HomeMy WebLinkAboutJohnston 09-06-24
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
NORTHERN COLLEGE
("the College")
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
("the Union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF GLENNA
JOHNSTON (# 765403)
ARBITRATOR: Ian Springate
APPEARANCES:
For the College: Daniel Michaluk, Counsel
For the Union: Frank Wright, President Local 654
HEARING: In Kirkland Lake on April 20, 2009
2
AWARD
INTRODUCTION
The grievor is employed as a Program Assistant in the College?s
Apprenticeship, Workforce Development and Training (?AWDT?) Department at
Kirkland Lake. She spends approximately 65% of her time in what the applicable
position description form (?PDF?) describes as ?administrative assistance in the
facilitation of AWDT courses, programs and other services?. The College in its written
brief summarized this aspect of the grievor?s role as ?setting up? courses, a term also
used by the grievor at the hearing. The grievor is not involved with curriculum issues.
An additional 20% of the grievor?s time is spent performing back-up duties with respect
to student services and administration. This primarily involves providing services to
post-secondary students. Approximately 10% of the grievor?s time is spent performing
secretarial duties.
The grievor is highly conscientious and performs her duties with a careful eye to
detail and accuracy. The College acknowledges that her role is critical to the success of
the AWDT Department. Mr. John Hodgson is the Operations Manager for the
College?s Kirkland Lake and Haileybury campuses. Since October 2007 he has been
the grievor?s immediate supervisor. At the hearing he acknowledged that the grievor
does an excellent job.
The grievor?s duties include a wide range of relatively straight-forward
administrative tasks. At times, however, she is involved in more complex matters. A
central issue in this case is the extent to which such activities justify higher ratings
under the applicable job evaluation system.
The College originally rated the grievor?s position at payband D. On November
16, 2007 the grievor filed a grievance in which she contended that her position should
be rated at payband F. Following a step 1 grievance meeting the College altered its
ratings for several of the individual job factors. It did so by retaining its previous
ratings with respect to the grievor?s regular and recurring tasks while assigning certain
higher ratings on an occasional basis. These changes placed the College?s overall rating
of the grievor?s position within payband E. The Union contends that the College?s
approach still undervalues the grievor?s position.
The Union took issue with the accuracy of the initial PDF advanced by the
College. The College subsequently revised the document and prepared one headed up
?Final Revised?. The Union accepted the accuracy of this PDF. At the hearing counsel
for the College urged me not to rely on certain entries in the PDF. He submitted that to
3
do so would produce ?a hollow decision? that would require that the College re-write
the PDF.
The parties currently disagree on the proper ratings for six of the eleven job factors
identified in the job evaluation manual. These are: analysis and problem solving,
planning/coordinating, guiding/advising others, independence of action, audio/visual
effort and working environment. Each of these factors is addressed separately below.
The College?s current ratings for all eleven job factors result in a total of 344
points. This is near the bottom of the 340-399 point range for payband E. The ratings
proposed by the Union would result in a total of 440 points, within the 400 to 459 point
range for payband F.
THE FACTOR OF ANAYSIS AND PROBLEM SOLVING
The job evaluation manual notes that 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. The College rates the grievor?s
position at level 2 on a regular/recurring basis worth 46 points. The College also
assigns a level 3 rating on an occasional basis worth an additional 9 points. The Union
submits that a level 3 rating is appropriate on a regular/recurring basis, which would be
worth 78 points.
The job evaluation manual sets out the following factor level definitions as well as
the definition of the term ?past practices?:
2. Situations and problems are easily identifiable. Analysis or problem solving
is straightforward. Solutions may require modification of existing alternatives
or past practices.
3. Situations and problems are identifiable, but may require further inquiry in
order to define them precisely. Solutions require the analysis and collection of
information, some of which may be obtained from areas or resources which
are not normally used by the position.
Past practices ? to perform work according to how it has customarily been
done in the past or the usual way of doing something. Such practice does not
have to be written down, but can arise on the basis of regular, repeated action.
4
The manual contains the following notes to raters designed to clarify the
differences between these levels:
At level 2, the work performed is still quite structured, as the incumbent
performs it in the customary or usual way. It is very evident when problems
arise. However, the position has some freedom in determining how the
problem could be resolved if normal past practice cannot be applied. For
example, if a position was to post certain information on a daily basis and, for
a reason never previously experienced by the incumbent, the information was
not available, then the individual in the position would need to determine if a
solution to another similar situation could be applied in this circumstance.
At level 3, the types of problems that are encountered are readily identifiable
but the position must be able to identify when additional information is
needed to clearly understand the problem or situation. In order to develop an
appropriate solution, the position will need to gather more information. In
many circumstances, this additional information or clarification will be
readily available, but there will be times when the position will need to seek
the additional information from a source it is unfamiliar with.
Level 2 versus level 3 ? wording in a PDF that suggests there is a need to get
additional information, such as problems that require the incumbent to look at
several sources of information or ask questions of other departments, does not
necessarily mean that level 3 would apply. For example, if dealing with a
question regarding a ?hold? on a student record, the incumbent might have to
check several screens on the student record system to see if it is a financial
hold, or an academic hold, and might even have to contact the academic or
finance department for an answer. However, these are procedural steps that
should be followed one by one until the problem is identified and solved.
There may be some judgement (level 2) in deciding which step to try first, but
the analysis, if any, is quite straightforward (level 2). For level 3, the
incumbent would be gathering information, analyzing each new piece of
information in relation to the other pieces, and possibly exploring new or
unusual directions to seek more information based on the results of the
investigation or analysis.
The College contends that level 2 is the best fit for the grievor?s position as her
work is characterized by very clear and routine processes with limited decision making
options. It submits that a level 3 rating on an occasional basis recognizes that there may
be occasions when the grievor engages in a more complex analysis.
5
In its brief the Union relied on the grievor?s role in connection with the offering of
new continuing education courses, an example not referred to in the PDF with respect to
this factor. The Union brief indicates that the grievor does research to ensure that there
will be a sufficient number of students for a new course, notifies contacts who might
have an interest in such a course and ?spreads the word?. Mr. Hodgson?s evidence was
that the College tries to offer one or two new courses per semester. He indicated that
the grievor is involved in team meetings where potential courses are discussed but the
responsibility for planning and developing new courses rests with Training Consultant
Ms. Rose-Lyne Daoust-Messier, the AWDT team leader. Mr. Hodgson indicated that
he assesses any proposals from a budgetary perspective. He noted that since January
2009 approval for any new course must also be given by Mr. Bob Mack, an Associate
Director.
Having regard to Mr. Hodgson?s evidence I conclude that the grievor?s role with
respect to new courses is one of providing input, including with respect to the possible
demand for a course, but she is not involved in a level of analysis that meets the criteria
for a level 3 rating.
The PDF lists three examples of regular and recurring situations which involve
analysis on the part of the grievor. One is described as: ?Certain number of
client/students required to ensure training happens?. The PDF states that the problem is
identified by calculating the cost to run a course against total tuition paid by registered
students. It notes that the grievor?s investigation includes speaking with the instructor
to ascertain all costs for the course, including salary and travel costs.
The PDF describes the analysis used by the grievor to address this type of situation
as follows:
- Analyzes the viability of offering the course by mapping out multiple
scenario comparisons and seeking potential agreement.
- Determined break-even point and then reviews with potential variables (next
point).
- May consider viability if instructor agreed to less salary, or contacting
specific companies who could have interest in sending group of employees
(preferential rates), or reducing the number of hours delivered. Could also
call those registered and encourage them to bring a friend at a discount
(think of incentives).
6
The PDF notes that sources available to assist the grievor in finding a solution
include past files, a data base of interested clients and her consulting other staff
members.
In the normal course the College will only run a training course if it can recover at
least 50% of the costs from student fees, 35% in the case of continuing education
courses. The grievor registers students in the courses and accordingly can readily
ascertain student numbers and match them against the costs of running a course. The
grievor testified that if the percentage figure is not met she might talk to the instructor
about cutting out a week of classes in order to reduce his or her salary. She indicated
that this could be done by compressing a course or by substituting independent study for
class time. In response to questions from College counsel the grievor acknowledged
that the instructor must be willing to accept such an arrangement. The grievor testified
that in consultation with the instructor she would normally make the decision to go with
a shorter time period and then advise Ms. Daoust-Messier of her decision.
A related issue involves decisions about whether to run a class with fewer than the
normally required number of students. The grievor said that if there is to be less than a
50% recovery for a course that has been planned for a long time she will make the
decision to run it since ?we? are a community college. She subsequently said that she
would quite regularly do this. She gave the example of a course requiring 10 students to
reach the 50% level but only six students being registered and her indicating that the
course would run anyway.
Mr. Hodgson testified that the grievor will at times be assigned to a course which
does not make a profit. He noted in this regard that the Kirkland Lake campus has a
small catchment area and so might run a French as a second language course with less
than a 35% recovery. Mr. Hodgson also said that his ?expectation? was that the grievor
would consult with the team, especially Ms. Daoust-Messier, with respect to such
decisions.
In response to subsequent questions from College counsel Mr. Hodgson noted that
Ms. Daoust-Messier had recently asked him about a course that would cost $100,000 to
$150,000 to put on but did not meet the requisite recovery level. He said that he told
Ms. Daoust-Messier to postpone offering the course and to ascertain whether additional
funding could be obtained so as to allow running the course, which was what happened.
College counsel asked Mr. Hodgson who would make the decision for a smaller course.
He replied that it would be Ms. Daoust-Messier with input from the grievor.
The grievor?s evidence was that for large or more costly courses she would consult
with Ms. Daoust-Messier and in doing so she might advocate in favour of running the
course. She gave the example of a situation where people had been on a list waiting for
7
such a course for over a year. The grievor also said that for ?a lot of courses? she makes
the decision herself without consulting Ms. Daoust-Messier.
It is clearly Mr. Hodgson?s understanding, or as he put it his ?expectation?, that the
grievor will raise the issue of running a course with below normal recovery numbers
with Ms. Daoust-Messier and she in turn will either make the decision or refer the
matter to him. Mr. Hodgson, who according to the Union?s brief is based at the
College?s Haileybury campus, has 40 full time and 13 part time support staff who report
to him. He indicated that for AWDT matters he deals primarily with Ms. Daoust-
Messier the team leader. Given this situation, I conclude that while some decisions with
respect to the matters in question are made by Ms. Daoust-Messier decisions respecting
less expensive courses are in fact made by the grievor.
A key consideration in applying the factor level definitions is whether a situation
or problem is easily identifiable. The grievor is responsible for gathering information
about the cost of offering a course, including the instructor?s remuneration and travel
costs, and for determining the number of students required to meet the normal recovery
target. As noted above, she enrolls the students. The determination of which courses do
not have a sufficient number of students enrolled to meet the recovery target appears to
be easily identifiable. This meets the criteria for a level 2 rating.
A level 3 rating requires the analysis and collection of information. The note to
raters respecting the differences between a level 2 and a level 3 rating states that for
level 3 an incumbent would be gathering information, analyzing each new piece of
information in relation to other pieces and possibly exploring new or unusual directions
to seek more information. It may be that when an instructor is asked about whether a
course can be shortened he or she will need to gather and analyze information about
whether it would be feasible to do so. The grievor, however, would not be engaged in
gathering and analyzing this type of information. When Mr. Hodgson or Ms. Daoust-
Messier decides whether to run a large and/or expensive course without sufficient
students to meet the recovery target they may need to gather and analyze information
respecting budget issues and possible alternate sources of funding. The grievor does
not, however, need to engage in that type of analysis when addressing less expensive
courses. Having regard to these considerations I conclude that the example better fits a
level 2 rating.
The second example in the PDF of a regular and recurring issue or problem relates
to finding and recommending new instructors. The PDF and the evidence indicate that
the grievor generally locates possible new instructors by looking through College
databases of resumes and by speaking to faculty and staff and community contacts for
references. At the hearing the grievor indicated that if she cannot find a new instructor
8
through one of these methods she will work with the Marketing Department to place an
ad for an instructor.
As contemplated by the PDF the grievor will briefly interview a prospective
instructor and address their qualifications and availability. She said that qualifications
include whether the individual has taught before, whether they have the necessary
experience, such as having computer experience if they are going to teach a computer
course, and whether they have a required qualification such as a certificate in CPR if the
job involves teaching CPR. The grievor said that at times she follows up an interview
by asking others how well the individual did when teaching a previous course. The
grievor said that if she decides that an individual has what is required to teach a course
she will recommend that they be hired.
Mr. Hodgson indicated that a lot of instructors return to teach courses. He said that
Ms. Daoust-Messier is the one who sets the requirements for new instructors and she is
the one who does the actual hiring.
In its written brief the College contended that the grievor?s role involves matching
potential candidates against established requirements. It noted that although the grievor
interviews candidates she does not make the hiring decision. The College brief also
said that competitive hiring decisions are rare.
In terms of the factor level definitions, the situation or problem involved is easily
identifiable, namely that a course is without an instructor. The grievor?s role appears to
be relatively straight forward in terms of using resumes and interviews to assess
whether an applicant has the necessary qualifications to teach a particular course. As
noted above, the grievor said that at times she follows up on an interview by asking how
well an applicant did when teaching a previous course. Although she did not say so, I
presume that she does so when she has reason to doubt an individual?s ability to meet an
acceptable teaching level and/or there are more than one applicant who meets the
requirements of the job. Asking others about how well an individual did when teaching
a previous course involves the collection of information and assessing the answer may
require a degree of analysis that justifies a level 3 rating. Given, however, that this
appears to occur on rare occasions if would justify a level 3 rating only on an occasional
basis.
The third regular and recurring example listed in the PDF is a client requesting
training but unsure of what is required. The PDF indicates that the grievor gathers
detailed information from the client respecting how they want to use the requested
training and provides them with their training options. The grievor?s evidence indicated
that the issue most frequently arises in the context of training offered through the
Northern Ontario Research Centre for Advanced Technology (NORCAT) which utilizes
9
computer-based training and testing modules which can eventually lead to employment
in the mining industry. The grievor said that people will often ask her for NORCAT
training and she in turn will ask them what they want the training for and also whether
they have contacted any employers in the mining industry.
In its brief the College contended that typically clients ask the grievor discrete
questions such as ?I?m looking to get my air brake endorsement. Do you have a course?
When is it offered? How much does it cost??
Answering inquiries and referring clients to possible courses requires that the
grievor ask them questions concerning what they intend to do with the training. I do not
view this type of questioning as the collection and analysis of information such as to
justify a level 3 rating. This conclusion is reinforced by the wording of the level 3
definition which refers to information which may be obtained from areas or resources
not normally used by the position. This cannot logically relate to gathering information
from an individual seeking assistance. In the circumstances I conclude that a level 2
rating is the better fit.
The PDF contains two examples of occasional situations relating to analysis and
problem solving. One relates to a client expressing a complaint regarding training that
was provided. The grievor testified that such a complaint does not occur very often.
She said that when a complaint is raised she seeks to ascertain whether it relates to the
course or to the instructor and she will also contact other students to see if the complaint
is shared by others. She said that after she has gathered this information she discusses
the complaint with the instructor in order to resolve the matter. It was Mr. Hodgson?s
evidence that in response to a complaint the grievor talks to the student(s) and the
instructor to try to resolve the issue although any serious problem is referred to him.
The grievor indicated that some complaints come to her attention through
evaluations which are completed by students at the end of a course. She said that if
there are a number of such complaints she follows up with students and the instructor to
see if the course objectives have been followed.
The grievor testified that on one occasion she advised an instructor that the College
would not use them again. She said that she did so after first discussing the matter with
the Training Coordinator and her manager.
The wording of the PDF reflects the grievor?s evidence. It states that after
receiving a complaint the grievor follows up with the client, the instructor and other
course participants; determines if the instructor followed the course objectives; relooks
at course outline/objectives; evaluates if resources were used; advises the instructor of
10
the problem and discusses options to improve; and possibly recommends that the
instructor not be used again if they are not open to continuous improvement.
The College contended that the scope of the grievor?s judgement with respect to
complaints is narrow. It argued that her role is to facilitate the process of resolution but
she is not responsible for achieving resolution, instead if a problem is not resolved it is
escalated to the Training Coordinator or Operations Manager. While unresolved
complaints are referred to others it is clear that part of the grievor?s role is to seek to
resolve complaints. She does so by gathering information from the complaining
students, other students, the instructor, course outlines and objectives. These various
pieces of information must logically be analyzed in relation to the other pieces of
information in order to allow the grievor to understand the problem and to effect a
resolution, which can include discussing options that would allow the instructor to
improve. All of this involves the type of collection and analysis of information which
comes within the factor level definition for level 3.
The other occasional problem listed in the PDF involves dealing with a student in
crises. The grievor said that students come to her and others in the front office when
they are upset with an instructor or another student or are having trouble coping.
Logically a crisis is more serious than a student being upset with an instructor or
another student or with some turn of events. The PDF and the grievor?s evidence
indicate that should a student come to her in a crisis situation the grievor is to take the
student to a quiet area, take detailed notes, ?contact authorities if crisis requires
attention? and raise the matter with someone more senior to her. The PDF describes
this latter step as ?analyse details of findings and discuss/review with Training
Consultant and/or Associate Regional Director?. Other wording in the PDF could be
read as indicating that the grievor plays a key role in resolving an issue, including
determining the best plan of action to minimize damage to the individual and others,
reviewing options with key stakeholders to provide options and concluding the best
manner to resolve the situation satisfactorily. As already noted, however, the PDF also
refers to discussions with the Training Consultant and the Associate Regional Director.
The grievor?s evidence was that she will pass on the information she has gathered and
later follow up to ensure that the matter is being handled and if it is not she will raise the
issue with her supervisor.
The College contended that the grievor is required to perform a basic ?laypersons?
assessment of student behaviours and choose between calling for help and not calling
for help. It argued that the problem is well-defined, the information needs to be
observed rather than elicited and the scope of judgement is very limited.
From the grievor?s evidence and the wording of the PDF I infer that the grievor
gathers and analyzes information for two purposes. The first is to decide whether the
11
situation justifies calling in the authorities, presumably a reference to College security
and/or the police. The second is to enable the grievor to accurately describe the
situation to others, including providing them with her views about how the matter can
best be resolved. I view the gathering of the information and the grievor?s role in
analyzing the information she has gathered as meeting the criteria for a level 3 rating.
As noted above the PDF refers to the grievor dealing with students in crisis and
addressing client complaints about a course as functions that she performs on an
occasional basis. As indicated above, I view the grievor?s functions relating to her
recommending instructors for courses based on them possessing the necessary
qualifications as generally meeting the criteria for a level 2 rating although on rare
occasions she gathers and analyzes information from others with respect to the prior
teaching record of a prospective instructor which meets the criteria for a level 3 rating.
Even taking these three types of situations together, however, it appears that the grievor
only exercises a level 3 type of analysis on an occasional basis.
Having regard to the foregoing I conclude that the grievor?s duties justify a level 2
rating on a regular and recurring basis as well as a level 3 rating on an occasional basis.
PLANNING/COORDINATING
This factor measures the planning and/or coordinating requirements of a position.
The job evaluation manual states that it refers to the organizational and/or project
management skills required to bring together and integrate activities and resources
needed to complete tasks and organize events.
The College rates this factor at level 2 on a regular/recurring basis worth 32 points
as well as at a level 3 rating on an occasional basis worth an additional 7 points. The
Union argues for a level 3 rating on a regular/recurring basis worth 56 points. The
definitions for a level 2 and level 3 rating and certain of the terms utilized in the
definitions are as follows:
2. Plan/coordinate activities and resources to complete own work and achieve
overlapping deadlines.
3. Plan/coordinate activities, information or material to enable completion of
tasks and events, which affect the work schedule of other employees.
Affect ? to produce a material influence upon or alteration in.
12
Other employees - includes full-time, part-time, students, contractors.
The job evaluation manual contains the following notes to raters designed to clarify
the differences between levels:
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 calendar 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 is requests by the position 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).
The PDF lists three regular and recurring activities with respect to this factor. One
is the coordination and preparation of a continuing education brochure, which the
grievor referred to as an ad, that is distributed three times per year, once per term. The
grievor noted that there are also monthly ads and flyers which involve a similar process
except with less information and shorter time frames. According to the PDF the
relevant organizational and/or project management skills required of the grievor are the
need to coordinate with the Marketing Department to determine timelines and maximize
cost efficiencies and to confirm and develop courses, including ?what, when, where and
how?.
The grievor testified that she contacts Marketing about when the brochures will hit
the newspaper and when Marketing will need the information to be included in the
brochures, which is three to four weeks earlier. The grievor said that she will then
advise the rest of the team of a deadline when they are to have all of the information in
to her. She said that when she receives this information she groups it together and sends
it to Marketing. The grievor noted that it has happened that ?we? have not been able to
meet Marketing?s deadlines and she has negotiated a new date with Marketing and then
advised others of the date.
The wording of the level 2 factor definition standing by itself could suggest that
such a rating is to apply only to planning and coordinating activities and resources to
13
complete one?s own work. The note to raters with respect to this level, however,
indicates that it is also meant to cover activities such as making arrangements for an
event by coordinating the calendars of others. Marketing advises the grievor of its
deadline for receiving course material. She then tells others when she needs the
information from them in order to forward it to Marketing in a timely manner. This can
reasonably be viewed as coordinating the calendars of others. This is particularly so
given that there is no suggestion that the grievor?s request for course information has a
material influence or alteration on the work schedules of others as required for a level 3
rating. The brochures come out at about the same time each year and other staff would
know in advance that they will be required to have the material available for Marketing.
Having regard to these considerations I conclude that this example justifies a level 2
rating.
The second example listed in the PDF for this factor is the grievor?s role in
organizing seminars. At the hearing the grievor described these as large seminars often
with 70 people in attendance. The PDF notes that the grievor is required to set the
specifics for the seminar, including dates and times, find an instructor, locate required
resources and calculate the cost effectiveness of the training. The grievor said in her
evidence that there is a lot of work involved including photocopying and booking
multiple rooms. The College?s brief noted that the grievor contacts facilities operators,
publishers, material suppliers and newspapers. With respect to whether she impacts the
schedule of others the grievor said that she meets with maintenance with respect to
different layouts required for different rooms. She also said that if she is busy she will
ask a staff member to do up a flyer for her or ask a staff member to assist her by making
phone calls using a data base that she gives to them.
The level 3 definition as well as the note relating to this level indicates that it
applies when an employee is coordinating work which requires that others produce
material or information by specific deadlines. The grievor?s role with respect to
seminars, however, appears to be to organize her own work, including booking rooms
and ordering required room layouts. It is not clear whether asking other staff members
to prepare a flyer and to make phone calls for her is meant to be covered by a level 3
rating. Even if it is, however, it appears to occur on an occasional basis.
I conclude that the grievor?s work on seminars justifies a level 2 rating for the
factor of planning/coordinating with a level 3 rating on an occasional basis.
The final example listed in the PDF which occurs on a regular and recurring basis
involves department meetings. The grievor testified that Ms. Daoust-Messier gives her
an agenda for weekly meetings and she then contacts people to have them attend. The
PDF indicates that in preparation for such meetings the grievor gathers financial forms
14
and determines which courses need to be offered based on expressed requests. These
functions do not justify a level 3 rating.
The PDF lists two occasional duties with respect to this factor. One involves
working with the College?s IT department to have them install new NORCAT software
about once a year at a convenient time. The other involves her role in developing a new
course by locating an instructor, determining materials and costs and planning the
marketing and promotion. Neither of these functions meets the criteria for a level 3 of
affecting the work schedule of other employees.
Having regard to the above I confirm a level 2 rating on a regular and recurring
basis and a level 3 rating on an occasional basis.
GUIDING/ADVISING OTHERS
This factor refers to any assigned responsibility to guide or advise others, including
other employees, students or clients in the area of the position?s expertise. The job
evaluation manual states that 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 manual notes that College support staff cannot formally supervise
others in the sense of hiring, firing or handling first step grievances but staff may be
required to guide others using specific job expertise.
The College rates this factor at level 1 on a regular/recurring basis worth 5 points
as well as a 2 rating on an occasional basis worth an additional 3 points. The Union
argues for a level 2 rating on a regular/recurring basis worth 17 points. The job
evaluation manual contains the following factor level and term definitions:
1. Minimal requirement to guide/advise others. May need to explain
procedures to other employees or students.
2. Guide others so they can complete specific tasks.
Explain ? provide details or examples to help others better understand the
Information
Others ? College employees (FT or PT), students
Guide - demonstrate correct processes/procedures for the purpose of assisting
others with skill development and/or task completion
15
The PDF states that on an occasional basis there is a need for the grievor to
demonstrate correct processes/procedures to others so they can complete specific tasks.
It gives the example of: ?Provides training for new instructors on processes and
procedures, including software, to enable them to maintain class records and materials.?
This meets the criteria of guiding others at level 2.
Beside a square which indicates that what follows relates to regular and recurring
matters the PDF refers to a minimal requirement for the grievor to guide/advise others.
This meets the criteria for a level 1 rating. The PDF then gives the following example,
which is actually the first of two entries contained in a nearby box:
The incumbent guides students on policies and procedure of continuing
education and NORCAT tested students in regards to handing in assignments,
taking tests and attendance. The incumbent also guides department
instructors on the same policies.
Immediately below this is the second entry in the same box which reads as follows:
The incumbent provides direct instruction to new staff or replacement staff on
processes and procedures to follow for both the AWDT and general
administrative services (payroll).
Because of the way the page is set out, if the second entry had been differently
worded it could be argued that it also reflects a minimal requirement to guide/advise
others at level 1. Given the express reference in the entry to providing direct instruction
to new and replacement staff, however, this could not reasonably be what was intended.
This wording clearly meets the criteria for a level 2 rating. Counsel for the College
submitted that I should not give any weight to this language in the PDF but rely instead
only on the evidence led at the hearing.
The grievor testified that she has traveled to other campuses in order to teach new
staff computer software uses, including the registration of students, payroll systems,
how to look up purchase orders, the different forms to use and how to fill them in. She
said that staff who have been at the College for over a year still meet with her with
respect to cost analysis and to have her review flyers. Mr. Hodgson subsequently
described the grievor?s instruction of new staff as ?a one off? noting that if staffing were
constant such instructions would not be required. He also said that the grievor does not
train instructors in how to deliver a course but rather trains them in ?our culture?.
16
Mr. Hodgson testified that Ms. Kellie Broderick, the grievor?s counterpart at the
Haileybury campus, had gone went off ill two months before and the grievor had been
asked to train her replacement. He said that hopefully this will not last much longer.
He also noted, however, that there had been certain shortcomings in Ms. Broderick?s
work and the grievor had previously also worked with Ms. Broderick.
Counsel for the College described the grievor?s work with Ms. Broderick?s
replacement as a one-off responsibility that is coming to an end. He submitted that the
grievor?s helping other staff should not be given any weight. He argued that it had not
been an assigned responsibility on the grievor?s part to orient or train other staff. He
noted that the factor is meant to measure any ?assigned responsibility? to guide or
advise others.
The grievor?s evidence indicated that she has been assigned to assist other staff at
other campuses. It appears to be an on-going expectation of her position that as
required she will train new staff. In the circumstances I conclude that the evidence does
not conflict with the PDF but rather complements the document?s statement that on a
regular basis the grievor provides direct instruction on processes and procedures to new
and replacement staff.
I view the grievor?s training functions outlined in the preceding paragraph as
meeting the criteria of guiding others in the sense of demonstrating correct
processes/procedures for the purpose of assisting others with skill development and/or
task completion. As such justifies a level 2 rating. To this is to be added the grievor?s
work on an occasional basis in training new instructors on processes and procedures to
enable them to maintain class records and materials. Taking these together I conclude
that a level 2 rating on a regular and recurring basis is appropriate.
INDEPENDENCE OF ACTION
The job evaluation manual states that this factor measures the level of
independence or autonomy in a position. It states that consideration is to be given to the
types of decisions 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; and also the rules, procedures, past practice and guidelines available to
provide guidance and direction.
The College rated this factor at level 2 on a regular/recurring basis which is worth
46 points. It has also assigned a level 3 rating on an occasional basis worth an
additional 9 points. The Union argues for a level 3 rating on a regular/recurring basis
worth 78 points. The relevant factor level and term definitions are as follows:
17
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.
Procedure ? a sequence of steps to perform a task or activity.
Guideline ? a statement or policy by which to determine a course of action.
Process ? a series of activities, changes or functions to achieve a result.
The manual contains the following note to raters designed to clarify 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 autonomy to make decisions within
these parameters
The PDF notes that some of the grievor?s work assignments are standard and
follow established guidelines for documentation and reporting. It states that instructions
are given for some assignments. The PDF also states that unfamiliar situations are
reviewed with the Training Consultant, Supervisor and/or peers. It goes on to say that
?how assignments are carried out is often determined by incumbent, commonly based
on past practices which may be modified accordingly?.
The PDF notes that the grievor generally consults with her supervisor with respect
to policy decisions, client complaints that are not readily resolved and/or are recurring.
It states that the grievor will discuss sensitive or technical matters beyond the scope of
her position with the Training Consultant and her Supervisor. The PDF lists several
decisions the grievor decides on her own which occur on a regular and recurring basis.
18
These include determining priorities, advising clients of waiting periods or changes,
setting up record keeping systems and other office procedures and proofreading her own
work. The PDF notes that on a regular and recurring basis: ?Creative thinking and
problem-solving is highly encouraged. Independent action and creativity are required?.
The PDF states that on an occasional basis the grievor is involved in: ?Deciding to
postpone or cancel a class based on guidelines relating to registration levels?.
In her evidence the grievor emphasized that she knows what her priorities are and
she decides what her day to day activities will be. She said that in the morning she
might feel she has planned her day but a single phone call can change things. She gave
the example of a company notifying her that instead of six employees attending a course
as was anticipated only one will actually be in attendance. She noted that at times she
will decide on her own about running courses. She also referred to her role in
recommending new instructors, including a new approach she has adopted of checking
web sites to locate qualified instructors, particularly with respect to the forest industry
and certified water instructors.
In its brief the Union contended that the grievor follows general guidelines to
determine how tasks should be completed. It argued that this is accomplished by her
working with instructors to make sure continuing education courses meet the College?s
standards for course material, costs, time and location and also by her screening and
recommending instructors. The College in its brief contended that the grievor?s main
duty is to administer a program and there is a routine procedure for doing so. At the
hearing, College counsel described the grievor?s description of her job as wonderfully
detailed and submitted that it could be used to write a manual for her position.
As noted at the outset of this award the grievor?s functions are largely
administrative. There are a number of specific tasks she needs to perform to ensure that
courses are set up and run smoothly. The very nature of the process puts constraints on
the scope of her independence of action. There are, however, some activities on her part
which go beyond following established procedures. One concerns situations where
there are not sufficient students enrolled in a course to meet the set recovery percentage.
As noted above the grievor raises some of these situations with Ms. Daoust-Messier but
for less expensive programs she makes the decision about running the course herself.
The nature of the decision does not involve following a specific guideline but instead
involves applying more general guidelines about when courses should be offered. Such
decisions are clearly beyond level 2 and meet the criteria for a level 3 rating. As noted
in the PDF, however, these types of decisions are made on an occasional basis. On an
occasional bases the grievor also takes the initiative to contact others to inquire how an
individual did when teaching a previous course and discusses with an instructor how
they might improve. These functions also go beyond following an established
19
procedure. Even together, however, these three activities do not appear to be engaged
in on a regular and recurring basis.
Having regard to the foregoing, I find a level 2 rating on a regular and recurring
basis and a 3 rating on an occasional basis to be appropriate.
AUDIO/VISUAL EFFORT
This factor measures the requirement for audio or visual effort. It does so by
measuring the degree of attention or focus required as well as activities over which the
position has little or no control that make focus difficult.
The College rated this factor at level 1 worth 5 points. The union argues that a
level 2 rating worth 20 points would be more appropriate. One consideration in
determining points for this factor is whether an employee?s focus is maintained or
interrupted. The ratings of both parties are clearly based on a focus that is maintained.
If focus were not maintained the number of points in issue would be somewhat higher.
The level definitions, as well as terms used in the definitions, read as follows:
1. Regular & recurring short periods of concentration; or occasional
long periods of concentration.
2. Regular & recurring long periods of concentration; or occasional
extended periods of concentration.
Short period ? up to 30 minutes at one time.
Long period - up to 2 hours at one time including scheduled breaks.
The notes to raters include the following statements:
Raters must only consider tasks or situations where a higher than
usual level of focus or concentration is required. It is important to
consider the level of concentration that the task requires and not the
incumbent?s (in)ability.
Concentration means undivided attention to the task at hand.
20
The PDF lists three activities that require a higher than usual need for focus and
concentration. The first is stated to involve long periods of up to two hours. It refers
generally to ?job duties? and sets out one ?for instance?. The full description in the
PDF reads as follows:
Job duties require long periods of visual and mental concentration,
mental energy and careful attention to detail and accuracy. Auditory and
mental concentration is required when dealing with student/client
concerns. Attention to detail is required.
For instance the preparation of the promotional brochure requires
meticulous attention to details to eliminate any potential mistake: impact
of mistakes may be costly to the College or damage College?s credibility
if format, grammar or spelling errors occur.
The grievor testified that it takes her a long time to get the brochure material ready.
She said that she reviews the material sent to her and then forwards it to Marketing. She
indicated that Marketing later sends a draft brochure to her for proof reading, including
ensuring that dates and times are correct and that it lists the proper fee for each course.
The grievor said that this process can take a full day at the start of each semester. She
also said that monthly ads take her a couple of hours each although if an instructor has
not provided the required information she will have to develop a biography of the
instructor and a statement of why people should take the course.
The second example given in the PDF involves enrolling students in courses on the
Student Record System, which involves concentration for less than 30 minutes. The
third example in the PDF involves weekly meetings which can involve web-meetings
with ?concentration on screen for an extended period?. It describes the duration
involved as being long, up to two hours.
In its brief the Union relied on the wording of the PDF while also complaining that
the PDF fails to take into account the grievor?s role with the NORCAT lab. The
College?s brief argued that high-level tasks engaged in by the grievor are of short
duration. It contended that departmental meetings do not involve a task which requires
higher than usual focus or concentration even if video conferencing is employed.
At the hearing counsel for the College contended that I should interpret the PDF on
the basis of the evidence led at the hearing. He suggested that I not rely on the wording
of the first example set out above since it is inaccurate. He submitted that each of the
three brochures per year would take a day, totalling 21 hours. He added another 12
hours for six monthly brochures. He then suggested that the grievor would take two
21
hours to set up courses for each term for a total of 6 hours. He added these up and got a
total of 39 hours per year. He noted that an entry on the PDF form describes one week a
year as 2% of the time. He argued that this justifies a 1 rating since level 1
contemplates occasional long periods of concentration.
The job evaluation manual indicates that the College is responsible for the content
of a PDF and when it is completed such a document is to provide a clear statement of
the duties assigned by the College. As noted above, the Union accepted the accuracy of
the College?s most recent revision of the PDF. In the circumstances a decision to reject
a portion of the PDF at the College?s request should not be taken lightly. The PDF
description of meetings with concentration on a screen for an extended period is not
clearly in error. Further, the first example in the PDF lists preparation of promotional
brochures as a ?for instance? and indicates that other job duties require mental
concentration including when dealing with student/client concerns. On the material
before me I cannot say that the wording of the PDF does not accurately reflect the
grievor?s involvement in tasks that require regular and recurring long periods of
concentration. Accordingly, I propose to rely on the wording of the PDF. This leads
me to conclude that the grievor engages in regular and recurring long periods of
concentration at level 2 worth 20 points.
WORKING ENVIRONMENT
This factor looks at the environment in which work is performed and the extent to
which there exists undesirable or hazardous elements. The College contends that a level
1 rating worth 7 points is warranted. The Union submits that level 1 is appropriate on a
regular and recurring basis but a level 2 rating on an occasional basis worth 9 additional
points should apply. The applicable rating definitions are as follows:
1. Acceptable working conditions.
2. Working conditions involve:
- difficult weather conditions
- smelly, dirty or noisy environment(s)
- exposure to very high/low temperatures
- verbal abuse
- working in isolated or crowded situations
- travel
Verbal abuse ? derogatory or threatening comments
22
I note that a level 3 rating, which is not being argued for, includes working
conditions which include ?dealing with abusive people who pose a threat of physical
harm?.
The PDF states that the grievor deals with abusive people on an infrequent basis
and provides the following example:
Dealing face-to-face with students or clients, the incumbent is required to
deal with abusive individuals, especially if they believe they are not getting
what they wanted.
The PDF notes that when she is at the counter, ?the incumbent is within reach of
individuals who could become out of control and angry?.
In her evidence the grievor spoke about certain incidents at the College where it
was not clear from what she said that she had been directly involved. She also said that
if she felt someone was threatening other staff she also felt threatened. In addition, she
indicated that if someone had raised their voice to her she viewed this as a threat. I have
not taken these situations into account as constituting verbal abuse to the grievor in the
sense of derogatory or threatening comments.
The grievor referred to several specific incidents that occurred during the eight
years she has been in her current position. She said that on four separate occasions the
same individual doing NORCAT training had been very abusive to her and caused her
to feel physically threatened. She mentioned another occasion when a student had
advanced towards her and she had called security, although the radio did not work. She
spoke about a situation when a person had thrown a chair at her and swore at her and
had been advancing towards her until someone else got between them. The grievor also
made reference to a situation in 2006 involving an individual who was intoxicated.
In addition to these specific incidents the grievor said that when she was working
at the front counter quite a few students had slammed their hands on the counter, cursed
at her, raised their voice and demanded to speak with her manager. She said that when
she advised people over the phone that a course had been cancelled some of them had
called her names or swore at her. She said that some went so far as to say that if she had
been doing her job properly the course would be going ahead.
In its brief the College stated that the parties had given ?verbal abuse? and
?abusive? special and limited meanings which involve more than dealing with people
who are angry or upset. It contended that while there might be infrequent exposure to
23
true ?verbal abuse? or ?abusive? persons, this degree of exposure is not significant and
the grievor?s job is best characterized as one involving acceptable working conditions.
At the hearing counsel for the College contended that the grievor had referred to
four specific incidents when she was subject to verbal abuse. He argued that since she
had been in the job for eight years these incidents were too infrequent to justify an
occasional rating. This contention, however, failed to take into account the grievor?s
evidence about students being abusive to her at the counter and abusive to her over the
phone when she advised them that a course had been cancelled. Verbal abuse at level 2
need not involve abusive people who pose a threat of physical harm but can take the
form of derogatory or threatening comments. Both the grievor?s evidence and the PDF
indicate that the grievor faces this type of abuse on an occasional basis. Having regard
to these considerations I find that the grievor?s position should be rated at level 1 on a
regular and recurring basis and at level 2 on an occasional basis.
CONCLUSION
The various ratings assigned by the College after its revisions following a step 1
meeting resulted in the grievor?s position receiving a total of 344 points. The additional
points arising out of my findings with respect to the factors of guiding/advising others,
audio/visual effort and working environment raise the total to 377 points. This remains
within the range for payband E.
As noted above, prior to the hearing the College acknowledged the validity of the
grievors? contention that her position had been improperly classified at payband D. I
uphold the College?s subsequent rating at payband E.
I retain jurisdiction to address any outstanding issues, if there are any, related to
the grievor?s entitlement to be remunerated at payband E.
Dated this 24th day of June 2009.
___________________________
Arbitrator