Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPorco Group 20-09-22IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION,Local 557 (FOR SUPPORT STAFF) (hereinafter called the "Union") -and- COLLEGE EMPLOYERS COUNCIL FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS and TECHNOLOGY In the form of GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE (hereinafter called the "College") -and - GRIEVANCES of JOHN SEVER1NO &RODOLFO PORCO OPSEU File No.2019-0557-0017 (hereinafter called the "Grievors"or the "Incumbents") ARBITRATOR: REPRESENTING THE UNION: Richard H.McLaren,C.Arb. Megan Carter,President OPSEU 557 J.Severino &R.Porco,Grievors REPRESENTING THE COLLEGE:Rebecca Liu,Counsel,Hicks Morley Hooman Farhangnia,Facilities Manager Silvia Vieitas,Manager,Total Rewards David McCuaig,Labour Relations Advisor A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD VIA ZOOM ON 17 SEPTEMBER 2020. AWARD 1.John Severino and Rodolfo Porco (hereafter the "Grievors"or the "Incumbents")are General Maintenance Workers at George Brown College Casa Loma Campus (the "College").They agree with the accuracy of the written contents of the Position Description Form (the "PDF").They dispute the classification of their position on the basis that it does not adequately reflect the scoring of their current duties particularly now that there is a worldwide pandemic caused by the Coronavirus COVID -19.They filed a classification grievance on 17 September 2019. 2.The College submits that the scoring of the PDF using the Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (the "Manual")has resulted in a point scoring of the position of 486 points.The Payband Determination Schedule in the Manual indicates that such a point score would place the position in Payband "G". 3.The Grievors and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (the "Union")submit that the position ought to be evaluated at 613 points,placing it at the higher-rated Payband "I".A discussion of each of the Factors giving rise to the dispute is set out below. The Duties of the Position 4.The Incumbents are responsible for performing basic installation and repair of building components,including plumbing fixtures (e.g.leaking toilets or pipes),hinges and door closures,tiles,pieces of drywalling and lighting fixtures. Factors in Dispute 5.There are five Factors in dispute in this proceeding:Factor #1 A -Education;Factor #3 - Analysis &Problem Solving;Factor #5 -Guiding/Advising Others;Factor #6 - Independence of Action;Factor #10 -Audio/Visual Effort.Each Factor is dealt with under separate headings below. Factor #1A -Education:Ratings:College Level 3 /Union Level 4 This factor looks at both the level offormal education required as well as the needfor additional education that is not normally obtained with or is beyond the scope of the primary education level. A.This section identUles the minimum level offormal education that is required to perform the responsibilities of the position. B.In order to perform the responsibilities of the position,is there a requirement for specJic course(s),cerqfIcation qualification,formal training or accreditation in addition to and not part of the reductional level noted above in 1A.Include only requirements that would typically be included in the job posting/PDF as a mandatory requirement. The Union submits that more than the 2 -year diploma is required to perform the responsibilities of the position.They submit that the scoring ought to be Level 4 which is stated in the Manual as a "3 -year diploma/degree,trade certification or equivalent".In furtherance of the submission they point to the Ontario College of Trades "Facilities Mechanic"Apprenticeship Training Standard.They also submit that in the past the College had paid for the Incumbents to attend the evening courses at Humber College in the Building Maintenance Mechanic Program because it was part of Minutes of Settlement with respect to a previous classification grievance. The Manual defines the "A"aspect of the Education Factor as being the "...minimal level offormal education that is required to perform the responsibilities of the position ". I find that management sets the requirements for the background education requirement. The fact that the Incumbents have taken over some of the roles of professional trades workers because they have skills as a result of their taking courses at Humber on the request of the College does not mean that the position ought to have a higher rating for education.The courses the College requires are properly scored in the "B"aspect of the factor and are not in dispute.The level of education in Factor #1 A is the identification of the minimum level of formal education required to perform the responsibilities of the position.The fact that the Grievors have a higher level of education and considerable years of experience providing them with acquired knowledge does not mean that the minimum level should be raised.The process engaged in by job classification is to rate the position,not the Grievors'performance of the position or their current skill 3 educational equivalency.For all of these reasons I find that there is no justification for an alteration of the Education Factor #1A. Factor #3 -Analysis &Problem Solving:Ratings:College Level 2 /Union Level 3 This factor measures the level of complexity involved in analyzing situations,information or problems of varying levels of dfJIculty,and in developing oplions,solutions or other actions. The parties are apart by one level.The difference between Level 2 and Level 3 for this Factor is highlighted in the "Notes to Raters".At Level 2 the work performed is "quite structured"and performed in a "customary or usual way".The Incumbents would have some freedom in determining how the problem could be resolved.In contrast,at Level 3 the problems encountered are "readily identifiable"but may require assessing and requesting additional information "to clearly understand the nature of the problem or situation". The Union submits that the repair examples of faucets out of order or toilets not working requires the Incumbents to be knowledgeable about piping systems and to identify from where the problem is stemming.In contrast the College submits that the examples in the PDF involve technical problems dealing with singular items and are more likely than not precisely defined and easily resolved by inspection.In other circumstances it is not the Grievors who have to identify the reason for the problem,but it is the responsibility of the Maintenance Coordinator. Casa Loma Campus of the College includes buildings that were built more than 50 years ago.The building standards and codes of today were not applicable.Thus,the knowledge and lengthy experience of the Grievors contributes to their ability to do many maintenance tasks quickly,easily and efficiently.Their experience is particularly useful in carrying out their work.They work with a team which includes trades personnel and a coordinator as well as a manager.They are the first level problem solvers and do the general maintenance on toilets,leaky faucets and light fixture replacements.For these tasks they do have to gather information,but the work performed is structured.There is a cut off to general maintenance work where the trades people at the College or outside 4 contractors must step in to deal with the maintenance issues that have arisen.I find that the work performed is structured and while the Grievors may well need to have extra knowledge about systems or parts that are connected to the problem to be resolved,that knowledge is not what the difference in Level is designed to rate.Typically,there is no further inquiry that the Incumbents need to engage in,but they may have to rely on past practices and experience or knowledge.At Level 3,further actions are required beyond the Incumbents'knowledge and more information must be acquired beyond past practice or knowledge gained by experience.That is not required of them because it:(i)either does not arise;or (ii)the matter is referred to the Maintenance coordinator,trades personnel or outside contractors.The result is the Incumbents deal with the quick fix technical problems that involve general maintenance.Therefore,the rating as submitted by the College is the appropriate Level.I find that there is no justification for an alteration of this Factor. Factor #5 -Guidinff/Advisin Others:Ratins:Collee Level 1 0cc.2 /Union Level 2 0cc.3 This factor refers to any assigned responsibility to guide or advise others (e.g.other employees, students,clients)in the area of the position expertise.This is over and above communicating with others in that the position's actions directly help others in the performance of their work or skill development. The Union submits that what the College deems occasional in the PDF ought to be classified,by the definitions in the Manual,as regular and recurring because to be so they only have to comprise 25%of the job.The higher Level 2 is the best fit because the Incumbents have to explain procedures to other maintenance staff,assist contractors on their requests and assist in training new employees.The Union also proffered an example of the implementation of touchless plumbing fixtures that the Incumbents suggested be installed.This was done on their guidance.The College submits that the Incumbents are rarely required to guide or advise others.To the extent they are required to do so in instructing a new hire the occasional score of 2 is recognition of that occasional activity.In fact,there has been no new hires in the Casa Loma site in the past 5 years. 5 I find that where there is a problem that brings into the work either other trades personnel of the College or outside contractors,the problem to be fixed is beyond the abilities of the General Maintenance Worker capabilities.While the Incumbents may have to show those unfamiliar with the Casa Loma campus where shut off valves or isolation points may be,that is not guiding others'work or advising them on how to do their work. Furthermore,you are not guiding or advising others if you are asked to assist these persons in some fashion where an extra hand for assistance may be required.What it involves is showing them the ideocracies of the Casa Loma building configuration which is old and not in accordance with modem day building codes.They are not guiding and advising others in their work.They may,however,assist in the tasks others are performing largely because more hands are required. I find that there is little in the way of Guiding or Advising in this particular position. Therefore,the entry level rating is appropriate at Level 1.The College is,however, willing to recognize that on rare occasions the Incumbents'work does rise to an Occasional 2.The Sars and Coronavirus outbreaks and the advice that the College received from the Incumbents is reflected in the Occasional rating.For the foregoing reasons there is no demonstrated need to adjust the rating as filed by the College. Factor #6 -Independence of Action:Ratings:College Level 2 0cc.3 I 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. The Union submits that the Incumbents are without supervision and therefore are completely independent thereby justifying a Level 4 rating.Work orders are issued,and the Incumbents decide the priority to deal with them and how the work is to be completed.They have to decide if it is a mechanical,electrical or plumbing issue contained in the work order. The College submits that the vast majority of work orders are completed on the day of issue.If urgent work orders arise they are dealt with and priority determined by the Facilities Manager or the Maintenance Coordinator. This Factor involves examining the types of decisions that a worker makes and in doing so how dependent they are in deciding the pursuit of the work order.The Union submission at Level 4 does not focus on the types of decisions made and the independent action in deciding how to pursue the tasks in a work order.The "Notes to Raters"in clarifying the differences are useful to resolve these submissions.The Incumbents fit squarely into Level 2 in that their duties are completed based upon pre -determined steps. The note also states and it is very applicable in stating,that "The position only has the autonomy to decide the order or sequence that tasks or duties should be performed".To be at Level 4 they would have to be guided by industry practices which of itself is a defined term of art which is not applicable in these circumstances.There is simply no fit at Level 4.For these reasons,I do not accept the proposed rating of the Union.It is not justified and is a significant stretch from Level 2.There is no adjustment needed or established in respect of this Factor.The evidence provided by the Union does not reach the level of satisfying me that the Incumbents'work meets the requirements of Level 4. Therefore,an adjustment of the applicable Factor is not justified. Factor #10 -Audio /Visual:Ratings:College Level 2 Focus /Union Level 2 Interrupted 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 modJIed deadline b)activities over which the position has little or no control that make focus dfJicult.This includes the requirement to switch attention between types of tasks and sensory input (e.g.Multi-tasking where each task requires concentration). The parties agree that the position involves regular and recurring long periods of concentration.Therefore,the Level 2 is agreed between the parties.The dispute is centered upon whether the Incumbents'focus is maintained or interrupted.The Union 7 gives as an example the use of a plumber's snake to unclog a drain.That task takes 4 hours to complete and if interrupted one has to start all over again. The College submits that not every break constitutes an interruption.Concentration can be broken some of the time as long as focus can be maintained "most of the time". Furthermore,it is submitted that disruptions do not necessarily cause a break in concentration.Therefore,the best fit is at Focus Maintained. I find that the College has a clever argument on the wording used in the Manual.I fmd that it does not reflect the facts of the work performed.Therefore,I find the Focus is improperly assessed and ought to be scored at Focus Interrupted at 35 points. CONCLUSION 6.I have found that one Factor,namely Factor #10,is improperly rated.It has been established by the Union that it should be rated as Focus Interrupted.The change in point scoring as a result of this Award adds 15 points to the total.The result is an increase in the points from the pre -arbitration position of 486 to 501 points.That point score in accordance with the "Payband Determination Schedule"in the Manual while raising the points is still within the Total Point Range of Payband to G.As a result,the Grievors have in part been successful on the grievance but it does not result in any adjustment to the Payband and is therefore unsuccessful in establishing that the Payband is incorrect. For all the foregoing reasons the Grievance is dismissed. DATED AT LONDON,ONTARIO THIS 22'DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020. Prof.Richard H.McLaren,O.C.,C.Arb 8 11 Arbitration Data Sheet -Support Staff Classification College:George Brown College Incumbent:John Severino &Rodolfo Porco Supervisor:Hoomari Farhancinia Current Payband:G Payband Requested by Grievor:I 1.Concerning the attached Position Description Form o The parties agreed on the contents o The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific details are attached. 2.The attached Written Submission is from:o The Union o The College Factor Management.S Union Arbitrator Regular!Recurring Occasional Regular!Recurring Occasional Regular!Recurring Occasional Level Points Level Points Level Points Level Points Level Points Level Points 1A Education 3 35 4 48 3 3 lB Education 3 21 3 21 ___________ _____ 2 Experience 5 69 5 69 4 5 __________ 3.Analysts and Problem 2 46 3 78 ______ 4.Planning/Coordinating 2 32 2 32 c1 3 ______ 5.Guiding/Advising Others 1 5 2 3 2 17 3 3 c .3 6.Independence of Action 2 46 3 9 4 110 9 7.Service Delivery 2 29 2 29 8.Communication 2 46 3 9 2 46 Lt 3 c1 9.Physical Effort 3 47 3 47 2 ___________ 10 Audio/Visual Effort 2 20 2 35 2) 11.Working Environment 3 69 3 69 3 '1 Subtotals (a)465 (b)21 (a)601 (b)3 (a)j 'O ___________ (b) Total Points (a)+(b)486 604 5o1 Resulting Payband 6 I Signatures: 29 -Jan -2020 (Grievor)(Date)(College Representative)(Date) (Arbitrator's ignature)(Date of Hearing)(Date of Award)