HomeMy WebLinkAboutJones 09-07-09
.;
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
Georgian College of Applied Arts and Technology
("the College")
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
("the Union")
Classification Grievance of Christine Jones
ARBITRATOR:
Mary Lou Tims
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE COLLEGE:
J. Goheen ~ Human Resources Consultant
J. Fruchter - Dean, Hospitality and Tourism
C. Brown - Human Resources Director
1. Bell - Human Resources Consultant
FOR THE UNION:
J. Peacock - Local Union President
C. Jones ~ Grievol'
D. Seppel' - Chief Steward
T. Podziemski - Local Union Secretary
Hearing held on June 22, 2009 in Barrie, Ontario.
2
AWARD
The grievance before me dated June 8, 2007 alleges that the grievor's position of
Academic Program Assistant in the Hospitality and Tourism Department was improperly
classified by the College. The grievance seeks by way of remedy an order that the
College produce an accurate job description, that the position be classified at Payband E,
and that the grievor be compensated retroactive to March 1, 2007.
The pm'ties each filed with me and exchanged with each other pre~hearing
submissions in accordance with article 18.4.3.4 of the collective agreement. Included
therein was the relevant Position Description Fonu ("PDF") dated August 2008, as well
as an Arbitration Data Sheet signed by the parties in Janumy and February 2009. The
College evaluated the grievor's position at 312 points, bringing it within Payband D. The
Arbitration Data Sheet indicates that the Union disagrees with the contents of the PDF,
and that it asserts that the grievor's position should be classified at Payband F,
At the heal'ing, the Union advised that it withdrew its challenge to the accuracy of
the PDF, but rather disputed only the ratings of the following five factors: Analysis and
Problem Solving, Planning/Coordinating, Independence of Action, Service Delivelyand
Communication.
The College argued in its pre-hearing submission that it is not open to the Union
to claim at arbitration that the grievor's position should be classified at anything more
than Payband E, that being the Union's position at the time that the grievance was filed.
In addition, the College took the position in its pre-hem'ing brief that "the grievance. . ,
is incorrect in requesting retroactivity to Mm'ch 1, 2007." The parties agreed at the
hem'ing that neither of these issues would be addressed at present, but that I would retain
jurisdiction and would reconvene the hearing to deal with such matters at the request of
either party.
Subject to the above comments, there were no objections with respect to the
arbitrability of the grievance or to my jurisdiction to hear and determine it.
The PDP Position Summmy describes the "overall purpose" of the grievor's
position as follows:
The incumbent is a front line resource to students, staff and the
Community and works as part of the Academic Team and is responsible
3
for initiating, developing and implementing a variety of administrative
support functions, including planning, support and liaison functions.
Providing primary secretarial support to the Academic programs, the
incumbent interacts with students, Coordinators, Faculty, and the Dean,
the Registral"s Office and various other College departments, as well as
external contacts.
The Duties and Responsibilities section of the PDF indicates that twenty per cent
ofthe position's time is spent providing "Daily Support for Academic Office," twenty per
cent is devoted to "Secretarial SUppOlt to Committees/Special Events," forty per cent is
allocated to "Academic Program Support," fifteen per cent to "RepOlts/Survey," and five
per cent to "Other duties as assigned."
The grievor reports to the Dean, Hospitality and Tourism, Mr, Joseph Fruchter.
ANALYSIS AND PROBLEM SOLVING
The Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual ("the Manual") states that this factor
{{measures the level of complexity involved in analyzing situations, information or
problems of vmying levels of difficulty; and in developing options, solutions or other
actions." The Notes to Raters direct as follows:
Consideration must be given to the types of situations that arise and:
how situations, analytical requirements or problems are defined
the range of choice of action within the scope of the job
the level and type of investigation required
how complex or multi-faceted issues or problems are
from which sources assistance is obtained.
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring, and the Union seeks
a regular and recurring rating at level 3.
The Manual defines level 2 analysis and problem solving as follows:
Situations and problems ate easily identifiable. Analysis 01' problem
solving is straightforward. Solutions may require modification of existing
alternatives or past practices.
'{Analysis" is defined as "to separate into parts and examine them in relation to
basic principles to determine how they fit together or cause the problem." "Past
practices" is also a defined term meaning '{to perform work according to how it has
4
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."
The Manual defines level 3 analysis and problem solving as follows:
Situations and problems are identifiable, but may require fmther inquilY in
order to define them precisely, Solutions require the analysis and
collection of infOlmation, some of which may be obtained fi'om areas or
resources which are not normally used by the position.
The Duties and Responsibilities section of the PDF indicates that forty per cent of
the incumbent's time is spent providing academic program support, including acting as a
front-line departmental program resource for walk-in inquiries, responding to program-
specific inquiries, providing assistance to students, and acting as a contact person
{{resolving routine problems of Faculty and students relating to timetables, grades,
Registrar's office enquiries, room bookings and computer queries."
The grievor acknowledged that some situations and problems encountered in her
position are "easily identifiable," She also described, however, that she deals with many
{{new and unique" issues, where there are no applicable past practices or guidelines to
assist her.
The parties both considered a number of examples in addressing the level of
analysis and problem solving required in the grievor's position.
They described the grievor's involvement in arranging for the administration of
Key Performance Indicators ("KPI") surveys. The College recognized the grievor's
involvement in such task, but emphasized that all aspects of the KPI survey process are
provincially mandated, Therefore, while the grievor makes the necessmy arrangements
with Faculty and students for the administration of the KPI survey during class time, the
College disputed that there is any level 3 analysis and problem solving required in doing
so. The Union did not dispute the College's characterization of the grievor's duties with
respect to the KPI survey. It suggested, however, that the challenges encountered in
al1'anging for the survey to be conducted so as to ensure maximum student participation
are such that level 3 problem solving is required. By way of example, the Union noted
that the grievor would take into account whether a given course is mandatory or optional
for a program. It further noted that the grievor would consider that it would be preferable
5
to schedule the survey in a 10 a,m, class rather than in an 8 a.m. class on a Janumy
morning so as to maximize the chance of full participation.
The PDF contains as an example of another "key issue or problem encountered"
the inability of a Faculty member to enter on the Student Information System (Banner) a
final mark for a student where the student's name does not appear on the class list. I note
that although this example is characterized in the PDF as regular and recurring, both
parties at the hearing characterized it as "infrequently" encountered.
The Union addressed this example in some detail in its pre-hearing brief, stating
as follows:
Student information can be obtained from collection and analysis,
however as each piece of information is obtained a decision is made to
explore a new or unusual course of action so that the problem can be
fixed. In this example information gathered led to a part-time faculty
teaching in another academic area of the College to be contacted;
explanations and discussion took place, which resulted in arrangements
being made to have the appropriate grade entered for the student.
The Union emphasized at the hearing that the part-time Faculty member contacted by the
grievor was not someone with whom she would normally work. It did not dispute the
College's suggestion, however, that she regularly contacts different Faculty members and
departments in the course of her duties. The Union also explained at the hearing that it
may be necessary for the grievor to review multiple screens in order to resolve problems.
It suggested that the decision to proceed from one screen to the next reflects level 3
analysis and problem solving. The College disputed that the grievor's access to several
screens renders the analytical task any more complex.
The PDF also sets out as a regular and recurring example of analysis and problem
solving in the grievor's position a student advising that he is unable to register for a
course. While the Dean of Hospitality and Tourism, Mr. Fruchter, suggested that there
are few possible explanations to be considered in addressing such problem, the Union
maintained that there are a number of potential reasons accounting for inability to
register. The grievor noted that it may be necessary in some instances to request that
registration caps be lifted. The Union argued that level 3 analysis and problem solving is
required.
6
Also set out in the PDP as a regular and recurring example is contact by a student
upset because of receipt of a failing grade. According to the PDF, the grievor verifies the
student's grade in the Student Information System, determines the steps the student has
taken to address the issue, and advises the student with respect to the College's appeal
process.
The PDF includes as an occasional example of analysis and problem solving,
"Documentation required for insertion in provincial proposal was not readily available."
The grievor described the role she played in compiling documentation required by the
College for purposes of a Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board
("PEQAB") application. Specifically, the grievor addressed the need to contact others
when she determined that a required policy was unavailable. The College spoke of the
PEQAB process, and described that the PEQAB appoints a committee that visits the
College. The Dean explained that the College is told when the committee will visit, who
the committee wishes to see, the order in which such persons are to be seen, and what
documentation must be submitted by the College. While the Dean noted that the grievor
was {{velY helpful" in this process, he emphasized that the required process is prescribed
in detail. In the College's submission, there is no need for level 3 analysis and problem
solving in performing the necessmy tasks. Where a policy proved to be unavailable, the
Dean indicated that the Vice-President of Degree ~tudies would have been so advised
and would have ensured that the problem was rectified,
The PDP sets out as a final occasional example of analysis and problem solving
the situation encountered by the grievor's position where a Coordinator advises that a
course outline appearing on the website is incorrect The PDF describes the grievor's
role in advising the Coordinator of the applicable policies and procedures so that the
problem can be rectified,
In its pre-hearing submission, the College addressed the analysis and problem
solving factor as follows:
As described in the PDF . . " the problems encountered by the position m'e
readily identifiable and the analysis required is straightforward. In most of
the examples, the problem is brought to the Grievor's attention by a
student or staff member, Analysis is limited to providing information
which is accessible to or known by the Grievor; problems which are more
complex are solved by the Registrm"s Office or a faculty member. In
7
addition, regularly occurring questions and problems can be handled using
past practices which have been developed over time.
While the College accepted that some of the examples addressed in these
proceedings contemplate a requirement to seek infonnation, it suggested that information
resources such as the Student Information System, online resources, and the Registrar's
office are well known and readily available, and that any "related analysis" is
straightforward.
I have considered the pmties' submissions in the context of the Manual level
definitions and the Notes to Raters, Of particular assistance is the following Note:
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. (emphasis added) 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 grievor struck me as a conscientious employee who prides herself on being
helpful to those seeking her assistance in solving problems. The Manual is clear,
however, that "it is the position that is being evaluated and not the individual." (at p, 7)
In my view, the exmnples of analysis and problem solving addressed by the pmties reflect
{'easily identifiable" situations and problems, for which the required "analysis or problem
solving is straightforward." I am not convinced by the Union that the situations and
problems encountered in the position are "identifiable," but "require further inquhy in
order to define them precisely." Similarly, I am not satisfied that the solutions to such
problems require "analysis and collection of information, some of which may be obtained
from areas or resources which are not normally used by the position."
8
I confirm the College's rating of this factor at level 2 regular and recuning, and
see no basis upon which an occasional rating at level 3 should be awarded.
PLANNING/COORDINA TING
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring, and the Union seeks
a rating of level 3, regular and recUl1'ing.
The Manual defines level 2 planning and coordinating as follows:
{{Plan/coordinate activities and resources to complete own work and achieve overlapping
deadlines." Level 3 planning and coordinating is defined in the following manner:
"Plan/coordinate activities, information or material to enable completion of tasks and
events, which affect the work schedule of other employees." The parties' dispute here
focused on whether or not the planning and coordinating functions of the grievor's
position {{affect" the work schedule of other employees. The Manual defines "affect" as
follows: "to produce a material influence upon 01' alteration in." The Notes to Raters are
of assistance in considering the applicable factor definitions. They indicate that at 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. . .. The position may coordinate or make arrangements for an event by
coordinating the calendars of others." The Notes state that level 3 planning and
coordinating is such that {'the position decides the order and selects or adapts methods for
many work assignments. Typically, the planning and coordination at this level, which
affects the work schedule of others, are requests for materials/information by specific
deadlines in order for the position to plan events or activities (e.g. conferences, research
projects, upgrading hardware or software.)"
One of the regular and recurring examples found in the PDF is the grievor's role
in organizing the Dean's List Reception twice each year. This includes the arrangement
of the date in consultation with the Dean and with Faculty, the booking of a room
including refreshments, the running of the necessmy reports, the preparation of
certificates and the sending of invitations. The Union suggested that the grievor {{affects
the work schedule" of those employees in the Georgian Dining Room responsible for the
preparation and serving of food at the function, The College argued, however, that the
Georgian Room staff is the College's experts in "running events," and that to the extent
9
that the grievor books an event, she does not {{affect their work schedules" as that is the
nature of the Georgian Room's day to day business.
The PDF also includes as a regular and recurring example of the planning and
coordinating functions of the grievor's position, her role in the KPI Survey process. The
PDF refers to the position's involvement in selecting appropriate program sections,
contacting Faculty to arrange a suitable time for survey, and coordinating the time with
students hired to administer the survey. The grievor indicated that the administration of
the SUl'vey takes approximately twenty to thirty minutes, and the parties agreed that it is
administered two or three times per year. The parties did not address whether or not
students administering or completing the survey are {'other employees" within the level 3
definition.
A third regular and recurring example of planning and coordinating activities
included in the PDF is the role of the Academic Program Assistant in maintaining current
program and course curriculum in the Student Information System, and in prompting
Faculty and cU11'iculum committees with upcoming deadlines for submission of
information, The Union commented as follows in its pre-hearing submission:
In Example 3 the course outlines and program outlines m'e required to' be
submitted by a predetermined date to ensure that they are properly
reflected in the College promotional material being printed and posted for
the public and prospective students. The position organizes and prompts
faculty and curriculum committees to review and effect changes to comply
with preset deadlines.
Occasional examples of planning and coordinating found in the PDF include the
role of the grievor's position in scheduling those individuals making presentations to the
PEQAB committee. It is clear that it is the PEQAB committee that set the date for such
meeting, directed who it would see, and the order in which it was to see the various
individuals appearing before it. Once the agenda was set, the PDF indicates that changes
were then implemented by the grievor to accommodate the schedules of committee
members. The grievor suggested that the planning and coordinating role that she played
affected the work schedule of everyone in the department for the day of the committee's
visit to the College.
10
The PDP also references as an occasional example of planning and coordinating
the role of the grievor's position in organizing and maintaining files and keeping current
articulation agreements.
In addition to the examples set out in the PDF, the grievor described at the hearing
the work she undertook at an unspecified time in the past in organizing work space for
part-time faculty. While the Dean acknowledged that the "grievor always has great
suggestions," he noted that the organization of this work space was a one time task
performed some time in the past.
In addressing the various examples before me, I am not satisfied by the Union that
they demonstrate plmming and coordinating which '{affect" as defined the work schedules
of other employees. The Manual is clear that "affect" means to produce "a material
influence upon or alteration in." While the Union described planning and coordinating
activities engaged in by the grievor's position, it did not, in my view, demonstrate that
these '{materially" influenced the work schedule of others,
In reaching such conclusion, I have carefully considered the third regular and
recurring example in the PDF in particular, in light of the applicable Notes to Raters.
Such example deals with the position's role in prompting faculty and curriculum
committees to submit changes to program or course outlines. The College sought to
characterize this role as one of simply communicating preset deadlines once 01' twice per
year. The PDF {s clear, however, that maintaining the CUlTent course program in the
Student Information System is a regular and recurring activity, and that the grievor's
position communicates deadlines and is responsible for ensuring that materials are
received, The Notes indicate that "typically, the planning and coordination at this level,
(level 3) which affects the work schedule of others, are requests for materials. . , by
specific deadlines in order for the position to plan events or activities. . , ," Having
considered the submissions of the parties, I cannot conclude, however, that the grievor's
role in prompting others to submit changes to program or course outlines by applicable
deadlines "affects" 01' "produces a material influence upon or alteration in" the work
schedules of other employees,
I confirm the regular and recurring rating of level 2 for this factor, and find that
there is no basis upon which an occasional rating should be awarded.
11
INDEPENDENCE OF ACTION
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recUlTing, and the Union seeks
a regular and recurring rating at level 3.
The Manual states that the following elements should be considered when rating
independence of action:
the types of decisions that the position makes
what aspects of the tasks are decided by the position on its own 01'
what is decided by, or in consultation with, someone else, such as the
supervisor
the rules; procedures, past practice and guidelines that are available to
provide guidance and direction
Level 2 independence of action is defined in the Manual as follows:
Position duties are completed according to established procedures.
Decisions are made following specific guidelines. Changes may be made
to work routine(s),
{{Procedure" is defined as '{a sequence of steps to perform a task or activity," and
"guideline" is defined as "a statement of policy or principle by which to determine a
course of action."
The Manual defines level 3 independence of action 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,
"Process" is a defined term in the Manual, signifying ('a senes of activities,
changes 01' functions to achieve a result."
The Notes to Raters are of assistance in clarifying the distinction between level 2
and 3 ratings:
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 01' objectives that must be accomplished are pre-
determined by others. The position has the ability to select the process(es)
to achieve the end result, usually with the assistance of general guidelines.
The position has the autonomy to make decisions within these parameters.
12
I have no difficulty in accepting that, in some instances, the grievor's position
requires independence of action properly rated at level 2, insofar as "duties are completed
according to established procedures," and {{decisions are made following specific
guidelines" such as the various policies, procedures and guidelines referenced in the PDF.
When considering the grievor's duties and responsibilities as a whole, however,
the Union has convinced me that a level 2 rating does not properly capture the
independence of action required in her position.
The parties described in some detail the role played by the grievor in organizing
the Dean's List Reception twice each year, a role that is characterized as regular and
recurring in the Planning/Coordinating section of the PDF.
The College noted in its pre-hearing brief, that the grievor stated that she IS
assigned the task of setting up such events and is told to {<just make it happen." I
recognize and accept that the initial proposal to organize such a reception was subject to
the approval of the Dean, and that likewise, certain key pm'ameters within which the
reception is organized, such as budgetmy constraints, are also determined by the Dean
and not by the grievor, The College suggested in its brief that although it accepts that
such function demonstrates "some freedom of action" on the grievor's part, that the
parameters within which she makes decisions are {{fairly rigid."
Having considered the grievor's description of her role in organizing the Dean's
List Reception, however, I am convinced by the Union that a level 3 rating would be
more appropriate. I recognize that the grievor's actions in performing this function are
constrained by the Dean's decisions, and that she does not determine the overall general
parameters within which the reception must be organized. Rather, in the words of the
Notes to Raters, {{the specific results or objective that must be accomplished are pre~
determined by others." In organizing the reception within such parameters, however, the
grievor's task in '{making it happen" nonetheless requires of her the performance of
duties "according to general processes" and decision making {'following general
guidelines to determine how tasks should be completed," As addressed in the Notes to
Raters, she has the ability to ({select the process(es) to achieve the end result," and {<the
autonomy to make decisions" within the parameters of the {<specific results or objectives"
predetermined elsewhere. The grievor spoke, for example, of the need to determine who
13
is eligible to attend such receptions, of the steps she initially took to ensure that the
necessary report was created, and of the need for her to learn how to run such report. The
parties described as well the grievor's role in designing certificates, in preparing
appropriate letters and invitations, and in making necessary arrangements for rooms and
refreshments. Clearly the Dean makes key decisions regarding the organization of the
reception and the grievor must operate within those limitations, The Union has
nonetheless demonstrated in my view that the grievor has the ability Hto select the
pl'Ocess(es) to achieve the end result, usually with the assistance of general guidelines,"
and she {{has the autonomy to make decisions within these parameters."
The parties both addressed as well the grievor's role in preparing the Tips for
Students and Tips for Faculty manuals each year, a task reflected in the Duties and
Responsibilities section of the PDF, The Union addressed this function in its pre-hearing
brief as follows:
When creating Tips for Faculty and Tips for Students each academic year
the incumbent collects data, researches pertinent information and decides
content. The document is independently created and distributed to the
department. Decisions concerning content are made within the parameters
of guidelines provided and a process to collect and maintain ongoing
information has been implemented.
Examples of the manuals were included with the College's pre-hearing brief and
both appear to be informative resources which one would expect would be useful for
Faculty and students.
Mr. Fruchter emphasized that each booklet is the result of collaboration and input
fi'om many, and suggested that the grievor Hputs it together in a nice fOlTI1at." He
indicated that if the grievor decided to insert something new when updating the manuals
each year, he expected that she would consult him if it was "something unusual." The
College suggested as well that much of the information ultimately included in the
manuals is found in other College publications.
After considering the Union's position here, however, I am satisfied that this
example too reflects independence of action beyond that reflected in a level 2 rating. The
grievor described in some detail the process she undeliakes in researching and in
collecting information from other departments, colleges and universities, in deciding
14
what information should be included, in writing and in ultimately finalizing these
materials. There is no doubt that the grievor seeks collaboration and input from others,
and that other College publications are useful resources for her. Further, I recognize that
the Union did not dispute the College's suggestion that the grievor would consult with the
Dean before making {{unusual" revisions. I am nonetheless convinced that the
generation, design and preparation of these manuals involve independence of action
better captured in a level 3 rating.
The PDF includes as a regular and recurring {'type of decision that would be
decided by the incumbent" the organization and/or scheduling of the Hday-to-day
operation of the department initiating activities of Facultylcoordinators." The Position
Summary in the PDF also states that the incumbent is {{responsible for initiating,
developing and implementing a variety of administrative support functions, including
planning, support and liaison functions,"
The College characterized the grievor's role as one of issuing reminders of tasks
and deadlines as governed by the academic planning calendar. After hearing the grievor
describe her role more fully, however, it is clear that this is only a partial picture. The
grievor spoke of and offered examples of the need to consider and determine when it is
appropriate to send "prompts" to departmental coordinators not limited to the mere
reiteration of pre-determined deadlines and dates. She described, for example, the need to
decide when she should run a report from the Banner system and give it to a coordinator
with a suggestion that he or she '{take a look at it" to address registration issues reflected
therein, She described as well the need to initiate contact with coordinators regarding
their orientation plans, to prompt them to advise her of room booking requirements.
Although the grievor organizes and/or schedules the Hday-to-day operation of the
department initiating activities of Facultylcoordinators" through reminding others of
predetermined deadlines, I am satisfied by the Union that the role she plays goes beyond
this and also requires the completion of duties "according to general processes" with
decisions made "following general guidelines to determine how tasks should be
completed."
I am of the view that independence of action should be rated at level 3, regular
and recun'ing; and I so order.
15
SERVICE DELIVERY
The College rated this factor at level 2, while the Union argued that it should be
rated at level 3.
The Manual states:
This factor looks at the service relationship that is an assigned requirement
of the position. It considers the required manner in which the position
delivers service to customers and not the incumbent's interpersonal
relationship with those customers. . ,. The level of service looks at more
than the normal anticipation of what customers want and supplying it
efficiently. It considers how the request for service is received. . .. It
then looks at the degree to which the position is required to design and
fulfil the service requirement.
Level 2 service delivelY is defined in the Manual as the provision of Hservice
according to specifications by selecting the best method of delivering service," while
level 3 is defined as to {{tailor service based on developing a full understanding of the
customer's needs."
{'Tailor" is defined in the Manual as "to modify or adapt with special attention in
order to customize it to a specific requirement." The Notes to Raters state that
{Hcustomers' refers to the people or groups of people who receive the services delivered
by the position. They can be internal, students or external to the College."
The Notes to Raters distinguish between level 2 and 3 ratings ofthis factor as
follows:
Level 2- service 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. . . .
Level 3 refers to the need to Htailor service" This means that in order for
the position to provide the right type of service, he/she must ask questions
to develop an understanding of the customer's situation. 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.
16
The Union's position was that the grievor {'tailors" the service she provides to the
many Hcustomers" with whom she deals. The grievor explained that she must "tailor" the
information communicated to those who make inquiries or request service, depending
upon the question asked and the person asking the question.
The Union focused on one of the examples included in the PDF relating to an
inquhy from a student missing a course required to graduate. The PDF states: '{Incumbent
researches options available (ie: taken at night through part-time studies, through online
delivelY or through another institution) and provides the customized information to the
student." The College's position was that the grievor responds to such inquiry through
accessing the Banner system to determine when the course is offered. and passes along
that information to the inquiring student. It suggested that although the grievor must be
knowledgeable about the different possible options, she cannot create or in any way
modify the available options.
I have considered the other examples of service delivery set out in the PDF,
including the need for the grievor to respond to inquiries regarding program
requirements, the need to advise Faculty on process and deadlines, receiving a request
from the Dean to organize a separate Convocation Reception for graduating students, and
receiving a request to arrange accommodations in Barrie hotels for PEQAB
representatives visiting the College,
The College addressed the vanous PDF examples 111 its pre-hearing brief as
follows:
In the examples provided in the PDF, this position provides service in the
form of answering, questions about the program and course, alerting
faculty and other staff to academic deadlines. coordinating an event, or
arranging for accommodations for a visiting review board. In each case,
the incumbent is choosing which options will best satisfy the request.
When answering inquiries, the Grievor must answer the questions asked;
this is clearly not the definition of Htailoring" as it is not possible to
{{substantially modify what is delivered to suit the customer's particular
circumstances," If a question is asked about admissions, the answer is
related to admissions; if the question is on when a course will next be
offered. the position looks up the information and provides it. The
position does not have the authority to create another course in response to
the customer's question or to change the admissions procedure. The
position is providing information. It is accurate to say that the position
17
must sometimes probe for more infonuation when asked a question as the
student or client may not ask the right question to get the information they
want. However, this does not meet the definition of "tailoring service" in
the Job Evaluation Manual. Providing infOlmation on deadlines is also
straightforward communications and does not involve {{substantially
modifying what is delivered." The deadlines are created by other
departments or the Deans.
In the final two examples in the PDF, the incumbent organizes a reception
and arranges accommodation for guests. The reception organized is for
graduating students at Convocation . . " This example shows that the
position follows guidelines and chooses from available options. When
accommodating guests, the position detelmines needs, researches options
available in Barrie and then makes arrangements. This example reflects
that the position is choosing from available options as the position is not
able to substantially change hotel accommodation availability for the
guests,
In addition to the PDF examples, I have considered the grievor's description at the
hearing of a one time situation she encountered when a student's mother arrived in her
office concemed after having been unable to locate her daughter for some time, The
grievor personally located the student in issue and requested that she contact the mother.
After having considered the examples of service delivelY set out in the PDF and
addressed by the parties, I am not convinced by the Union that the grievor is required to
"tailor service" as contemplated by the level 3 factor definition, Rather, in my view, the
examples demonstrate that the grievor must know the options available when faced with
a customer inquily and must be able to explain them. She provides service by
determining which option {{would best suit the needs of the customer," but has little or no
ability to change the available options. Further, I see no basis upon which I could
conclude that an occasional level 3 rating for this factor should be awarded.
I confirm the regular and recurring rating of this factor at level 2.
COMMUNICATION
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring, and the Union
argues that a level 3, regular and recurring rating should be awarded.
The Manual defines level 2 communication as follows: "Communication
involves the exchange of infonnation that requires explanation and/or interpretation,"
18
Level 3 communication is defined in the following manner: '{Communication involves
explaining and/or interpreting information to secure understanding. May involve
communicating technical information and advice." {{Explain" and "interpree' are defined
terms.
The Notes to Raters are of assistance in understanding the distinction between
level 2 and level 3 ratings, They state as follows:
"Explain" and "interpretation" in level 2 refers to the fact that it is
information or data which needs to be explained or clarified. The position
exchanges basic teclmical or administrative information as the normal
course ofthe job. . . .
"Explain" and "interpretation" in level 3 refers to the need to explain
matters by interpreting policy or theOlY in such a way that it is fully
understood by others. The position must consider the communication
level/skill of the audience and be sensitive to their abilities and/or
limitations. At this level, if the exchange is of a technical nature, then
usually the audience is not fully conversant or knowledgeable about the
subject matter. Unlike communicating with people who share an
understanding of the concepts, in this situation the material has to be
presented using words or examples that make the information
understandable for non-experts or people who are not familiar with the
intricacies of the information.
The grievor stated that she is required to interpret and explain College policies
and procedures to new Faculty and to students, and that it is necessmy in doing so, to
consider the skill level of the audience. She noted that some students have language
baniers or learning disabilities, and that this may present communication challenges. She
described by way of example an international student who spoke with hel'; concerned that
he would not be able to continue with school. The grievor indicated that this student had
experienced academic difficulties the previous semester, and that she explained relevant
policies and procedures to him, and emphasized that it was necessary for him to improve
his marks through working harder.
The College indicated that it is the grievor's responsibility to explain and to
answer questions regarding routine departmental processes and procedures, such as
questions peltaining to deadlines or use of the photocopier. Dean Fruchter explained that
Coordinators meet with pmt-time Faculty prior to each semester to review policies and
procedmes, and that meetings are held during the year to address issues that m'ise,
19
Dean Fruchter stated that staff meetings are held two or three times each year.
The grievor attends such meetings, and she indicated that she speaks of general
procedures at such meetings. The Dean explained that the grievor speaks for five or ten
minutes, thanks Faculty, and asks what the office can do to improve the service it offers.
She may raise issues of concern such as staff not keeping on-line schedules up to date.
The parties also addressed the role played by the grievor in explaining the Banner
system to part-time Faculty. The grievor indicated that there are thirty to forty part-time
Faculty in the department each semester, some new and some returning. Many have no
teaching experience and require explanations regarding use of systems such as Banner.
The grievor offers such assistance, and explains to part-time Faculty the importance of
entering grades on time. The College's position at the hearing and as set out in its pre~
hearing brief was that the grievor shares {'basic user information on how to navigate
through College systems . . . ." The College indicated at the hearing that the grievor
would primarily explain how to enter grades in the system and how to print class lists.
Also addressed at the hearing was an example of the grievor speaking with a
student concerned about whether or not he had enough credits to graduate. The grievor
explained that she accessed the student record and reviewed it. According to the Union's
preRhearing brief, in such a situation the grievor '{will sit with a student and review a
transcript to ensure they have a clear understanding of the documentation so they can
assess their graduation status." The College noted in its brief that Coordinators make
academic decisions relating to graduation status, but that the grievor explains the
pertinent process so that the student in question would know what documentation would
be needed when he meets with the Coordinator.
I have considered the examples addressed by the parties. The College emphasized
throughout its submission that the communication required of the grievor's position is not
technical in nature, with some suggestion that this precluded a level 3 rating. I note that
the level 3 factor definition contained in the Manual states that communication at such
level "may involve" technical information and advice, and I agree with the Union that the
non-technical nature of the information communicated is not in itself determinative of the
rating here.
20
That said, having considered the various examples of communication in light of
the factor definitions and the Notes to Raters, the Union has not demonstrated that the
grievor is required to communicate at level 3, on either a regular and recUlTing or
occasional basis. Rather, I am satisfied that the grievor's position communicates in a way
that '(involves the exchange of information that requires explanation and/or
interpretation,') and that the position "exchanges basic technical or administrative
information as the normal course of the job. . . ."
I confirm the College's rating of this factor at level 2, regular and recurring.
CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, the grievance is allowed in part.
I order that the College amend the rating of the independence of action factor in
accordance with my findings set out herein. As a result, the grievor's position of
Academic Program Assistant in the Hospitality and Tourism Department is to be
classified at Payband E. I make no determination at this time of the grievor's claim for
retroactive compensation, but remit such issue to the parties as requested at the hearing. I
retain jurisdiction to address and determine such question, however, and to otherwise
assist the parties in the implementation of this Award.
DATED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO TIllS 9th day of July) 2009.
m~~
,
Mary Lou Tims
Arbitrator