HomeMy WebLinkAboutFair 10-02-24
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
MOHAWK COLLEGE
(lithe College II)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
C'the Union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF TERRY
FAIR (# 2008-0241-0008)
ARBITRATOR:
Ian Springate
APPEARANCES:
For the College:
Daniel Michaluk, Counsel
Sheila Walsh~ Director, HR Staff Services and
Support Staff Relations
For the Union:
Keith Bates, Spokesperson
Tracey-Ann Prokipczik, President, Local 241
HEARING: In Hamilton on Febluary 1, 2010
2
AWARD
INTRODUCTION
The grievor is employed as the College's Academic Systems Specialist. She is
responsible for designing, developing and implementing various software applications,
including ongoing database administration, technical SUPPOlt and user training. Her
primary focus is on the SUMMIT application which records and repOlts on faculty
workload. The grievor's supervisor is Mr. Cameron Houston, Director of Enrolment
Planning and RepOlting.
The College rates the grievor~ s position at payband I. On December 17, 2008 the
grievor submitted a grievance in which she claimed that it should be rated at payband K.
The College's ratings for all eleven job factors identified in the job evaluation
manual total 610 points, which is within the 580 to 639 point range for payband I. The
ratings proposed by the Union, including a new rating for independence of action
advanced on JanuaIY 7, 2010, would result in a total of 756 points. This would fall
within the 700 to 759 point range for payband K. The intervening payband J covers a
range of 640 to 699 points.
The parties agree on the proper ratings for only foul' job factors. Each of the other
seven factors is addressed separately below.
The Union takes issue with certain portions of a position description form ("PDF")
put forth by the College. This document was last revised by the College in January
2010. The Union objected strongly to the changes. In addition, the Union contended
that a version of the PDF dated April 17, 2008 should be utilized in these proceedings.
As noted below, I have relied on the language of the PDF where identical language was
included in the versions advanced both by the College and the Union. Where there was
a dispute about the language I have relied on the evidence provided at the hearing.
It is apparent from the evidence given at the hearing that the grievor is extremely
good at what she does. She performs her duties efficiently and effectively. During the
hearing both College counsel and Mr. Houston refel1'ed to the grievor as an expel1 on
the SUMMIT application. The job evaluation manual, however, states that when using
the manual "it is the position being evaluated and not the individual". It also states that
"raters must make a conscious effOlt not to let knowledge of a particular incumbent or
his/her performance influence evaluation decisions". This clearly indicates that the
meritorious manner in which the grievor perfOlms her duties is not a consideration when
rating her position.
3
PLANNING/COORDINATING
This factor measures the planning and/or coordinating requirements of a position.
The job evaluation manual notes that "this refers to the organizational and/or project
management skills required to bring together and integrate activities and resources
needed to complete tasks or organize events".
The College rates this factor at level 3, which is worth 56 points. The Union
argues for a level 4 rating, the highest rating possible, worth 80 points. The definitions
for the level 3 and level 4 ratings as well as the definitions of some of the telms used are
as follows:
3. Plan/coordinate activities, information or material to enable completion of
tasks and events, which affect the work schedule of other employees.
4. Plan/coordinate and integrate activities and resources for multifaceted
events, projects or activities involving other employees. This typically
involves modifying these individuals' priorities for activities/projects to meet
objectives.
Affect - to produce a material influence upon or alteration in.
Other employees - includes full-time, part-time, students, contractors.
Modify - to make basic or fundamental changes to give a new orientation to
or to serve a new end.
The job evaluation manual contains the following notes to raters designed to clarify
the differences between levels 3 and 4:
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, 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).
Level 4 - typical planning and coordination at this level involves multiple
inputs and complex tasks, frequently requiring the coordination of activities
01' resources of a number of depattments, such as a major campus renovation
or major technology upgrade. The position could be responsible for multiple,
4
concurrent major projects at the same time. At this level, the position ~~~
have the authority to require others to modify their schedules and prioritlCs.
At the hearing the grievor discussed the planning that goes into her work and the
impact of what she does on others. As discussed above, however, the manual describes
the planning/coordinating factor as refelTing to the organizational and/or project
management skills required to bring together and integrate activities and resources
needed to complete tasks or organize events. The actions of the grievor in planning her
own work and the impact of her work on others do not justify a level 4 rating.
The grievor referred to her role in training new users on the SUMMIT tool. She
noted that the times she schedules for training will impact on the schedules of others.
She submitted that it might result in staff not being able to meet their deadlines. The
grievor's actions in advising other staff of when a training session will be held might be
said to "affect" their work schedules as that term is defined in the manual, namely "to
produce a material influence' upon or alteration in". This fits within the criteria for a
level 3 rating. The level 4 note indicates that for the grievor's position to come within
the level 4 definition she would have to have the authority to require that others
"modify" their schedules and priorities. This telm is defined as making basic or
fundamental changes so as to give a new orientation or to serve a new end. Advising
someone of the time when they are to go for training cannot reasonably be regarded as
requiring that they fundamentally change their schedules or priorities.
The grievor referred at the hearing to her having to cope with conflicting demands,
including several departments wanting her to prepare reports and new staff, including
new deans, needing training. The note to raters with respect to a level 4 rating speaks of
an incumbent possibly being responsible "for multiple major projects at the same time."
The type of activities referred to by the grievor clearly give rise to conflicting time
pressures. They cannot, however, reasonably be regarded as involving multiple major
projects.
The union spokesperson contended that the grievor's tasks can be likened to the
major technology upgrades refelTed to in the note for level 4 since they have a major
impact on users. As already touched on, however, the thlust of this factor is not the
impact of a task on others but rather the planning and coordination required to complete
the task. The level 4 note indicates that that the type of task being considered, which
could be a major technology upgrade or major campus renovation, is one where the
planning/coordination involves multiple inputs and complex tasks and frequently
requires the coordination of activities 01' resources of a number of depattments. The
tasks perfOlmed by the grievor do not require that level of planning or coordination.
5
The grievor noted that at one time a co-op student had worked with her and she
took responsibility for overseeing his work. She said that this included changing the
student's priorities as necessary, such as when he was working on design changes and
she asked him to help her in assisting users. This role in directing the co-op a student's
activities could be said to have produced a material influence on or alteration in his
work schedule. Given the definition of "affect" in the manual this fits within the level 3
definition. The grievor's role with the co-op student cannot reasonably be viewed as
planning/coordinating and integrating activities and resources for multi-faceted events,
projects or activities involving other employees, which is what is required for a level 4
rating.
Having regard to the above considerations I confilm the level 3 rating assigned by
the College.
OillDING/ADVISING OTHERS
The job evaluation manual states that 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 expeltise. The manual notes that College support staff cannot
formally supervise others in the sense of hiring, firing or handling first step grievances
but staffmay be required to guide others using specific job expertise.
The College rated this factor at level 3 w01th 29. The Union argues for a level 4
rating worth 41 points. The job evaluation manual contains the following factor level
and word definitions:
3. Advise others to enable them to perform their day-to-day activities.
4. Guide/advise others with ongoing involvement in their progress.
Others - College employees (PT or PT), students.
Guide - demonstrates correct processes/procedures for the purpose of
assisting others with skill development and/or task completion.
Advise - has the authority to recommend, or provide knowledgeable
direction, regarding a decision or course of action.
6
Ongoing involvement - is intended to reflect a requirement to be
involved for the duration of the process or skill development, in which
the position is an active pal1icipant.
Notes to raters designed to clarify the differences between the levels read as follows:
Level 3 - this may be a position with a pal1icular area of expertise (e.g.
accounting), which uses that expeltise to assist others in completing their
tasks. Involvement is generally of an advisory nature and the position is
not responsible for how those advised subsequently complete their tasks.
Level 4 - this may be a position that, while not responsible for formal
supervision, is assigned to assist less experienced staff and is expected to
actively contribute to their ongoing skill development.
At the hearing the union contended that the grievor's role in training others on the
use of the SlTh1MIT' system and other software applications meets the criteria for a
level 4 rating since she ~guides and advises others. To meet the level 4 definition,
however, the gdevor must not only provide knowledgeable direction to others but also
have an ongoing involvement with their progress. The grievor contended that she does
have ongoing involvement with the progress of others because she is the contact person
who others come to when they have questions about the use of the SUMMIT tool, what
particular data means or when a depmtment requests remedial training.
The definition of "ongoing involvemenC in the manual refers to a need to be
involved as an active participant for the duration of a process or skill development. The
note to raters respecting a level 4 refers to actively contributing to ongoing skill
development. The grievor's training role does not involve that type of ongoing
involvement. Individuals might approach her more than once for assistance or training
but she is not involved with them on an on-going basis. Nor does she have an on-going
responsibility for their work or their skill development. A level 4 rating is not
appropriate.
At several points during the hearing the grievor referred to a period ending in
October 2009 when she was seconded into a different job. She indicated that while in
this other position she had provided guidance and assistance to the individual who took
over many of her regular functions. I accept the College's contention that the grievor's
role in assisting her temporary replacement while she was on secondment was an aspect
of the job that she was performing at the time and not a feature of her regular position
which is the subject matter of these proceedings.
7
Another relevant consideration concerns the employment of the co-op student.
This individual started in January 2006 and worked as a co-op student during both the
winter and summer terms. He retmned to class in September 2006 and was hired to
work on a part-time basis for the fall term, although he did not stay for the entire time.
Mr. Houston acknowledged at the hearing that this student had worked closely with the
grievor and learnt from her. He said that during this period he met with the grievor and
the student about how things were going. He also noted that he was the one who had
prepared and submitted a report to the Co-op Department with respect to the student's
progress.
Mr. Houston said at the hearing that there is no current expectation of having
another co-op student work with the grievor. He said that it would be difficult to find
someone with the requisite skill and knowledge and in his view a student should not
have access to faculty workload information. He did not, however, categorically state
that the College would not hire another co-op student who possessed the requisite skill
and knowledge.
The co-op student only worked with the grievor during the 2006 calendar year.
The College did not, however, contend that being involved with a co-op student was no
longer an aspect of the grievor's position. To the contrary the College continued to
refer to co-op students in the PDF, including in the January 2010 revision. In the
circumstances it is apparent that the College continues to view working with a co-op
student as an aspect of the grievor's position.
The PDFs advanced by the College and the Union both refer to the grievor
working with co-op students as follows:
The incumbent is the primary person interacting with coop students assisting
with the SUMMIT application. This will include training the student on
matters associated with the SUMMIT application, as well as identifying tasks
for the co-op student to complete.
At the hearing counsel for the College acknowledged that the College had amended
the PDF entry with respect to this example. The College did not change the wording of
the example. It did, however, change how it characterized the example, In the April
2008 PDF it was described as a regular and recu11'ing example of "the incumbent being
an active participant and having ongoing involvement in the progress of others with
whom she has the responsibility to demonstrate correct process/procedures or provide
direction". This language pointed towards a level 4 rating. The College's current PDF
describe~ the same example as recommending a course of action or making decisions so
that others can perform their day to day activities, which meets the criteria for a level 3
8
rating. Beside the applicable wording in the PDF are two boxes, one to be checked
when this type of activity occurs on a regular and recun'ing basis, the other to be
checked if it occurs on an occasional basis. The regular and recurring box is checked.
At the hearing counsel for the College submitted that it had be~n appropriate for the
College to change the language of the PDF. He also said that although the example of
the grievor working with the co-op student had been included in the most recent version
of the PDF as a regular and recurring function the entry does not reflect the College's
actual position. He submitted that it is not in fact a regular and recurring duty.
There are two aspects to the situation of the co-op student. One is how the
grievor's duty should be rated. The other is whether it should be rated as a regular and
recutTing aspect of her position or an occasional one. It is apparent that when there was
a co-op student the grievor was expected to work closely with him. Although Mr.
Houston had the responsibility for rating the student's work the note respecting a level 4
rating indicates that an employee at this level is not responsible for formal supervision.
Instead, what is required is to be assigned to assist less experienced staff and to actively
contribute to their ongoing skill development, which is what the grievor was doing.
Given these considerations I conclude that the grievor's role with the co-op student
justified a level 4 rating.
The next issue is how one rates the frequency of the involvement with the co-op
student. The grievor worked with this individual in 2006. There has not, however, been
a co-op student since the fall of 2006 and Mr. Houston's comments indicated that there is
currently no intention to employ such a student.
I have concluded that the College elTed in classifying the grievor's role with the co-
op student at level 3 on a regular and recurring basis. Having rejected the College's
rating I do not feel bound by the box in the College's PDF describing the example as a
regular and recurring function. To do so would result in a level 4 rating on a regular and
recurring basis for the factor based solely on a function that was last performed two
years prior to when the grievor filed her grievance and which has now not been
perfonned for over three years. I conclude that the appropriate rating is level 3 on a
regular and recurring basis for the grievor's other duties and a level 4 rating on an
occasional basis to reflect her work with a co-op student. This rating recognizes that
involvement with a co-op student when viewed over an extended time period is not
something that is regular or consistent but rather something that has occurred in the past
and which might occur again at some time in the future. This occasional rating adds an
additional 3 points to the rating assigned by the College.
9
INDEPENDENCE OF ACTION
The job evaluation manual describes this factor as measuring 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 that are
available to provide guidance and direction.
The College rated this factor at level 3 wol1h 78 points. The Union originally
proposed a level 4 rating worth 110 points. Prior to the hearing, however, it raised this
to level 5 rating, the highest possible, worth 142 points. The relevant factor level and
word definitions are as follows:
3. Position duties are completed according to general processes. Decisions
are made following general guidelines to determine how tasks should be
completed.
4. Position duties are completed according to specific goals or objectives.
Decisions are made using industty practices and/or departmental policies.
5. Position duties are completed according to broad goals or objectives.
Decisions are made using College policies.
Guideline - a statement of policy or principle by which to determine a
course of action.
Process - a series of activities, changes or functions to achieve a result.
Industty practice - technical or theoretical method and/or process
generally agreed upon and used by practitioners to maintain standards
and quality across a range of organizations and settings.
Policies - broad guidelines for directing action to ensure proper and
acceptable operations in working towards the mission.
The manual contains the following note which fOlms part of a discussion relating
to the differences between a level 2 and a level 3rating:
10
Level 3 - Specific results or objectives 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.
The manual also contains the following note to raters designed to clarify the
differences between levels 4 and 5:
Level 4. - The only parameters or constraints that are in place to guide
the position~s decision-making are "industly practices" for the
occupation and/or departmental policies. The position has the autonomy
to act within these boundaries and would only need to consult with the
supervisor (or others) on issues that were outside these parameters.
Level 5. - The only parameters or constraints that are in place to guide
the position's decision-making are College policies. The position has the
autonomy to act within these boundaries and would only need to consult
with the supervisor ( or others) on issues that were outside these
parameters.
At the hearing the grievor referred to a period prior to October 2009 when Mr.
Houston was not her supervisor and supervisOlY involvement with her work was
considerably reduced. She said that during this period she had two different
supervisors, one of whom was not aware that he was her supervisor. These two
individuals, however, served as the grievor's supervisors during the period when she
was seconded to another position and not while she was working in the position that is
the subject matter of these proceedings. As noted above, I do not view the time the
grievor spent in her seconded position as relevant to the position under consideration.
Among the identical PDP language put fOlWard by both the Union and the College
with respect to this factor was the following:
What are the instluctions that are typically required or provided at the
beginning of a work assignment?
Regular and Recurring:
There is agreement between the incumbent and supervisor as to the nature of
the tasks that must be completed, and the general time frame they must be
completed in~ however the incumbent detetmines specific implementation
schedules.
11
High-level design aspects are discussed with the supervisor however the
incumbent determines specific design changes to the SUMNIIT application,
and how these changes are implemented.
Occasional:
The incumbent is given complete latitude to respond to ad hoc requests
provided they do not impact ongoing scheduled activities.
It is up to the discretion of the incumbent to determine if the request is
appropriate to the depmtment, when the task can be completed, and how
information/data is presented.
Tasks are often completed without prior knowledge of the supervisor. The
incumbent is only required to seek approval where the requests are beyond
normal departmental roles, or where completing the tasks may impact
normally scheduled activity.
What rules. procedures. past practices or guidelines are available to guide the
inclimbent?
Regular and Recurring
The incumbent must operate within boundaries determined through discussion
with the supervisor.
College wide schedules, academic contract requirements, and Ministty
requirements must be adhered to where applicable.
Occasional
Specific requests for information may be the result of Ministry requirements.
In these cases the incumbent must adhere to Ministry guidelines.
For other requests the incumbent can determine how to proceed, how
information will be presented and/or how applications are developed and
implemented as long as the result meets standards within the
department/college.
At the hearing the grievol' outlined her regular functions involving the SUMMIT
tool. Mr. Houston said that these are ca11'ied out in what he described as a production
environment three times per year. Both the grievor and Mr. Houston refell'ed to
12
meetings at which they look at lists of "bugs" that need fixing as well as possible
enhancements to the SU1vIMIT tool and requests and problems raised by users. The two
of them go through the list together and decide which tasks the grievor should
undeltake. Mr. Houston noted that once they decide what it is the grievor will be doing
it is up to her to develop a plan to accomplish the work involved. Mr. Houston
commented that there is more than one way to accomplish a goal and although when
they go tlu'ough the list they might bounce ideas off each other he does not monitor how
the grievor does her coding.
Mr. Houston referred to situations where the grievor responds to issues requiring
immediate attention without her first discussing them with him. He said that these
situations are usually pretty clear, such as users being unable to move from one form to
another or if close to a SWF deadline the SWF report is not presenting properly.
Both Mr. Houston and the grievor refelTed to ad hoc requests made to the grievor.
The grievor gave the examples of her being asked to extract data for a new rep011 or to
change how information is reflected on a SWF. Both she and Mr. Houston indicated
that she will typically comply with such requests without consulting Mr. Houston
unless it is an unusual request or if to undertake it would take up a lot of time or impact
on deadlines. In such cases the grievor will discuss the matter with Mr. Houston.
At the hearing the spokesperson for the Union submitted that the PDF refers to
College wide schedules, academic contract requirements and Ministry requirements and
these all relate to College policies as refened to in the level 5 definition. Logically, the
duties of all employees are to some extent governed by College policies. As provided
for in the level 5 note to raters, however, to justify a level 5 rating College policies must
be the only constraints in place to guide decision making. The PDF language set out
above and the evidence provided by the grievor and Mr. Houston all indicate that the
grievor does not have such a broad scope of operation. A level 5 rating is clearly not
appropriate.
The note respecting a level 3 rating refers to a position having the ability to select
the processes to achieve the end result but with specific results and objectives being
pre-determined by others. The PDP language set out above and the evidence indicate
that the grievor's objectives are either established as being part of her job, raised by
way of ad hoc requests from others or decided in discussions with Mr. Houston. The
grievor selects the process to achieve the desired end result. The note to level 4
indicates that this rating is applicable if an individual only consults with a supervisor for
matters not covered by industry practices or depat1mental policies. It is clear, however,
that the grievor consults with Mr. Houston about relatively specific matters and that he
is involved in deciding what tasks she will or will not perform.
13
Having regard to these considerations I conclude that a level 3 rating is
appropriate.
SERVICE DELIVERY
This factor looks at the service relationship that is an assigned requirement of a
position. It considers how a request for service is received and the degree to which the
position is required to design and fulfil the service requirement.
The College rated this factor at level 3 on a regular and recurring basis, worth 51
points, as well as at level 4 on an occasional basis which is wOlth an additional 6 points.
The Union argues for a level 4 rating on a regular and recUtTing basis wOlfu 73 points.
The relevant level definitions and word definitions are as follows:
3. Tailor service based on developing a full understanding of the customer's
needs.
4. Anticipate customer requirements and pro-actively deliver service.
Tailor - to modify or adapt with special attention in order to customize it to a
specific requirement.
Anticipate - given advance thought, discussion or treatment to events, trends,
consequences or problems; to foresee and deal with in advance.
Proactive - to act before a condition or event arises.
A note to raters states that the term IIcustomers" refers to the people or groups of
people who receive services delivered by a position. To clarify the differences between
the various levels the notes to raters also include the following comments:
Level 3 refers to the need to "tailor serviceH. 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.
14
Level 4 means that the position designs services for others by obtaining a full
understanding of their current and future needs. This information is
considered in a wider context, which is necessmy in order for the position to
be able to sttucture service(s) that meet both the current stated needs and
emerging needs. The position may envision service(s) before the customer is
aware of the need.
The PDF language proposed by the Union and the College both include the same
table which sets out the key services associated with the grievor's position. The table
contains the following information respecting three types of services:
1. How is it received?
Requests for changes to underlying SUMMIT data are received via phone
and/or email.
How is it cal1'ied out?
Incumbent determines appropriate updates to academic blocks, and courses
and then updates to a variety of SUMMIT datatables are made either
through direct input or quelying data.
2, How is it received?
SUMMIT users contact incumbent regarding difficulties with the use of it.
How is it carried out?
Incumbent must ask relevant questions to determine the nature of the
problem and determine and implement the solution.
3. How is it received?
Requests are received to create new SU11MIT user accounts.
How is it carried out?
Incumbent adds them to the appropriate SUMMIT table and instlucts the
I.T. depmtment to add to required NT group(s) and the appropriate Lan
Administer install remote desktop icon and run Windows registlY editor.
None of the above examples from the PDF indicate that the grievor is involved in
anticipating customer requirements. Instead in all three situations she reacts to issues
after they were raised by others.
15
In its written brief the Union referred to the duties and responsibilities section of
the PDF and the grievor's function of facilitating the flow of course data through the
SUlv1MIT software tool. The College PDF identified eight aspects of this duty, three of
which the Union argued support a level 4 rating. The Union's discussion of the three
aspects was as follows:
Incumbent receives documentation of an upgrade to the TPHi scheduling
software or a request from the Academic Scheduling Coordinator and/or
Business Analyst to change the fields that populate in TPHi or purpose that
the data fields are being used for. Incumbent reviews the upgrade
documentation or discusses the request with the Academic Scheduling
Coordinator/Business Analyst, determines what changes have an impact
on the SUMNIIT - to - TPHi download tool and determines the necessary
changes and pro actively modifies the queries proactively so that the data
that the incumbent downloads in the future will be in the required format
to accommodate the TPHi stlUctural changes.
Incumbent is made aware through H. R. Staff Services of corporate
decisions that have an impact on SUMMIT administration. Incumbent
performs necessary programming changes in the SUMMIT Administrative
tool in preparation for necessary data changes, i.e. a decision was made to
include orientation activities on the faculty S.W.F.s as T.C.H.s instead of
Complementary Assigned. Because the delivery start date would now be
different than the S.W.F. start date, the newly designed process is run by
incumbent to modify the information in various tables in SUMMIT in
preparation for the Academic Departments running their S.W.F.s.
Incumbent is made aware of changes to the structure of the Strategic
Enrolment Management data that is used for loading of academic blocks
into SUM:MIT. Incumbent proactively modifies the SUMNIIT academic
block loading tool queries in preparation for the upcoming creation of
academic blocks for the future tetm loading.
These three examples all indicate that others make the grievor aware of required
changes or new information and the grievor responds in a manner that meets their
particular requirements. None of the three examples suggests that the grievor regularly
anticipates and then meets future customer requirements.
In both its written brief and at the hearing the Union objected to the removal of an
appendix which had been attached to the April 2008 version of the PDF. This appendix
referred to the grievor's role in making improvements to the SUlvIMIT application in
16
order to provide new functionality or improve its usability. It stated that an important
pm1 of the grievor's role was to make continual improvements to the SUtvIMIT
application. It also stated that: "Enhancements can be identified proactively by the
incumbent, or through identification of issues in conjunction with SUMMIT users." At
the hearing the grievor said that the appendix was prepared by her supervisor but later
removed by the College. Ms. Sheila Walsh, the College's Director of Human
Resources Staff Services and Support Staff Relations, said that appendices were utilized
at the College so that a classification committee could better understand a job but once
an evaluation was completed the applicable PDF reverted back to the format set out in
the job evaluation manual.
It is apparent from the evidence provided by both the grievor and Mr. Houston that
the above noted statements from the appendix were in fact accurate. An important part
of the grievor's role is to make continued improvements to the SUMMIT application.
The grievor at times identifies potential improvements which she raises with Mr.
Houston. At other times she and Mr. Houston jointly identify possible improvements.
Mr. Houston's evidence, however, was that generally possible enhancements are
identified by end users 01' through interactions with end users. Potential improvements
are included on the list discussed above and Mr. Houston and the grievor meet to decide
which potential changes on the list will be given priority. The evidence taken as a
whole suggests that potential improvements or enhancements generally come from
issues raised by users although the grievor on her own initiative does at times give
advance thought to events, trends, consequences or problems in order to foresee and
deal with them in advance. This, is not, however, something that she does on a regular
and recUtTing basis.
Having regard to all of the above, I conclude that on a regular and recU11'ing basis
the grievor's position justifies a level 3 rating while on an occasional basis it justifies a
level 4 rating.
PHYSICAL EFFORT
This factor measures the degree and frequency of the physical effort required by a
position. The College rated this factor at level 1 worth 5 points. This is appropriate
when a position requires light physical effort. The union accepts that a level 1 rating is
appropriate on a regular and recurring basis but argues for a level 2 rating on an
occasional basis, which would result in an additional 6 points. A level 2 rating reflects
moderate physical effort.
The job evaluation manual contains the following definitions of "lighfl and
"moderateH physical effort:
17
Light
- pushing, pulling or lifting lighter objects (less than 5 kg or Illbs)
- able to adjust working position to minimize physical stress
Moderate
_ pushing, pulling or lifting heavier objects (5 - 20 kg or II - 44 lbs)
- sustained handling of lighter objects (less than 5 kg or 11 lbs)
- restricted ability to adjust working position for longer periods of time (over
30 minutes) or sustaining awkward work positions (up to 30 minutes)
The job evaluation manual contains a number of notes to raters with respect to this
factor, including the following:
Level 1 includes the physical demand associated with occasionally
lifting/carrying paper in order to restock a printer or photocopier as part of the
normal office etiquette.
Included in this factor is any physical strain associated with travel and
whether there is the ability to reduce stain fi'om prolonged sitting.
At the hearing the grievor said that she had visited a couple of other colleges to
discuss matters. This appears not to be an aspect of her position that is significant
enough to determine a rating. The grievor also said that she goes to College facilities in
Stoney Creek, Brantford and at the McMaster University campus in Hamilton to train
others or to speak to people about SUMMIT. Given the relatively short distances
involved this travel cannot reasonably be viewed as involving prolonged sitting of the
type that could give rise to physical strain that could be classified as moderate as
opposed to light physical effort.
The grievor and the Union also relied on the grievor's action in ca1'1ying her laptop
and training materials to a lab when she does training. The grievor noted that this
training material includes four or five page long SUMMIT request forms as well as a 65
page document. She said that she also brings her laptop with her when she schedules
times for users to input data. The grievor said that she calTies her laptop between 9 and
15 days per year. She also said that although she had not weighed the training material
she was "fairly celtain" that with her laptop it weighed over 11 pounds. She added that
her computer with its case weigh close to that. The grievor agreed with CoIlege counsel
that there is a trolley available that she could use at the main campus.
18
The spokesperson for the union argued that pushing a trolley carrying a weight of
11 pounds meets the requirement for a level 2 rating. He also refened to the grievor
canying her computer and other materials when she visits other campuses.
Counsel for the College argued that the grievor had not established the actual
weight of the materials she carries. He noted that the brief that the College filed was
about 65 pages long. He also said that his laptop weighs 4 or 5 pounds. He argued that
the Union should have weighed the materials instead of just claiming that they weigh in
excess of 11 pounds.
An arbitrator can take notice of evetyday matters. It is not apparent, however, that
the material ca11'ied by the grievor would weigh 11 pounds or more. Sixty-five sheets
of paper do not involve an appreciable weight, particularly considering that a standard
package of printing paper contains 500 sheets. It was open to the Union to establish
that the laptop and training materials carried by the grievor actually weigh at least 11
pounds. No one, however, claimed to have weighed them and the items in question
were not brought to the hearing. Further, the grievor's comments at the hearing
indicated that she understood that her laptop and case actually weigh less than 11
pounds. In all the circumstances I am not satisfied that the grievor is required to carry
11 or more pounds such as to engage in moderate as opposed to light physical activity.
Having regard to the foregoing I find that the grievor's position justifies a level 1
rating on a regular and recUtTing basis with no additional rating on an occasional basis.
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 and activities over which the
position has little or no control that make focus difficult. The manual states that a rater
is to: "Assess the number and type of disruptions and interruptions and the impact of the
activities on the focus or concentration needed to perfOlm the task. For example, can
concentration be maintained or is there a need to refocus or change thought processes in
order to complete the task".
Both the College and the Union rated this factor at level 3. Such a rating is
appropriate when there are extended periods of concentration. The patties disagree,
however, on whether the grievor's focus is maintained or intenupted during periods of
concentration. The College contends that focus is maintained, which would justify 35
points for this factor. The Union contends that focus is interrupted, which would be
worth 50 points. The manual defines the terms "focus maintained" and "focus
intenupted" as follows:
19
Focus Maintained - concentration can be maintained for most of the time.
Focus Interrupted - the task must be achieved in smaller units. There is a
need to refocus on the task at hand or switch thought processes.
The manual also contains a number of notes to raters. These include the following
which touch on the issue of whether focus is maintained or interrupted:
3. Concentration means undivided attention to the task at hand.
4. Few intelTuptions or disruptions generally means that an appropriate level
of concentration can be maintained for the duration of the task being
performed. Where there are many disruptions, concentration must be re-
established and the task completed in smaller units or steps.
5. In determining what constitutes an interruption 01' disruption, you must
first decide whether the "disruption" ( e.g. customer requests) is an
integral or primary responsibility of the position (e.g. customer service,
registration/counter staff, help desk, information desk). Then consider
whether these activities are the primary or secondary aspect of the job.
For example, if an individual has no other assigned tasks 01' duties while
tending to customer requests, then those requests can not be seen as
disruptions.
6. Consider the impact of the disruption on the work being done. For
example, can the incumbent in the position pick up where he/she left off
or has the intenuption caused a disruption in the thinking process and
considerable time is spent backtracking to determine and pick up where
he/she left off.
This is a factor where the Union noted that the College had re-written the PDF.
The April 2008 version indicated that the grievor's focus was interrupted when she was
designing and implementing coding changes for SUMMIT application and also when
preparing and updating the SUMMIT database with initial data load for the term. The
PDP currently advanced by the College states that the grievor requires a higher than
usual need for focus and concentration when designing and implementing coding
changes for SUMMIT application, training end-users on SUMMIT application and
when preparing and updating the SUMMIT database with initial data load for the term.
Beside each of these three functions the College checked a box denoting that usually
"concentration or focus (can) be maintained throughout the duration of the activity".
22
With respect to the issue of travel a note to raters in the job evaluation manual
reads as follows:
The actual mode of transpOltation is not an important element of travel. The
travel component of working environment refers to the 'undesirable' aspect of
having to leave the work site and travel somewhere else to complete work
assignments. Any physical strain associated with travel is considered under
Physical Demand.
Limited travel that occurs infrequently and is not necessarily needed in order
for the position to perform its job duties can be captured within the definition
for level 1. For, example, a meeting that sometimes occurs at a location other
than the position's home campus and the position doesn't need to be in actual
attendance (e.g. teleconferencing).
As a guide, travel that is a requirement of the position and occurs on a regular
basis for more than 10% of the time (e.g. equivalent of ~ a day a week or 2 Y:l
days per month) should be considered 'regular and recurring.'
When addressing this factor the grievor said that she could travel to other
campuses a couple of times per year or nine times, Hit depends.n She agreed with
College counsel that at times she has had employees come to the main campus to meet
with her for training.
In his submissions counsel for the College noted that the other campuses visited by
the grievor are close to the main campus. He also noted that the note to raters indicates
that some travel can be at level 1. He contended that one must look to see if travel is a
negative part of the job. In reply, the spokesperson for the Union pointed out that the
manual does not refer to the length of travel involved.
It is apparent that the grievor does not travel often or very far. In other
circumstances it might not be viewed as an undesirable aspect of her position. The note
to raters set out above, however, deems travel to be an undesirable aspect of a position
since it involves having to leave the work site to complete work assignments. Given the
way the note is worded the length of the travel is not a determining factor.
As noted by College counsel the note does indicate that some travel will justify a
level 1 rating. This, however, involves infrequent travel that is not necessarily needed,
such as someone who could teleconference rather than be in attendance. This does not
describe the grievoes situation. She needs to be with the people she is training. In
addition, although the grievor acknowledged that at times people come to her for
23
training it was not suggested that her going to other campuses to train people and talk
about SUMMIT was not in the circumstances involved the most practical manner of
proceeding.
Having regard to the above, on the basis of the grievor's travel I conclude that her
position justifies a level 2 rating on an occasional basis.
CONCLUSION
As noted above, the various ratings assigned by the College resulted in the
grievor's position receiving a total of 610 points. The additional 3 points associated
with an occasional level 4 rating for guiding/advising others; 15 additional points for a
"focus intenupted" rating for audio-visual effort and 9 more points for an occasional 2
rating for working environment raise the total to 637 points. This leaves the position
within payband 1.
Having regard to the above, I confirm that the grievor's position is appropriately
rated at payband I.
Dated this 24th day of Februmy 2010.
L~d
. { AI' itrator
. _. . ":',; '. <. ',J., _ ..C'Y,}J("".<';i~::c~:j;I j"~~.i;~"'.,fri''-::~_Y:~_~~k{f6j~~!i{;.:...~~.i.c: ".'~ .'V '0';'-' 'i-~c,.,~.;
" . . ....-H.menueuxz.,.--~~, ,"" '.
".:A~ri)itt~ll~~~'~'p:a~ta'\S~ii~:~t'~~;J.~uW;~af11JSfiffl{ii~1.1:',~:~"-:~",, ,- _::
College:
Mohawk
Current Payband:
Incumbent Terry Fair
Supervisor: Cam Houston
Payband Requested by Grievor:
K
1. Concerning the allached Position Description Form:
The parties agreed on the contents X The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific details are aUached.
2. The attached Written Submission is from: X The Union 0 The College
Managemenl
Regular! Occasional
Recurring
level Poin!s level
1 A. EducaUon 4
1 B. Educa lion 3
Factor
2. Experience 4
3. Analysis and Problem 4
Solving
4. PlannIng! 3
Coordinating
5. GuIding/Advising 3
Others
6. Independence of 3
Action
7, SeM:a Oef/vel)' 3
8. Communlcallon 4
9. Physical E f{ort
10. AudioNIsual Elfort 3
11. Worl\lng Envirormwnl
Subtotals
. Total Points (a) + (b)
1
(a) 604
Unloo
Occasional
Arbitrator
Occasional
7
48
21
54
110
56 4
29 4
78 );'.;:
51 4 6 4
110 4
5
35 3
Lf
80 3
41 3
2. 3
73 3 b
110 ~
5 L
50
7
(b) 6
610
(a) 709
Resulting Payband K
,.,..
DEe 1 5 2009
. 'DD~C 1 5 2009 College Representative
Date
f/-I1. /. .20/0
Date of Hearing
Date
/=-~ .:l~ 2& I/.J
Date of Awar