HomeMy WebLinkAboutMcCoy 09-05-14
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
Fanshawe College
("The College")
and
OPSEU, Loc. 109
("The Union")
Grievance ofK. McCoy (#710947)
ARBITRATOR:
Mmy Lou Tims
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE COLLEGE:
Sheila Wilson - Manager, Labour
Relations
Janice Lamoureux - Registrar
Carla McKee - Human Resources
Consultant
FOR THE UNION:
Margaret Rae - Local President
Harold Sobel- Representative
Kim McCoy - Grievor
Hearing held in London, Ontario on April 27, 2009.
2
AWARD
The grievor, Ms. Kim McCoy, holds the position of Customer Service
Representative, Financial Aid ('~CSR") at Fanshawe College. The grievance before me
dated March 26, 2007 alleges that such position is improperly classified at Payband E,
and seeks reclassification at Payband H.
There were no objections with respect to my jurisdiction or to the arbitrability of
the grievance.
The College's Financial Aid Office reports as a business unit to the Office of the
Registrar. Ms. Janice Lamoureux, Registrar, appeared on the College's behalf in these
proceedings. While she has extensive experience in the College educational system
outside of Ontario, she has been employed by Fanshawe College since FebrualY 2008.
Ms. Lamoureux indicated that due to the absence of the Manager, Financial Aid, she
assumed the role of managing the Financial Aid Office from October 2008 until January
2009, and in doing so, spent time with staff and became more knowledgeable about the
work done in the office. The Union noted that Ms. Lamoureux was not employed by the
College at the time that the grievance was filed in March 2007, and suggested that she
was thus unable to comment on the relevant matters as of the date of the grievance. The
grievor, on the other hand, who also participated in these proceedings, has held the
position in dispute since 2000. The Union asked me to bear in mind throughout these
proceedings what it essentially characterized as its better informed vantage point with
respect to the position in issue, when considering the matters in dispute between the
parties.
The Union disputes the content of the Position Description Form (PDF). It also
challenges the position title and the rating of the following factors: Experience,
Planning/Coordinating, Guiding/Advising Others, Independence of Action, Service
Delivery, Communication, AudioNisual Effort and Working Environment.
The grievance seeks reclassification with compensation retroactive to March 1,
2007. The parties agreed that in the circumstances of this case, if compensation is
ordered, it is to be retroactive to March 1, 2007 despite article 18.4. 1.1 of the collective
agreement which reads, "It is understood that there shall be no retroactive payment prior
to the date of presentation of the written grievance as specified above,"
3
Both parties filed written submissions prior to the hearing in accordance with
article 18.4.3.4 of the collective agreement, and were also given the opportunity at the
hearing to address all matters in dispute.
The College emphasized throughout these proceedings the need to consider the
PDF as a whole in determining the appropriate rating of any specific factor. I note that
the SUppOlt Staff Job Evaluation Manual ("the Manual") also instructs raters to "review
the PDF in its entirety to gain an understanding of the position as a whole and of each
factor used to describe the position." (at p. 5) In deciding the matters in dispute before
me here, I have done so.
JOB TITLE:
The Union advised that when the PDF in issue was compiled, the College
amended the title of the grievoes position from Financial Aid Officer (FAO) to Customer
Service Representative (CSR). The Union seeks an order that the title of FAD be
restored. It argued that the title CSR does not properly reflect the essence of the position
and that the position is referred to as F AO by both those internal and external to the
College with whom it interacts. The Union did not challenge the College's assertion that
job title has no impact on pay band, and that there is nothing in the collective agreement
that allows me to amend it.
I am not satisfied that there is any basis upon which I can or should amend the
position title to Financial Aid Officer as requested, and the Union's request that I do so is
denied.
EXPERIENCE:
The College rated this factor at level 3 (minimum 2 years), while the Union
argues that it should be rated at level 4 (minimum 3 years).
The Union noted that the pre-2007 PDF for this position required a minimum of
three years experience as a result of a 2000 arbitration award between the parties, In the
Union's submission, the responsibilities associated with the position have increased over
the intervening years, with the introduction of several new programs. It argued that in
these circumstances, there is no basis upon which the rating of the Experience factor is
properly reduced.
4
The College did not dispute that the pre-2007 PDF required a minimum of three
years experience, or that the responsibilities of the position have increased since 2000. In
the College's submission, however, the change in the rating of the Experience factor in
March 2007 must be understood in the context of a concurrent upgrading of the education
requirement. The rating of the Education factor is not in dispute at this time, and I note
that Education lA is rated at level 3 (a 2 year diploma or equivalent). The College
suggested, however, and the Union was unable to confirm or deny, that prior to March
2007, a one year certificate was required. In the College's submission, the downgrading
of the Experience factor must be viewed in this context. It also noted in its brief filed
prior to the hearing that the "majority of techniques and methods necessary to perform
this job are acquired post hiring as on-the-job training for the student loan program." (at
p.2)
The Union argued that Education and Experience are two distinct factors and that
the reduction in the rating of the Experience factor cannot be justified by an amendment
to the rating of the Education factor.
While I recognize that Education and Experience are separate and distinct factors,
the Manual specifically contemplates a relationship between the two insofar as it states:
"This factor (Experience) measures the typical number of years of experience, in addition
to the necessary education level, required to perform the responsibilities of the position.
Experience refers to the time required to understand how to apply the knowledge
described under 'Education' to the duties of the position." (at p. 12)
Although I accept that there is an interrelationship between the Education and
Experience factors contemplated by the Manual, in my view the Union has in these
circumstances nonetheless demonstrated that Experience should be rated at level 4.
Prior to 2007, three years' experience was required for this position. While the
educational requirement was increased in 2007, the responsibilities of the CSR Financial
Aid Office position have increased since 2000. Despite an enhanced educational
requirement, the College accepted that on-the-job training remains important. There is no
evidence before me specifically addressing how, in this context, the change in the
educational qualifications for the position reduces the need for experience. In all of these
I
i
5
circumstances, I am convinced by the Union that the former requirement of a minimum
of three years experience remains appropriate.
I find that Experience should be rated at level 4, and I so order.
PLANNING/C0 ORDINA TING:
The College rated this factor at level 2, while the Union seeks a rating of level 3.
The Manual states that the Platming/Coordinating factor "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." (at p. 16)
The Union focused on "organizational skills" required by the position and
suggested that the CSR plans and coordinates activities "to enable completion of tasks. . .
which affect the work schedule of other employees" within the level 3 factor definition.
It noted that "other employees" is defined as including "full-time, part-time, students,
contractors. "
The Union offered a number of examples of planning and coordinating activities.
It emphasized the CSR role in the processing of applications for Disability Bursaries. In
its submission, the CSR plans and coordinates activities to "enable completion" of the
tasks required in dealing with disability bursary applications, and this "affects the work
schedule" of disabled students who rely upon bursary funding to purchase, for example,
laptop computers to assist in their studies.
The Union also offered as an example of level 3 planning/coordinating the CSR
role in processing loan documents and in forwarding them to staff at satellite campuses,
who then release funds to students. The Union suggested that the planning and
organization required of the CSR to complete such tasks affect the work schedules of
staff at satellite campuses and students who await funds to finance their studies.
The College argued in response that the CSR plans/coordinates activities to
complete his or her "own work and achieve overlapping deadlines" within the level 2
factor definition. It emphasized the role played by the Information and Customer
Services Team Leader in the Financial Aid Office in planning and coordinating the
activity of the office, and contrasted this with what it characterized as a more limited
planning and coordinating role played by the CSR. The College also suggested that the
6
level 3 factor definition of "other employees" does not encompass students in their
capacity as customers of the Financial Aid Office.
r am of the view that this factor is properly rated at level 2.
A level 3 rating contemplates planning or coordinating of activities to enable the
completion of tasks which "affect" the "work schedule" of "other employees." The
Notes to Raters state that at level 2, a position "plans and prioritizes its own activities,"
and that such planning and coordination are "typically focused on completion of assigned
activities within established deadlines or procedures. . . ." At level 3, a position "decides
the order and selects or adapts methods for many work assignments." (at p. 16)
The Union offered a number of examples which it suggested demonstrate level 3
planning. It argued in part that students as customers of the Financial Aid Office are
included within the level 3 definition of "other employees." While the College contested
such assertion, there was little argument before me on that point or on the proper
construction of the undefined term, "work schedule." Given my decision herein, it is not
necessmy for me to comment on such language.
The level 3 factor definition is cleal' that planning and coordinating activities must
enable completion of tasks which "affect" the work schedules of other employees,
"Affecf' is defined as "to produce a material influence upon or alteration in." While I
have considered the various examples relied upon by the Union, r am not satisfied that
they demonstrate "a material influence upon or alteration in" the work schedules of other
employees, even if I construe the language "work schedule of other employees" as the
Union asks. Although I recognize the impOltance of the work performed by the CSR, the
examples relied upon by the Union, in my view, demonstrate the planning and
prioritizing of the position's own activities, with focus on the "completion of assigned
activities within established deadlines or procedures," as addressed by the Notes to
Raters. (at p. 16)
I accept that this factor is properly rated at level 2, and I so order.
GUIDING/ADVISING OTHERS:
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. The Union seeks a
rating of level 3, regular and recurring, and level 4, occasional.
7
It is important to note the Manual's clear statement that this factor refers to the
"assigned responsibility to guide or advise others" and is beyond "being helpful and
providing ad hoc advice." (at p. 18)
The level 2 factor definition reads: "Guide others so they can complete specific
tasks," "Others" is defined as "College employees (FT or PT), students, clients."
A level 3 rating, in contrast, is appropriate where a position "advise(s) others to
enable them to perform their day-to-day activities." "Advise" is defined as having "the
authority to recommend, or provide knowledgeable direction regarding a decision or
course of action."
Level 4, which the Union suggested is the appropriate occasional rating here,
denotes guidance or advising others "with ongoing involvement in their progress."
"Ongoing involvement" is defined as "intended to reflect a requirement to be involved
for the duration of the process or skill development, in which, the position is an active
participant. "
The Union offered a number of examples which it suggested warrant the higher
ratings which it seeks here. I have considered these examples as well as those set out in
the PDF prepared and filed by the Union in its pre-hearing brief.
The Union addressed the need for the CSR to advise students and others regarding
"complex problems." A number of specific examples were addressed.
The Union also emphasized the role of the CSR in meeting with students and
parents, explaining to them "the OSAP process," and "advisingl' them how to complete
the appropriate documentation.
The Union suggested that the CSR counsels students with respect to their
financial situations, proposes funding options, and ensures that students do not assume
unmanageable debt loads. It noted that some clients develop comfort with and trust in the
CSR with whom they have dealt, and therefore, return to that individual for ongoing
advice and guidance,
The Union also made reference to an advisOlY role which it suggested the CSR
plays with respect to off campus contacts, when dealing with "complicated files."
In the Union's submission, level 2 Guiding/Advising refers to the guidance
offered to perform specific tasks such as the completion of forms. It suggested that what
8
the CSR does on a regular and recurring basis is properly rated at level 3. It argued that
students can only perform their "day-to-day activities" once started in school, and that
they cannot start school if they do not have the appropriate financial resources available
to do so. In the Union's submission, the CSR guides and advises students, staff and
others in assisting students to procure necessary funding to enable them to perform their
day-to-day activities within the meaning of the level 3 factor definition. The Union
argued as well that its ongoing involvement in the progress of certain students and other
clients justifies an occasional level 4 rating.
The College maintained that level 2 is the appropriate regular and recurring rating
here. It argued that the focus of the CSR position as seen by the College PDF here in
issue and by the PDF drafted by the Union is the provision of information regarding
policies and procedures relevant to various financial assistance programs, the clarification
of applicable criteria and the interpretation of policies.
I find that the Guiding! Advising factor is properly rated at level 2, regular and
recurring. I have considered all examples relied upon by the Union here. While it is clear
that the CSR "guides others so they can complete specific tasks" such as applying for
financial assistance with all that this entails, the Union has not established that the
advisOly/guidance function of this position "enables" others to "perform their day-to-day
activities, "
I have also considered the Union's argument that clients in certain instances
repeatedly choose to contact the same CSR, given the rapport that develops between
them, and that on this occasional basis, the CSR guides and advises others "with ongoing
involvement in their progress" within the meaning of the level 4 definition. The fact that
the CSR may "guide others" on more than one occasion so that they can "complete
specific tasks," does not in my respectful view equate with guidance "with ongoing
involvemenC' in the progress of clients. Similarly, the fact that a client chooses to contact
the same CSR on more than one occasion cannot be viewed as "a requirement to be
involved for the duration of the process or skill development..." within the level 4 factor
definition. I am not satisfied that this position should be rated at level 4, occasional.
I find that this factor was properly rated, and I am not prepared to amend the
rating as requested by the Union.
I
t-
I
9
INDEPENDENCE OF ACTION:
The College rated this factor at level 2 and the Union seeks a rating of level 3.
The Manual defines a level 2 rating as follows: "Position duties are completed
according to established procedures. Decisions are made following specific guidelines.
Changes may be made to work routines," Level 3 Independence of Action is defined in
the Manual in the following manner: "Position duties are completed according to general
processes. Decisions are made following general guidelines to determine how tasks
should be completed." "Procedure,", "guideline," and "process" are defined terms.
The Notes to Raters state that "this factor measures the level of independence or
autonomy in the position:' and indicate that the following elements are to be considered:
the types of decisions made by the position
what aspects of the tasks are decided by the position on its own
the rules, procedures, past practice and guidelines available to provide
guidance and direction
I have considered the examples relied upon by the Union here in support of its
position that a level 3 rating is warranted. The Union argued that the CSR organizes its
own work. It took the position as well that the position uses judgment and determines the
best course of action to assist clients. It also relied on the role played by the CSR with
respect to the various funding programs available for students. The Union acknowledged
the existence of applicable MinistlY and College policies and procedures, and argued that
"specific results. . . that must be accomplished are pre-determined by others." In its
submission, the CSR position is able "to select the process(es) to achieve the end result,
usually with the assistance of general guidelines." (See Notes to Raters, p. 20)
The College argued in its pre-hearing brief that "Ministry guidelines, procedures,
computer system controls, and past practices define the parameters and constraints of the
position." (at p. 3) It emphasized in the hearing the applicable College and Ministry
guidelines and procedures pertaining to the various financial assistance programs, and
took the position that the independence of action in this position is properly rated at level
2.
Having considered the parties' representations and arguments, I have not been
convinced by the Union that this factor should be rated at level 3, The Notes to Raters
10
state that 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." (at p. 20) It is clear in my view
that position duties are completed "according to established procedures" as defined, and
not "according to general processes." I am also satisfied that "decisions are made
following specific guidelines," and not "following general guidelines to determine how
tasks should be completed."
I find that this factor is properly rated at level 2, and I so order.
SERVICE DELIVERY:
The College rated this factor at level 2 and the Union seeks a rating of level 3.
Service delivery at level 2 is defined in the Manual as "Provide service according
to specifications by selecting the best method of delivering service." Level 3 service
delivelY is defined as "Tailor service based on developing a full understanding of the
customer's needs." "Tailor" is a defined term, meaning "to modify or adapt with special
attention in order to customize it to a specific requirement."
The Union offered a number of examples in its pre-hearing brief and at the
hearing which it suggested exemplify level 3 service delivelY. It addressed a number of
different requests or situations presented to the CSR by students, parents, counselors, and
others, and indicated that the CSR must determine what questions must be asked and
what investigation must be conducted in order to determine what is needed. The Union
spoke as well of the need for the CSR to act as liaison with government agencies such as
the National Student Loans Centre in order to determine the solutions for problems. The
Union noted that the CSR may have to adapt its delivelY of service when dealing with
ESL students, or with hearing impaired students. In its submission, the CSR deals with
complex issues on a case by case basis, adjusts for each situation and determines the
proper course of action. While it acknowledged that the criteria which a student must
meet to qualify for assistance may not change, it argued that the delivery of the service is
"tailored." The Union suggested that there are different paths of funding available, and it
is for the CSR to determine "the best fit."
The College argued that the determination of the best options available for a
student is based on specific guidelines, policies and procedures. It acknowledged that the
11
CSR may vary how he or she expresses information to each individual client, but.
suggested that the options open to any given student are determined by externally
established criteria, and the CSR is not able to "tailor" the service offered.
The Notes to Raters are of assistance in determining the appropriate rating. The
Note relating to level 2 service delivery is particularly instructive and I set it out as
follows:
(S)ervice is provided by determining which option would best suit the
needs of the customer. The incumbent must know all of the options
available and be able to explain them to the customer. The incumbent
selects or recommends the best option based on the customer's need.
There is no, or limited, ability for the incumbent to change the options.
For example, positions working in the Financial Aid area would need to
fully understand the various student loan programs that are available and
based on a student's unique situation select or recommend the program
that would best address the student's financial situation. The incumbent
doesn't have the ability to change the funding programs, which are
established by an external agency. (at p. 22)
In contrast, the Notes to Raters state in part that level 3 service delivelY involves
the following:
The customer's request must be understood thoroughly. Based on this
understanding, the position is then able to customize the way the service is
delivered or substantially modify what is delivered so that it suits the
customer's particular circumstances. (at p. 22)
After considering the patties' positions, I am of the view that the service delivery
component of the CSR position is properly rated at level 2. While I recognize that the
CSR may be faced with a variety of service requests, the exmnples relied upon by the
patties demonstrate the provision of service "according to specifications by selecting the
best method of delivering service." I am not convinced by the Union that the CSR
"tailors" the service delivered within the factor definition, and indeed I accept that it is
not open to the CSR to do so. The CSR cannot "customize the way the service is
delivered or substantially modify what is delivered." It is not open to the CSR to change
the funding programs available to students, but rather the incumbent selects the best
option based on program specifications and customer circumstances.
12
I am not convinced that the rating of this factor should be amended as requested
by the Union.
COMMUNICATION:
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring and level 3,
occasional. The Union takes the position that a level 3 rating, regular and recurring, is
warranted.
According to the Manual, level 2 communication involves "the exchange of
information that requires explanation and/or interpretation." Level 3 communication is
defined as "explaining and/or interpreting information to secure understanding. May
involve communicating technical information and advice," "Explain" and "interpret" are
both defined terms. The Notes to Raters are of assistance insofar as they state that level 2
explanation and interpretation refer "to the fact that it is information or data which needs
to be explained or clarified," while level 3 explanation and interpretation refer "to the
need to explain matters by interpreting policy or theOlY in such a way that it is fully
understood by others." (at p. 24)
The Union argued that the CSR explains and/or interprets information to students,
faculty and others to secure understanding. It referred to the Notes to Raters pertaining to
level 3, which state, "if the exchange is of a teclmical nature, then usually the audience is
not fully conversant or knowledgeable about the subject matter." (at p. 24) The Union
emphasized in this regard the responsibility of the CSR to "explain" OSAP policies and
procedures to "ordinmy students who don't understand the process," and to disabled
students and ESL students who may have additional challenges in comprehending the
information communicated to them. The Union also addressed the role played by the
CSR in communicating with students with respect to various other options for financial
assistance.
The College suggested that the significant purpose for communication in this
position is to disseminate and clarify information regarding applicable policies and
guidelines, and 'Processes to be followed, It disputed that the CSR explains "matters by
interpreting policy or theory. . ." as addressed in the Notes to Raters. The fact that the
CSR communicates with persons in different roles does not, in the College's view, alter
the character or purpose of the communication itself. The College asserted as well that
13
the information conveyed by the CSR is readily available in understandable form on a
Ministry website and in written materials available to students, and it took the position
that there is no need for the incumbent to communicate on an ongoing basis so as to
secure understanding. The College recognized, however, that occasionally a higher level
of communication skill is required when the CSR communicates with disabled students
and with ESL students, and assigned a rating of level 3, occasional for this reason,
After having considered the parties' positions, I am of the view that this factor is
properly rated at level 3, regular and recurring. The Union has established, in my view,
and the College's PDF reflects, a regular and ongoing need for the CSR to communicate
so as to explain information "to secure understanding." While the patties did not
specifically address whether or not OSAP guidelines and other applicable policies and
guidelines are properly regarded as "technical information" within the meaning of the
level 3 factor definition, I accept that the CSR is required to explain such information by
clarifying and interpreting applicable policies and procedures so that they are "fully
understood by others."
Although I recognize that certain information is readily available on a Ministry
website, I note that the CSR also has available a number of manuals referenced in the
College's PDF. I accept that the CSR communicates on a regular and ongoing basis with
students and with others in a manner that involves the explanation of information "to
secure understanding." This conclusion is consistent in my view with the examples set
out in the College's PDF.
I am satisfied that a rating of level 3, regular and recurring is appropriate, and I so
order.
AUDIONISUAL EFFORT:
The patties agreed that this factor is properly rated at level 2, although the College
noted at the hearing that the College PDF does not reflect a level 2 rating. The parties
indicated however, that their dispute before me relates only to the question of whether
focus is "maintained" or "interrupted" within the meaning of the factor definitions.
The Notes to Raters must be carefully considered. They state in part:
5. In determining what constitutes an interruption or disruption, you must
first decide whether the 'disruption' (eg.customer requests) is an integral
or primaty responsibility of the position (e.g. customer service,
14
registration/counter staff, help desk, information desk). Then consider
whether these activities are the primary or secondmy aspect of the job.
For example, if an individual has no other assigned tasks or duties while
tending to customer requests, then those requests can not be seen as
disruptions. (at p, 28)
There was no dispute between the parties that the CSR is assigned by the Team
Leader to work at the front counter to serve students or others who visit the office for
assistance. The College PDF notes that the CSR "provides front line personal customer
service through pre-booked and drop-in appointments. . , ." (at p. 3) When not assigned
to the counter, the CSR may perform a number of different tasks, also reflected in the
College PDF. The College PDF, sets out as a daily example of an activity requiring "a
higher than usual need for focus or concentration" the following: "focus required for
accurate processing of documentation to complete an OSAP file and update the Financial
aid (sic) data base." Another example of such daily activity addressed in the College
PDF is processing of the "Continuation of Interest Free Status form documentation to the
list provided by the coop consultants." (at p, 25)
The parties both addressed paragraph 5 of the Notes to Raters. In the College's
submission, the primary responsibility of this position is to provide customer service, In
its view, requests for customer service cannot, therefore, be characterized as
"dismptions."
In the Union's submission, however, when the CSR is not assigned to work at the
counter, but is assigned to complete other tasks which require concentration such as those
set out in the College PDF, interruptions to serve customers are properly considered in
rating this factor. The College did not challenge the Union's assertion that such
intermptions are experienced, but rather, argued that the need to attend to customer
requests for assistance is the "integral or primmy responsibility of the position" and
cannot in this context be considered "interruptions" as contemplated by the factor
definition.
I accept the Union's argument that where a CSR is responsible for working on
tasks other than directly serving customers at the counter, where "a higher than usual
level of focus 01' concentration is required" when performing such functions, and where
..
15
he or she is interrupted to serve customers, such disruptions result in the interl'Uption of
focus within the meaning of the factor.
The Union has demonstrated that a level 2, focus interl'Upted rating is warranted
here, and I so order.
WORKING ENVIRONMENT:
The College rated this factor at levell, regular and recurring and level 2,
occasional. The Union seeks a rating of level 2, regular and recurring, and level 3,
occasional.
The Union argued that the Financial Assistance Office is a busy and high volume
office and that the CSR,s working environment is noisy and crowded. The Union also
maintained that the CSR deals with "verbal abuse," as defined, on a regular basis. It
explained that there are a number of frequently encountered situations which tend to
upset students. By way of example, the Union referred to the need for the CSR to require
specific identification from students before an aSAP file can be accessed. According to
the Union, students get upset and tempers flare in such circumstances, and some become
verbally abusive within the meaning of the factor definition. The Union referred in this
regard to students Htalking over" the CSR, swearing, or making gestures.
The Union further argued that a level 3 occasional rating is warranted here
because the CSR occasionally deals with "abusive people who pose a threat of physical
harm," noting the factor definition of "abusive." The grievor referred to situations in the
office in which a student threw a pen, and a student "uttered death threats," The Union
noted that the Financial Aid Office is equipped with cameras and with panic alarms, and
claimed that the office is designated as a Hhigh risk area," The Union suggested, subject
to the College's objection, that the grievor's involvement on the Health and Safety
Committee contributes to her understanding of safety issues.
The College denied that the Financial Aid Office is crowded or noisy within the
meaning of level 2, and suggested that it is a regular office environment offering
"acceptable working conditions" within the level I definition. While the College
accepted that the office could be characterized as a Hhigh anxiety" area for students
concerned about financial issues, it disputed that it is "high risk." Ms. Lamoureux, the
Registrar responsible for the area, indicated that she has never been advised that the
16
office is so designated, The College acknowledged that occasionally students become
agitated, and indicated that it recognized this with a rating of level 2, occasional.
I am not convinced by the Union that the work environment of the CSR is
properly rated on a regular and recurring basis, as anything more than levell, While I
accept that the office is a busy work area, I am not satisfied based on the representations
before me that it is "noisy" or ~~crowded" as contemplated by the level 2 factor definition.
The PDF prepared and filed by the Union in these proceedings notes as "n/a" for this
position "noisy environment" or "working in . . . crowded situations."
The Union's PDF further indicates that the CSR deals with "abusive people>! on a
monthly basis. While the Union was clear in the hearing that encountering upset students
may be a more frequent occurrence, I am not satisfied that the CSR deals with "verbal
abuse" as addressed in the level 2 factor definition anything but occasionally. The
Manual states, "The term 'occasional' can be considered in a few different time frames.
It can be defined as once or twice a month or three or four times per year. It is important
to remember that this term is to be considered when identifying significant skills 01'
responsibilities associated with activities that occur for a ShOlt period of time, on a few
occasions or sporadically throughout the year," (at p. 5)
I am unable to accept the Union's submission that a level 3, occasional rating is
justified in the present circumstances. The Union addressed the need for the CSR to deal
with "abusive people who pose a threat of physical harm," speaking of a student who
threw a pen and a student who uttered a death threat. The grievor has never used the
panic alarm in the Financial Aid Office, The Union's PDF filed in these proceedings
states that the CSR "infrequently" deals with abusive people who may pose a threat of
physical harm. This is consistent with the Union's description of the work environment
during the hearing. I am not satisfied that the Union has demonstrated that a level 3,
occasional rating is warranted.
I am not convinced by the Union that the rating assigned by the College is
inappropriate, and I decline to vary it.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons and to the extent set out herein, the grievance before me is upheld
in pali.
17
I find that the grievor's position of CSR, Financial Aid is not properly evaluated
at Payband E. I order that it be classified forthwith at Paybal1d F. and that the grievor be
compensated accordingly retroactive to March 1, 2007.
I retain jurisdiction in this matter to assist the parties in the implementation of this
Award.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 14th day of May, 2009.
/Vle~
Mary Lou Tims
Arbitrator
Arbitration Data Sheet ~ ,support Staff ClaSSification. -t-
COlleg.,-f(rQ'Sb~I.)\l, Incumbent: I . C stJperv~orr('f .skWJf \
Current Payband' E Payband Requested b Grievor: .
L Concerning the attached Position Description Form:
The Union disagrees with the contents and the
specific details are attached.
2. The attached Written Submission Is from: 0 The UnIon 0 The College
o The parties agreed on the contents 0
Factor
.'
Mar'laoement. '. .....
. . '.' '. '.' Rl!11ular/ Recunlng
. ..... .... " i:/"',...:-:.:i level Points
lA. Education
Occasloll3l
level PoInts
lB. Education
r, ,s,t; ~/(L~'1f~~'S'-.;.; \11Il~~""O";'
..- .\:;r'~.'-'t ..~~' ~'f'~"'>t'\1;r-'.
.) ,<{:~p/!:~:;,: 1;~t;1~::g'i~.i)~
\ '3
?:> 39:in:';{1,:
:~ 1~
'3c)
rY-. 1-+
A- '-+ ~) .
;:).. ~ 9
;), 4{n '?, 9
.~
:1UA ~o
'l-
(a) ~ f:") 1- (b)
3~5
r.
2. Expelience
3. Analysis and Problem
Solving
4. Planning/CoordInating
5. GuIding/Advising Oll1ers
6. Independence of Action
7. Service Delivery
A
8. Communication
l(bt
~
9. Physical Effort
10. Audlo/Visual Effort
\~0Ji:Nh
11. Worl<ing Environment
Subtotals
ex 9
iCZ
Total Points (a) + (b)
Resulting Payband
y 07
~rll ~\)~
(Da )
(Y)' -7----
(Arbitrator's Signature)
. .
Regular/ Retunlng
level PoInts
unIon .........
Occasional
level PoInts
~';'l::"""".Vc.,.
i~,'~ ~~~;W<?}f-!~~; _s
~:~'f!)'
i '~-"
4 I F; 4;;,.;~:>J!,: ~'.'.'.
3 ~t<6
:~ L-") Cr,
~ ;)q y 3
~~ 1<=D
'? r- \
:)
? '1~
1 S
2. ,?1i" ;l:~:~1;rf{; ;i~~Hi~~!J;:' ;>..
2.. 3~) ,~ -q
(a) .540 (b) j '2-
5~)a
W
,'"c'
,{I
m~
/(Coflege Representative)
A .-, J d 7/v '1
(Date of iieanng)
.
Atbltrator .
Regular} Returring OCcasional
level PoInts Level PoInts
'-
J
1.-[
35' (<':i,;;;, .....
. ..c...... ". .'.
3 ........,..
.,:c'. ::c.>,
~4,."'"
3
7ft
3d-
17
'-1&
;)1
'7Y
~
,;).
;J
.).
.3
/
6'
35'
C'';.:,;"",. '..:"'.':';,..:.::
'..'"
)
d-
(b)
q
C;
.,
(a) '-1 J C,
VI ;;.. ~
F
IfeuL g6 :J
( te)
fYl/":;l I V; /1/ '7
(Date of A ard)