HomeMy WebLinkAboutDegregorio Group 09-03-31
IN THE MATTER OF A
CLASSI FICA TION GRI EV ANCE
BETWEEN:
OPSEU LOCAL 612
-and-
SAULT COLLEGE
Regarding the Classification of
Admissions/Records Officers
DeGregorio-ChanasJ VairoJ Kennedy and Kasch
OPSEU #2008-612-063
BEFORE:
Kathleen G. O'Neil, Single Arbitrator
For the Union:
Lorri Foley, Chief Steward, OPSEU Local 612
Mary Ann DeGregorio-Chanas, Angie Vairo, Jo~Ann Kennedy,
and Anne Kasch, Grievors
For the College:
Daniel J. Michaluk, Counsel
Janice Beatty, VP Human Resources and Student Services
Lanie Cerasuolo Manager, Labour Relations
Mary Ellen Tomie, Registrar
A Hearing was held by written briefs and conference calls
Briefs - January 16 and February 20, 2009 (reply)
Conference calls - October 22,2008, February 6 and March 27, 2009
AWARD
This decision deals with a grievance dated March 13, 2007 claiming that the position of
Admissions/Records Officers, held by Angie Vairo, Jo-Ann Kennedy, Mary Ann
DeGregorio-Chanas and Anne Kasch, is incorrectly classified and asking that it be
reclassified upward to Payband G. The job was originally rated at Payband E, but during
the grievance procedure, it was raised to Payband F. The employer maintains that the
job is properly classified at that level.
The matter falls to be decided by application of the recently revised CM T Support Staff
Job Evaluation Manual (referred to below simply as "the Manual"), a document
negotiated provincially, to the job duties set out in the Position Description Form
(referred to below as the PDF). It is important to underline that it is the basic
requirements of the job as set out in the PDF that are evaluated in this system, and not
the performance or worth of any of the incumbents, even if they perform at a level or
possess skills that surpass the requirements of the job as set out in the PDF. My role as
an arbitrator in dealing with this grievance is limited by Article 18.4.5.1 to determining
whether the job is properly evaluated pursuant to the Manual. The detailed provisions of
the Manual are aimed at providing an objective basis for the placement of a huge variety
of jobs across the college system on the common salary grid in the collective agreement.
The exercise is somewhat technical, and is no comment on the value of the incumbents'
work to the College community in terms of their personal effort or in the sense of how
much their contribution to the College's work is appreciated by their colleagues and
those who rely on their work. The College's brief stresses that the incumbents are
extremely valued by the employer.
Overview of the Admissions/Records Officers Position
The position entitled Admissions/Records Officers is responsible for reviewing
applications to the college to ensure that students have the necessary qualifications, as
well as maintaining accurate student records and generating appropriate
correspondence. The incumbents provide advice and guidance to applicants, students,
1
their advisors and the general public regarding College programs, requirements and
fees. They are also responsible for fee assessments as well as the diploma audit
necessary to ensure eligibility to graduate. Since the records created and maintained by
the incumbents are relied on throughout the College, a high degree of quality and
accuracy is required.
The Expedited Arbitration Procedure
The parties agreed to submit their briefs and make their submissions in writing after the
scheduled hearing was unavoidably adjourned due to the health of a necessary
participant. After reviewing the briefs, I scheduled a conference call to give me an
opportunity to pose some questions and afford the parties the opportunity to make
closing remarks. Given the fact that the job description was agreed, and the remaining
dispute was limited to the rating of two factors, this was a very appropriate use of the
expedited process for the dispute in question, which afforded me all the information I
needed to make this decision, while limiting the cost and delay for the parties.
Factors In Dispute
There is no dispute over the content of the PDF dated May 21, 2008, but the rating
level for two factors remains in dispute. They are:
f. Planning and Coordinating
if. Independence of Action
i. Planning and Coordinating
The dispute between the parties is between Level 2, attributed by the College, and Level
3, soug ht by the union.
The Manual's Description of Level 2 is:
2.Plan/coordinate activities and resources to complete own work
and achieve overlapping deadlines.
The Manual's Description of Level 3 is:
3. Plan/coordinate activities, information or material to enable completion
of tasks and events, which affect the work schedule of other employees.
2
"Affect" and "Other employees" from Level 3, are defined terms, whose definitions read
as follows:
Affect - to produce a material influence upon or alteration in.
Other employees ~ includes full-time, part~time, students, contractors
The Notes to raters for this factor provide, in relevant part, that:
2. Planning is proactive while coordinating is reacting and organizing in
response to planning.
3. To clarify the differences between levels 2, 3 and 4;
Level 2 ~ the position plans and prioritizes its own activities. Planning and
coordinating are typically focused on completion of assigned activities
within established deadlines or procedures (e.g. scheduling, coordination
of data for reports, setting-up of new software in a department to meet
specific business needs). The position may coordinate or make
arrangements for an event by coordinating the calendars of others.
Level 3 - the position decides the order and selects or adapts methods for
many work assignments. Typically, the planning and coordination at this
level, which affects the work schedule of others, are requests for
materials/information by specific deadlines in order for the position to plan
events or activities (e.g. conferences, research projects, upgrading
hardware or software).
This factor, the Manual emphasizes, measures organizational and/or project
management skills. There are three examples of regular and recurring activities for this
factor in the PDF. The first deals with analyzing applicants' eligibility, the second with
managing wait lists for over-subscribed programs, and the third is the manual
adjustment of fees when necessary to correct the result generated by the automated
computerized process. For occasional activities, there are two: manually verifying
diploma audits and processing "quick admit" applications in the four weeks leading up to
fall and winter registration periods. My task is to apply the provisions of the Manual to
the PDF to determine which level is the most appropriate, viewed in the context of the
job as a whole. For this factor, the key differences between the levels is whether the
planning and coordinating requirements of the job are focused on the completion of the
incumbents' own work, or on planning or coordination of activities or information to
enable the completion of tasks and events which affect the work schedule of other
employees.
3
In this regard, it was agreed during our first conference call that the term "other
employees", which appears in the Level 3 factor definition, only includes students if they
are also employees. As a result, an arbitral precedent to which the union objected was
excluded from this expedited process. During this call the union also objected to the
inclusion of the PDF for the Operations Team Leader in the College's brief. I allowed it
to stand for the purpose of shedding light on the incumbents' duties, not for comparative
rating purposes. In the end, nothing in the decision turns on the Team Leader's PDF.
The union submitted that the incumbents often have to request information from other
employees, such as faculty, coordinators and counselors, which they need by certain
deadlines, affecting the work schedules of other employees, so that the level 3 rating is
justified. By contrast, the College maintains that these requests fit within Level 2
because they are part of planning and prioritizing the incumbents own activities so they
can complete their work within the established deadlines, as set out in the Notes to
Raters for Level 2.
Having reviewed the Manual's criteria in light of the detailed submissions of the parties
orally and in writing, it is my determination that the "best fit" for this factor is Level 2. The
incumbents routinely collect data to provide accurate information within established
deadlines, which corresponds to the Level 2 example, "coordination of data for reports"
in the mandatory Notes to Raters. The Level 3 Note to Raters does not fit as well, since
it requires both that the planning and coordinating affect the work schedule of others,
and that the material and information request is for the purpose of planning events or
activities, for which the Manual uses examples such as conferences or upgrading
hardware or software.
Although I accept that there is some effect on the work of others when the incumbents
ask administrators or faculty about course equivalents, for example, the evidence does
not warrant a finding that it is at the level required, Le. affecting the work schedule of
others, given that the definition of "affect" is to produce a "material influence upon or
alteration in". There was no evidence supporting a finding that there was a material
influence on the work schedule of other employees as a result of the incumbents'
requests. For one thing, it appears that the incumbents are able to answer many
questions without contacting other employees, since much of the information they
4
request comes from applicants and external agencies. Further, the evidence is not
persuasive that answering questions from the incumbents within a defined time line does
not fit into the other employees' existing work schedules. The union emphasized in its
reply brief that events and processes seldom run smoothly or according to a pre~
designed plan, and that in this respect, the incumbents use their knowledge and
expertise to deal with the situation, contacting the dean's office, chair's office or the IT
department for information required to complete their daily tasks. This is not disputed,
but it fits quite well with the Level 2 Note to Raters which specifies that "planning and
coordinating are typically focused on completion of assigned activities within established
deadlines or procedures". Good examples of this are coordinating information to
complete the diploma audits and gathering information to assess applications within the
deadlines provided,
The union also gave the example of wait lists for oversubscribed programs affecting
more than the applicants. It is of course true that improperly managed lists can have a
significant impact on other departments, increasing workload for staff and faculty to
accommodate additional students. Nonetheless, what this factor measures is whether in
carrying out the assigned duty, which presumes a properly managed list, the incumbents
alter the work schedule of other employees or contractors of the College. The material
before me does not establish that to be the case. Rather, it establishes that the
incumbents calculate average grades and rank applicants for oversubscribed programs,
and once it is determined by the Registrar how many offers to send out, they generate
the offer letters. I do not see this as demonstrating that the incumbents are affecting the
work schedule of other employees. Other employees make the decisions about the size
of the programs, and the incumbents are required to carry out those decisions. In doing
so, they may be required to coordinate data to generate reports and letters, aU the while
scheduling the completion of their own duties to meet overlapping deadlines, which fits
well at Level 2. Another example raised by the union was the incumbent making an
appointment with the college counselors for an applicant during the "Quick admit"
process, and it was asserted that given the quick time lines, the counselors would have
to change their schedules. This example also fits within the notes to raters at Level 2
which speaks of completing assigned activities within the established deadlines, and
specifically mentions scheduling and coordinating the calendars of others, which is a
different function than altering the work schedule of others.
5
More significant, in my view, is the fact that there is no evidence that the information
which the incumbents collect and coordinate is used by them to plan events or activities
such as conferences or research projects, as required by the Notes to Raters at Level 3.
Thus, even if the incumbents sometimes exercise a material influence on or alteration in
some other employees' work schedules to accommodate a request made by the
incumbents, Level 3 is not a good fit. It is important to underline that the second Note to
Raters provides that "planning is proactive while coordinating is reacting and organizing
in response to planning". It is my view that the function of the Admissions/Records
officers is much more focused on carrying out plans made by others, rather than having
any assigned duty of proactively planning events themselves. Taking the example of
convocation, there is a college committee which plans Convocation. The incumbents do
not sit on the committee, nor is there any assigned duty in relation to planning
convocation in the PDF. Rather they carry out the crucial function of performing the
diploma audits so that the plans made by the committee can be carried out according to
the pre-determined qualifications by the pre-determined dates. They plan their own work
to meet the imposed deadlines, sometimes discussing among the four incumbents,
which fits with level 2 as detailed in the Manual's factor description, "plan/coordinate
activities and resources to complete own work and achieve overlapping deadlines."
There is a reference to coordination and preparation of the graduation list, by
downloading and manipulating data, but this is not a planning or coordinating function
which alters the work schedule of other employees. Indeed, there is no reference to
planning in the job duties for this position at all.
. The union argued that the whole admissions process is a planning process. In this
regard, I accept that for the college as whole, the admissions process is a fundamental
building block for all its other plans as to what employees and facilities are necessary,
for example. And the incumbents' duties are critical to making the admissions process a
reality. Nonetheless, the PDF does not reflect the idea that the Incumbents have been
assigned the planning function for the admissions process itself. It is much more
focused on the responsibilities to carry out the admissions plan, coordinating information
to complete the incumbents' own work of assessing applications in the context of
overlapping deadlines, which fits well with the level 2 factor definition.
In the result, I confirm the rating for this factor at Level 2.
6
ii. Independence of Action
This factor measures the level of independence or autonomy in the position. The
College has rated Independence of Action at Level 2 and the union seeks Level 3.
These levels are described in the Manual as follows:
2. Position duties are completed according to established procedures.
Decisions are made following specific guidelines. Changes may be made
to work routine(s).
3. Position duties are completed according to general processes.
Decisions are made following general guidelines to determine how tasks
should be completed.
The Manual further provides that the following elements should be considered when
choosing the rating level:
- 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.
Notes to Raters:
1. Sometimes Supervisors may be in another location, and not always
physically available to the incumbent. This does not automatically
indicate a higher level of independence than for those who work in close
proximity to their Supervisor. With the use of email, cell phones, pagers,
etc. guidance may be readily available to the incumbent. Also, written and
customary procedures, processes, etc may form a framework which
guides much of the position's activities and results in a similar level of
autonomy as an individual who is in the same physical location as his/her
Supervisor.
2. When determining the guidance and direction provided also consider
the checks and balances that are in place to verify the work. This includes
activities, such as feedback by end users, computer system verification
routines, other employees reviewing the work, work checked or verified
during the next step of a process, supervisor reviews the work.
7
3. To clarify the differences between levels 2 and 3:
Level 2 ~ duties are completed based upon pre-determined steps.
Guidelines are available to assist, when needed. The position only has
the autonomy to decide the order or sequence that tasks or duties should
be performed.
Level 3 - 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 the autonomy to make decisions
within these parameters.
For the factor of Independence of Action, the job description provides that the incumbent
is expected to carry out daily responsibilities with little or no direct supervision, and that a
high degree of responsiveness and independent action is required, with the supervisor
available to provide direction as needed. In respect of procedures and guidelines
available to guide the incumbent, the PDF gives an extensive list of schedules,
deadlines, policies and guidelines, with which the incumbents are expected to become
familiar. The College argues that these are the kinds of things that Level 2 is referring to
when it speaks of "established "procedures" and "guidelines", terms. defined in the
Manual as follows:
Procedure - a sequence of steps to perform a task or activity.
Guideline" a statement of policy or principle by which to determine a
course of action
By contrast, the union argues that these are better described as "general processes", a
term found in Level 3. "Process" is defined in the Manual to mean:
- a series of activities, changes or functions to achieve a result.
Each of the factor definitions for this factor has two parts, the first describing how duties
are performed, and the second describing how decisions are made. As the point level
rises, the level of detailed control of the work decreases. At level 2, duties are
performed according to established procedures, while decisions are made following
specific guidelines and changes may be made to work routines. By contrast, at Level 3,
duties are completed according to general processes, and decisions are made following
general guidelines. The types of decisions required are illustrated in the PDF duties and
responsibilities section and the Analysis and Problem Solving section. Prime examples
are deciding whether an applicant is eligible for admission, whether a fee assessment is
8
correct and whether a student's record establishes that the requirements for graduation
have been met.
This position is a mix of independent action, as evidenced by the lack of day-to~day
supervision while the incumbents make decisions as to the adequacy of qualifications
and correctness of fees, for example, combined with a significant lack of autonomy as to
the content of the decisions. The incumbents are required to apply the qualifications for
admission for example, and to advise of predetermined alternatives to admission to the
requested program for example. They do not have freedom to change the requirements
which they are assigned to apply or inform others about. Further, even though it is true
as the union argues, that the incumbents do not frequently refer tasks or decisions to the
Team Leader or supervisor, there is a significant amount of verification described in the
PDF, from computer generated reports, which are reviewed by the supervisor and other
users.
Because words like procedures and processes have overlapping meanings, and
guidelines are part of the descriptions of both the factor levels in issue here, it is
important to keep the context and the guidance from the notes to raters in mind and to
underline that the objective is to find the "best fit".
The notes to raters for this factor are helpful in distinguishing the levels. Level 2 duties
are said to be completed based on pre~determined steps, autonomy being in the ability
to decide the order or sequence that tasks or duties should be performed. As for Level 3,
specific results or objectives to be accomplished are pre~determined by others, but the
position has the autonomy to select the processes to achieve those results. The
information before me is not persuasive that the incumbents have latitude to choose
processes~ When required to do a fee assessment, or diploma audit, for example, what
was described was a well established procedure for comparing the individual records
with the pre-determined rules for fees or graduation requirements. As to processing
applications and determining eligibility for admission, describing the process as "general"
would be a misnomer. It is very specific, with detailed qualifications, timelines and
structure at every turn. This is not a question of the work being determined by the SIS
computer system; it is a matter of the undisputed fact that the functions of the Registrar's
office are circumscribed by a raft of policies and procedures generated by the Ministry,
9
upper levels of College governance and very detailed academic and financial
requirements for admission and graduation.
The PDF provides that the incumbents are able to develop and modify work methods to
adapt to the complexity of the project or situation. The union argues that this goes
beyond the portion of the factor description at Level 2 which says: "Changes may be
made to work routines". Method is not a defined term in the Manual, but its ordinary
dictionary meaning of "a mode of procedure or a defined or systematic way of doing a
thing" (The Canadian Oxford Dictionary 2001) does not persuade me t.hat what is being
referred to is consistent with the Level 3 requirement that the incumbents have the ability
to select the process to achieve the end result. For example, the material before me
establishes that the routine method for review of applications may be individualized
where there are special circumstances such as international qualifications or mature
students to be assessed, requiring inquiries of external sources as to equivalencies, but
the process of comparing the qualifications to the entrance requirements is not optional.
This is a better fit with Level 2's reference to changes to work routines than Level's 3's
reference to ability to select processes. Having said this, it is important to underline that I
accept without hesitation the union's argument that the incumbents do not just do the
same thing over and over again. The incumbents' job involves many procedures and a
very diverse clientele, which they serve with tact and diplomacy by making important
assessments within the bounds of the College's requirements and the cycle of the
College calendar.
I also accept, as the union argued, that all work, no matter at what level, can be broken
down into steps. It is the nature of the steps, and how welJ~defined they are in advance,
which makes the difference between the levels in this factor. One of the key differences
is between choosing processes (Note to Raters - Level 3) and completing tasks based
on pre-determined steps with the autonomy to decide the sequence of those steps (Note
to Raters - Level 2). Taking the example of processing admission applications, the
evidence does not support a finding that there is any choice about the nature of the
steps involved. One has to compare the applicant's transcript or substitute documents
to the entrance requirements. Once the extent of the match between the applicant's
background and the entrance requirement is assessed, the incumbents take the next
step, depending on what is found in the first step. There is no suggestion in the
10
evidence that the incumbents can choose to admit or reject applications by some other
process than the one customarily followed in the Registrar's office. There was the
example of changes to the process when the high school curriculum was revised to
require three instead of two math courses to obtain a high school diploma. But there was
no evidence that an incumbent in this position had the option to choose what process to
use to handle the change. The closest item in the PDF is the indication that the
incumbents participate with other clerks and the supervisor in reviewing existing
processes and in the design and application of new ones. But this is quite different from
the situation at Level 3, where the employee is given objectives and has the freedom to
choose the process to achieve it. Rather, it appears that once a change was made in the
content of the entrance requirements as part of the admissions process, the incumbents
were required to administer it in that new, but still pre-determined, way.
In general, it is clear that the incumbents have the freedom to choose how to sequence
their work to get it all done within the many pre-determined time lines. They no doubt
also each have a personal style, and routines that may differ in sequence one from to
the other, or from one type of case to another, but there is no evidence that it is the
incumbents who have the discretion to decide what steps or processes are necessary to
do tasks such as register a student, maintain student records, do a diploma audit or fee
assessment, for example.
Given the range of information that the incumbents are expected to be familiar with, and
the wide variety of needs demonstrated by the people they serve, as well as the fact that
an experienced incumbent might rarely have to pull out a guideline to decide what to do,
the job may appear more independent than what is provided in the "nuts and bolts" of
the PDF. In the end, on the basis that the guidelines for the duties and decision making
for this job are very specific, rather than general, and that there appears little latitude
concerning the choice of process to achieve the assigned responsibilities, I find Level 2
to be a better fit than Level 3.
In the result, the factor for Independence of Action is confirmed at Level 2.
* * *
11
To summarize, the College's rating for the factors Planning and Coordinating and
Independence of Action is confirmed, leaving the point rating at 449, which falls into
Payband F. The arbitration data sheet reflecting this is attached to this decision.
In the result, the grievance and its request to raise the rating to Payband G are denied
as I do not find the job to be improperly rated.
Oated at Toronto this 31st day of March, 2009.
. O'Neil, Single Arbitrator
12
. ~ !Ii':-
College
Saull
Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification
Supervisor
Incumbent: ReQistrar's Group
Current Payband E (re-evaluated to F)
Payband Requested by Grievor
G
1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form:
)s( The parties agreed on the contents
MaryEllen Tomie
o The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific
details are attached.
2. The attached Written Submission is from: 9{ The Union 0 The College
Factor
Management
Regular!
Recurrina
Occasional
1A. Education
level Points
3 35
1 3
4 54
3 78
2 32
3 29
2 46
2 29
3 78
1 5
1 B. Education
2. Experience
3. Analysis and Problem
Solving
4. Planning/Coordinating
5. Guiding/Advising
Others
6. Independence of
Action
7. Service Delivery
8. Communication
9. Physical Effort
10. AudioMsual Effort
2 35
11. Working Environment
1 7
Subtotals
Total Points (a) + (b)
Resulting Payband
(a) 431
Level Points
liArq~\I' ~
. _,.~ J - . ~
, .
'; ,_ ~-i~~
:l.'.- ,:"".. -"_,""" ~'J''-..'' .:"'"
"\'2,'~1,t\'.l O;',,,,-,,,';'n'X
-~;K~J~~'~ :~~i;~\:~~~~~~t
4 9
.';tj~ft~(;
2 9
(b) 18
449
F
Regular/
Recurrino
Union
Level
Points Level Points
Occasional
3 35
1 3
4 54
3 78
3 56
3 29
3 78
2 29
3 78
1 5
2 35
1 7
(a) 487
I :'/'~~"l;"< \1(&:~~,t;r:'j
~;if)~~{~S~' '.. i\~~
","4';'~~~\i-:~.""i';t-~ !J.ci:~
c'--.' -l.aJ~l. '., _ '.. -~'.1
:::~4f:~@~!: f:~~~~kf~;1~
4 9
\~t.i/{ /\
1."i'~'L'::.,~ c',
2 9
(b) 18
505
G
Arbitrator
Oecaslonal
Regular/
Recurrina
Level Points
Points
Level
',,' "" ','
i;;, ":"',: '".", '"
. ,,',''',
;g;t~:~M;~"')>""<'
-;; 3.s
f g
J s.rtj
'3 17
;;t 32J
:J-.
;1...
"""A,
I
~
I
(a)
:'-';i,..,.;.,~i"":""'''3,;':
~""."~--;"lh~,"": '.';:;':':"""L:
. ~~!;1~):"~",~r?,i .,f.~'>. ~-; .
3
;V}
qh
:0
19' 1 9
s-'
5:) 1;1.,';('-;,\, ,.'..'
r>:,,'j:;", .'.'':
1 ?-- 9
if 3( (b) it
tift(
~
Ii
(College Representative)
.;J-
(Date of Hearing)
(Date)
{!I-U{~0J2.rc;(
/L~ 3/ 2rl:f/i
(Date of i\ward)