Programmer A, B 5. Job duties require the performance of complex and relatively unusual tasks involving specialized processes and/or methods. Programmer/Analyst A; SSG B, C; Technologist C 6. Job duties require the investigation and resolution of a variety of unusual conditions involving the adaptation and/or development of specialized processes and methods. Programmer/Analyst B,C; SSG D; Technical Support Specialist All three ratings related to job duties that are complex and non-routine and which require unrelated processes or methods. At issue is whether the grievor's tasks are unusual and also whether they involve specialized processes and/or methods or perhaps the adaptation and/or development of specialized processes and methods. 15 The grievor said that an example of an unusual task was her fmding a large revenue shortfall for Summer Suites. She said that the College had actually received the money but she had to find out where it had been posted to. She also referred to her dealing with an international student who did not understand written documents or reminder letters and when she met with them she became aware that they did not know how to cook. She said that she raised the student's situation with the Residence Life Manager. The grievor also gave the example of someone on the front desk staff advising her that they had "messed up" in handling a student's payment. The grievor contended that she employs specialized processes, including fmancial systems that are specialized to a residence and the use of a lottery process. She said that she had developed specialized processes and methods by developing different methods for recording information. When addressing this factor Mr. Muscat said that the residence was the fITst one at the College and "we" had developed in-house processes. He said that with financial procedures "we" might need to do things differently and so adaptations are made. He added that when problems arise "we" look at the problems and make changes. Mr. Muscat agreed with a statement by the grievor that she cannot make major changes on her own but is able to make adaptations within her position. He added that the grievor makes adaptations all the time and gave the example of her deciding where the male and female rooms would be when the numbers changed. The PDF contains the following entries which describe the grievor's tasks as unusual and suggest that her duties involve unique adaptations and customized solutions. It is recognized that this position has a high degree of diverse multifaceted responsibilities of a complex nature pertaining to the split of managing the residence admissions area and finance area for two operations. A variety of unusual tasks that involve investigation, problem solving, reasoning, analytical thinking along with the ability to review, create and implement policies are core to this position. Unusual problems arise frequently and can be unique in content E.g. front desk staff will approach the incumbent when a request is made for a unique adaptation, sometimes by a resident with a medical condition, a learning disability or just the need for a customized solution. The 16 incumbent must investigate the situation and provide a customized solution such as a payment plan, authorize a refund or any adaptation that must be made when not adhering to the contract or current policies and procedures. Works with I.T. on the lottery selection process and room assignment, problems arise during this process that requires the incumbent to investigate and resolve before this process can be completed. Because there is always unique problems this process can take several days to complete and up to 4 hours to initialize once information is verified and ready to be implemented. In its written brief the Union contended that the grievor is responsible for reviewing, creating and implementing new policies and procedures, managing admissions processes and analyzing fmancial and occupancy reports. In its brief the College contended that the grievor's tasks are varied, non-routine and complex but there is a fair amount of repetition. It also said that the same outcomes must be sought and situations vary in only minor ways. The brief argued that the grievor's tasks are not unusual and do not involve specialized processes and methods. It contended that her tasks are to admit students to residence, collect information and fees correctly, record collections accurately and provide information to management as required. The PDF's references to "a variety of unusual tasks" and "unusual problems arise frequently" establish that the grievor engages in relatively unusual tasks. The PDF's reference to the grievor providing customized solutions suggests that specialized processes and/or methods are involved. Given these considerations the grievor's duties meet the criteria for a level 5 rating. The criteria for a level 6 rating require the investigation and resolution of a variety of "unusual conditions". The use of the term "conditions" suggests something broader than unusual fact situations or tasks. This is reinforced by the fact a SSO D is an illustrative classification for a level 6 rating. The fITst two typical duties of someone in this position set out in the manual are "identifies requirements of outside groups for College services and develops programs to meet these requirements" and "markets College capabilities to outside groups". There is nothing in the evidence or PDF that suggests the grievor addresses such broad 17 general issues or adapts specialized processes to meet unusual conditions. The.claim for a level 6 rating had not been made out. I fmd a level 5 rating to be appropriate. 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 in exercising judgement to select the most appropriate action. It also considered metal processes such as analysis, reasoning or evaluation. The College rated the grievor's position at level 5 worth 84 points. The Union argues for a level 6 rating worth 102 points. The applicable level defmitions and illustrative classifications were as follows: 5. Job duties require a significant degree of judgement. Problem- solving involves interpreting complex data or refming work methods or techniques to be used. Programmer B; Stationary Engineer C; Technologist B 6. Job duties require a high degree of judgement. Problem-solving involves adapting analytical techniques and development of new information on various situations and problems. Programmer/Analyst A, B; SSG C; Technologist C As discussed below, the wording of the PDF with respect to this factor is ambiguous. It points to both a level 5 and a level 6 rating. The full discussion of this factor in the PDF reads as follows: The position demands a significant degree of independent judgement and problem solving skills as the incumbent solely controls all admissions to Residence in addition to managing the receipt of more than $3,000,000 in College revenue for the Residence and Summer Suites operations. The incumbent must take the initiative when dealing with situations that are the exceptions to standard practice, and require the creative thinking and the ability to make sound decisions quickly in order to provide the best possible customer service while not threatening College image or 18 student/staff relations, all decisions must be fair even when deviating from standard practice. In order for the incumbent to negotiate, correctly identify and accurately resolve problems, anomalies and/or discrepancies, he/she must thoroughly understand the functionality of other areas such as that of the following departments: International, Aboriginal, the Centre for Access, Student Life, Accounting, as well as researching and probing to learn the needs of individual parents/students, clients, etc. This position requires a high degree of independence. Problem solving requires assessing, interpreting and analyzing data and/or situations, and determining the necessary steps required to implement a solution. The incumbent must adapt analytical techniques and develop new information on various situations and problems, which includes the development of new techniques, policies and procedures. The incumbent is often required to make independent assessments of problems as they arise and provide accurate and timely responses to the situation while maintaining a positive working relationship with those involved. Examples of the diversity of problem solving encountered include: The incumbent is authorized to act in a disciplinary manner when enforcing the Residence contact and therefore must act with diplomacy, tact and be able to display sound judgement when making decisions. The incumbent must possess full knowledge of Residence processes and policies and when necessary, must be able to make a judgement call to customize a solution based on each extenuating circumstances, with the confidence to override such standards if or when necessary. It is at the incumbent's discretion to determine what would be an effective measure of discipline and when to initiate measures such as but not limited to: disengaging of services, initiation of an eviction procedure, have a "hold" placed on student's College records thus affecting their potential to graduate. It is also the incumbent's sole discretion to involve an external collections agency, this results in a negative mark against an individual's personal credit rating. When new initiatives are brought forward, problems or unusual circumstances are identified the incumbent will investigate, analyze, and 19 discuss the issues with the various affected staff members, parents, residents/students, and other departments such as Accounting, International Center, Department of Career and Student Success, and staff to coordinate the parties involved, the incumbent will then make a decision on how best to proceed. The incumbent must be able to assist in the transition of students in residence who have never been away from home, or had to be responsible for his or her own fmancial dealings. The incumbent will meet with students and assess their financial and accommodation situations. At times the incumbent may decide to communicate a problem with, or make a referral to others such as the Residence Life Manager, the International Centre, Student Success, the student's international agent, or other staff to research the problem further in order to give recommendations and to determine the best approach to improve the resident's transition. For instance, through discussions with a resident the incumbent may be their only person that is informed that the student is not happy, is not eating, is homesick, etc. It is at the discretion of the incumbent to determine the proper way to handle his situation as well as to source out assistance for the student. When dealing with a resident's move out and refund request or appeal situations, the incumbent must investigate the matter, the incumbent will meet with the resident to explain proper procedures and may decide to request supporting documentation from a resident from time to time. The incumbent has full discretion based on each situation to override policy and refund monies when necessary. The grievor testified that she does not make major changes to processes but is involved in the discussions that lead to such changes. She noted that she represents the residence on different committees and gave the example of a committee that had developed a new purchasing policy and procedure. She said that she sets policies and procedures and referred to her decision that the residence would not accept credit card payments over the phone. Mr. Muscat said that the grievor must see that all information "jives" but he could not think of any new information that she would develop. At the time it prepared its written brief the Union understood that the College was maintaining an earlier claim for a level 4 rating for this factor. Much of its brief 20 repeated the language in the PDF. In its brief the College contended that the grievor might change processes to ensure accuracy on the part of staff at the front desk but major changes are determined by the General Manger or the Controller. It argued that the grievor does not develop new information or adapt analytical techniques. As indicated above, I view the wording of the PDF as generally being determinative. The difficulty respecting this factor is that the PDF contradicts itself. It starts with the statement that the position demands "a significant degree of independent judgement". The criterion for a level 5 rating summarizes the applicable degree of required judgement as being "a significant degree of judgement". The PDF, however, also states that the grievor must "adapt analytical techniques and develop new information on various situations and problems", words that parallel language in the criteria for a level 6 rating. Assistance can be gained from the remainder of the PDF entries with respect to judgement. These indicate that the grievor must address a range of different issues and adjust her approach to the different facts involved, which can be viewed as refining work methods and techniques. The PDF suggests that the grievor acquires information about unhappy, homesick students. It also indicates, however, that she is not involved in actually addressing these problems but rather refers them to others, including the Residence Life Manager. The examples of tl\e judgement exercised in the PDF do not suggest that the grievor is actually involved in the development of new information as part of a problem-solving process. Neither did the oral evidence. In light of the full entry in the PDF and the oral evidence I affrrm the level 5 rating assigned by the College. 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 C-3 worth 25 points. The Union rated it at level D-4, the highest rating possible, worth 40 points. A level 3 rating reflected a prevalence of 31 % to 60% of the time. A level 4 rating applied when the prevalence was more than 60% of the time. The level C and D definitions as well as the illustrative classifications for C-3 and D-4 ratings read as follows: 21 C Complex fine motor movement involving considerable dexterity, co-ordination and precision is required. Speed is a secondary consideration C-3 - Clerk General C; Programmer A, B; SSO A D Complex fine motor movement, involving significant dexterity, co-ordination and precision, is required. Speed is a major consideration. Typist/Stenographer B, C; Microcomputer Operator A, B; Data Entry Operator A, B A possible alternative rating was level C-4 which represented a level C type of complex fine motor movement for over 60% of the time. This rating was worth 28 points. The illustrative classifications for this rating were Switchboard Operator and Programmer C. The full entry in the PDF with respecting to this factor reads as follows: Precise keyboarding skills are necessary when prepanng correspondence, reports, fmancial documents, contracts, appeal decisions, eviction documentations, and collection letters. Manual dexterity and coordination is needed when comparing data from several fine print documents while reconciling account details and book report detailed transactions monthly. Precise calculator operation is imperative for all cost analysis and accounting calculations, spreadsheet details, invoicing, determining payment schedules, interest accumulation calculations, budget and expense reconciliations and when verifying night audit information and all financial transactions. TasklEquipment Analysis of documents, account reconciliations Keyboarding Calculations %of Time 50% 75% 40% 22 The grievor testified that she goes back and forth between computer screens when doing reconciliations and she also examines fine print data but she does not do a lot of actual keyboarding. She noted that other staff input charges. She said that for her accuracy is more important than speed. The grievor contended that preparing a report can involve fine motor movement when she cross-references lines with a ruler as does reconciling accounts when she goes back and forth with a pen. Mr. Muscat described the grievor as always being on the computer. He subsequently agreed with Ms. Brown that the grievor's time on the computer does not only involve data entry but also includes her looking at material. He said that the grievor must always be accurate although at crunch times speed is of the essence. In its brief the College contended that "the position is using a computer or a calculator 60% of the time". It argued that accuracy is generally more important than speed although a few times per year speed will be as equally important as accuracy. The chart in the PDF refers to the grievor keyboarding 75% of the time. The wording of the remainder of the PDF entry, including the fact that all of the listed time adds up to 165%, suggests that the 75% figure refers to all of the time the grievor is on the computer during which she will do some keyboarding. Presumably some of her time on the computer involves using a mouse which also requires fme motor movements. The analysing of documents and performing account reconciliations largely involve sensory demand and not fine motor movements. Here, however, the PDF accepts that some manual dexterity and coordination is required when performing these tasks. Performing calculations on a calculator requires fine motor movements. When all of the times when the grievor uses fine motor movements are taken iritcf account I conclude that the total likely amounts to over 60% of her time. ll11is justifies a level 4 rating for prevalence. The PDF refers to a need for "precise keyboarding skills" and "precise calculator operation". This wording stresses accuracy and not speed. The oral evidence indicates that with certain limited exceptions accuracy is more important than speed. Given these considerations I find a level C rating to be appropriate for the type of motor skills required. Having regard to these considerations I fmd a level C-4 rating worth 28 points to be appropriate. 23 SENSORY DEMAND This factor measured demand on mental energy while performing tasks. It considered the level or degree of concentration and the frequency of the need for careful attention to detail and accuracy. The College rated this factor at level 4 worth 39 points. The Union seeks a level 5 rating, the highest rating possible, worth 50 points. The criteria for these two ratings and the illustrative classifications read as follows: 4. Job duties require considerable visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. OR Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and occasional careful attention to detail and accuracy. Bus Driver; Clerk General D; Switchboard Operator 5. Job duties require extensive visual, auditory, or sensory demand on mental energy and frequent careful attention to detail and accuracy. Systems Analyst; Technical Support Specialist Among the entries in the PDF with respect to this factor are "considerable mental concentration and close attention to detail (100% accuracy) is required for tasks" and "incumbent experiences a high demand on mental energies when completing complex tasks requiring concentration" . This language is not determinative of which level rating is appropriate. The evidence indicates that there are periods when the grievor spends time dealing with detailed information but nothing close to the extent that a Systems Analyst or Technical Support Specialist would. These are the illustrative classifications for a level 5 rating. It is noteworthy that a SSO A, B, C, and D are all illustrative classifications for a level 3 rating. I confirm that level 4 rating given by the College. 24 STRAIN FROM WORK PRESSURE/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 dealings with people in difficult situations. The College rated this factor at level 4 worth 39 points. The Union argues in favour of a level 5 rating, the highest possible, worth 50 points. The relevant level defmitions and illustrative classifications for a level 4 rating (no illustrative classifications were provided for a level 5 rating) read 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; Tech Support Specialist 5. Job duties involve continuous work pressures and unpredictable interruptions in workflow. Numerous conflicting demands and tight deadlines occur frequently The PDF indicates that at times the grievor faces heavy workloads. It states that for 60% of the time she is dealing with non-predictable situations involving "dealing with problems and new demands that result in the shifting of priorities or ability to fmd a new resolve" as well as 45% of the time with non-predictable "demands made for an immediate response or solution pertaining to the creation of new procedures or a deviation of current practice". The PDF also contains the following statement: The incumbent is frequently involved in several projects simultaneously, all of which have tight deadlines such as the closing of the returning students application process at the same time as the opening of the summer application process while updating the summer contact and the September contract. Problems with processes or system errors, delays etc. will conflict with established priorities. The incumbent must always plan with a contingency to allow for the shifting of priorities, mishaps and/or fmd a resolve or a different method to accomplish tasks by deadlines. 25 The grievor testified that she is subject to unpredictable interruptions such as the Life Residence Manager wanting a room change right away and her having to ensure that a room is clean and ready to be moved into, doing a key exchange, going into the computer system to make the change and ensuring that the phone is working. She said that she was currently facing conflicting demands associated with the fiscal year end, summer start up, training night audit staff, the front desk accepting applications, students who had been given offers asking for adaptations and requests for information. The grievor said that she faces. deadlines relating to student applications which are predictable and requests for information from Mr. Muscat and others which are not. She. testified that she is frequently interrupted and gave the example of a student asking her about their account. She said that a crisis such as the phone system not working would need to be dealt with right away. The grievor also said that she faces tight deadlines in terms of students applying for residence accommodations. Mr. Muscat testified that there are numerous deadlines associated with different groups or categories applying for accommodation and there are always conflicting deadlines due to different operations. He described these deadlines as scheduled deadlines which follow the admissions process. He added that there can be some less frequent sudden deadlines such as the controller asking for certain information by a set date. Mr. Muscat said that the grievor is interrupted less frequently than he is but her interruptions are less predictable both in terms of timing and content. The Union brief contended that the grievor works with multiple overlapping admissions deadlines and her workflow can be interrupted frequently and often unpredictably. The College brief contended that most strains faced by the grievor are predictable, including multitasking and being interrupted by students. It argued that having deadlines impacted by unexpected issues should be predictable, process changes should be anticipated and it should be expected that processes will need to be streamlined to correct errors or make processes flow more smoothly. It is apparent that the grievor faces conflicting work pressures, frequent interruptions in workflow, and unpredictable work situations with shifts in priorities. These situations are covered by the criteria for a level 4 rating. The criteria for a level 5 rating require that interruptions in workflow be unpredictable and that there be numerous conflicting demands and frequent tight deadlines. Were it not for the wording of the PDF there would be an issue as to whether the interruptions faced by the grievor are appropriately viewed as unpredictable and whether the deadlines she faces are in fact tight. Given the statements in the PDF, however, which indicate 26 that the grievor deals regularly with unpredictable demands and is frequently involved in several projects simultaneously "all of which have tight deadlines" I am lead to conclude that the criteria for a level 5 rating have been met. 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 assigned a level 4 rating worth 46 points. The Union contends that a level 5 rating worth 60 points, the highest rating possible, should have been awarded. The relevant level definitions and illustrative classifications were as follows: 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; SSG 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. SSG C, D; Systems Analyst; Technologist C The PDF refers to the grievor as being self-directed, working independently and having "significant freedom to act independently". Specific examples provided in the PDF to describe the grievor's independent actions use the terms "independent discretion", "independent judgement" and "independent actions". The wording of the PDF establishes that the grievor has "significant freedom to act independently", language taken directly from the criteria for a level 5 rating. A key requirement of this level, however, is that the ability to act independently 27 applies where there are "changing conditions and problems". The examples given in the PDF do not suggest changing conditions and problems so much as similar issues but with differing details. At the hearing the grievor was asked about changing situations or problems. She noted that every year she works with new staff and a new clientele and that Mr. Muscat will ask her for special reports. At another point in her evidence she said that while she cannot make major changes on her own she can make changes to processes and procedures. She said that out of courtesy she will advise Mr. Muscat of these changes so that if he is asked about a change he will know about it. In its brief the Union relied on the statement in the PDF that the grievor has significant freedom to act independently. The College in its brief contended that the grievor consults Mr. Muscat in a variety of circumstances and he provides regular input into decisions. As already noted, the wording of the PDF establishes that the grievor has significant freedom to act independently. I am not, however, satisfied that she does so in the context of changing conditions and problems. The details of the issues she addresses change as do the identities of student employees and residents. There do not, however, appear to be changes in the nature of the problems she faces or on- going changes to the conditions in which she carries out her duties and responsibilities. In the circumstances I confmn the level 4 rating given by the College. COMMUNICATIONS/CONTACTS This factor measured the requirement for effective communication for the purpose of providing advice, explanation, influencing others, and/or reaching agreement. The job evaluation manual noted that many college jobs deal with some information that is confidential. It went on to say that the focus in this factor was on the manner, purpose and responsibilities involved in communicating and not the content of the information being communicated. The College rated this factor at level 3 worth 88 points. The Union argues for a level 4 rating worth 124 points. The defmitions for these levels and the related illustrative classifications were as follows: 28 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; SSG A, B; Technician B, C 4. Job duties require communication for the purpose of providing basic instruction or for the resolution of complex problem situations. There may be a need for sophisticated influential or persuasive techniques in order to address the problem of those with special needs. Regular involvement with confidential and sensitive information where disclosure implications are significant. ECE Worker; Library Technician B; Nurse; SSG C: Technologist C The grievor testified that she instructs the International and Aboriginal Centres on the process for offering residence rooms and she trains student auditing and front desk staff. Mr. Muscat testified that three times a year the grievor trains front desk staff, front desk supervisors and night auditors and she also provides in- service training. Mr. Muscat described this as providing instruction. He differentiated it from the grievor providing advice to individuals subsequent to her having instructed them. He also differentiated it from the grievor giving advice on policies and procedures to others at the College. The grievor testified that she communicates for the purpose of resolving complex problems such as when the controller asks her to figure out budget issues or summer accounts. She also referred to her communicating with the Registrar's office, the Controller or a student to resolve a problem. In response to a question respecting a statement in the College's brief that there are "no complex problem situations" Mr. Muscat said that he did not agree with the statement. The grievor testified that she addresses the situation of students with special needs when the Centre for Access asks her to accommodate individuals in residence. 29 She said that at times she tries to persuade students to stay in residence and she also persuades people to pay their fees and incidentals such as phone bills. Mr. Muscat said that at the beginning of the year the grievor tries to influence the International Centre with respect to students who arrive prior to the opening of the residence. He said that she explains that the students should not immediately be allowed into the residence because they would not have a positive experience due to the isolation they would feel. He also said that in April the grievor deals with international students who have later flights in order to make exceptions to the date when they would otherwise have to be out of residence. The grievor testified that she keeps all student residence records in her office and these include personal information, OHIP numbers, medical information and credit card payment information. She said that when she meets with students concerning financial issues she has access to their OSAP and First Nations paperwork. She also said that at times social workers want to be privy to information and she will obtain release forms from the students. The grievor testified that sometimes when meeting with students about financial issues they provide her with personal and family information and she might refer them to the Residence Life Manager or the Counselling Department. Mr. Muscat testified that the grievor shares information with him and the Residence Life Manager as well as with counsellors. The PDF contains a lengthy description of the grievor's contacts with others. Most relate to situations where she communicates written or oral information or explains policies and procedures. The PDF also states, however, that the grievor has written and verbal communications with the Manager of Residence Life: "For the purpose of negotiation pertaining to specialized requests for accommodation. For the exchange of confidential and sensitive information sometimes relating to legal . matters and most often relating to disciplinary action". The PDF goes on to say that the grievor deals with co-workers respecting: "Daily involvement with confidential information and at times the exchange of residents' personal information". Still later the PDF states that the grievor communicates with the Registrar's office "to exchange confidential information". In the PDF there is a statement that the grievor deals with students and parents: "To reach an agreement when negotiating payment plans, resident's special accommodation requests etc." The document also states that the grievor trains staff on the residence application process and the offer of accommodation process. The College's brief acknowledged that the grievor provides explanations respecting procedures and policies to students and their parents and that her 30 collection activities require that she secure cooperation from individuals. It said that she does not provide formal instruction or address complex problem situations. It contended that the grievor is not required to communicate confidential information to others except to individuals who already have access to students' personal information, such as those in the Registrar's office. The evidence of the grievor and Mr. Muscat as well as the PDF indicate that the grievor provides formal training, which can reasonably be viewed as the provision of basic instruction. Mr. Muscat referred to the grievor trying to influence the International Centre and the PDF refers to the grievor negotiating special accommodation requests. These suggest that the grievor uses persuasive techniques for the purpose of addressing the situation of those with special needs. Mr. Muscat referred to the grievor providing him with confidential information. His evidence indicated that she also provides confidential information to the Residence Life Manager and to counsellors. It is not apparent that the inappropriate disclosure of information respecting a single individual during these exchanges would have a significant impact on the College unless it involved a very unusual situation. Notwithstanding this, given that the other criteria for a level 4 rating have been met I conclude that level 4 is 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 argues for a level 5 rating, the highest rating possible, worth 80 points. The criteria and illustrative classifications for these ratings as well as the intervening level 4 rating worth 62 points were as follows: 3. Decisions and/or actions have a 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 31 4. Decisions and/or actions have considerable impact on the organization. Errors are detected after the fact and may result in considerable interruption and delay in work output and waste of resources. ECE Worker; Stationary Engineer C; SSO B, C; Technologist B,C 5. Decisions and/or actions have significant impact on the organization. Errors are difficult to detect and result in a significant waste of resources and continuing influence on operational effectiveness. SSO D; Systems Analyst; Technical Support Specialist The PDF contains several lengthy entries with respect to this factor. Some of them read as follows: The decisions and/or judgement made by the incumbent have a significant impact on the entire residence admissions process. If the incumbent makes inappropriate decisions, it will result in a negative financial impact on College revenue. If the incumbent were to poorly coordinate the admissions process by miscalculating occupancy or not tracking offers, wait lists, payments and reservations, this could result in not having enough rooms to accommodate an excess of students, thus negatively impacting College revenue and public relations. The College would be responsible for obtaining alternative housing or for refunding monies for housing and possibly tuition as many residents attend Georgian based on their acceptance for housing. This will result in a significant waste of College resources and negative operational effectiveness and great upset and embarrassment for all parties. The incumbent prepares all invoices for external conference groups. The services provided to these conference groups are also revenue sources for various College departments such as Athletics, Chartwells, and the GDR. If the incumbent is not accurate in billing and reconciling the billing received from other areas with Summer Suites billing, the result could be a loss in revenue for the College and poor operational effectiveness in addition, the errors could result in negative public relations and negative internal relations. 32 Financial records are critical to the department's operation and could create significant problems if the incumbent were to not review student accounts, conference accounts and night audit information daily. The incumbent is responsible for locating errors, sourcing out the cause of such errors, correcting them; and implementing changes to processes, if continually making the same errors. This includes but is not limited to daily deposits, transactions recorded to the GL and all posted transactions to student accounts and to revenue lines. Errors are difficult to detect until detailed fmancial audits are being conducted by the College's Financial Controller. Post detection of errors results in a lot of work to rectify the situation and costs the College in time and operational effectiveness. The grievor testified that she is responsible for correcting mistakes made by others and accordingly if she were to make an error it would be difficult to detect. She said that her predecessor had made several errors with respect to the general ledger which took her months to correct. She said that when she was hired into her position errors from the previous summer had resulted in what she described as a $63,000 shortage and a $18,000 shortage. She indicated that there had not been an actual loss of revenue but rather some cheques were still in peoples' drawers rather than having been sent to accounting and some payments had not been posted. The grievor contended that there could be an impact on revenue if she were to make an error in setting up codes or when transferring revenue between accounts. The grievor testified that if she were to make errors in tracking residence offers and acceptances it could result in too many students on moving day and not enough rooms or males and females living together. She also said that if she missed something when checking the work of other employees it could result in a student not participating in the lottery or special and roommate requests not being looked at. Mr. Muscat said that any major error on the part of the grievor, such as her not charging a $40,000 fee to a conference group, would be caught by others as would any accumulation of errors. He acknowledged that a single error such as the grievor not charging a student for damage might go unnoticed but noted that this would not have an ongoing impact on the College's operation. He said that if too many students were admitted to residence, which had not happened, the College would be required to fmd alternative accommodation for them which would give rise to public relations concerns. 33 In its brief the Union contended that decisions made by the grievor have a significant impact on the entire residence admission process. It also contended that not having sufficient rooms would result "in a significant waste of College resources and negative operational effectiveness". The College's brief contended that errors could result in extra time being required to identify and correct them or some lost revenue. It noted that some errors would be detected by the audit process or by accounting staff. It argued that any errors made by the grievor would have a moderate impact on the organization. This factor is logically meant to reflect the impact of a single error rather than an incumbent making a series of errors. It appears that most individual billing errors, or a failure to catch such an error by someone else, would not have a major impact on the College. Large errors or an accumulation of errors on the part of the grievor would be caught by others. There would, however, be a need to track down the source of the errors which could be time consuming. Over-offers in terms of residence space would create administrative difficulties and potential public relations issues depending on the nature and location of alternative accommodation. It could also result in lost revenue if the outside accommodation cost the College more than what it received in residence fees. It is not, however, apparent that there would be a significant impact on the College or a continuing influence on operational effectiveness. The PDF does say that the grievor's decisions and judgement have "a significant impact on the entire residence admission process". This is not, however, the same as a significant impact "on the organization" which is what is required for a levelS rating. The College's claim that the grievor's decisions and actions would only have a moderate impact, however, understates the impact of potential errors on her part. Given these considerations I find a level 4 rating to be appropriate. CONCLUSION As indicated above, this decision is based in large measure on the wording used in the applicable PDF. The College's ratings for all twelve facts resulted in a total of 626 points. My findings raise it to 722 points. This is within the range of 691 to 750 points for payband 11. (The total would be 700 points, still within payband 11, if a level 1 rating were applied for the factor of work environment.) Having regard to these considerations, I conclude that under the previous job classification system the grievor's position should have been rated at payband 11. 34 f I retain jurisdiction to address any issues that arise directly out of this decision which the parties are unable to resolve. Dated this 9th day of July 2007. L;A'WI ~tor. Arbitration Data Sheet. SUDDOrt Staff Classification ~ Gealgian CoIege h:umIIenI: Mamalbley. ~ .. SUaelffsoI. em.. r.uca Present CIasslfication: Clerk GenemI AIvPicaI PNsent PavBand: 9 Job FamiIv and Pavband ,,",n sled by Grflwor:: SuppodSenices OfficerC. Pay8and 11 1. COllcernillg the AlIached Position Oescriplion Form: c:J The parties agreed on tlleoonlenls; [XJ The Union disagrees IIilh tile confenIs and the specific detaIs are aIIached 2. The AIIa:hed WIiIIen SuIlmission is from: c:J The Union t:::KJ The College Fal:U ....- J Ulilln J Iii... l.eieI PainIs .... .Pui115 . a.e.I FWIIs 1. Tlilini9'TedIil:aI SHIs 6 110 b lit) b' 110 Z. F=~ienu= 4 45 .-s- S-7 r ~7 3. ~~... r 1. .. 58 6 q() ~ 17 II- 4.~ 5 84 6 t01 .? <;(f 5.1bJr SkiIs 3C 25 '-Ii) u..f") lfC :lC" 6.. PhJSi:aI' Ilema1d 2 16 J- Ih :t 16 7. SensuIy Ilema1d .. 39 -r '5'"1J 4 39 8..SlIainmnWolt~ .. 39 5"" S-O ,~ s-o 9.1IIdepe.d..4Adion .( 46 5 60 tJ. '1-6 10. ComnuIicaIionsI 3 88 't I J... LJ. tl- t "-If 1,. ~~)' iJr DecisionsIAdions 3 44 S- '60 /.f 602 12. Work Environment 2 32 I iO ,) 3.:l T 0IaI Points 626-Payband9 7f19 - ~ISIJ. 1;l:l For the Union For the College Grievor Dale ~ 6--- ;L,.~~ 2c1o 7 (College Representafive) Date ~~ For Arbitrator's Use: Resulting Classification: p/J 1/91<< D I J Date: J'W/-y ~ 2.a77 / 4.~ IIPI?JL Lj ~fYl#Y.2 2t-'t7 -r;.,/...\/?; :)()U7 (Date of Hearing) , ) (Date of Award)