Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDolman Group 21-03-01IN THE MATTER OF AN EXPEDITED CLASSIFICATION ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 241 (FOR SUPPORT STAFF) (hereinafter called the "Union") -and- COLLEGE EMPLOYER COUNCIL (FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS and TECHNOLOGY) In the form of MOHAWK COLLEGE (hereinafter called the "College") GROUP GRIEVANCE of Shawna Dolman and Jaime Harris OPSEU File No. 2018-0241-0005 (hereinafter the "Grievors or the Incumbents") REPRESENTING THE UNION: REPRESENTING THE COLLEGE: Richard H. McLaren, C.Arb. Susan Lau, Full -Time Unit Steward Tracey -Ann Prokipczuk, Local President Angela Cetnik, Classification Consultant Amanda Malkiewich, Director, Co-op and Experiential Learning Jessica Hart, HR Consultant A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD ON 25 FEBRUARY 2021, VIRTUALLY BY ZOOM. 1 /:\�iil_1M Background Ms. Shawna Dolman and Ms. Jaime Harris are employed by the College as Database Specialists in the Co-operative Education and Experiential Learning Department (hereafter the "Department"). The current complement of the Department includes thirteen employees: there is the Director, the Manager, and Employment Partnerships of nine Co-op Specialists and the two Database Specialists named above. The College and the Union agree on the content of the Position Description Form ("PDF"). In an updating of the PDF, following the appointment of a new Director of the Department in August 2019, the position was reclassified from Payband F to Payband G. There remains a disagreement on the point scoring of the PDF through the application of the Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (the "Manual"). The Grievance Based on the PDF, the College evaluated the position and rated it at 494 points, placing the position within Payband G. Ms. Dolman and Ms. Harris ("the Grievors" or the "Incumbents") filed a group grievance claiming the points rating of the PDF was incorrect. The Grievors and the Union submit that the position ought to be evaluated at 578 points, placing it in the higher rated Payband H. The Grievors seeks to have their position evaluated at the higher Payband. Should there be any change in the Payband as a result of this decision it will be retroactive to the date of the grievance. The Position, Duties and Role The position supports the College's experiential learning database through the work of the Incumbents. They are responsible for implementing, developing and maintaining effective administrative systems, procedures, records and reports. 2 The position involves carrying out a multitude of duties and responsibilities. They include creating, maintaining and updating data, forms and reports within the experiential learning management system ("ELMS"); conducting frequent data integrity reviews to generate efficient and clean data; informing/instructing students of the College's policies, procedures and required documentation; assisting faculty and staff with developing links and information for the website; participating in campus committees and meetings; and supporting all experiential learning activities (Pre -placement Services, Career Services, Institutional Research, Student Life, Occupational Health and Safety and Co-operative Education). They ensure that student data is imported daily from the College's student information system. They monitor and input information collected from external forms or external databases into the ELMS. The role of the Database Specialist -Co-op is to analyze the data, configure certain components of the system and provide updates and recommendations regarding potential issues. In so doing they must maintain the confidentiality of student and employer information. They are the point of contact for students, staff and faculty for database support and related inquiries. They also liaise with the database vendor (ORBIS) to implement system upgrades and related system's issues. Factors in Dispute There are three Factors in dispute between the parties: Analysis and Problem Solving; Planning and Coordinating and Service Delivery. Each of these Factors in dispute is dealt with below under their separate headings found in the Manual. 3. Analysis and Problem Solving: Ratings: College Level 2+ 03/Union Level 3 +05 This factor measures the level of complexity involved in analyzing situations, information or problems of varying levels of difficulty; and in developing options, solutions or other actions. 3 Findings In the "Notes to Raters" for this Factor in the Manual the difference between evaluating a position at Level 2 from Level 3 is described. It is at the root of the conflicting point scoring between the College and Union. Those conflicting positions are reflected in what part of the job duties are at the level of complexity involved in analyzing situations. The College emphasizes the step by step method, one followed by the other is undertaken until the problem is identified and solved. When the Incumbents are dealing with a single student or other user problem the procedure is the one described at Level 2 in the Factor description in the Manual. The analysis is straight forward and should be scored at Level 2. Where the complexity in analyzing the situation by the Incumbents begins to change is when it is necessary to go into the back office operation of the Experiential Learning Management System (ELMS). Even then it is a step by step procedure for the most part until the problem is solved with a single student problem or a multiple person problem. However, when the problem begins to affect more than a single student then the complexity increases in magnitude. In those situations, information needs to be gathered and analyzed in relation to what is already known or analyzed and may take the Incumbent into exploring new or unusual directions to seek more information based on the results of the investigation or analysis caried out to that point of seeking more information. The platform provider ORBIS may need to be consulted and patches to the software may be required. Such activity is sufficient to score the position at Level 3. This situation occurs frequently enough to be regular and recurring. When the focus is placed on this aspect of the work of the position then the appropriate Level is 3 as submitted by the Union. The Union has established that the position is improperly rated. I find that the position should be rated at Level 3 for this Factor. The Union goes on to submit that the Occasional aspect of the Factor ought to be part of the analysis. The Union and the College both score the position with the Occasional Factor. The College at one Level above the Level 2 regular and recurring rating. The Union scores the position two Levels above the Level 3 regular and recurring rating. I note that the Manual has the identical points scoring at 9 points for all M Levels but for Level 1. In using the Occasional Level, the "How to Use the Manual" indicates that "It would be unusual for the "occasional" element to be more than one level higher than the level identified as "regular and recurring". In this particular case it does not matter that the Occasional as sought by the Union is at Level 5 while the regular and recurring, I have found is at Level 3. The fact that it is two levels higher makes no difference in the point score for the Factor. Therefore, I have treated the submission as if it was an Occasional Level 4 rather than the requested 5 for it makes no difference in the scoring points. The Union in its evidence brought to my attention a recent problem that started with a single student but when researched and analyzed it was discovered to be a problem for over 600 students. The solution, worked out with co-operation of ORBIS staff, took in excess of 4 full days of work on behalf of the Incumbents to obtain resolution. In essence it took a week's worth of work and affected a large number of members of the College community. The Union has established that the Occasional Factor should be used, and I find it to be at Level 4. For all of the foregoing reasons I find that the Analysis and Problem Solving Factor is improperly rated. The Union has established that it ought to be rated at Level 3 plus an Occasional Level 4. 4. Planning/Coordinatini: Ratings: College Level 2+O3/Union Level 3+04 This factor measures the planning and/or coordinating requirements of the position. This refers to the organizational and/or project management skills required to bring together and integrate activities and resources needed to complete tasks or organize events. There may be a need to perform tasks with overlapping deadlines (multi -tasking) to achieve the decided results. Findings The Incumbents plan and prioritizes their own activities and in doing so work to established deadlines of the co-op employer and to a lesser extent the students in pursuit of co-op employment. The co-op program search for student employment occurs in each of the three semesters. The planning and co-ordinating is focused on obtaining interviews for the student with perspective employers. Scheduling is the main task but good situational planning and relations with employers is also 5 necessary to successfully complete the tasks of the position. In carrying out the job functions the Incumbents do not affect the work schedule of others but find the path that fits within the student's class schedule or the employer's time lines and availability. The Incumbents do the data entry that enables both the student, the employer and the Co-op Specialists at the College to get together and accomplish what is required. The Incumbents are required to assess system maintenance. In so doing, the ELMS must be shut down and is therefore unavailable to customers and employers. These shut downs must be scheduled in a window that takes the least amount of time and has the least impact on customers and the employers. This is an accommodative process and not one that directly alters the work schedule of others. I find that the Union has not satisfied me that this Factor is incorrectly rated by the College as being at Level 2. The Occasional element was also in dispute but the College Level was found to be correct so the Occasional element will remain as rated by them at Level 3. For all the foregoing reasons the rating by the College is found to be appropriate. 7. Service Delivery: Ratings: College Level 2/Union Level 3+04 This factor looks at the service relationship that is an assigned requirement of the position. It considers the required manner in which the position delivers service to customers and not the incumbent's interpersonal relationship with those customers. All positions have a number of customers, who may be primarily internal or external. The level of service looks at more than the normal anticipation of what customers want and supplying it efficiently. It considers how the request for service is received, for example directly from the customer; through the Supervisor or workgroup or project leader; or by applying guidelines and processes. It then looks at the degree to which the position is required to design and fulfil the service requirement. M Findings One of the priorities of the Experiential Learning Department is to attract and retain as many employers as possible. In so doing this enables the maximum number of students of the College to have a co-op experience while learning the related theory. The Union submits that in achieving these goals the Incumbents tailor their service based on an understanding of the employer's needs. The word "tailor" is defined in the Manual as "... special attention in order to customize it to a specific requirement". The Incumbents have been in their positions for a long period of time. Some employers are repeats in the co-op program. They know what those employers needs are likely to be and can plan ahead for them. None of this establishes that they do anything more than Level 2 service delivery by selecting the best method of delivering their services. For these reasons I do not find that the Union has demonstrated that this Factor has been incorrectly scored. There will be no alteration of the College rating. CONCLUSION I have found that Factor 3 "Analysis and Problem Solving" has been improperly rated. As a consequence, the point scoring for the position requires the addition of 32 points to the total to reflect the adjustment of that Factor. The result is an increase in the points from the pre -arbitration position of the College from 494 to 526 points. That point score will in accordance with the Manual raise the Payband to H from its current rating of G. As a result, the two Grievors are to have their pay adjusted from the date of the grievance. The College is to make the retroactive pay adjustment within two full pay cycles from the date of this Award. The parties are hereby directed to take the necessary steps in order to implement this decision. If there are any disputes as to the implementation of my Award, I retain jurisdiction to resolve those disputes and issue a supplementary award to 7 complete the process of ensuring that the remedy is complete and the Grievors are made whole to the extent that may be required. I will remain seized of this matter with jurisdiction to complete the remedy in this Award for a period of 60 days from the date herein. Either party may on written request to the Arbitrator ask me to reconvene the hearing for the purposes of determining the remedial aspects of this Award. If no written request is received within the above stipulated time frame, I will no longer retain jurisdiction over the implementation of the remedy arising from this Award. DATED at LONDON, ONTARIO this 1 st day of MARCH 2021. Richard c aren, Arb. Arbitrator Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification Colleg Mohawk Amanda Malkiewich Incumbent: Shawna Dolman and Jaime Harris e: ISupervisor: Current Payband: Payband Requested by Grievor: 1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form: 0 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 E] The College Factor Management Union Arbitrator - Regular/ Recurring Occasional Regular/ Recurring Occasional Regular/ Recurring occasional Levet Points Level Points Level Points Level Points Level Points Level Points !A. Education 3 35 3 35 3 1B. Education 1 3 1 3 3 2. Experience 4 54 4 54 y t 3. Analysis and Problem Solving 2 46 3 9 3 78 5 9 s,� ,� 4, Planning/Coordinating 2 32 3 7 3 56 4 7,:�-- 5. Guiding/Advising Others 5 53 5 53` S 6. Independence of Action 3 78 3 78 7. Service Delivery 2 279 3 51 4 6 B. Communication 4 110 4 110 9. Physical Effort 1 5 2 6 1 5 2 6 10. Audio/Visual Effort 2 2Q 2 20, 11. Working Environment 1 - 7 !F! 1 7 - Subtotals (a) 472 (b) 22 (a) 550 (b) 28 (a) ® (b) Total Points (a) + (b) 494 578 5 Resulting Payband G 1H P 2021 -Feb -05 ( ievor) (Date) (College Representative) (Date) eb-05 on R res to v (Date) (Arbitrator""+ ignat re) (Date of Hearing) (Date of Award)