HomeMy WebLinkAboutTitus 09-12-29
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
between
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
and
Fanshawe College
Classification Grievance of Charles Titus
________________________________________________________________________
Before: Louis M. Tenace
For The Union: Marg Rae, Local 109
André Savoie, Advisor
Charles Titus, Grievor
For the College: Julie McQuire, Human Resources Consultant
Wayne Sippola, Assistant Manager, Mechanical/Electrical Systems
Deb Grove, Human Resources Consultant
Heard in London, Ontario on December 21, 2009
2
AWARD
The grievor, Charles Titus, has been employed at Fanshawe College since December
6,1976 where he began as an apprentice electrician. He went on to obtain a construction
and Maintenance licence, including the Interprovincial Seal and Industrial Controls. In
August 1988, he obtained an Industrial Electrician Licence. He has also graduated from
Fanshawe?s Network Cabling Programme. Besides being certified in Fibre Optics
installation and testing, he is one of four persons at Fanshawe with the Fire Alarm
certification. He is the sole employee responsible for the installation, programming,
maintenance and administration of the Paradox and Protégé intrusion alarm systems, the
Bosch and Omnicast camera systems and the Ccure card access systems. Also, he does
some of the actual fire alarm work as well as conducting the fire alarm drills and the
training for the Emergency Response Teams. He is currently classified at payband level
G as a Security Systems Specialist.
He filed his grievance on March 14, 2007 seeking to be reclassified to payband level J.
Although there were some issues with respect to the appropriate Position Description
Form (PDF) and of the fact that the proper PDF was not given to the Union until the Step
1 grievance meeting, this did not present any obstacle during the course of the hearing as
the parties agreed that the differences between the two were not significant.
One of the factors in dispute,1B (Education), was resolved prior to the hearing. The
remaining factors to be resolved are as follows: 2 (Experience); (Guiding/Advising
Others; 6 (Independence of Action); 7 (Service Delivery); 8 (Communication). These are
set out in detail below:
2. Experience:
Management Rating is Level 4, 54 points
Union Rating is Level 5, 59 points
The dispute between the parties is whether there is a requirement for 3 years or 5 years of
experience, in addition to the necessary education level, to perform the responsibilities of
the position. The Job Evaluation Manual (JEM) states that this factor ?refers only to the
time needed to gain the necessary skill?. It does not equate with the total experience of
the incumbent. In this case, there is no question that the incumbent has a very broad and
useful experience which, no doubt, enhances his ability to perform his duties. It was also
amply demonstrated to me that the incumbent performs his duties very well and that a
new employee with a less broad experience might not perform the full range of duties
quite so well. Unquestionably, more experience is usually preferable. But this factor
seeks to identify what is the minimum experience needed in prior positions. In the
absence of any convincing evidence that 5 years of experience was essential, I must agree
with management?s determination for this factor. However, I would point out that the
Union indicated to me that the College had raised the Experience requirement for
Electricians from 3 years to 5 years as is being requested by the grievor. While I am not
in a position to make a ruling on this matter, I am somewhat perplexed by this decision.
3
The rating for Experience remains unchanged at Level 4, 54 points.
5. Guiding/Advising Others:
Management Rating is Level 1, 5 points for
Regular/Recurring and Level 2, 3 points for
Occasional
Union Rating is Level 2, 17 points for
Regular/recurring and Level 3, 3 points for
Occasional
The College is of the view that the incumbent has only a minimal requirement to
guide/advise others and that this does not go much beyond explaining procedures to
peers, employees or students and by way of assisting contractors in understanding various
schematics at the College. The incumbent does not supervise anyone. The Union, on the
other hand, believes that the incumbent does far more than simply explain procedures.
For example, it is alleged that the incumbent is frequently required to advise contractors
on where to place equipment and, in some cases, about the precise equipment to install.
The Union also advanced the argument that the Electricians had recently been upgraded
to Level 2, 17 points (Regular /Recurring) and Level 3, 3 points (Occasional) for this
factor.
On the basis of the evidence heard, I am convinced that the incumbent?s duties require
more than providing ?details or examples to help others better understand the
information?. It seems obvious to me that the incumbent has a direct involvement in the
effectiveness of the final product being installed. He is the individual who meets with and
advises and works closely with the contractors who install the equipment. The grievor
offered a multitude of examples whereby the appropriate end result would not have been
achieved without his direct involvement.
The argument was advanced that the Electricians had been recently upgraded for this
factor to the level being sought by the grievor. Given the nature of the work of Electrician
and the PDF for this position, I feel obligated to note that I have some difficulty
appreciating that the College has seen fit to upgrade the Electricians in this regard but not
the grievor. However, I am not in a position to make any recommendation based on this
observation.
I prefer the Union?s rating for Guiding/Advising Others which is Level 2, 17 points
(Regular/Recurring) and Level 3, 3 points (Occasional).
6. Independence of Action:
Management Rating is Level 2, 46 points
Union Rating is Level 4, 110 points
It is agreed that the incumbent generally receives his instructions through work orders or
direct assignments from his supervisor. Major projects are overseen by a Project
Coordinator. According to management, the incumbent selects neither the type of
4
security system to be installed nor its location; such matters are usually pre-determined
by the use of the room, the needs of the end users, the project coordinator or the
supervisor. The incumbent is free to choose the type of device, wiring layout and the
various verification tests to be performed post-installation.
The Union contends that the PDF clearly states that the ?incumbent generally organizes
and undertakes assignments independently, within the College?s health and safety
policies and Ontario code requirements?. The Union contends further that JEM states for
Level 4 that ?the only parameters or constraints that are in place to guide the position?s
decision-making are ?industry practices? for the occupation and/or departmental policies.
It was further argued that the incumbent was left to make most decisions since no other
employee totally knew or could perform the job.
The parties are far apart on their rating for this factor. I am not surprised as it is the one
causing me the most difficulty. There is no question that the grievor is in a unique
position. He has an impressive background in several related areas and he is obviously a
very capable, trusted, reliable and conscientious employee. But, we are rating the position
and not the incumbent. It is true that there are ?industry practices? to guide him in his
work. But they are not the only constraints. He does operate through work orders which
can, at times, be very specific about precisely what must be undertaken. He does consult
with his supervisor on a variety of issues as well as with contractors as required. He does
not choose where to install a security system or the type of system to be installed.
Undoubtedly, because of his knowledge, he is frequently consulted on such matters but
such issues are usually predetermined before the work commences. Management, in its
submission, has stated that the incumbent ?does have the freedom to choose the type of
device, layout of wiring (run out through the ceiling to a closet in the hall etc.) and tests
to be performed to check operation.?
Notes to Raters
The in the JEM for Level 3 reads as follows: specific results or
objectives that must be accomplished are pre-determined by others. The position has the
ability to select the process(es) to achieve the end result, usually with the assistance of
general guidelines. The position has the autonomy to make decisions within these
parameters. It seems to me that Level 3 is the best fit to reflect the duties of this position.
I believe that Level 4 as requested by the grievor is excessive. I do not agree that these
industry practices as outlined in the JEM are the only constraints upon the incumbent.The
reference to ?industry practices? with respect to this position reflects, in my opinion, only
one aspect of the nature of the work. In my view, Level 3 is consistent with both the PDF
and the JEM. I do not agree that Level 2 is appropriate. In my view, it undervalues the
PDF.
The rating for Independence of Action is amended to Level 3, 78 points.
7. Service Delivery:
Management Rating is Level 2, 29 points
Union Rating is Level 3, 51 points
5
The JEM states that ?This factor looks at the service relationship that is an essential
requirement of the position. It considers the required manner in which the position
delivers service to customers?.. It considers how the request for service is received?.. It
then looks at the degree to which the position is required to design and fulfill the service
requirement?.
A reading of the PDF shows that a request for service will usually come from an end user
(the facility user or customer) or from the manager/supervisor who determines the
requirement and allocates the task to the incumbent, usually through a work order. The
incumbent will then determine the appropriate method and materials needed to do the
work. The incumbent may also have to draw up schematics, plan for the installation and
carry out the work. According to the College, the incumbent is not required to overly
interact with or question the end user since repair/maintenance work is normally done on
the basis of need to resolve the problem or maintain operations. The incumbent provides
the service by ?selecting the best method of delivering the predetermined required
service?.
The Union, on the other hand, contends that the incumbent must communicate with the
customer to get a clear understanding of the customer?s needs and ?tailor? the work to be
done to the customer?s and system requirements.
Notes to Raters
The in the JEM for Level 2 states as follows: service is provided by
determining which option would best suit the needs of the customer. The incumbent must
know all 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. The note for Level 3 states
that it refers to the need to ?tailor 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 ...to customize the way the service is delivered or substantially
modify what is delivered so that it suits the customer?s particular circumstances. The
concept of ?tailoring? as outlined in the JEM, in my view, goes well beyond what is
required of the incumbent whose duties seem to fit well within the parameters of the
Notes to Raters
for Level 2. In my opinion, this is a ?best fit? situation.
The rating for Service Delivery remains unchanged at Level 2, 29 points.
8. Communication:
Management Rating is Level 2, 46 points for
Regular/Recurring and Level 3, 9 points for
Occasional
Union Rating if Level 3, 78 points for
Regular /Recurring and Level 4, 9 points for
Occasional
The JEM states that this factor measures the communications skills required by the
position, both verbal and written and includes
-communication to provide advice, guidance, information or training
-interaction to manage necessary transactions
6
-interpersonal skills to obtain and maintain commitment and influence the actions
of others
Written communication includes letters, reports, proposals or other documents.
Based on the contents of the PDF and of the evidence provided at the hearing, it seems
clear that the bulk of the incumbent?s communication requirements consists of dealings
with peers, supervisors and/or contractors. The Union agreed with this during the hearing.
It is difficult to dispute the fact that when dealing with supervisors and contractors, there
is a definite expectation of a commonality of language and technical competence, even
though in some rare cases, this may not be so. It was also stated that at times it was
necessary for the incumbent to explain or train students and various College personnel in
the use of certain alarm and/or card access systems. Understandably, this is not the
communication of highly technical information. There is no real need for most users to
understand the technical aspects and details of an alarm system or how to gain access
through a door using a swipe card or key fob.
Notes to Ratersin level 3
As set out in the JEM, , ?Explain? and ?interpretation? refers to
the need to explain matters by interpreting policy or theory in such a way that it is fully
level 2 ?
understood by others? whereas refers to the fact that it is information or data
which needs to be explained or clarified?. It is clear to me that Level 2 is the appropriate
one for this position.
Concerning the ?Occasional? rating for this position, I am satisfied Level 3 captures the
essence of the communication requirements for this position which is the explaining and
interpreting of information to secure understanding and, at times, it may involve
communicating technical information and advice.
The rating for Communication remains unchanged at Level 2, 46 points
(Regular/Recurring) and Level 3, 9 points (Occasional).
Summary:
The ratings for Factor 5 (Guiding/Advising Others) are amended to Level 2, 17 points
(Regular/Recurring) and Level 3, 3 points (Occasional);
The rating for Factor 6 (Independence of Action) is amended to Level 3, 78 points).
The Total Points are thus increased from 501 to 545 which situates the position within
payband H (520-579).
th
Signed in Ottawa, this 29 day of December 2009
Louis M. Tenace
7