HomeMy WebLinkAboutMcGrail 20-02-12IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ST. CLAIR COLLEGE (the College)
AND
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (the Union)
RE: JORDAN McGRAIL (2019-0137-0001)
JOB EVALUATION; PAYBAND; ARTICLE 18.5
Appearing for the Union: Connie Collins, OPSEU
Appearing for the Employer: David Foster, Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP
Sole Arbitrator: Norm Jesin
Hearing Held: February 3, 2020
Decision Date: February 12, 2020
AWARD:
In this case the Union seeks a re-evaluation of the classroom technologist position
presently held by the grievor. The College evaluated the position and rated it at 509 points,
placing the decision within Payband G. The grievor and the Union seek a re -evaluation to 634
points that would place the position at Payband I.
Duties of the Position:
The position supports the deliver y of the Colleges robotics program to students. The
contents of the Position Description Form (PDF) have been agreed to. According to the PDF, the
incumbent “demonstrates and supervises the application of theory and concepts (math and
communications) to students according to faculty direction and prescribed skills and objectives
in the program. Provides remedial assistance to students when required.” (60% of the time). The
incumbent also “Administers and evaluates tests as assigned by faculty, in relation to program
standards” (25%). In addition, the incumbent assists faculty with maintenance and development
of materials, resources, record keeping and prov ides input into student assessment (5%) and is
also responsible for the operation of labs in absence of faculty (5%).
Notwithstanding that the contents of the PDF have been marked as agreed, the Union
suggests that an amended description of the duties is as follows:
Demonstrate and supervises the application of theory and concepts in the
Robotics program to students according to faculty direction and prescribed skills and objectives
in the program curriculum. Provides remedial assistance to students when required. Adm inister
and evaluates tests as assigned by faculty, in relation to program standards. Assists faculty with
maintenance and development of materials, resources, record keeping, and provides input into
the student assessment process. 75%
The incumbent must be able to determine resolutions to meet the learning out comes to assist
students in learning the required out comes of the program through adjusting teaching and using
custom teaching methods for each student. The incumbent will evaluate labs as assigned by
faculty, in relation to program standards. The incumbent will evaluates equipment and other
resources and makes recommendations to faculty and to administration about purchases, lab
supplies and design. 10%
The incumbent is responsible for the robotics equipment repair and maintenance. The incumbent
must determine if the equipment can be fixed in house or outsourced or replaced. The incumbent
is responsible for time management of projects they are working on and to let other staff now of
changes to the curriculum schedule due to maintenance and updating of equipment. The
incumbent works independently to solve complex issues when repairing and updating labs using
their technical expertise. 10%
Responsible for the operation of labs in the absence of facu lty. 2%
Other duties as required. 3%
Factors in Dispute
There are five factors in dispute. They are: Factor 3 – Analysis and Problem Solving; Factor
4 – Planning/Coordinating; Factor; Factor 6 – Independence of Action; Factor 7 – Service Delivery
and Factor 11 – Working Environment. I will deal with each of these factors separately.
Analysis and Problem Solving
The Union seeks an increase in the rating from level 3 to level 4. The difference in the
rating focussed on by the parties is that under level 3 an incumbent must deal with problems that
are readily identifiable but where the incumbent may be required to obtain information from
areas or resources not normally used by the incumbent. In level 4 problems are not readily
identifiable and solutions require further investigation and research together with interpretation
and analysis of information within generally accepted principles.
The examples provided generally relate to problems which are readily identifiable but for
which information may be required which are not readily available. Therefore, I am of the view
that that the rating for level 3 is appropriate. However, the Union has identified circumstances
that occasionally arise, such as the breakdown of equipment during labs, which occasionall y may
require further investigation or research in order to achieve a solution. I have therefore
determined that the regular rating of 3 is correct but that an occasional rating of 4 should be
awarded.
Planning and Coordinating
This factor is rated at level 2. The Union seeks a rating of level 3 with an occasional rating
of level 3. Level 2 is the rating assigned for an incumbent who plans or coordinates activities and
resources to complete own work and achieve overlapping deadlines. Level 3 consists of planning/
coordinating activities, information or material to “enable the completion of tasks and events
which affect the work schedule of other employees.” “Other employees” is defined to include
students. I accept the submission of the College that the tasks described in the submissions of
both parties do not regularly affect the work schedule of other employees. I do accept however
there is occasional impact on the work schedule of others, particularly in the incumbent’s role as
lead for the skills competition. Therefore, although the claim is allowed in part only to the extent
of providing for an occasional level 3.
Independence of Action
The position is rated at level 3 under this factor. The Union seeks an occasional rating of
level 4. Level 3 describes position duties which are completed according to general processes.
“Decisions are made following general guidelines to determine how tas ks should be completed.”
Level 4 is describes decisions which are made using industry practices and/or departmental
policies. The notes to raters describes level 3 as follows:
Specific results or objectives that must be accomplished are pre -determined by others.
The position has the ability to select the process(es) to achieve the end result, usually with
the assistance of general guidelines. The position has autonomy to make these decisions
within these parameters.
Level 4 on the other hand applies when “the only parameter or constraints … [for] decision
making are industry practices … or departmental policies.”
In the tasks submitted before me the results or objectives are not determined by the
incumbent although the incumbent may determine the process es to achieve the end result. The
rating therefore will remain unchanged.
Service Delivery
The position is rated at level 2. The Union seeks a rating of level 3.
Under level 2, an incumbent provides service according to specifications by selecting the
best method of delivering service. Under level 3 an incumbent must “tailor service” based on an
understanding of the customer needs. The Union submits that the grievo r must tailor service that
provide students with solutions and methods which accommodate their particular
circumstances.
The notes to raters suggest that under level 2 an incumbent may recommend the best of
available options but cannot change the options . Under level 3, however, delivery of service may
be modified to suit a customer’s particular circumstances. The ob jectives of the tasks at issue are
pre-determined by others and the grievor must provide the best available options to students to
suit their needs. The rating for these tasks are properly rated for level 2 under this factor.
Working Environment
This factor is rated at level 1. The Union seeks a rating of level 2. Level 2 includes a noisy
environment, or working in crowded or isolated conditions. In this case the grievor is working in
an industrial environment in which people are working with robotics. Her work area is small and
she is in close quarters with other equipment. She is required to wear safety equipment such as
steel-toed boots and protective eyewear. It is agreed that noise emanates from some of the
equipment near the grievor’s work area although there is some dispute about the level of noise.
All in all, I am in agreement that a level 2 rating should be awarded for this factor.
Based on the foregoing the grievor’s claim is awarded in part . The number of points have
increased sufficiently so that the Payband is increased to level H.
Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of February, 2020
______________________
Norm Jesin
Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification
College: St.Clair College Incumbent: Jordan McGrail Supervisor: Dale Sinneave
Current Payband: `_ .G Payband Requested by Grievor: 1
1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form:
® The parties agreed on the contents ❑ The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific details
are attached.
2. The attached Written Submission is from: ® The Union ❑ The College
Factor
k £Recurring
Management Union
Regular/Occasional Regular O c asionai
Recurring
A bItrafQr
Regular / Occasional
Recurring
Level
Points
Level
Points
Level
Pants
Level
Pant
s
Leve
I
Pant
s
Levu
Pants
1A. Education
1B. Education
2. Experience
4
1
4
48
3
54
4
1
4
4
48
3
54
S
3 Analysis and Problem
Solving
3
7g
1.1;0
4. Planning/Coordinating
2
32
3
56
4
7
1 Q.
31
>
.-7
5. Guiding/Advising
Others
4
41
4
41
6, 4ndep6nddrice of Action
3
3
78
4
9
7 Service Delivery
2
o
1.
l'
8. Communication
3
78
3
78
9. Physical Effort
2
26
2
26
10. Audio/Visual Effort
2
35
2
35
11. Working Environment
1
7
2
3$
1
2. j"*5Fj
Subtotals
(a) 509
(b) 0
(a) 618
(b) 16
(a) 5
(b)
Total Points (a) + (b)
509
634
Resulting Payband
G
Si atu s:�
� ��2-
Al
Gvor Date College Representative Date
I�fpresent ive Date ,_ r
1 r
Arbitrator Date of Hearing Date of Award